Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Ooh, what could it be? Child porn? A peeping Tom? Nope. Scott Conover was arrested for taking a picture of a police officer during a traffic stop.
A Johnson County sheriff's deputy arrested Scott Conover for unlawful photography."He says you took a picture of me. It's illegal to take a picture of a law enforcement officer," said Conover.
Conover took a picture of a sheriff's deputy on the side of the road on a traffic stop. Conover was stunned by the charge.
"This is a public highway," said Conover...
"He said if you don't give it to me, you're going to jail," said Conover.
Here's the punchline: the cop said in an affidavit that he thought the guy had pointed a laser at him, but the guy had an IPhone, which doesn't even flash when it takes a picture, much less give off a red light. And if that's really what he thought the guy did, why did he arrest him, as it says in the cop's affidavit, for "unlawful photography"? And once he found out it was a cell phone camera, why did he still charge him with pointing a laser at a police officer? Sounds like a pack of obvious lies to me.
Worse yet, they actually chased this guy down to arrest him. He had pulled away and the cops followed him to arrest him. You gotta read the cop's affidavit. It's hilarious. Isn't it about time the police figured out that they can be photographed and videotaped in the performance of their duties? And isn't it about time a few of them were fired for violating someone's rights in this way?
Politics
Comments
This officer clearly broke the law, but the office would be on the "right" side if they had been in Mass.
Posted by: Chris Bell | July 17, 2008 10:04 AM
It really makes the gorge rise to keep hearing about all of these instances of abuse of power by law enforcement. Even my inattentive extended family who made it all the way to this July 4th believing that Obama was a Muslim have noticed. Civilians should be provided with better lines of recourse and officers who behave in this manner should receive a serious ball busting from a supervisory body, rather than from within their department.
Posted by: stevogvsu | July 17, 2008 10:04 AM
This sort of thing just disgusts me. I put up a post about this (linking back to this) along with the little video I got from Simple Justice that I think is so (sarcastically) appropriate for this sort of thing.
Posted by: Disgusted Beyond Belief | July 17, 2008 10:29 AM
Good lord,
don't they bother to check for basic English skills when hiring officers? His statement reads like a 'Dick and Jane' story, except with added grammatical ("Upon my arrival I seen Deputy M~...", note also the punctuation error) and spelling ("irrate") errors.
His statement also has very few details, and spends more time setting the scene (why he was there assisting Deputy M~), than on the actual 'crime'.
The law is about 'words', a policeman's record of what happened becomes evidence. In reading officer Lane's statement, we have to search to find who did what (he does give a good indication of where at the very beginning), and when ("on this date (which should refer to the date it was written) "06-08-08", written "06-12-08" - why four days later? No indication of time of day.) - how and why might be safely left out of his narrative, as they don't seem to play a large role in the event.
I also wonder what they did with Mr. Conover's children (who were in the back), and why they needed two sets of handcuffs for this dangerous photographer (there's no mention of resisting arrest - which would surely have been added as a charge if Mr. Conover had resisted).
Now I want to go around with my camera and take photos...
cheers-
Eric
Posted by: Eric | July 17, 2008 10:40 AM
The law they charged him under is 39-13-605, which requires that "the photograph . . . was taken for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of the defendant".
What in the hell?
Posted by: Cooper | July 17, 2008 10:47 AM
Eric,
Don't know if it was true in this case, but two sets of handcuffs are often used when the person being arrested is obese and the person cannot comfortably put both wrists close enough together with only one set. (this is especially so if the person is being cuffed behind his back.) A separate set of cuffs is secured around each wrist and the two are then secured to each other.
Posted by: Learned Foot | July 17, 2008 10:52 AM
Only a fool argues with a cop in a situation like that.
Making them chase him is eluding and a crime, and endangers others.
Sure cops abuse authority, but I am been threatened with stabbling and shooting by a latino and a black in the past year, but never by a cop.
Without the cops, we would be dead meat.
Posted by: Funderburke | July 17, 2008 11:01 AM
Oh boy,
"Sure cops abuse authority, but I am been threatened with stabbling and shooting by a latino and a black in the past year, but never by a cop."
