Legal

First Degree Aggravated Photography

MayorBob.

Posted to Legal on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:12:23 AM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

John Conover has an August 6th court date in Johnson County, Tennessee. He will be facing charges arising from a traffic stop in Mountain City. Only it wasn't him who was stopped for violating traffic laws. What Conover is charged with are a variety of charges having to do with what he did with his iPhone. Even though the American Civil Liberties Union says they know of no such law, Conover is charged with "illegal photography" of a police officer.

Conover claims he was just out for a ride with his family on June 8th when he came upon a traffic stop. He admits to having taken a picture of the police officer, later identified as sheriff's deputy Starling McCloud, standing next to the stopped vehicle. Conover's vehicle was stopped by McCloud and a Mountain City patrolman, Ken Lane. They gave Conover the option to surrender the iPhone or delete the photo he had taken. The police report Conover was "irate" and argumentative and refused to follow their orders. They arrested him (copy of the arrest report here) and booked him into the county jail (pdf doc).

Conover believes the charges are a crock and should be dismissed. All he did was take a picture of the cop. However, in the arrest report, the police officer claims he believed he was in fear for his life because a laser was pointed at him. To which Conover responds, no, he didn't have a laser and when the officer confronted him he was solely concerned about the photo and didn't say anything about a laser. Conover admits to being a little hot under the collar, but that's because he was arrested for taking a photo in a public place and being given what he didn't believe were lawful orders.

The actual laws Conover is charged with (included in the pdf link above) say that he would have had to be photographing someone in a place where the subject "has a reasonable presumption of privacy" or which is for the sexual arousal of the photographer. Since neither of these conditions obtain, it would seem there are no grounds for bringing the charge. As to the charge of pointing a laser at a police officer, there were two additional officers' statements, one from Lane (pdf doc) and Ben May (pdf doc), another Mountain City officer on the scene. Lane reports seeing the red laser light being pointed at McCloud while May does not. None of the arrest report or the statements mention a laser being confiscated from Conover. All police statements agree that Conover appeared disorderly (which is the last of the charges against him).

Lest you think it's only possible to arrest citizens for taking photos of the police in the hills of Tennessee, think again. It happened in New Hampshire though charges were subsequently dropped. It also happened in Philadelphia (with a similar outcome). There's an interesting video of some interaction between photographers and some of New York City's finest. It would seem the action caught on camera doesn't match up to the charges in the arrest record. It remains to be seen what the outcome of Conover's trial will be. If they hew to the letter of the law in Tennessee regarding taking photos of cops, it would seem Conover's off the hook for the picture taking. However, if the judge finds some sort of broad right to privacy similar to what they have in Massachusetts, Conover could end up being found guilty as charged. Of course, Conover could have avoided all this by simply deleting the photo, like his wife encouraged him to do.

< Saudis Cock Blocking Russian-Iranian Love?

Hurting Man's Best Friend -- Bad. Selling Videos Of Same -- Good. >

Tags: written by MayorBob, crime, taking pictures of police, right to privacy (all tags)
Add this story to: newsvine reddit digg delicious

This story: 15 comments (0 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
1

Photographer's Rights

songofthepogo.

Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:35:45 PM EST

5.00 (informative, informative)

available from this informative site as a downloadable, printoutable, carry-with-youable pdf.  
from the pdf:


Permissible Subjects
Despite  misconceptions to the contrary, the following subjects can almost always be photographed lawfully from public places:

accident and fire scenes
children
celebrities
bridges and other infrastructure
residential and commercial buildings
industrial facilities and public utilities
transportation facilities (e.g., airports)
Superfund sites
criminal activities
law enforcement officers

4

Re: First Degree Aggravated Photography

MC Nally.

Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 01:04:01 AM EST

5.00 (astute)

However, in the arrest report, the police officer claims he believed he was in fear for his life because a laser was pointed at him.
If there was evidence of threatening behavior towards the officers then there should be assault charges, no?  If not, drop the irrelevant after-the-fact justification.  

