ANOTHER CLICK IN THE WALL: The fact that "Photography Is Not A Crime" when taking pictures of police in the performance of their duties- with certain caveats- has been a subject that has piqued our interest many times in this space, most recently when it hit home with the case of blogger Damon Tucker who was arrested and apparently beaten- allegedly by Big Island police.
The charges of obstructing a government operation against Tucker were dropped- without prejudice, meaning they can be brought again- and Tucker has said he is planning on a lawsuit although he hasn't done so... yet.
But his case may be bolstered due to an appellate ruling by a federal, three-judge panel in the First Circuit which has denied limited immunity to cops who arrested one Simon Glik based, the court ruled, on his First and Fourth Amendment rights.
In refusing to grant immunity to the officers the panel ruled that:
Glik was exercising clearly-established First Amendment rights in filming the officers in a public space, and that his clearly-established Fourth Amendment rights were violated by his arrest without probable cause...
(A) citizen’s right to film government officials, including law enforcement officers, in the discharge of their duties in a public space is a basic, vital, and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment.
The story goes that:
As he was walking past the Boston Common on the evening of October 1, 2007, Simon Glik caught sight of three police officers — the individual defendants here — arresting a young man. Glik heard another bystander say something to the effect of, “You are hurting him, stop.” Concerned that the officers were employing excessive force to effect the arrest, Glik stopped roughly ten feet away and began recording video footage of the arrest on his cell phone.
After placing the suspect in handcuffs, one of the officers turned to Glik and said, “I think you have taken enough pictures.” Glik replied, “I am recording this. I saw you punch him.” An officer then approached Glik and asked if Glik’s cell phone recorded audio. When Glik affirmed that he was recording audio, the officer placed him in handcuffs, arresting him for, inter alia, unlawful audio recording in violation of Massachusetts's (sic) wiretap statute. Glik was taken to the South Boston police station. In the course of booking, the police confiscated Glik’s cell phone and a computer flash drive and held them as evidence.
But, importantly, due to other rulings the judges ruled that, because Glik was openly recording the events he was not in violation of the "wiretapping" laws that many police across the nation have tried to use as "probable cause" and therefore a defense and a reason to arrest those taking picture of police.
As to the actual First Amendment rights, the court was unequivocal- a significant ruling in that it is apparently the highest appellate ruling in this kind of case. They wrote:
The First Amendment issue here is, as the parties frame it, fairly narrow: is there a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public? Basic First Amendment principles, along with case law from this and other circuits, answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative.
It is firmly established that the First Amendment’s aegis extends further than the text’s proscription on laws “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information. As the Supreme Court has observed, “the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.” First Nat’l Bank v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 783 (1978); see also Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969) (“It is . . . well established that the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas.”). An important corollary to this interest in protecting the stock of public information is that “[t]here is an undoubted right to gather news ‘from any source by means within the law.’” Houchinsv. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1, 11 (1978) (quoting Branzburg v.Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 681-82 (1972)).
The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles. Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting “the free discussion of governmental affairs.”
Similarly the court threw out Fourth Amendment claims because of the open nature of the recording and therefore the lack of probable cause. Massachusetts law- as is true in most states- says that, to be considered wiretapping, the recording must be made secretly.
Also significant was the fact that the court said it doesn't matter if the person taking the pictures is a reporter or journalist, as was an issue in "blogger" Tucker's case as well as many on the mainland.
They said that:
It is of no significance that the present case... involves a private individual, and not a reporter, gathering information about public officials. The First Amendment right to gather news is, as the Court has often noted, not one that inures solely to the benefit of the news media; rather, the public’s right of access to information is coextensive with that of the press...
(C)hanges in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw. The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew, and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.
This. of course, is not the end of it, just a small victory in only one circuit and just by a three-judge panel, not an "en banc" (the full appellate court) ruling.
But it is significant for the sweeping nature of the words that can and no doubt will be used by other circuits when dealing with the issue of whether private citizens are entitled to photograph- which of course includes taking video- police in a public place as long as they are not impeding the actions of the police.
Showing posts with label Photography Isn't A Crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Photography Isn't A Crime. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
MAYBE THE ZOMBIES ATE THEM
MAYBE THE ZOMBIES ATE THEM: We've devoted a slew of bits to the case of Big Island blogger Damon Tucker's beating and arrest- allegedly at the hands of the Hawai`i County Police Department (HiPD)- for, as Tucker claims, photographing a melee outside a Pahoa bar last August after being told to stop doing so.
But even though it appears that Tucker was well within his rights to take photos in a public place, the charges of obstructing police operations is going forward, despite the fact that it appears from the video that he was across the street from all the "action."
The statement from the HiPD that "(t)he Hawaii Police Department recognizes that the media and the public have every right to photograph police activity in a public place from a safe distance" indicates that they do know that Photography Is Not a Crime, as the national clearinghouse website of the same name states.
But apparently that is not the case in Los Angeles where the LA Sheriff’s Department is being sued by the ACLU of Southern California "alleging they harassed, detained and improperly searched photographers taking pictures legally in public places," according to the LA Times.
The article states that:
The federal lawsuit alleges the Sheriff's Department and deputies "have repeatedly" subjected photographers "to detention, search and interrogation simply because they took pictures" from public streets of places such as Metro turnstiles, oil refineries or near a Long Beach courthouse.
"Photography is not a crime. It's protected 1st Amendment expression," said Peter Bibring, senior staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. "It violates the Constitution's core protections for sheriff’s deputies to detain and search people who are doing nothing wrong. To single them out for such treatment while they’re pursuing a constitutionally protected activity is doubly wrong."
Bibring said the policy and practices of the Sheriff's Department reflect a widespread misuse of "suspicious activity reporting" under the auspices of Homeland Security and counterterrorism. Similar suits have been filed in several other states.
Note that it's alleged that it's not isolated incidents but a policy of the department that is the subject of the suit.
The problem is that it's apparent in our reading of the lawsuit itself that either the cops are complete imbeciles who can't tell real terrorism threats from things like photographing innocuous locations or else they are using the law to harass people who won't kow-tow to abuse of their authority.
We suspect the latter.
