Can the police take your camera? (UK)

JohnK

Not sure how many of you would have seen this news report in the last few days about the Swedish women who ran onto a Motorway in the UK and get hit by cars/trucks.

What interests me though is what one of the police officers says at the 6:10 mark about the people taking pictures of the aftermath and he's threatening to seize cameras. Can he do that? Fair enough he doesn’t want people encroaching on an investigation scene and interfering with the work of the police but surely he cant actually take their cameras :eek:

Would he have been so quick to say that to a journalist or professional photographer?

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=_LCQkSst5iQ

BoardsRanger

Shocking vid- saw it on tv the other night. i think the policeman only said that to regain some sort of order. it appeared as if alot of people were abandoning their cars and taking their camera phones out.
i doubt he could have the power to seize a camera unless it directly interfeared with the job of the emergency services.

JohnK

Yeah I would imagine he'd have a tough time explaining to a judge why he was taking the cameras but the fact he continued that line in the interview setting immediately afterwards makes it sound like standard procedure for him. Having things like that in the news just helps convince Joe Public that all photographers are criminals.

CabanSail

You are confusing what the Police do & what they are allowed to do under the law.

The UK Cops I know admit that they don't know much about the law really but know how to sound official.

Covey

Your parked on a motorway, probably interfering with a accident scene and a danger to other motorists.

Damn right he can take your camera. Having a camera doesn't give you some right to be treated above others. People with cameras have responsibilities as well. :mad:

JMcL

Covey wrote: »

Your parked on a motorway, probably interfering with a accident scene and a danger to other motorists.

Damn right he can take your camera. Having a camera doesn't give you some right to be treated above others. People with cameras have responsibilities as well. :mad:

No he can't. He can arrest you for causing an obstruction, and though I didn't see the clip in question, from the descriptions, he'd be justified, but the police in the UK have no right to confiscate camera gear without very specific reasons, nor to make you erase photos. They do of course try to do this on a regular basis if you follow the debate in Amateur Photographer, but this is, as CabanSail said, a sad ignorance of the law on their part, and frequently down to the UK "Community Support Officer" rentacops

Mylow

Covey wrote: »

Your parked on a motorway, probably interfering with a accident scene and a danger to other motorists.

Damn right he can take your camera. Having a camera doesn't give you some right to be treated above others. People with cameras have responsibilities as well. :mad:

The road was closed with a highways agency roll roadblock. The police then attended the scene. The onlookers weren't parked.

Dam wrong he cant take your camera, though he could do you for obstruction if you refused to return to your car. EPUK website has a number of incidents where overzealous police officers asked for images to be removed or arrested people on obstruction charges. As you can see from EPUK website it has worked out an expensive mistake for Police and Photographers.

Extract form EPUK

Amateur photographer Phil Smith was stopped from photographing the Christmas lights being switched on by police at a public event in Ipswich, and asked whether he had a “licence to use the camera”. A police spokesperson later said that officers had been “overzealous in the execution of their duty”

PaulieC

Mylow wrote: »

“licence to use the camera”

class.

Cabaal

bloody hell thats a mad video, some muppets in this world.
I can understand why the officer said it but it doesn't make it right as he has no power to take anything

getz

how would you like to be knocked over by a car and people standing around you taking photgraphs of you --the police should be able to take away your camera if it is felt to be in the best interest of the injured {remember princess diana ?}

robinph

How is taking a camera off someone going to help the injured?

Mylow

robinph wrote: »

How is taking a camera off someone going to help the injured?

I bet MacGyver could

Dades

JohnK wrote: »

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=_LCQkSst5iQ

Jebus, that is mad.

Not what I'd expect from a search for "Swedish Twins" on Youtube for sure.

Phototoxin

technichally if it was thought to be evidence a court order could probably be obtained to sieze the camera and photos but they couldnt be deleted unless they HAD to be during analysis which would never be necessary as they always work on copies of digital evidence never the original themselves.

so unless you were filming it AS/justbefore it happened then no they cannot take your camera from your UNLESS they have a warrant (which would have to be obtained AFTER the fact)

Mellor

If you had a photo of a crime happening,
they could seize a camera as evidence afterwards.

But the motorway is different, the camera is not privy to any info beyond the police or anyone else

mikeanywhere

Unbelievable they way the one went under the HGV like that and then the other followed suit - scary really!!!

ldunne

There has been quit a lot of this going on in england lately so much so that the nuj have been up in arms about it and there have been a few court case,they dont have the right to take your camera but the will and there have been press photographers arested and cameras taken

Phototoxin

without being a smartass just ask them under what law/section of PACE they are siezing your camera.

ldunne

and watch them make up a new one

cooligPhoto

Having watched the video, I think the police were merely trying to get the morons out of the way and back into their cars. They had enough to deal with on the scene without d**k-heads trying to film it on their phones.

If you look at the standard news reports of these things you don't see anything, maybe just an overview from a bridge.