It's like I just saw a baby squirrel run out on the freeway. It's just a matter of which truck is gonna run this guy down.
I can hardly watch.
Posted by: Lance | July 17, 2008 11:17 AM
"Sure cops abuse authority, but I am been threatened with stabbling and shooting by a latino and a black in the past year, but never by a cop."
That latino and black didn't, by any chance, want to hurt you because they thought for some strange reason that you were racist, did they, Funderburke?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | July 17, 2008 11:24 AM
Chris Bell,
That is perhaps the most frightening court decision I have seen in years. The idea that privacy laws protect the state from public scrutiny is monstrously perverse.
More evidence of how the individual rights to government power ratio continues to decline in the People's Republic of Massachusetts.
Posted by: Lance | July 17, 2008 11:24 AM
A few years ago, the TV news had stories in Washington DC about either cops or security guards harassing people for taking pictures of buildings. They would falsely claim that it was unlawful to take pictures in the area. Apparently they thought they were plotting to blow them up or something.
Posted by: BaldApe | July 17, 2008 11:58 AM
That is perhaps the most frightening court decision I have seen in years. The idea that privacy laws protect the state from public scrutiny is monstrously perverse.
That's insane (both the MA case and the TN). Cop talking to his wife on break? Private. Cop making a stop/arrest/search in course of his duty? That's a matter of public record, in exactly the same way as the ensuing trial is a public proceeding.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | July 17, 2008 12:21 PM
I've heard it's illegal to photograph British soldiers and RUC cops in Northern Ireland (and possibly the rest of the UK). I think it's because they think such photos can be used as intel by terrorists or criminal gangs. I can sort of see their point here, but good luck enforcing such a law in the cellphone age. Of course, I can also see the point of using photos to hold public officials accountable for their public conduct on the job.
If you photograph a cop dealing with a minor, or a physically or mentally ill person, then the issue of confidentiality comes into play. And I certainly would not want just anyone photographing a cop dealing with an informant whose life depends on keeping his dealings with the cops secret.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 17, 2008 12:31 PM
BaldApe: that's probably exactly what they were thinking. During WW-I, people caught painting pictures of the south coast of England were suspected to be German spies, gathering intel to support an amphibious cross-Channel invasion. This is the kind of mentality that comes into play here.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 17, 2008 12:37 PM
Eric and Learned Foot- They also use two sets of handcuffs if the person's wrists are rather small and could slip out.
Posted by: Jeremy | July 17, 2008 12:41 PM
Raging Bee - "Illegal to photgraph British soldiers"?
Tell that to the Coldstream Guards outside Buck House! ☺ DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 17, 2008 12:46 PM
DingoJack - what Raging Bee actually wrote was (my emphasis):
Buck House isn't in Northern Ireland ;)
Posted by: dave | July 17, 2008 2:04 PM
As a photographer who likes to do late night photography, I can tell you cops do not like people taking pictures of a lot of things. Them included.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 17, 2008 2:12 PM
I don't think this would be illegal even in Mass. According to the police report the photographer announced his intention to take a photo prior to doing so, and his camera was not concealed. From what I read in the Mass. cases the courts interpreted the law correctly, making the law, not the decisions, the problem. I'd love to hear how the lawyer taking the video of the teen arrest is decided. The arrest was in a public area and the device was not concealed, also the police ask if the lawyer is taking video AND audio, acknowledging awareness that he is being recorded in some way.
Posted by: B8ovin | July 17, 2008 3:14 PM
(Split post, separate emphasis): Funderburke,
I suspect that you have a reasonable maybe excessive expectation of what to expect from a violent criminal (regardless of race). Understand, then, that I have a reasonable expectation of what I expect from the police. At a minimum I do not expect them to stab me, but I also, reasonably, expect them to uphold the law including restrictions on harassment,illegal arrest, lying on official documents and correct charging standards. Only a fool would willingly forfeit his freedom to police officers acting with totalitarian motives.