Don't believe it? Here's more from the same lawsuit:
In another incident, deputies detained and searched Shane Quentin, a photographer with a master's in fine arts from UC Irvine while he was taking pictures of brilliantly lighted refineries in South Los Angeles on Jan. 21. Deputies frisked Quentin and placed him in the back of a police cruiser for about 45 minutes before releasing him. Two years before, Quentin had been ordered twice by deputies to stop taking photos of the refineries, according to the suit.
With the exception of a few bad actors, we on the neighbor island get accustomed to encountering officers who are genurinely trying to protect and serve and take seriously their responsibility to refrain from trampling on citizens' rights in trying to put away the bad guys.
But as our population grows, we're forced more and more to recruit new officers from the same mainland climes where these kinds of attitudes lead to having a populace that is alienated from the paramilitary operation which is supposed to keep them safe without making for an "us" vs. them" paradigm.
We're not sure what's going on inside the HiPD as far as Tucker's obstruction case goes. We sure hope that they are considering abandoning Tucker's prosecution and even repremanding the officers and instituting training on how to handle such situations without escalating them into news-worthy events.
But as Tucker waits for the resolution of the criminal charges and readies his civil suit, this federal lawsuit is going to be one to watch, not just for us but for HiPD as they wrestle with their own in a department that has had more than its share of bad actors over the years.
But even though it appears that Tucker was well within his rights to take photos in a public place, the charges of obstructing police operations is going forward, despite the fact that it appears from the video that he was across the street from all the "action."
The statement from the HiPD that "(t)he Hawaii Police Department recognizes that the media and the public have every right to photograph police activity in a public place from a safe distance" indicates that they do know that Photography Is Not a Crime, as the national clearinghouse website of the same name states.
But apparently that is not the case in Los Angeles where the LA Sheriff’s Department is being sued by the ACLU of Southern California "alleging they harassed, detained and improperly searched photographers taking pictures legally in public places," according to the LA Times.
The article states that:
The federal lawsuit alleges the Sheriff's Department and deputies "have repeatedly" subjected photographers "to detention, search and interrogation simply because they took pictures" from public streets of places such as Metro turnstiles, oil refineries or near a Long Beach courthouse.
"Photography is not a crime. It's protected 1st Amendment expression," said Peter Bibring, senior staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. "It violates the Constitution's core protections for sheriff’s deputies to detain and search people who are doing nothing wrong. To single them out for such treatment while they’re pursuing a constitutionally protected activity is doubly wrong."
Bibring said the policy and practices of the Sheriff's Department reflect a widespread misuse of "suspicious activity reporting" under the auspices of Homeland Security and counterterrorism. Similar suits have been filed in several other states.
Note that it's alleged that it's not isolated incidents but a policy of the department that is the subject of the suit.
The problem is that it's apparent in our reading of the lawsuit itself that either the cops are complete imbeciles who can't tell real terrorism threats from things like photographing innocuous locations or else they are using the law to harass people who won't kow-tow to abuse of their authority.
We suspect the latter.
Don't believe it? Here's more from the same lawsuit:
In another incident, deputies detained and searched Shane Quentin, a photographer with a master's in fine arts from UC Irvine while he was taking pictures of brilliantly lighted refineries in South Los Angeles on Jan. 21. Deputies frisked Quentin and placed him in the back of a police cruiser for about 45 minutes before releasing him. Two years before, Quentin had been ordered twice by deputies to stop taking photos of the refineries, according to the suit.
With the exception of a few bad actors, we on the neighbor island get accustomed to encountering officers who are genurinely trying to protect and serve and take seriously their responsibility to refrain from trampling on citizens' rights in trying to put away the bad guys.
But as our population grows, we're forced more and more to recruit new officers from the same mainland climes where these kinds of attitudes lead to having a populace that is alienated from the paramilitary operation which is supposed to keep them safe without making for an "us" vs. them" paradigm.
We're not sure what's going on inside the HiPD as far as Tucker's obstruction case goes. We sure hope that they are considering abandoning Tucker's prosecution and even repremanding the officers and instituting training on how to handle such situations without escalating them into news-worthy events.
But as Tucker waits for the resolution of the criminal charges and readies his civil suit, this federal lawsuit is going to be one to watch, not just for us but for HiPD as they wrestle with their own in a department that has had more than its share of bad actors over the years.
Friday, September 9, 2011
PRESSING MATTERS
PRESSING MATTERS: Big Island blogger Damon Tucker's first court appearance after apparently being beaten by a Hawai`i Island Police Department (HiPD) officer for photographing a fight in progress outside a Pahoa bar didn't yield a plea after his attorney asked for a jury trial and the case was remanded to circuit court, according to coverage by Big Island Chronicle (BIC) reporter Tiffany Hunt Edwards.
Tucker was arrested for "obstructing police operations" even though he claims he was across the street from the police activity he was recording on his iPhone
The big news is, however, that Tucker now has possession of the confiscated phone and the video he took and apparently it shows he was 10-15 feet away, across the street from the altercation, as he had claimed.
But the police report may hold the key to the disposition of the case.
Edwards quotes the report as saying:
“This after officers upon responding to an affray of approx. 10 to 20 adults fighting at the Pahoa Vllg Club, deft [defendant] repeatedly refused to stop physically pushing himself between officers while they were engaged in interviewing witnesses and suspects, and appeared to be very intoxicated. Deft then shoved his camera into the faces of victims at the scene while they were interviewed, and propelled them to become irate. Furthermore, Deft then proceeded onto the roadway placing officers and himself in danger of being hit by passing vehicle. Deft cited he was representative with the Media, however deft was unable to produce proper Media Credentials, (emphasis added) thereby deft became combative and was subsequently arrested.”
Edwards writes that:
Tucker, in responding to the police report’s assertion that he was intoxicated in the incident involving police, shared a statement from a bar bouncer that Tucker was “buzzed” but not drunk. The recovered footage seen by this reporter is pointed toward three police officers and at least one bystander standing at the entrance to the Luquin’s Mexican Restaurant parking lot, across the street from Pahoa Village Club. One of the officers emphatically tells Tucker he is being warned to stop videotaping.
But the statement that stands out to us is that "Deft cited he was representative with the Media, however deft was unable to produce proper Media Credentials" because, according to a recent ruling by the First Court of Appeals in Boston in allowing a civil case to go forward, the public has the same right as a reporter to photograph police in a public place.
