Filming on a public street

Fiend-Foe

I was in town in Dublin tonight, there was a fight between a bunch of girls on Dame St. It started getting pretty heavy, somebody standing beside me got on the phone and called 999 or 112 whatever. I took out my digital camera and started filming what was happening from a distance.

The gardai arrived soon after and I kept filming, still from quite a distance. One of the guards marched over to me and forcibly snatched the camera from my hand, he said that I had no permission to film him or the people involved in the altercation.

I was unaware I needed any. I wasn't involved in the situation and had maintained a distance.

He then said he would be seizing my camera as evidence. I said that I would have no problem whatsoever providing any evidence that would be useful to them. He then took my camera to a colleague in the van and asked him to delete anything that I had recorded.

Whilst he was attempting to delete the "evidence" I was lectured by another garda about how immoral it was that my first reaction was to take out my camera, rather that calling the gardai. I explained that I was standing right beside the man who had called 999 so there was no point in placing a call myself and flooding the control room. I was then made to delete any clips from my camera myself as the guard in the van couldn't figure out how to do so.

As far as I was aware, anybody has every right to film anything happening on a public street. I wasn't involved in the situation at all, I was at a fair distance.

Could anybody please shed some light on this, because I am confused.

I have recovered the clips anyhow, so there's no loss.

I don't believe there is any law against filming something happening on a public street, and if anything I filmed could prove useful in any investigation I would have no problem sharing that footage. I stand to be corrected.

But, I don't see why anybody would have such a problem with somebody having a video record of events, surely this could prove useful in some instances.

djtechnics1210

I know it states in DPP V Braddish that all evidence (c.c.t.v etc) must be retained for use as evidence.
With this in mind i can understand why they would want to retain the footage on your camera as evidence regarding the assault.
I am at a loss as to why they would delete the footage on your camera.

However as i was not there personally, i cannot comment on why this happened to you.

Were the gardai in plain clothes or uniform????
If they were in plain clothes this may have some bearing on why they wanted the footage deleted.

If this matter is under investigation op it might be better not to go into too much details about it.

DubMedic

I don't see the reason for you posting this to be honest OP.
The Garda in question was simply trying to do his/her job.

Here is a link to a site that may be of some help to you. However, I am not an expert in the subject.

Photographer's Rights

There was also an extensive thread on this subject here on boards, the search button is your friend in this case.

.

Zillah

DubMedic wrote: »

The Garda in question was simply trying to do his/her job.

Or, they were being obnoxious and violating the rights of a citizen whom they are in fact supposed to serve because they didn't like the idea of their actions being recorded in case they screw up or go to far.

Trojan911

OP,

The link re Photographers Rights is a good start for you. If you are not obstructing a police officer and you are in a public place then you can film/photograph. That's the long & the short of it.

If you were doing it to record evidence for the police then offer it up as soon as practicable. If for any other reason then by what you say in your post, the officer had no right to seize your camera the way you describe nor lecture you or delete the footage.

Your options, that is, if your post is accurate:

If you want to make a complaint then Garda Ombudsman is a start. You could also consult a solicitor with a view to alleging assault (forcibly removed your camera) & criminal damage (deleting the footage). I know you say you have recovered the footage etc, however it was temporarily removed.

Or you can just put it down to an experience and know better for the next time.

Hooch

Trojan911 wrote: »

OP,

If you want to make a complaint then Garda Ombudsman is a start. You could also consult a solicitor with a view to alleging assault (forcibly removed your camera) & criminal damage (deleting the footage). I know you say you have recovered the footage etc, however it was temporarily removed.

Or you can just put it down to an experience and know better for the next time.

Criminal damage is a non runner here im afraid. One the criminal damage act wont cover electronic items as it was not damaged and two the items were recovered. And no its not covered by section 5 of the act, unauthorised access of data.

The assault is an idea but that depends on whether O/P, the phone was forceable taken or you handed it to the Garda. If you handed it over then no assault

The member had the right to seize the footage if it was for a criminal investigation, ie assault, but had no right once he deleted/attempted to delete it.

Garda Ombudsman is the place to start if you so wish, but then again, as trojan said you could chalk it up to one of those life experiences and just forget about it!

Trojan911

nice guy always wrote: »

Criminal damage is a non runner here im afraid. One the criminal damage act wont cover electronic items as it was not damaged and two the items were recovered.