Posted by: B8ovin | July 17, 2008 3:21 PM
"I've heard it's illegal to photograph British soldiers and RUC cops in Northern Ireland (and possibly the rest of the UK)."
I'm not up to date on the law on this issue, but the cops certainly act as if it is. If you take photos anywhere where there is a heavy police presence (eg a demo, a football match), and a copper is in the shot, you can expect to have them confiscate it and I've seen people arrested for refusing. I haven't heard of anyone getting off. Similarly, many peaceful protests have resulted in arrests under counterterrorism law. It's an absolute disgrace but there seems to be no real public will to do anything about it.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | July 17, 2008 3:27 PM
Many railfans in the US are facing harrassment from local, state and railroad law enforcement officers when taking photos of trains. Photographers in NJ have been accosted and even arrested while standing on public property. Many of these new rules come from the Republican-induced-paranoia of the last 6 years.
I wonder if prohibitions against photographing law enforcement officers extends to the Federal Government? If so, the National Park Servie is going to have a whale of a time prohibiting preventing people photographing Park Ranger (Law Enforcement) officers in National Park Service sites. Hmmmm.
Posted by: (((Billy))) | July 17, 2008 3:28 PM
Funderburke's (asinine) comment reminds me of the old joke:
"A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested; a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged."
Posted by: ildi | July 17, 2008 3:34 PM
Posted by: llewelly | July 17, 2008 3:36 PM
Does the law extend to firemen? If so, I've got a certain calendar I may need to get rid of.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 17, 2008 3:46 PM
How long before we get arrested for just looking at a police officer?
Posted by: Jonathan Schnapp | July 17, 2008 3:58 PM
Unless there is a huge public outcry the officer will get only a reprimand for one simple reason - most police depts have trouble recruiting enough officers. I for one would not work for less than $200,000 a year if my job put me in a position of possibly be shot. Having known two police officers personally, my opinion is that there are two kinds of cops: force freaks who get off on the gun, the stick, the taser and the mace and "helpers." The latter are people that enjoy helping others and want to do it for a living. Its unfortunate that there are not enough helper types wanting to be cops for our police depts to eliminate the force freaks.
Posted by: Texas Reader | July 17, 2008 4:14 PM
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 17, 2008 4:17 PM
Schnapp: I think this gets to the real heart of the matter. With many police, it isn't about the law, its about status. They operate on the assumption that they can find a justification for ticketing anyone who they feel has annoyed them and that inertia and institutional prejudice will make their version stick. They do stuff like this to prove to themselves that they're on top, confident that few citizens will pursue civil cases due to the expense and tangled web of immunities (in many cases, all a cop has to do is say he thought it was necessary and he's off the hook), and that prosecuting them for genuine criminal activity is an uphill battle that few prosecutors want to take on.
Posted by: Julian | July 17, 2008 4:20 PM
Funderburke: it must be nice to be someone who can actually count on interacting with law enforcement in a positive way.
Here's the least egregious personal example I can think of:
A cop tried arresting my brother once for walking down the street in my brother's nice suburban neighborhood. Of course, a brown man in a suit, carrying his lunch on his way to his law office MUST be suspicious.
(Probable cause? Reasonable suspicion? Anyone, anyone? Bueller?)
Posted by: watson | July 17, 2008 4:40 PM
Abby Normal: !!! that's horrible. You'd think a cop in Baltimore would have better things to do than piss on the feet of some tourists.
Maybe we should try getting a frivolous arrest law passed, chilling effect be damned.
Posted by: Julian | July 17, 2008 5:13 PM
New Equation:
Funderburke
Back to yer trailer cuz, no Busch for you.
Posted by: The Pale Scot | July 17, 2008 5:50 PM
Once more, with feeling,
Funderburke; less than or equal to a Crackez
Posted by: The Pale Scot | July 17, 2008 5:52 PM
The behavior of the cop was out of line and against the law. However, not behaving in an obsequious manner and in instant obedience to whatever the cop wants has been treated as an offense since cops began. Be glad you did this while being white. Doing what you described above and black would have fetched a much harder time in most jurisdictions. Ever since the world trade center attack, police and the minimum wage idiots known as security guards have been rabid on public photography. Taking a picture of a cop who doesn't want it done has always been greeted with intimidation, brutality, and phony charges.