According to an article in New American "Simon Glik, a Boston attorney... was arrested on the evening of October 1, 2007 for using his cellphone to record police officers making an arrest on the Boston Common."
But in rejecting the officers' claim of immunity the three-judge panel not only unanimously addressed the reporter vs. public issue but realities in an age of cell phone cameras, "new media" and bloggers.
The ruling says, in part:
The First Amendment issue here is, as the parties frame it, fairly narrow... Is there a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public? Basic First Amendment principles, along with case law from this and other circuits, answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative...
(C)hanges in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw. The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew, and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the newsgathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.
The video evidence apparently shows that the claim that Tucker was interfering with a police operation is shibai and certainly under any circumstances beating someone to stop them from taking photographs is not the proper response of police.
As we noted previously, although we haven't been able to ascertain the current procedures on the Big Island, most other jurisdictions stopped issuing official police press passes- which usually solely enabled reporters to go behind police lines at crime scenes- many years ago. That is the case on Kaua`i and in Honolulu and has been done across the mainland specifically because the proliferation of news sources in the age of the internet made distinctions much too vague and arbitrary for a legal differentiation to hold up in court.
If, as is apparently the case, the HiPD is going to try to claim that any part of the case hinges on whether Tucker is indeed a "member of the press"- whatever the heck that is these days- they’re going to be digging themselves a hole in which they will eventually be buried.
Tucker was arrested for "obstructing police operations" even though he claims he was across the street from the police activity he was recording on his iPhone
The big news is, however, that Tucker now has possession of the confiscated phone and the video he took and apparently it shows he was 10-15 feet away, across the street from the altercation, as he had claimed.
But the police report may hold the key to the disposition of the case.
Edwards quotes the report as saying:
“This after officers upon responding to an affray of approx. 10 to 20 adults fighting at the Pahoa Vllg Club, deft [defendant] repeatedly refused to stop physically pushing himself between officers while they were engaged in interviewing witnesses and suspects, and appeared to be very intoxicated. Deft then shoved his camera into the faces of victims at the scene while they were interviewed, and propelled them to become irate. Furthermore, Deft then proceeded onto the roadway placing officers and himself in danger of being hit by passing vehicle. Deft cited he was representative with the Media, however deft was unable to produce proper Media Credentials, (emphasis added) thereby deft became combative and was subsequently arrested.”
Edwards writes that:
Tucker, in responding to the police report’s assertion that he was intoxicated in the incident involving police, shared a statement from a bar bouncer that Tucker was “buzzed” but not drunk. The recovered footage seen by this reporter is pointed toward three police officers and at least one bystander standing at the entrance to the Luquin’s Mexican Restaurant parking lot, across the street from Pahoa Village Club. One of the officers emphatically tells Tucker he is being warned to stop videotaping.
But the statement that stands out to us is that "Deft cited he was representative with the Media, however deft was unable to produce proper Media Credentials" because, according to a recent ruling by the First Court of Appeals in Boston in allowing a civil case to go forward, the public has the same right as a reporter to photograph police in a public place.
According to an article in New American "Simon Glik, a Boston attorney... was arrested on the evening of October 1, 2007 for using his cellphone to record police officers making an arrest on the Boston Common."
But in rejecting the officers' claim of immunity the three-judge panel not only unanimously addressed the reporter vs. public issue but realities in an age of cell phone cameras, "new media" and bloggers.
The ruling says, in part:
The First Amendment issue here is, as the parties frame it, fairly narrow... Is there a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public? Basic First Amendment principles, along with case law from this and other circuits, answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative...
(C)hanges in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw. The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew, and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the newsgathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.
The video evidence apparently shows that the claim that Tucker was interfering with a police operation is shibai and certainly under any circumstances beating someone to stop them from taking photographs is not the proper response of police.
As we noted previously, although we haven't been able to ascertain the current procedures on the Big Island, most other jurisdictions stopped issuing official police press passes- which usually solely enabled reporters to go behind police lines at crime scenes- many years ago. That is the case on Kaua`i and in Honolulu and has been done across the mainland specifically because the proliferation of news sources in the age of the internet made distinctions much too vague and arbitrary for a legal differentiation to hold up in court.
If, as is apparently the case, the HiPD is going to try to claim that any part of the case hinges on whether Tucker is indeed a "member of the press"- whatever the heck that is these days- they’re going to be digging themselves a hole in which they will eventually be buried.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
A HOLE IS TO DIG
A HOLE IS TO DIG: If we ever have cause to need a really good pick and shovel- aw heck, make that a backhoe- we know just where to turn.
We'd just call the worst reporter at the worst newspaper in the state- arguably in the country although we haven’t read them all- because it would take heavy equipment to bury the lede the way our little buddy does it in our local Kaua`i newspaper.
Today, while sifting through the recent thin gruel of council activity, he decided to preview tomorrow's "special" council meeting to name yet another "sister city" in Japan- a program designed to increase tourism, presumably both ways.
The first clue that Kaua`i denizens might think twice about taking a trip to Iwaki was the location- the Fukushima Prefecture. But it takes until the sixth paragraph, over 200 words into the story before we find out for certain that Iwaki "is less than 30 miles away from Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant, badly damaged in the 9.0 magnitude earthquake and subsequent tsunami on March 11."
That "clue" assumes you're going to make the connection between Iwaki and the massive radiation still permeating Fukushima Prefecture. The final words of the article come closer, saying
Because of the March 11 earthquake and subsequent tsunami, Iwaki’s government closed the city’s swimming beaches for the entire year.
Iwaki government has also said that it doesn’t expect many visitors to the city’s beaches due to the accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.
Nowhere in the article does the word "radiation" appear.
But, as the saying goes, "you knew darn well I was a snake before you let me in."
You'd expect better from the former editor of the Rocky Mountain News and current editor of the on-line Civil Beat news outlet.
John Temple's opinion piece today echoed some of our concerns about the spate of police harassment of local reporters for taking photographs of police in action, saying that the rest of the public should also be protected when taking photos of police.
Good point. But in setting up the piece he writes of "two recent incidents, one involving the publisher of a Maui weekly newspaper and the other involving a Big Island blogger."
And this is how he describes them.
The first incident came on Maui this spring, when an officer hit Maui Times publisher Tommy Russo's camera when he was filming from a public place. The officer is heard telling Russo: "I don't want to be filmed, and if I don't want to be filmed, I don't have to be filmed....
