Police Harassment Of Photographers Still A Problem

Yes, police are still harassing photographers and violating their rights, despite numerous court rulings, lawsuits, federal government intervention...despite all the efforts to educate the police of the law, police are still:

• confiscating cameras
• deleting footage
• arresting photographers for taking pictures in public
• harassing and threatening people with cameras

Here are examples of recent examples of police harassment of photographers.

The ACLU has a good guide for photographers' rights; check it out HERE. 

The ACLU Photographer's rights blog is HERE. Be sure to check it out.

No one has done more to publicize this problem than Carlos Miller, who runs the excellent and hugely influential Photography Is Not A Crime blog. Be sure to check it out. Knowledge is power.

The ACLU fights for the rights of photographers, and deserve your support. Visit their website and become a member. Their next fight could very well end up benefiting YOU. Click on the logo to take you there.

Everyone Under Suspicion - Are You Next?

After 9/11, the government began encouraging local police, private security and everyday Americans to report so-called "suspicious activity" that may indicate a security threat. 

Taking photos of landmarks, walking "nervously" and writing in a notebook are all activities that have led to people being stopped and questioned. 

Could you be next?

Our Surveillance State: What You Need To Know

By now you've probably been reading all the news about recently disclosed surveillance programs that spy on Americans without any meaningful oversight, programs that have been brought to light by Edward Snowden, a contractor working at the NSA, the ultra-secretive National Security Agency.

You may be thinking, "Oh well, that doesn't affect me. I'm not a terrorist, I'm not doing anything illegal."

The disclosures by Snowden have revealed a grossly out of control surveillance system that spies on all Americans, even you, without probable cause, restraint or oversight. Not only that, but companies you might have assumed are watching out for you as customers, companies like Verizon, AT&T, Facebook, Google and others, have been actively cooperating with the NSA and the FBI in violating your privacy without due process. These companies, the NSA and the FBI have lied to Americans about what it is they are doing.

So...what are they doing? Well, thanks to Edward Snowden, we know the following:

• Snooping On Your Calls - The government has been collecting the phone records of Americans for years, without oversight, due process or explanation, from Verizon and AT&T customers. Every call you've made can be accessed by the government whenever it wants to. Who has access to this information, and how might it be used?

• Website Snooping - The NSA has access to the servers of Facebook, Google and Apple, meaning that anytime you've used these on-line services, the government knows what you're doing. Further, the government has forbidden these services from telling you this and have fought lawsuits at every turn by using the powerful State Secrets privilege.

• E-mail Snooping - Every e-mail you've read, every website you've visited, has been cataloged by the government

• No Oversight - There is no meaningful court oversight of any of this activity, meaning your rights, as an innocent citizen, are not even remotely being protected. Previous assertions to Congress about these programs have turned out to be lies. Members of Congress, who are supposed to be our representatives, have known about these programs and done nothing; indeed, some politicians proclaiming outrage about these programs never bothered to show up at classified briefings about them to ask questions.

Snowden collected top secret NSA documents on a thumb drive while working at the NSA and shared them with the British newspaper The Guardian, out of a desire to restore a sense of accountability to the government, which has been accountable to almost no one. The NSA and the FBI have been forced into admitting these programs exist, and trying to explain their previously false statements which are contradicted by these documents.

What Is Being Collected

• Telephone records, on an ongoing daily basis, of both Americans and residents of foreign countries, from companies such as Verizon, AT&T and Sprint. These records include the actual telephone numbers at each end of every call, the duration of each call, and call routing information, allowing the NSA to build a picture of who you contacted, at what time and for how long. (source: The Guardian) 

• Email messages and website traffic, in which companies are actively participating (despite their denials) in a program called PRISM, giving information about YOU to the government, without your knowledge, consent or due process. These companies include Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple. The revelations have forced these companies into an uncomfortable position, having to carefully deny their violations of your privacy. (source: The Washington Post)

But wait...there's oversight, right...?

These revelations have forced the government in general, and the NSA in particular, into an uncomfortable position. Obviously, they would have preferred to keep this information secret.  The government has fiercely fought any attempt to even acknowledge the existence of these programs in court. Now that it's no longer secret, they have responded by saying that a secret court provides an important balance to protect Americans, but the disclosures have challenged their rationale for secrecy. See this story for information about this.

Further, the government (and Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple) have been caught flat-out lying to Congress and to Americans about these programs.