1.—(1) In this Act—

"compensation order" has the meaning assigned to it by section 9(1);"to damage" includes.

( a ) in relation to property other than data (but including a storage medium in which data are kept), to destroy, deface, dismantle or, whether temporarily or otherwise, render inoperable or unfit for use or prevent or impair the operation of,

( b ) in relation to data—

(i) to add to, alter, corrupt, erase or move to another storage medium or to a different location in the storage medium in which they are kept (whether or not property other than data is damaged thereby), or

(ii) to do any act that contributes towards causing such addition, alteration, corruption, erasure or movement

Source

You quite sure about that?

Hooch

Trojan911 wrote: »

Source

You quite sure about that?

Positive, the DPP wont run with a case like this. Had one sometime ago involving an external hard drive being wiped on purpose loosing photos and music etc. I recommened criminal damage and they disagreed and stated it was a civil matter for such a case.

Trojan911

nice guy always wrote: »

Positive, the DPP wont run with a case like this. Had one sometime ago involving an external hard drive being wiped on purpose loosing photos and music etc. I recommened criminal damage and they disagreed and stated it was a civil matter for such a case.

Ah, ok. So the offence is there just DPP won't entertain. Cheers.

Hooch

Trojan911 wrote: »

Ah, ok. So the offence is there just DPP won't entertain. Cheers.

No it would have to be a corporate angle (as in we'll say someone erasing it for gain) or so they said.

* should have said that in my first post!!!

Elessar

If the guard took the camera from you without your permission is that not illegal?

I was under the impression that you had to be arrested for any property to be seized and handled like that and if you are not placed under arrest you have the right to refuse a guard (or anyone) from touching/handling your property.

Or am I way off there? Just wondering because I have come across this before.

Hooch

Elessar wrote: »

If the guard took the camera from you without your permission is that not illegal?

I was under the impression that you had to be arrested for any property to be seized and handled like that and if you are not placed under arrest you have the right to refuse a guard (or anyone) from touching/handling your property.

Or am I way off there? Just wondering because I have come across this before.

Criminal evidence legislation can kick in here elessar in certain situation, but not knowing the full details I cannot commen on the incident and if it warranted seizing the phone.

Zillah

So in a scenario where I have recorded video that may be important evidence, does anyone know if they have the right to immediately seize it then and there, or am I simply required to make it available to them in the near future?

If the former then screw that, how unfair.

Hooch

Zillah wrote: »

So in a scenario where I have recorded video that may be important evidence, does anyone know if they have the right to immediately seize it then and there, or am I simply required to make it available to them in the near future?

If the former then screw that, how unfair.

Yes they do. Protection of evidence in a criminal investigation. You camera content is criminal evidence if it recorded it. Normally it is siezed, downloaded that day and phone handed back the next day.....usually.

how is it unfair......why would you record it if your not willing to use the video evidence?? Yes its a pain to loose your phone for a day of two but its all for the better good.

santosubito

The member had no right to do that. It's theft.
Photographers I work with get this occasionally from gardai, ordering them to stop filming without any lawful authority. But the reality is Dame Street is a public area and you can film where you want. Some gardai do try to intimidate photographers and there are occasional rows, but most are fine.
Now, there is a context for everything, and maybe the garda was familiar with the incident on the quays a few months ago when the female member was attacked and somebody filmed it on their mobile rather than helping her. In fact, I think it was Aston Quay where he assault on the female member happened, so both would be in the Pearse Street district.

Trojan911

santosubito wrote: »

The member had no right to do that. It's theft.

I wouldn't go down the Theft route as the footage was apparently recovered, therefore not permanently deprived etc.

I'm still not convinced that a Crim/Dam allegation would not be considered. I've seen this done in London a few years back when a mobile phones address book was deliberately deleted and the CPS ran it and then proposed a post charge caution as this was the cheaper option. (Yes, I know it's the UK not here and laws may differ slightly).

keefg

Here is an interesting read about filming in public

http://philipbloom.co.uk/2009/04/14/filming-in-public-places/

OP, I don't know what your intentions were filming the incident you mentioned in your first post but if it was for evidence purposes then it might have been better to stop filming once the gardai had arrived. After all the commotion had calmed down then approached one of the officers and told him/her that you had footage of the incident if they required a copy to help their investigation.