"The other Hawaii incident came on the Big Island, where earlier this month blogger Damon Tucker was arrested while he was taking photos and videos of police arresting people from a public sidewalk. He says police confiscated his iPhone and camera and he now faces misdemeanor charges of obstructing government operations."
And, although he links to Tucker's posts he fails to let readers know that Tucker alleges he was severely beaten by police in making the arrest.
And that makes exactly zero coverage of that fact in the mainstream, statewide Hawai`i "print" media, although Channel 9 did have one feature on the event the next day.
The "lede" of a story is generally what the the reporter determines is most important and "newsworthy" thing in the story. In the "inverted triangle" of newswriting it is contained in the opening words of the story.
Good reporters take a breath when sitting down at the keyboard and try to come up with the core information that makes the news news.
They don't "save it" for later in the story or even "forget" to mention it.
It's understandable when, for the umpteenth time our local paper bungles it. But when the pros do it it's gotta make you wonder what they're thinking.
We'd just call the worst reporter at the worst newspaper in the state- arguably in the country although we haven’t read them all- because it would take heavy equipment to bury the lede the way our little buddy does it in our local Kaua`i newspaper.
Today, while sifting through the recent thin gruel of council activity, he decided to preview tomorrow's "special" council meeting to name yet another "sister city" in Japan- a program designed to increase tourism, presumably both ways.
The first clue that Kaua`i denizens might think twice about taking a trip to Iwaki was the location- the Fukushima Prefecture. But it takes until the sixth paragraph, over 200 words into the story before we find out for certain that Iwaki "is less than 30 miles away from Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant, badly damaged in the 9.0 magnitude earthquake and subsequent tsunami on March 11."
That "clue" assumes you're going to make the connection between Iwaki and the massive radiation still permeating Fukushima Prefecture. The final words of the article come closer, saying
Because of the March 11 earthquake and subsequent tsunami, Iwaki’s government closed the city’s swimming beaches for the entire year.
Iwaki government has also said that it doesn’t expect many visitors to the city’s beaches due to the accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.
Nowhere in the article does the word "radiation" appear.
But, as the saying goes, "you knew darn well I was a snake before you let me in."
You'd expect better from the former editor of the Rocky Mountain News and current editor of the on-line Civil Beat news outlet.
John Temple's opinion piece today echoed some of our concerns about the spate of police harassment of local reporters for taking photographs of police in action, saying that the rest of the public should also be protected when taking photos of police.
Good point. But in setting up the piece he writes of "two recent incidents, one involving the publisher of a Maui weekly newspaper and the other involving a Big Island blogger."
And this is how he describes them.
The first incident came on Maui this spring, when an officer hit Maui Times publisher Tommy Russo's camera when he was filming from a public place. The officer is heard telling Russo: "I don't want to be filmed, and if I don't want to be filmed, I don't have to be filmed....
"The other Hawaii incident came on the Big Island, where earlier this month blogger Damon Tucker was arrested while he was taking photos and videos of police arresting people from a public sidewalk. He says police confiscated his iPhone and camera and he now faces misdemeanor charges of obstructing government operations."
And, although he links to Tucker's posts he fails to let readers know that Tucker alleges he was severely beaten by police in making the arrest.
And that makes exactly zero coverage of that fact in the mainstream, statewide Hawai`i "print" media, although Channel 9 did have one feature on the event the next day.
The "lede" of a story is generally what the the reporter determines is most important and "newsworthy" thing in the story. In the "inverted triangle" of newswriting it is contained in the opening words of the story.
Good reporters take a breath when sitting down at the keyboard and try to come up with the core information that makes the news news.
They don't "save it" for later in the story or even "forget" to mention it.
It's understandable when, for the umpteenth time our local paper bungles it. But when the pros do it it's gotta make you wonder what they're thinking.
Monday, August 22, 2011
NEGATIVE CONTAGION
NEGATIVE CONTAGION: All's quiet on the southwestern front where Damon Tucker- the Big Island blogger-reporter who was apparently beaten by cops for taking video of a police action, breaking up a fight in Pahoa- has hired an attorney to sue the Hawai`i (Island) Police Department (HIPD) saying that "all future media inquires should be sent to him."
But on the mainland the fight to simply take photos in public places continues, this time in Long Beach California where a reporter for the Long Beach Post has taken up the cause after a couple of incidents of harassment of photographers by local police.
Seems that according to reporter Greggory Moore on June 2 he had stepped out of his house across the street from the courthouse and was trying to take photos of people "texting while driving" for a piece on Distracted Driving Month when no less than eight police officers descended on him.
But of course in the background was the courthouse and so, according to Moore, after fifteen minutes of questioning and threats:
To leave the scene, I was required to provide my name, address, phone number, driver's license number, the name of the publication for which I was writing and the publisher's name and contact information. To get my camera back, I was required to show one of the officers its contents.
Then, even though Moore had complained and was trying to get an explanation from the Long Beach Police, the department hadn't gotten the message that photography in public places is not a crime.
In July he wrote that:
June 30 was a beautiful summer Thursday. Just the kind of day that might tempt a photographer out to a refinery to capture some snaps of well illuminated rust and metal corrosion, colors that don't quite exist in the natural world.
But in Long Beach lately, it seems this is just the kind of action that will result in police detention.
For at least the second time in a month, police in Long Beach have detained a resident for the mere fact of taking pictures that are perfectly legal to take.
At a little before 10 a.m. on June 30, Sander Roscoe Wolff says he was on the south side of Artesia Boulevard taking photographs of the Edgington Oil Company when Officer Asif Kahn rolled up in a Long Beach Police Department patrol unit.
Wolff said that Kahn stated he had received a call that Wolff was taking pictures of the refinery. Wolff explained to Kahn that he was photographing the refinery for artistic reasons.
"I guess he had [been] observing me for at least a few minutes," recounts Wolff, "because he said, 'I saw you take a picture of [some nearby flora.] I saw you take a picture across the street.'"
Because he found Kahn's demeanor to be low-key and even friendly, Wolff was surprised when Kahn asked for Wolff's driver's license. "I asked him if I had to show him my driver's license," says Wolff. "He said 'yes.' And at that point I did feel detained. Because if he was demanding that I identify myself, then I couldn't just walk away."