Professor Law Laura K. Donohue from Georgetown University Law Center  has an analysis as to why these programs violate the 4th Amendment of the Constitution HERE.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has struggled to explain his previous statements to Congress which have been proven to be false. In March, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) had the following exchange with Clapper, before the memos were leaked:

Wyden: Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"

Clapper: "No, sir."

Wyden: "It does not."

Clapper: "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect, but not wittingly."

After it became clear that Clapper had not been telling the truth, he issued the following response when confronted:  "So I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner by saying 'no,'" [emphasis mine]  (Source)

This court, called the FISA court (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) has been trumpeted by President Barrack Obama and NSA Boss General Keith Alexander as a check on government overreach, a comforting system of protecting Americans. Obama has stated the process is "transparent", a claim PolitiFact rated as "pants-on-fire" false (read their analysis of Obama's claim HERE).

This court provides no balance at all. The FISA court has approved every request put before it. What's more, its decisions are secret and cannot be publicly discussed, and because of the FISA Amendment Act, the NSA can retain even accidental collections of communications. (Source: The Guardian)

The Washington Post has a detailed look at this ultra-secretive court, and it's discomfort with all the attention HERE. It's definitely worth a read.

The NSA Continues To Mislead the Public - Senators Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and Mark Udall (D-Colorado) have accused the NSA of continuing to mislead the public about the privacy protections they have in place, to prevent innocent Americans from being swept up in their dragnet. They accused the NSA of overstating the protections, when in fact just the opposite was true; there are very few protections in place. Read about their concerns HERE.

Security vs. Freedom

Sacrifices have to be made, the argument goes, to protect us from threats of terrorism. And this is true...up to a point.

• We'd probably be safer if we were forced to let the police enter our homes whenever they wanted to, let them rifle through our belongings and computer files, without pesky court orders or probable cause. 

• We'd probably be safer if we all let the government implant a tracking chip under our skin so they could keep track of everything we did, and everywhere we went, all the time.

• We'd probably be safer if we had to stop at police checkpoints everywhere we went, and explain to the officers where we were going and who we were seeing

• We'd probably be safer if everyone flying on an airplane, getting on a train or subway, or renting a truck had to undergo a full body cavity search, completely disrobe and be examined by the authorities.

• We'd probably be safer if everyone were forced to dress the same, watch the same kinds of movies, read the same kinds of books, had the same religious belief, and spoke the same language

• We'd probably be safer if our computer monitors, televisions, smart phones and other devices watched us back, and reported any suspicious behavior to the NSA for further scrutiny

We don't allow the above to happen (not willingly, anyway) because it's invasive and offensive to our notions of freedom. The authorities would much rather not be bothered with all this pesky concern for the United States Constitution or our freedoms.

NSA defenders have jumped forward to insist that these secret programs protect us from terrorists and we must have them to keep this country safe. What terrorist plots have been foiled? They won't say. The few examples they give fall apart under scrutiny.

So...How Does This Affect Me?? I'm Innocent.

In case you still don't understand how outrageous and offensive this is, the Washington Post has a great article about privacy myths; you can read it HERE. 

Below are some examples of how out-of-control surveillance can negatively affect you and your rights as an American citizen:

• You decide to research breast or testicular cancer, or to call doctors to treat this condition. Now the government knows this as part of its profile about you. There's a chance your insurance company could find out, leading to dropped coverage or higher premiums.

• You succumb to temptation and decide to visit porn sites. You might pay for a porn website subscription (I know it's not you, but someone is feeding the porn industry millions of dollars a year).  Now the government has a record of your sexual preferences, probably the most intimate information you have about yourself. If your employer finds out, you could lose your job, or the possibility of a promotion or business client, for viewing material that is legally protected

• You become interested in other religious beliefs and want to research or join Muslim groups (the NYPD has been conducting illegal surveillance of Muslims for years), or even Wiccan or Satanist groups. You've made yourself a possible target of heightened scrutiny, even though you've broken no law.

• You want to become involved in environmental, political or social justice causes, and attend rallies, meetings and protests, as is your right as an American citizen. Maybe you're a photographer who's only taking pictures. The next thing you know, the FBI arrives on your doorstep asking questions about your activities. And while they can lie to you to obtain information, lying to them is a federal crime. Examples HERE, HERE and HERE.

I'm Just One Person, and I Have A Life. What Can I Do...???