Even the tv crew kept their cameras off the injured girls when they were down.

I'm a first aider at sports events and have to ask people to move aside so I can get a stretcher or spinal board patient into the ambulance. When dealing with injured people, their dignity is very high on the list of priorities so I'd be extremely annoyed if I saw anybody filming/photographing me treating an injured person (even being a photographer myself).

I don't think this debate should be about "Can they" or "Can't they". It should be about "Would you get your camera/phone out at a potentially fatal accident scene"?

trooney

cooligPhoto wrote: »

I don't think this debate should be about "Can they" or "Can't they". It should be about "Would you get your camera/phone out at a potentially fatal accident scene"?

This isn't about the morals of photgraphing an accident. Its about the authoritarian mindset of police force/s and how they think they have a right to force you to do something which is beyond their remit without going through the correct legal channels.

melekalikimaka

the question is not 'would you take your camera out at at potentially fatal scene', its

what iso would you use

Phototoxin

there is no spoon...

and watch them make up a new one

they cannot do that !

Also I agree.. what sickos want photos of dead bodies (aside from forensics students ... :rolleyes: )

[pro tip : brother + red sauce looks real enough if you have the right lighting..]

cooligPhoto

Phototoxin wrote: »

Also I agree.. what sickos want photos of dead bodies (aside from forensics students ... :rolleyes: )

It's not just dead bodies.

Imagine you're the truck/van driver who's just experienced probably the most horrific incident in your life and then you have a load of sickos filming you on their phones. The most likely intention is to put it up on the internet. Would you prefer the police do everything possible to try to get them to put away their phones? I certainly would.

trooney

cooligPhoto wrote: »

It's not just dead bodies.

Imagine you're the truck/van driver who's just experienced probably the most horrific incident in your life and then you have a load of sickos filming you on their phones. The most likely intention is to put it up on the internet. Would you prefer the police do everything possible to try to get them to put away their phones? I certainly would.

So, if the police had weapons would you advocate the shooting of a person with a camera as within the realm of "everything possible"?

Kintarō Hattori

trooney wrote: »

So, if the police had weapons would you advocate the shooting of a person with a camera as within the realm of "everything possible"?

Now that's just being silly.

CabanSail

I think it's more this sort of attitude which is the issue.

robinph

Love when the "officer" gets all upset and just tells him to shut up becasue he knows he's lost the argument. lol

trooney

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Now that's just being silly.

My point exactly!

Cabaal

cooligPhoto wrote: »

It's not just dead bodies.

Imagine you're the truck/van driver who's just experienced probably the most horrific incident in your life and then you have a load of sickos filming you on their phones. The most likely intention is to put it up on the internet. Would you prefer the police do everything possible to try to get them to put away their phones? I certainly would.

But its ok for the BBC to videotape everything so that can be put on youtube, TV and the BBC website? err ok

cooligPhoto

Cabaal wrote: »

But its ok for the BBC to videotape everything so that can be put on youtube, TV and the BBC website? err ok

The BBC were filming a documentary for TV - duh!!

I doubt they put it on youtube.

robinph

cooligPhoto wrote: »

I doubt they put it on youtube.

They call their own version of YouTube the iPlayer and they have the video inline in the article on their news site, if anything a bigger audience than YouTube would get.

Cabaal

cooligPhoto wrote: »

The BBC were filming a documentary for TV - duh!!

I doubt they put it on youtube.

still I'm sure its the last thing the truck driver wanted....to be on camera

as for youtube, yeah your right they didn't, but they did put it on inbedded videos on there website and provided it via iPlayer which everybody can view on demand in the UK!

I'm sure he could have done without all this too

cooligPhoto

Having watched the video, I'm not sure if I saw the drivers there. The film would have been edited to ensure nobody's privacy was affected.

I completely agree with the "authoritarian" argument of some police etc but I think this example is extremely poor - the policeman who said he'd confiscate cameras was just trying desperately to maintain some decorum in a traumatic situation (I've been on exercises with the Red Cross where you have to try to manage situations like this).

I've actually experienced authoritarian attitudes of police. One example I was stopped at traffic lights and a guy in the car behind walked up to me to complain about my driving (he was sitting in the wrong lane and I went past the inside). He handed me his warrant card and said he was a policeman - the lights changed to green and I drove off, with his warrant card. A few days later I sent it to head office (after wiping prints off) and said I'd found it on the floor in a seedy pub.

So I do agree but a better example would support the argument (such as the one CabanSail submitted). The example for this thread I think people need to look at the overall situation and think how they'd get the sickos out of the way.

Cabaal

cooligPhoto wrote: »

Having watched the video, I'm not sure if I saw the drivers there. The film would have been edited to ensure nobody's privacy was affected.

The truck driver can be very clearly seen in a few shots so they didn't edit him out,
I understand why the Police said what they said but its doesn't make it legal at the end of the day.