Wolff says Kahn apparently ran a check on Wolff's driver's license, then came back and said that everything was okay. "He said because of Homeland Security and new laws, [the police] have the authority to ask for my driver's license and run it when they feel that there's cause."
While there was no police brutality in the Long Beach incident Moore, after talked to the National Press Photographer's Association, they wrote to Long Beach Police Chief Jim McDonnell expressing concern "about the misplaced beliefs that photography is in and of itself a suspicious activity."
But McDonnell tried to defend his officers and seemed to offer little sympathy or remorse. Not only that but they had some kind of cockamamie policy of what one can and can't take photos of, based on the content.
In a followup piece Moore wrote:
Police Chief Jim McDonnell has confirmed that detaining photographers for taking pictures "with no apparent esthetic value" is within Long Beach Police Department policy.
McDonnell spoke for a follow-up story on a June 30 incident in which Sander Roscoe Wolff, a Long Beach resident and regular contributor to Long Beach Post, was detained by Officer Asif Kahn for taking pictures of a North Long Beach Refinery.
"If an officer sees someone taking pictures of something like a refinery," says McDonnell, "it is incumbent upon the officer to make contact with the individual." McDonnell went on to say that whether said contact becomes detainment depends on the circumstances the officer encounters...
This policy apparently falls under the rubric of compiling Suspicious Activity Reports (SAR) as outlined in the Los Angeles Police Department's Special Order No. 11, a March 2008 statement of the LAPD's "policy … to make every effort to accurately and appropriately gather, record and analyze information, of a criminal or non-criminal nature, that could indicate activity or intentions related to either foreign or domestic terrorism."
While some may have an "all's well that ends well" take on the incidents it is apparently only a matter of time before someone who knows, and is intent on defending, his or her rights refuses to stop taking pictures or show them to police when they make an illegal request based on "security," especially when the claim- and in the first case here the overreaction- is patently absurd.
Like Tucker's run-in with ill-informed cops on the Big Island these kinds of incidents show how they come about when police aren't trained in the rights of people with cameras.
And although the Long Beach and Hawai`i Island incidents have led to the increased awareness of their respective police chiefs until there is national pressure put on local police to acknowledge those rights, incidents Tucker's and those Moore described will remain all too common.
But on the mainland the fight to simply take photos in public places continues, this time in Long Beach California where a reporter for the Long Beach Post has taken up the cause after a couple of incidents of harassment of photographers by local police.
Seems that according to reporter Greggory Moore on June 2 he had stepped out of his house across the street from the courthouse and was trying to take photos of people "texting while driving" for a piece on Distracted Driving Month when no less than eight police officers descended on him.
But of course in the background was the courthouse and so, according to Moore, after fifteen minutes of questioning and threats:
To leave the scene, I was required to provide my name, address, phone number, driver's license number, the name of the publication for which I was writing and the publisher's name and contact information. To get my camera back, I was required to show one of the officers its contents.
Then, even though Moore had complained and was trying to get an explanation from the Long Beach Police, the department hadn't gotten the message that photography in public places is not a crime.
In July he wrote that:
June 30 was a beautiful summer Thursday. Just the kind of day that might tempt a photographer out to a refinery to capture some snaps of well illuminated rust and metal corrosion, colors that don't quite exist in the natural world.
But in Long Beach lately, it seems this is just the kind of action that will result in police detention.
For at least the second time in a month, police in Long Beach have detained a resident for the mere fact of taking pictures that are perfectly legal to take.
At a little before 10 a.m. on June 30, Sander Roscoe Wolff says he was on the south side of Artesia Boulevard taking photographs of the Edgington Oil Company when Officer Asif Kahn rolled up in a Long Beach Police Department patrol unit.
Wolff said that Kahn stated he had received a call that Wolff was taking pictures of the refinery. Wolff explained to Kahn that he was photographing the refinery for artistic reasons.
"I guess he had [been] observing me for at least a few minutes," recounts Wolff, "because he said, 'I saw you take a picture of [some nearby flora.] I saw you take a picture across the street.'"
Because he found Kahn's demeanor to be low-key and even friendly, Wolff was surprised when Kahn asked for Wolff's driver's license. "I asked him if I had to show him my driver's license," says Wolff. "He said 'yes.' And at that point I did feel detained. Because if he was demanding that I identify myself, then I couldn't just walk away."
Wolff says Kahn apparently ran a check on Wolff's driver's license, then came back and said that everything was okay. "He said because of Homeland Security and new laws, [the police] have the authority to ask for my driver's license and run it when they feel that there's cause."
While there was no police brutality in the Long Beach incident Moore, after talked to the National Press Photographer's Association, they wrote to Long Beach Police Chief Jim McDonnell expressing concern "about the misplaced beliefs that photography is in and of itself a suspicious activity."
But McDonnell tried to defend his officers and seemed to offer little sympathy or remorse. Not only that but they had some kind of cockamamie policy of what one can and can't take photos of, based on the content.
In a followup piece Moore wrote:
Police Chief Jim McDonnell has confirmed that detaining photographers for taking pictures "with no apparent esthetic value" is within Long Beach Police Department policy.
McDonnell spoke for a follow-up story on a June 30 incident in which Sander Roscoe Wolff, a Long Beach resident and regular contributor to Long Beach Post, was detained by Officer Asif Kahn for taking pictures of a North Long Beach Refinery.
"If an officer sees someone taking pictures of something like a refinery," says McDonnell, "it is incumbent upon the officer to make contact with the individual." McDonnell went on to say that whether said contact becomes detainment depends on the circumstances the officer encounters...
This policy apparently falls under the rubric of compiling Suspicious Activity Reports (SAR) as outlined in the Los Angeles Police Department's Special Order No. 11, a March 2008 statement of the LAPD's "policy … to make every effort to accurately and appropriately gather, record and analyze information, of a criminal or non-criminal nature, that could indicate activity or intentions related to either foreign or domestic terrorism."
While some may have an "all's well that ends well" take on the incidents it is apparently only a matter of time before someone who knows, and is intent on defending, his or her rights refuses to stop taking pictures or show them to police when they make an illegal request based on "security," especially when the claim- and in the first case here the overreaction- is patently absurd.