Saying that.....

I am a professional camera operator and I film in public places almost every day, some for myself (it's a hobby as well as a job), some for commercials and some for news agencies.

I do get approached by members of the AGS when I'm filming and most of the time they ask just out of curiosity more than any public safety or legality issue. Once I explain who I am and what I'm doing they say goodbye and carry on.

Everyone has the right to film in public places, no matter what the subject is. What you do with the footage or where you broadcast it is a very different matter.

The officer in question had no right to take your equipment or try to delete the footage. If that happened to me I would press charges for assault immediately and I would have the full backing of my union to support me.

Even the seizure of the equipment as "evidence" would not protect the guard from prosecution if it was taken by forcible means. There are other ways for the AGS to obtain the footage without committing assault.

I personally would have no qualms handing over a tape there and then if I thought it would help with a criminal investigation but I certainly wouldn't allow someone to assault me or damage my equipment.

The situation described by the OP seems like a heated one and the guard in question probably thought you were some clown filming the footage for You Tube and while his anger/frustration is understandable it doesn't excuse any unprofessional conduct. Anyone (member of public or AGS) can stop you from broadcasting or publishing your footage but this has to be done through the correct legal channels and not by someone in the street taking the law into their own hands.

In my experience most "on the beat" officers both here and in the UK have no idea of the laws regarding filming, they just think they do.

On the few occasions where I have been told it's "against the law" to film (or take photos) in public by an officer I just ask them a simple question.....

"If it was illegal to film in public then why isn't every tourist in Ireland with a camera under arrest?"

It's very entertaining to see the confused look on their faces.:) but like I say that is a very rare instance and in most cases there isn't a problem.

The OP mentions that they received a lecture about how immoral it was filming the incident. Immoral it may have been, illegal it certainly wasn't.

.

donvito99

OP,

There were plenty of witnesses including yourself to the incident, I shouldnt think that there was any need to film the incident.

If I had a camera on me I would have done the exact same thing, and I suppose video evidence would stand up much more in court.

Although I can understand the Guard here. He could have thought that you would run straight to YouTube with the footage, in which he and his epaullette number would be plain to see. That could have affected the way he does his job on a day to day business.

santosubito

Trojan911 wrote: »

I wouldn't go down the Theft route as the footage was apparently recovered, therefore not permanently deprived etc.

I'm still not convinced that a Crim/Dam allegation would not be considered. I've seen this done in London a few years back when a mobile phones address book was deliberately deleted and the CPS ran it and then proposed a post charge caution as this was the cheaper option. (Yes, I know it's the UK not here and laws may differ slightly).

I'm talking about stealing the phone.

santosubito

donvito99 wrote: »

OP,

There were plenty of witnesses including yourself to the incident, I shouldnt think that there was any need to film the incident.

If I had a camera on me I would have done the exact same thing, and I suppose video evidence would stand up much more in court.

Although I can understand the Guard here. He could have thought that you would run straight to YouTube with the footage, in which he and his epaullette number would be plain to see. That could have affected the way he does his job on a day to day business.

Ah come on here. How could it affect the way he does his job? Sure the epaulettes are visible to everyone on the street. Isn't that why the short number is there in the first place? Anyway, it would need to be a pretty good quality cameraphone top pick up something like that.

Hooch

santosubito wrote: »

I'm talking about stealing the phone.

And as pointed out by trojan.....its was not permantly deprived. It was given back.

Right folks,
The O/P did not state whether he gave the phone or was it forceably taken so until thats cleared up no more talk of assault please.

keefg informative post, as psni said...careful does it;):D

I have never had any operational problem with camera men or photographers. Anytime I have asked then to stop taking photos ie, a fatal accident or serious assault, they have always obliged and I have never had any hassle. Same goes for requesting photos etc. never a problem. Most are very down to earth and see sense if you approach then in a manner that is right for the situation and explain your side, they alway oblige.

Now back to the topic. We all agree that the members manner of taking/trying to delete the video was over the top and lacked people skills, and of course yes it was wrong if he didnt need it for a criminal investigation (it looks like he didnt require it!!).

O/P is there anything else in particular you would like answered??

keefg

nice guy always wrote: »

And as pointed out by trojan.....its was not permantly deprived. It was given back.