Posted by: dwf | July 17, 2008 8:33 PM
Pardon my bigotry, but shocked and dismayed as I am about the photo-phobia and marginal literacy of the police, my level of sympathy for the photographer descended precipitously when I noticed that he was driving a Hummer.
Posted by: Theo Bromine | July 17, 2008 8:46 PM
Reminds me of the incident where Thomas Hawk was told that he could not take pictures of the One Bush Building in San Francisco.
This was picked up on the intertubes, and a day of photography was semi-organized. People were encouraged to drop by and shoot pictures of the building.
Posted by: Daniel Kim | July 17, 2008 10:29 PM
While most law enforcement personell actually understand what they are all about, what is not funny is fools like the Johnson County sheriff's deputy who does not understand the limits of his authority. And we gave that authority to him.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | July 17, 2008 10:32 PM
Calm down everyone - Funderburke isn't for real. The name comes from the serial killer in Stuart Woods' novel "Chiefs" (dramatised for television as "Once upon a Murder").
Posted by: paulh | July 18, 2008 5:11 AM
Chris Bell Wrote:
This actually is not the case. The Massachusetts case deals with an individual being charged under the wiretap statutes for not having two party notification when recording audio. Basically, many of our privacy laws come from old wiretapping laws, which, incidentally are why when you call customer support you're always told that the call may be recorded. Unfortunately, these laws also apply to recording with a video camera in public spaces.
The gentleman in the case at hand would not be guilty under such a law because the iPhone does not record audio, it just takes a picture. Regardless, it appears this took place in Tennessee, which is a one-party notification, meaning you can record whatever you want.
Of course, these facts have nothing to do with what he was charged under, but are just provided to clear up a previous comment.
Posted by: Patrick Wagstrom | July 18, 2008 6:59 AM
Next this cop claims to see a laser gunsight and shoots the suspects. Those people could be dead now. Well they had it coming to them. Yes your honor, it was a laser gunsight, for the purpose of sexual gratification. The police is always right, case dismissed.
Will anything change? Will this cop be disciplined? Can it happen again, to you next? What will the police learn from this? That their officers can get away with making up more and more ridiculous offenses? That their executive potential isn't kept in check by the judiciary? That whoever controls the police, if they only invent convenient enough charges, they'll be able to gain great power?
Posted by: F. | July 18, 2008 7:30 AM
That their executive potential isn't kept in check by the judiciary?
I don't think that the executive has been held in check bu the judiciary for a while now. I think that to the limited degree that they are held in check it is by the media. Which is scary.
Posted by: mess | July 18, 2008 7:46 AM
The document you link to as "the cop's affidavit" is actually a statement by one of the assisting officers (Ken Lane). The actual affidavit (http://static.mgnetwork.com/tri/media_path/site_elements/images/documents/affidavit.pdf) by the arresting officer (Starling McCloud) is just as bad, though.
Literacy is apparently not a requirement for the job.
Posted by: Andy | July 18, 2008 10:19 AM
Making them chase him is eluding and a crime, and endangers others.
No, it's not. It's not a crime until they hit their lights and you refuse to stop.
Posted by: Matt | July 18, 2008 3:38 PM
When is this crap going to end? We really need people to stand up and fight, but with this population of "better safe than sorry" sheeple, I'm not optimistic. I had a similar experience last year: http://www.cosmictap.com/an-accidental-interview-with-lieutenant-phil-dreyer/ but because I sorta caved, I did not get arrested.
Posted by: Anthony Citrano | July 18, 2008 7:11 PM
UPDATE: Conover explains the whole story and talks about his other brushes with the local law at http://www.photographyisnotacrime.org/
Exclusive photos taken of the arresting officer by Conover's 12-year-old daughter.
Posted by: enhager | August 5, 2008 7:03 PM