"We arrested him on an imaginary photography charge because we felt we were threatened in a manner which is conveniently virtually impossible to disprove," doesn't even come close to meeting any standard of responsibility I would expect the police to be held to.

6

Re: First Degree Aggravated Photography

joshv.

Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:46:00 AM EST

4.66 (funny, funny, funny)

"..in a place where the subject "has a reasonable presumption of privacy" or which is for the sexual arousal of the photographer. Since neither of these conditions obtain..."

Well, some folks find men in uniform to be quite stimulating.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.

2

What the hell?!

skeeter1.

Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:46:47 PM EST

none

So, it's OK for law enforcement officers to photograph everything with dashcams (just watch "Cops" sometime), but illegal for someone to take a pix of the LEO?  I don't get it.  I'm not talking about undercover officers who want their annonimity preserved, but uniformed LEOs.  They wear the uniform and badge to announce to the world that they're LEOs, and AFAIC, that makes them public figures.  

there's only one way to find out...

3

^ 2

Re: What the hell?!

zyxwvutsr.

Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 06:36:05 PM EST

5.00 (astute, astute)

I'm not talking about undercover officers who want their annonimity preserved...
Should that be any different? Why should there be any prohibition of photography in a public place?

11

^ 3

Re: What the hell?!

gerrymander.

Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 03:17:36 PM EST

none

... and of a public official while on the job?

12

^ 11

Re: What the hell?!

zyxwvutsr.

Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 03:30:01 PM EST

none

Do you think that photography in a public place should be prohibited?

13

^ 12

Re: What the hell?!

gerrymander.

Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 04:17:53 PM EST

none

Only as much as it's prohibited anywhere else. I'm adding a second justification for photography (government officials are de jure without the expectation of privacy when acting in official capacity), which would also cover on occasions when the police aren't in public (at a mall, or in a home).

14

^ 13

Re: What the hell?!

zyxwvutsr.

Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 06:45:40 PM EST

none

Why should there be a law prohibiting photography in a mall? If the mall wants to limit photography, it may do so by having a rule against it.

5

Two Parts

uncarved block.

Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:44:56 AM EST

none

     I think it's almost a lock that the cops will lose if they don't drop the case. The courts, all the way up to SCOTUS, don't want many areas in public earn the "expectation of privacy" protection, and the technology is certainly common enough to expect this kind of thing to happen once in a while. If firemen want folks to snap pix of them saving buildings and people, the cops will have to live with the occasional instance like this. Now, things might be different if some intent to defame or entrap might be shown, but that's really grasping for straws even at a protest or picket line.
    What really interests me, though, is the whole "laser as threat" angle. Are laser sights so common that a cop can automatically assume that's what it is? Are those little hand lasers so threatening in broad daylight that they're a threat in and of themselves? Or are the cops being just as dopey for thinking that's enough cause to start mixing it up with a civilian? Anyone want to chime in with some answers?
    One things for sure-- police/civilian relations must be pretty bad if this kind of . . paranoid? Belligerent? I hate to characterize, but unless the cop was some king sized asshole (always possible), being photographed at a routine traffic stop seems pretty harmless. Doesn't bode well for the future, unless this is just some one in a million incidents.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

15

^ 5

Re: Two Parts

HidingFromGoro.

Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 01:26:07 PM EST

5.00 (informative, astute)

"What really interests me, though, is the whole "laser as threat" angle. Are laser sights so common that a cop can automatically assume that's what it is? Are those little hand lasers so threatening in broad daylight that they're a threat in and of themselves?"

Laser sights aren't very common at all, and frankly would be even less common if it wasn't for TV and "tactical operator" mall-ninja types.  They're next to worthless in daylight, worse than worthless at medium to long range, and teach bad shooting habits.  Lasers fly straight and bullets don't, so they're typically zeroed at 15 feet or so (the majority of owners in my experience don't even know where theirs are zeroed).  There was a big concern in the 90's that military pilots were getting their vision damaged by designators and other military lasers (vastly more powerful than civilian laser pointers/sights); so laws were passed against shining pointers at airliners- which makes about as much sense as banning nail clippers or worrying about terr'ists shooting down 737's with Barrett rifles.