Like Tucker's run-in with ill-informed cops on the Big Island these kinds of incidents show how they come about when police aren't trained in the rights of people with cameras.
And although the Long Beach and Hawai`i Island incidents have led to the increased awareness of their respective police chiefs until there is national pressure put on local police to acknowledge those rights, incidents Tucker's and those Moore described will remain all too common.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
THE BEAT AND THE BEATEN
THE BEAT AND THE BEATEN: The "alleged" beating of Damon Tucker "allegedly" by a Hawai`i Island Police (HIPD) officer- the quotation marks because neither of those two "facts" seem to be in much dispute now- began to seep into the mainstream corporate media yesterday and today with the two articles taking two decidedly different views of the incident.>
The headlines alone presaged the coverage with Hawai`i News Now (HNN)- the name for the combined TV news programs on KGMB, KHNL and KFVE- reporting "Big Island blogger claims police brutality" and the Big Island's much reviled Hawai`i Tribune-Herald merely noting that "Man alleges police assault."
While the HNN coverage stresses that Tucker's blog "inform(s) Big Island residents and promotes Hawaii" and that he was taking photographs while covering an event, the HTH piece gets 634 words into the piece to merely note that Tucker "operates an Internet blog about the Big Island" and makes no connection between his presence at the scene and his work.
The HTH piece does identify the arresting officer- whom Tucker identified as the officer who allegedly beat him- as James Waiamau.
Both stories include a statement from Hawaii County Assistant Police Chief Henry Tavares refusing to make any "additional statement" other than to note that Tucker was arrested for obstructing government operations and, more importantly, that "(t)he Hawaii Police Department recognizes that the media and the public have every right to photograph police activity in a public place from a safe distance."
Tucker, by the way, claims he was across the street from the police action at the time he was taking the pictures.
While it should be noted that anyone can take photos of police from a safe distance in a public place, the issue that seems to have captivated the blogs is the twofold question of whether Tucker, in covering an event is, in fact a "reporter" and does it matter if he is when it comes to his right to photograph the police from a "safe distance"?
And, are bloggers who report on things as reporters... and, assuming the answer is yes, does than make the blogger who reports a journalist?
While there are professional journalist organizations no serious journalists suggest that there should be any official credentialing restriction of who is and isn't a journalist. Not only is it a question of what the requirements would be and who would set them but the first amendment pretty much guarantees the freedom from government interference in reporting.
The fact is that the act of reporting makes a reporter- something that more and more reporters' "shield laws" recognize, including ours in Hawai`i. And while some may quibble over whether someone who simply sits in their underwear and pontificates is reporting anything, Tucker, by going to an event, taking photos and writing it up for public consumption is certainly a reporter, even though he himself had at times seemed torn as to whether to call himself one.
Professional journalist Tiffany Edwards Hunt at her Big Island Chronicle site says it isn't as much whether Tucker was reporting as it was whether he was acting as a reporter should in a situation like that. She wrote that:
Damon’s greatest mistake in this story is not identifying himself as soon as the police officer told him to stop taking pictures.
At that point he should have said, “my name is Damon Tucker and I maintain a blog. Where can I stand to continue taking photographs?” (He didn’t identify himself until after he was hand-cuffed.)
Damon will likely monetarily gain from this, and hopefully us media professionals can asset some kind of protocol for journalists and residents who act like journalists. But it is definitely time for police and prosecutors to get more sophisticated about dealing with the public.
Slamming people to the ground when you don’t want them taking photographs?! Come on. The County of Hawaii will have to pay dearly for that sort of heavy handedness.
And Damon are you ready to refer to yourself as a media professional yet?
Hunt's queries may get to the crux of the matter- that one can be a reporter without being a journalist, especially in an age of the "new media" where "citizen journalists" abound.
The fact is that while many professional journalists point to the "responsibilities" that go with the "rights" conferred on journalists it's a matter of debate what those responsibilities are and whether in fact there are any at all.
Surely Julian Assange of Wikileaks would argue there are few if any responsibilities. That's why many professionals argue he is not a journalist.
But in the case of Tucker and others who engage in the act of reporting the question is what kind of responsibilities do they have if they are denied the special privileges that journalists are afforded by government officials, especially police.
Hunt argues that Tucker should have identified himself. But would that have made a difference? She also noted that:
I too agree that we the public have a right to take photographs. But we also need to speak up and assert that right when an officer tries to fell us to stop taking photos. We are to ask where police want us to stand in order to not hinder their operations.
If police were sophisticated they would have their officers trained on dealing with the media or media posers who post footage on their blogs, Facebook or YouTube. Next time the police officer will detect the photographer / picture taker to the “staging area” and call in the PIO… That’s how it is done elsewhere.
Well, maybe, in a perfect world but the problem is that there is a history of disrespect for "bloggers" and even reporters and journalists who aren't employed by the "right" media on the Big Island. Apparently, as on Kaua`i, the HIPD does not even issue "press passes" any more which, as we noted yesterday, are- or were- used to allow reporters behind police lines.
And if they did they probably wouldn't issue one to Tucker.
In addition, if "news" happens to "break out" unexpectedly and a reporter engaged in covering another event is standing there with a camera- as apparently happened Friday- should they have to stop and chance missing "the shot" to ask where to go to take a picture of it, especially if they are a safe distance from the disturbance?
The fact is that we would not capitulate to the protocol that Hunt described due to the potential for abuse on the part of the police. Because it is the police who are requesting a privilege in asking that someone voluntarily suspend their right to take photographs of police (in a public place from a safe distance). With the history of abuse of that privilege, both here and across the mainland, it makes that request one that can't be ethically granted by a journalist, reporter or anyone else.
It appears this story has legs. And, as Larry Geller at Disappeared News wrote Sunday, related stories are being repeated across the county with increasing frequency lately.
One more note- among the comments on Hunt's stories is a discussion of the fact that there are video cameras all over the town of Pahoa- where the incident took place- due to the police's "weed and seed" program there.
Unless and until the rights of not just reporters but all citizens are respected by authorities, credentialing journalists and burdening them with rules of engagement will have to wait for a mutual respect that, we predict, will be a long time coming.
The headlines alone presaged the coverage with Hawai`i News Now (HNN)- the name for the combined TV news programs on KGMB, KHNL and KFVE- reporting "Big Island blogger claims police brutality" and the Big Island's much reviled Hawai`i Tribune-Herald merely noting that "Man alleges police assault."