Bang on, no loss of goods, no theft. Simple as.

nice guy always wrote: »

Right folks,
The O/P did not state whether he gave the phone or was it forceably taken so until thats cleared up no more talk of assault please.

from the OP...

Fiend-Foe wrote: »

One of the guards marched over to me and forcibly snatched the camera from my hand, he said that I had no permission to film him or the people involved in the altercation.

nice guy always wrote: »

keefg informative post, as psni said...careful does it;):D

I love 'em really

nice guy always wrote: »

I have never had any operational problem with camera men or photographers. Anytime I have asked then to stop taking photos ie, a fatal accident or serious assault, they have always obliged and I have never had any hassle. Same goes for requesting photos etc. never a problem. Most are very down to earth and see sense if you approach then in a manner that is right for the situation and explain your side, they alway oblige.

Good point and the difference between two professionals acting professional and the situation described in the OP.

It was a person in a stressful job dealing with a stressful (and potentially dangerous) situation, could have been handled better but hey, no harm done so that's that.

Now....as some of you might say...."move along please, nothing to see here"

santosubito

keefg wrote: »

Bang on, no loss of goods, no theft. Simple as.

I would not necessarily agree with that. Did the member take it with or without permission?

keefg

santosubito wrote: »

I would not necessarily agree with that. Did the member take it with or without permission?

It's not as simple as you make out.

Any officer can do this if, at the time, they think it is in the best interest of the case.

It's called "preserving the evidence".

If, after the incident or investigation your good are returned to you undamaged then that's the end of the matter.

It would be the same situation if the police kicked in your front door during a drugs raid only to realise they should be raiding next door (oops!), as long as your door is replaced or repaired then you wouldn't be able to press charges for criminal damage because they were acting on operational interests.

You can't compare a member of the AGS taking your phone and returning it to a member of the public doing the same thing.

Hooch

santosubito wrote: »

I would not necessarily agree with that. Did the member take it with or without permission?

Im afraid not. Theft doesnt cover it.

See here http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0050/sec0004.html#partii-sec4


With or without permission is not the only proof required for theft. Have a quick read through this, it includes some of the proofs needed and the defences available to the suspect. The defences would also apply to members of AGS while thay are acting in course of their duties. O and before you eat me im not saying he was right. I have already said where I stand, I think he was wrong in his approach.

I would love for everything to be as black and white as with/without permission. Legislation is a funny thing though

santosubito

keefg wrote: »

It's not as simple as you make out.

Any officer can do this if, at the time, they think it is in the best interest of the case.

It's called "preserving the evidence".

If, after the incident or investigation your good are returned to you undamaged then that's the end of the matter.

It would be the same situation if the police kicked in your front door during a drugs raid only to realise they should be raiding next door (oops!), as long as your door is replaced or repaired then you wouldn't be able to press charges for criminal damage because they were acting on operational interests.

You can't compare a member of the AGS taking your phone and returning it to a member of the public doing the same thing.

You're the one who said it was simple.
And anyway, it looks as if the member wasn't trying to "preserve" anything, rather destroy something.
And it's not the end of the matter, at all. He should not have taken that camera. What he did was unlawful.
By coincidence, I met two gardai I know an hour or so and told them about this thread. They were horrified at what is purported to have happened.*
And why can't you compare the two?

* I don't know what happened. I was not there. I am basing this on the OP's post.

santosubito

nice guy always wrote: »

Im afraid not. Theft doesnt cover it.

See here http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0050/sec0004.html#partii-sec4


With or without permission is not the only proof required for theft. Have a quick read through this, it includes some of the proofs needed and the defences available to the suspect. The defences would also apply to members of AGS while thay are acting in course of their duties. O and before you eat me im not saying he was right. I have already said where I stand, I think he was wrong in his approach.

I would love for everything to be as black and white as with/without permission. Legislation is a funny thing though

You beat me to it. I too read that and see that the relevant part is where it says:"with the intention of depriving its owner of it."
However: "'depriving' means temporarily or permanently depriving".
Although, if he deprived the owner of the footage as seems to have been his intention...
But is seizing a phone in the course of their duties? That's the point. How is that justifiable?
I'm not eating into anybody, it's merely an interesting topic.

Fiend-Foe

Sorry, couldn't get online today.