Even if you discount everything I just said and still think laser sights work like they do on TV, think about the employment for a second- first of all, if some guy is trying to snipe a cop, why would he hold a laser dot on him beforehand and let the cop know where he is (or at least what direction he is)?  Then too, you have to ask yourself why would he just hold his sights on the cop long enough for the cop to notice it (and potential witnesses notice it) instead of just taking the shot when he's got it lined up?

Something tells me the laser angle was something they came up with as a justification after the cop decided he wasn't happy with being on candid camera and decided to do something about it.

7

^ 5

Re: Two Parts

skeeter1.

Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 02:16:48 PM EST

none

"Are laser sights so common that a cop can automatically assume that's what it is? Are those little hand lasers so threatening in broad daylight that they're a threat in and of themselves? Or are the cops being just as dopey for thinking that's enough cause to start mixing it up with a civilian? Anyone want to chime in with some answers?"

Not an answer, but another question.  I have a laser light that's my cat's favorite toy.  Does that make it a criminal tool?  They love to chase that "magic bug" all around the room.  

there's only one way to find out...

8

^ 7

Re: Two Parts

Shy Elf.

Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:53:45 AM EST

none

So... what if the new fashion trend in PO157's neighborhood was to fasten lasers on cats heads so that whatever they look at gets lit up by a sniper-sight look-alike?

9

^ 8

Re: Two Parts

joshv.

Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:06:58 AM EST

4.50 (brilliant, funny)

No, this wouldn't work - you'd have cats endlessly chasing their own sniper dots in circles.

10

^ 8

Don't even go there.

MayorBob.

Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:16:30 AM EST

4.50 (brilliant)

"So... what if the new fashion trend in PO157's neighborhood was to fasten lasers on cats heads so that whatever they look at gets lit up by a sniper-sight look-alike?"

It's a slippery slope leading to consequences much worse than you could ever imagine.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

This story: 15 comments (0 from subqueue)
Post a Comment

search »
Poll »
In Re John Conover:
Votes: 13.
Results, Other Polls
Login »
Make a new account
Related Links »
More on Legal
Also by MayorBob
QuickLinks »
Beware the Open Mic
For those who forgot the perils of an open mic from the 2000 election, here's a reminder.
- wetkarma
<—————+———Ο—>
Board Meeting Tonight
At 7PM PST, in our chat room. Agenda is here.
- Board of Directors
<—————+—Ο———>
In a world without Don LaFontaine
The voice of the movie trailer, Don LaFontaine, has died at age 68.
- joshv
<—————+———Ο—>
Who's Smiling Now, Bob?
Steve Warshak, founder of the company responsible for Enzyte, has been sentenced to 25 years in prison where he will become intimately familiar with the results of 'Natural Male Enhancement'.
- logan
<—————+———Ο—>
McCain/MILF '08
No, really. McCain has chosen Alaska's Gov. Sarah Palin as his VP running mate. She has good conservative credentials, a solid reputation as an anti-pork reformer, and is kinda hot. 'I've got a crush...'
- gerrymander
<—————+—Ο———>
McCAIN ANNOUNCES VP SELECTION!
McCain/Brimley '08!
- pO157
<—————+Ο————>
Poor Gogi
When it comes to committing a crime, it's good to take your best friend along. And then duct-tape the poor guy's mouth shut and keep him in the bath tub.
- delete me
<—————+———Ο—>
Bob Barr (L-GA) wins Texas!
By Default.
- pO157
<—————+——Ο——>
Submit a QuickLink:
If you'd like to submit your own QuickLink, you'll need to log in (or register) first.

Users own their contributions, all else is © 2006, 2007 Trees and Things, Incorporated.

Powered by Scoop.

Terms of Service

Privacy