The Law is Clear

I recently saw footage of a grade crossing incident with a train hitting a vehicle. To protect all parties, I won't mention names or places. But after the incident, a railfan was ordered to stop videotaping the incident by (I believe) the local police. Now let's have the facts as I think that Congress recently made it clear that any photography on public property is not a violation of any law and the photographer has a civil right to photograph as long as no crime or criminally oriented surveillance is in progress. Your thoughts and quoted references? Maybe we could all print out this Congressional edict to carry with us?

Unless you are willing to get arrested and face a court date I would suggest you do as police says.
We could offcourse use someone to challenge this and let us know how you make out ??

Apparently that cop doesn't enjoy those Fox specials such as World's Scariest Police chases etc. A good amount of that footage is by by-standers in the general public.

I understand that any injured parties would not want to be taped during a situation such as this, and most emregency response personnel would block passers-by from seeing anything too graphic in most cases, perhaps thats what this cop was trying to do?

Unless you are willing to get arrested and face a court date I would suggest you do as police says.

Yeah, and also spend the remainder of your natural life with the stigma of having a criminal board of probation record. If this were four years ago, then you probably woudn't have to worry. Sadly, times have changed.

My view is slightly different: why would you want video of such an awful thing unless it was your job to record the event?

The only other thing I can think of are the laws around the country regarding photography of police officers. I have been told that you need permission in many places to take even a posed shot of a uniformed officer. Maybe this has something do to with it?

This incident needs a little clarification. The person videotaping was a typical railfan waiting to tape an oncoming train. An elderly driver stopped their vehicle right on the track. The engineer evidently spotted the vehicle from a distance because he layed on the horn, hit the vehicle and spun it 90 degrees, and amazingly got the train to a quick stop, maybe doing 5-10 mph on impact. The driver only sustained bruises. Once emergency personnel arrived, the officer ordered the railfan to stop taping. He was at a distance from the site where you could fill the frame with the engine and several cars in the consist. The engineer did side with the railfan saying they wanted to have a copy of the tape, most likely as evidence. There was no apparent detail or even a long view of any victim. The points I've described are only to describe the incident. I wouldn't actively challenge an officer if in doubt. But I am presenting this for everyone's opinion and take on it.

Unless there is a law against taping police officers (not that I'm doubting NellsChoo I've just never heard of it...) the only other thing I can think of is maybe the driver requested that the camera be turned off? Then again, if I just got hit by a train a video would be the least of my worries, but that's just me.

Whatever the case it wouldn't have killed the officer to say that either it was requested that the camera be turned off, or that it's against the law to tape officers.

I dunno...

Malibu

As long as the person was on public property, not tresspassing, casuing a distrubance, interfearing with an investagation etc, there are no laws prohibiting the recording of whatever is going on.

If there is a local ordnance (which I doubt), that's a differenet story. Could you be charged with disobeying an order of a law enforcement officer? Perhaps. Will it stand up on court? Most likely not. In order to be convicted of the such, it has to be a lawful order, etc.

I don't want this thread to go into a debate, but the cops who I work with state there isn't a law, but of course, anyone being tape does cause some uneasyness.

Another flipside that I have heard, in some states, you may fall under a "press" designation. Basically, if you are going to be doing the such, you may need to get a "press pass" from the local government. However, if its for a home video, I am sure it doesn't apply.

New York has a bunch of funky laws. Nevermind state laws, you may have County, Town and/or Village ordnances to deal with.

Press passes are only necessary to cross a police line. Anyone can photograph whatever they want if they are within he public right of way and behind the police line. So if the railfan in question was on the public right of way and at or further from the incident than the line which was established by the police for the public generally to remain clear of the incident, it was lawful to photograph the scene.

Similar analysis would apply to photographing police officers. So long as the photographer was lawfully situated, and not obstructing traffic, etc. any purported proscription of photography of police officers is not valid. Any law phohibiting the photographing of police officers at any time or place would not pass Constitutional muster.

Some states require a "model's permit" if you are photographing people who are identifiable in the photograph, and you intend to sell or commercialize the pictures. Whether that applies here is another issue altogether.

My opinion, FWIW, is the officer didn't want somebody videotaping actions which could be used in a lawsuit later. Let's say the person injured their neck in the accident and the first responders aggravated it, dropped him, etc. A video would be priceless to the injured guy's lawyer.

BTW, it would be interesting to see if the accident makes its way into the Federal registry...

This is a pretty clearly defined constitutional issue, and the cop was on the wrong side of it.

Basically, the rule is that if you are on public property, or your own property, you can legally photograph anything you can legally see. The doctrine reads something along the lines that "A camera is an extension of the eye."

Good manners would dictate suspending videotaping if there is someone is writhing in agony, or bloody, or otherwise embarassed.

Unless, of course, you're Fox news--then you just zoom in for your 6 PM lead. "If it bleeds, it leads"

The cop was wrong to order the guy to stop taping. If the driver was embarassed, shouldn't have stopped on the tracks. The cop or EMT's don't want a lawsuit, do things by the book...I have to on my FD. See the link here:

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Lackawanna484 wrote:Some states require a "model's permit" if you are photographing people who are identifiable in the photograph, and you intend to sell or commercialize the pictures. Whether that applies here is another issue altogether.

A model release is never required to take a photo. To my knowledge, it is also not required by any state for publication, either, but the photographer may be subject to a civil suit by a recognizable person in the photo as a result of the publication without having obtained a valid release.

In the case of newsworthy events such as a grade crossing accident, no release is required for publication, since the publishing of news is a protected activity and a defense to a civil suit.

OK the police seem to have over stepped their bounds here, however theres a far more important question that comes to my mind. Why didn't the railfanmaking the tape attempt to do something to assist the person in the car? If the engineer was able to see it from such a distance to get the train down to "5-10 MPH" clearly there was time to put down the camera and assist the individual(s) in the car.

From what I saw on the tape, the train was close enough and in an emergency brake application where the railfan doing the taping would have put his own life in jeopardy had he tried to assist. This was a vehicle that pulled-up and stopped on the tracks. The eldrely driver was probably wondering just what to do and I'd bet anyone trying to assist would be talking to a potentially confused driver. If it were me, I'd be having a tough time first trying to rationalize what was really happening before my eyes here and not believing what I was seeing, much less doing anything else about it