While the HNN coverage stresses that Tucker's blog "inform(s) Big Island residents and promotes Hawaii" and that he was taking photographs while covering an event, the HTH piece gets 634 words into the piece to merely note that Tucker "operates an Internet blog about the Big Island" and makes no connection between his presence at the scene and his work.
The HTH piece does identify the arresting officer- whom Tucker identified as the officer who allegedly beat him- as James Waiamau.
Both stories include a statement from Hawaii County Assistant Police Chief Henry Tavares refusing to make any "additional statement" other than to note that Tucker was arrested for obstructing government operations and, more importantly, that "(t)he Hawaii Police Department recognizes that the media and the public have every right to photograph police activity in a public place from a safe distance."
Tucker, by the way, claims he was across the street from the police action at the time he was taking the pictures.
While it should be noted that anyone can take photos of police from a safe distance in a public place, the issue that seems to have captivated the blogs is the twofold question of whether Tucker, in covering an event is, in fact a "reporter" and does it matter if he is when it comes to his right to photograph the police from a "safe distance"?
And, are bloggers who report on things as reporters... and, assuming the answer is yes, does than make the blogger who reports a journalist?
While there are professional journalist organizations no serious journalists suggest that there should be any official credentialing restriction of who is and isn't a journalist. Not only is it a question of what the requirements would be and who would set them but the first amendment pretty much guarantees the freedom from government interference in reporting.
The fact is that the act of reporting makes a reporter- something that more and more reporters' "shield laws" recognize, including ours in Hawai`i. And while some may quibble over whether someone who simply sits in their underwear and pontificates is reporting anything, Tucker, by going to an event, taking photos and writing it up for public consumption is certainly a reporter, even though he himself had at times seemed torn as to whether to call himself one.
Professional journalist Tiffany Edwards Hunt at her Big Island Chronicle site says it isn't as much whether Tucker was reporting as it was whether he was acting as a reporter should in a situation like that. She wrote that:
Damon’s greatest mistake in this story is not identifying himself as soon as the police officer told him to stop taking pictures.
At that point he should have said, “my name is Damon Tucker and I maintain a blog. Where can I stand to continue taking photographs?” (He didn’t identify himself until after he was hand-cuffed.)
Damon will likely monetarily gain from this, and hopefully us media professionals can asset some kind of protocol for journalists and residents who act like journalists. But it is definitely time for police and prosecutors to get more sophisticated about dealing with the public.
Slamming people to the ground when you don’t want them taking photographs?! Come on. The County of Hawaii will have to pay dearly for that sort of heavy handedness.
And Damon are you ready to refer to yourself as a media professional yet?
Hunt's queries may get to the crux of the matter- that one can be a reporter without being a journalist, especially in an age of the "new media" where "citizen journalists" abound.
The fact is that while many professional journalists point to the "responsibilities" that go with the "rights" conferred on journalists it's a matter of debate what those responsibilities are and whether in fact there are any at all.
Surely Julian Assange of Wikileaks would argue there are few if any responsibilities. That's why many professionals argue he is not a journalist.
But in the case of Tucker and others who engage in the act of reporting the question is what kind of responsibilities do they have if they are denied the special privileges that journalists are afforded by government officials, especially police.
Hunt argues that Tucker should have identified himself. But would that have made a difference? She also noted that:
I too agree that we the public have a right to take photographs. But we also need to speak up and assert that right when an officer tries to fell us to stop taking photos. We are to ask where police want us to stand in order to not hinder their operations.
If police were sophisticated they would have their officers trained on dealing with the media or media posers who post footage on their blogs, Facebook or YouTube. Next time the police officer will detect the photographer / picture taker to the “staging area” and call in the PIO… That’s how it is done elsewhere.
Well, maybe, in a perfect world but the problem is that there is a history of disrespect for "bloggers" and even reporters and journalists who aren't employed by the "right" media on the Big Island. Apparently, as on Kaua`i, the HIPD does not even issue "press passes" any more which, as we noted yesterday, are- or were- used to allow reporters behind police lines.
And if they did they probably wouldn't issue one to Tucker.
In addition, if "news" happens to "break out" unexpectedly and a reporter engaged in covering another event is standing there with a camera- as apparently happened Friday- should they have to stop and chance missing "the shot" to ask where to go to take a picture of it, especially if they are a safe distance from the disturbance?
The fact is that we would not capitulate to the protocol that Hunt described due to the potential for abuse on the part of the police. Because it is the police who are requesting a privilege in asking that someone voluntarily suspend their right to take photographs of police (in a public place from a safe distance). With the history of abuse of that privilege, both here and across the mainland, it makes that request one that can't be ethically granted by a journalist, reporter or anyone else.
It appears this story has legs. And, as Larry Geller at Disappeared News wrote Sunday, related stories are being repeated across the county with increasing frequency lately.
One more note- among the comments on Hunt's stories is a discussion of the fact that there are video cameras all over the town of Pahoa- where the incident took place- due to the police's "weed and seed" program there.
Unless and until the rights of not just reporters but all citizens are respected by authorities, credentialing journalists and burdening them with rules of engagement will have to wait for a mutual respect that, we predict, will be a long time coming.
Monday, August 8, 2011
(PNN) TUCKER SAY HE WAS FILMING A FIGHT FROM ACROSS THE STREET WHEN BEATEN, ARRESTED BY COPS
(PNN) -- Aug 8 -- Damon Tucker, the reporter/blogger who says he was severely beaten by Hawai`i Island police Friday night. says he was across the street taking picture of an altercation between two women when he was "blindsided and taken down" and then arrested by a Hawai`i Police Department (HPD) officer.
In an email response to PNN inquiries Tucker said that "I was taking pictures of folks leaving a concert a fight broke out (sic)... people were breaking things up... cops moved in and I was across the street taking pictures of it all.
Tucker says that he had left the venue where he was covering a "Red Eye Blind" concert in Pahoa when "(o)ne cop came over to tell me to put the camera down... so I complied... he left... 15-20 seconds later I started filming again and I got blindsided and taken down."
He said it was a younger officer who originally asked him to stop filming and a much bigger and veteran one who "roughed me up"- the latter being the same officer who arrested, booked and processed him at the police station,
Tucker, who is well known in Pahoa, says he was wearing a shirt with his name on it in the form of his twitter address and tried to identify himself to the officer whom he says accosted and arrested him.