The camera was forcibly removed from my hand, I would have had no problem handing it over if asked. They were all uniformed guards. I don't think it is an ongoing investigation or anything, no arrests were made, everybody was just moved on.

Why mention seizing the camera as evidence if your intentions are to delete the footage?

Since I recovered the footage I have a great shot of the guard in question storming up to me and grabing the camera from my hand. Pretty funny, it shows the distance I was at and shows that he was very unhappy being filmed.

Hooch

Fiend-Foe wrote: »

Sorry, couldn't get online today.

The camera was forcibly removed from my hand, I would have had no problem handing it over if asked. They were all uniformed guards. I don't think it is an ongoing investigation or anything, no arrests were made, everybody was just moved on.

Why mention seizing the camera as evidence if your intentions are to delete the footage?

Since I recovered the footage I have a great shot of the guard in question storming up to me and grabing the camera from my hand. Pretty funny, it shows the distance I was at and shows that he was very unhappy being filmed.

Then the member was totally wrong. Shouldnt have grabbed anything if his intention was just to delete it.

Fiend-Foe

keefg wrote: »

I personally would have no qualms handing over a tape there and then if I thought it would help with a criminal investigation but I certainly wouldn't allow someone to assault me or damage my equipment.

I said that it would be no problem

keefg wrote: »

"If it was illegal to film in public then why isn't every tourist in Ireland with a camera under arrest?"

Said that too, couldn't get an answer.

keefg wrote: »

The OP mentions that they received a lecture about how immoral it was filming the incident. Immoral it may have been, illegal it certainly wasn't.

I knew the guards had been called and were on their way, I was well back and wasn't involved.

Fiend-Foe

Fiend-Foe wrote: »

Sorry, couldn't get online today.

The camera was forcibly removed from my hand, I would have had no problem handing it over if asked. They were all uniformed guards. I don't think it is an ongoing investigation or anything, no arrests were made, everybody was just moved on.

Why mention seizing the camera as evidence if your intentions are to delete the footage?

Since I recovered the footage I have a great shot of the guard in question storming up to me and grabing the camera from my hand. Pretty funny, it shows the distance I was at and shows that he was very unhappy being filmed.

So what do you plan on doing about the incident? Are you going to make a complaint or just leave it be?

Fiend-Foe

foreign wrote: »

So what do you plan on doing about the incident? Are you going to make a complaint or just leave it be?

Not bothered doing anything, no harm done.

I just wanted to know if I was right or not.

I was sure I didn't need permission to film anything on a public street. Just checking.

I should of known when he said he was seizing the camera as evidence and promptly deleted the footage that it was just a guard who didn't want to be filmed.

Fiend-Foe

Fiend-Foe wrote: »

Not bothered doing anything, no harm done.

I just wanted to know if I was right or not.

I was sure I didn't need permission to film anything on a public street. Just checking.

I should of known when he said he was seizing the camera as evidence and promptly deleted the footage that it was just a guard who didn't want to be filmed.

Cool.

Well you and plenty of people have learnt something new out of this in that it is not an offence to film in a public place. Just stay out of the way and know your rights.

trad

Can I add my 2 cent worth. I took the attached photograph over 2 years ago, a trafic accident between an ambulance and a taxi opposite the Bridewell in Dublin, didn't witness the accident so can't say who to blame.

IMG_0889.jpg

Had my camera with me and started to take a few snaps, it's not everyday you see an ambulance stuck into a hoarding.

Two females approached me one partially in uniform and the other in civvies and told me I was committing an offence under the Public Order Act and that if I persisted in taking photographs I would be arrested. I pointed out an RTE camera crew filming the same incident not to mention a hoard of press photographers from the courts who came over.

Now I am a former member of an AGS and I was astounded to be informed that I was committing a Public Order Offence, taking a photograph in public place. Needless to say, I spoke my mind and we exchanged views and that ws the end of it.

santosubito

is there not a bigger issue here?
Surely the lack of members with five+ years service in city centre stations is a cause for concern and leads to incidents like described in this thread?

Shield

santosubito wrote: »

is there not a bigger issue here?
Surely the lack of members with five+ years service in city centre stations is a cause for concern and leads to incidents like described in this thread?

The bigger issue is for another thread. The OP seems happy enough that his question has been answered, so we'll just leave it at that.

Thread closed.