"I tried to tell the officer who I was... he would have none of it" Tucker said in the email. "(W)hen we were at the station he asked if I had an official 'Reporters Badge' or something to that effect and I said no... I run local blogs and I'm a well known blogger throughout all of Hawaii."
There is no state or national "certification" for who is or isn't a reporter or journalist although some local police departments do issue "press passes," usually solely in order to allow reporters inside police lines, but not to confer any first amendment "freedom of the press" rights, which are federally protected and not "conferred" by police.
Tucker says he started filming because a fight had broken out outside the club.
"Two girls were fighting," he wrote, and "from what I have now heard... one girl got hit with a bottle. I was leaving the club and heard the commotion and turned around and started to film from my iPhone, at least one of the girls I saw at the station."
Apparently Tucker was not in close proximity to the police action and was within his constitutional rights to film from a public sidewalk whether he was a "reporter" or not.
He described what happened after he was beaten.
"I was in cuffs outside the club for about 30 minutes while the cops continued to diffuse the more dangerous situation. After that situation was diffused they brought me down to the police station... where the younger officer had to look in a book to find something to charge me with. At about 45 minutes into the booking... I asked if I could use the bathroom... officer said sure... empty your pockets... and then through(sic) me into a jail cell with no cot or anything for nearly 45 minutes. I was then released on my own PR (sic) given the summons I posted on my blog and left with the assistance of an officer on duty who dropped me off close enough to my house so that I could have a cigarette on the way home and not startle everyone in the neighborhood or shame folks by me being brought home by a police officer at 2:00 in the morning."
In addition to the gruesome picture that Tucker posted on his blog, Reporter Tiffany Edward Hunt also took pictures of Tucker and posted them at her "Big Island Chronicle." site.
She also posted an "Open letter to Police Chief Harry Kubojiri" on Saturday asking for "a statement regarding Damon Tucker’s account of police brutality for taking photos in Pahoa last night," which she says was emailed to the chief, a spokeswoman for the police department and the mayor’s office.
On Sunday Tucker posted pictures of what he said were the bloody, dirt-caked clothing he was wearing during the incident.
The email to PNN was also sent to a national clearinghouse web site called "Photography Isn't A Crime," which documents incidents of harassment by police and others of both reporters and citizens for legally taking picture in public places. The web site says its purpose is to "educate everyone about the rights and responsibilities of photographers."
This is not Tucker's first run-in with police while covering news and taking photos. On Christmas Eve, 2008 Tucker was investigating complaints of violations of the American with Disabilities Act at Pahoa Post Office when a HPD officer threatened him and forced him to delete pictures Tucker had taken of the parking lot and the officer.
Tucker has said he will be seeking legal counsel today and filing a lawsuit.
In an email response to PNN inquiries Tucker said that "I was taking pictures of folks leaving a concert a fight broke out (sic)... people were breaking things up... cops moved in and I was across the street taking pictures of it all.
Tucker says that he had left the venue where he was covering a "Red Eye Blind" concert in Pahoa when "(o)ne cop came over to tell me to put the camera down... so I complied... he left... 15-20 seconds later I started filming again and I got blindsided and taken down."
He said it was a younger officer who originally asked him to stop filming and a much bigger and veteran one who "roughed me up"- the latter being the same officer who arrested, booked and processed him at the police station,
Tucker, who is well known in Pahoa, says he was wearing a shirt with his name on it in the form of his twitter address and tried to identify himself to the officer whom he says accosted and arrested him.
"I tried to tell the officer who I was... he would have none of it" Tucker said in the email. "(W)hen we were at the station he asked if I had an official 'Reporters Badge' or something to that effect and I said no... I run local blogs and I'm a well known blogger throughout all of Hawaii."
There is no state or national "certification" for who is or isn't a reporter or journalist although some local police departments do issue "press passes," usually solely in order to allow reporters inside police lines, but not to confer any first amendment "freedom of the press" rights, which are federally protected and not "conferred" by police.
Tucker says he started filming because a fight had broken out outside the club.
"Two girls were fighting," he wrote, and "from what I have now heard... one girl got hit with a bottle. I was leaving the club and heard the commotion and turned around and started to film from my iPhone, at least one of the girls I saw at the station."
Apparently Tucker was not in close proximity to the police action and was within his constitutional rights to film from a public sidewalk whether he was a "reporter" or not.
He described what happened after he was beaten.
"I was in cuffs outside the club for about 30 minutes while the cops continued to diffuse the more dangerous situation. After that situation was diffused they brought me down to the police station... where the younger officer had to look in a book to find something to charge me with. At about 45 minutes into the booking... I asked if I could use the bathroom... officer said sure... empty your pockets... and then through(sic) me into a jail cell with no cot or anything for nearly 45 minutes. I was then released on my own PR (sic) given the summons I posted on my blog and left with the assistance of an officer on duty who dropped me off close enough to my house so that I could have a cigarette on the way home and not startle everyone in the neighborhood or shame folks by me being brought home by a police officer at 2:00 in the morning."
In addition to the gruesome picture that Tucker posted on his blog, Reporter Tiffany Edward Hunt also took pictures of Tucker and posted them at her "Big Island Chronicle." site.
She also posted an "Open letter to Police Chief Harry Kubojiri" on Saturday asking for "a statement regarding Damon Tucker’s account of police brutality for taking photos in Pahoa last night," which she says was emailed to the chief, a spokeswoman for the police department and the mayor’s office.
On Sunday Tucker posted pictures of what he said were the bloody, dirt-caked clothing he was wearing during the incident.
The email to PNN was also sent to a national clearinghouse web site called "Photography Isn't A Crime," which documents incidents of harassment by police and others of both reporters and citizens for legally taking picture in public places. The web site says its purpose is to "educate everyone about the rights and responsibilities of photographers."
This is not Tucker's first run-in with police while covering news and taking photos. On Christmas Eve, 2008 Tucker was investigating complaints of violations of the American with Disabilities Act at Pahoa Post Office when a HPD officer threatened him and forced him to delete pictures Tucker had taken of the parking lot and the officer.
Tucker has said he will be seeking legal counsel today and filing a lawsuit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