Apathy is how the government acquires ever greater power, and how our rights slowly diminish, the way they are being taken from us now. People are busy. We all have lives we're trying to lead, jobs we're trying to keep (or find), bills we have to pay, responsibilities.

Plus, standing up to the authorities is scary.

If you get arrested, even if you're innocent, even if the charges are dropped, it can have a powerful effect on your life, your job security, and your social status. This is a powerful deterrent against standing up for your rights, and many police officers and government agents make maximum use of this fear. 

(image source: The Rio Norte Line)

So what can you do? Support groups who fight for you.

• The ACLU is the best known group that fights tirelessly, all the time, for the rights of citizens. Support them. Help them fight for you, to protect your rights. They are your advocate, whether your views are popular or not. Visit them HERE and please consider making a donation.

• The Electronic Frontier Foundation fights for the rights of digital users, from defending people's free speech rights, to beating back anti-consumer legislation, to exposing the misdeeds of corporations, patent trolls and the government, the EFF fights for consumers. They depend on your help. Consider giving them a donation to help them keep fighting. Visit them HERE.

• Fight For The Future is dedicated to helping internet users everywhere beat back attempts to limit our basic rights and freedoms, and empower people to demand technology (and policy) that serves their interests, not those of huge corporations, who rarely have our best interests at heart. Check them out HERE.

• Complete coverage by The Guardian of the NSA leaked memos

• How The NSA's Surveillance Proceedures Threaten Americans' Privacy

• NSA Leaks Are Forcing More Government Accountability

• Why Metadata Is Legal (or, how we got to this place)

• FBI Using Drones For Domestic Spying On Americans

• US, British Authorities Mine Data In Secret Program

• President Obama's Weak Defense on Spying 

Blogger/Journalist Attacked by Security Guards

As longtime readers of my blog know, photographer's rights are one of the things I am most passionate about, and few people have done more to defend the legal rights of photographers than Carlos Miller, who runs the excellent blog Photography Is Not A Crime. 

The day before this post, Miller was beaten and attacked by private security guards while waiting for a train with his friend to take him home, and it was all captured on video. The incident begun with a security guard telling Miller he could not film the tracks of the Metro station while he was waiting for a train, a complete lie. Not only is the station a public place, owned by the city, why would it be illegal to film railroad tracks???

Below is video of the incident, and if it had not been filmed, it would have been Miller's word against 50 State security, against whom Miller already has a pending lawsuit for past altercations, stemming from his defense of his legal right to film in the station.

The video is not long; jump to the :50 mark to watch the interaction with security guards who can only be described as thugs. If ever there were grounds for a lawsuit and criminal charges, this video is it. See Carlos Miller's full post about this incident HERE.

This, my friends, is why it is so important to not only know your rights, but be willing to stand up for them, and to record interactions with authority. I support the ACLU, who work tirelessly to defend the rights of artists, teachers and photographers, and I urge you to do the same.

The National Press Photographers Association is another group that defends photographers by  sending letters to police departments that have abused photographers to remind them (believe it or not) what the law is.

LINKS

• Photography Is Not A Crime - Carlos Miller's excellent blog that chronicles the threats photographers face 

• The ACLU - Defending our rights and civil liberties, which are under more assault than ever before

• The National Press Photographer's Association - Protecting the profession and integrity of photographers

The War On Photography Continued

Assault on Photography Continues

Photography continues to be a source of conflict across the country, especially as more people are carrying phones that take pictures and video, and legally using them to document not only their interactions with the police, but of things they see every day.

You have a camera. This could affect you as well.

Mickey H. Osterreicher is the general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association and edits the organization’s Advocacy Committee blog.  The New York Times has an excellent interview with Osterreicher in which he describes the increasing amount of harassment people are facing from the police and security personnel, erroneously citing terrorism as a reason to suppress people's rights to take pictures in public. There is also a shocking amount of ignorance by police about what is legal and what is not. It is well worth reading, so that if you are confronted about taking pictures, you know what your rights are.

Criminalizing Photography by James Estrin, New York Times, 8/14/2012

Many police (not all) contend that people taking pictures of them endanger them, citing terrorism as an excuse. However, there is no evidence that terrorists took photographs of any of their targets. None. Yet the rationale continues.

• Timothy McVeigh, who used explosives to attack a courthouse, took no pictures
• The raid on Osama Bin Ladin's compound revealed no photographs of intended targets
• The terrorists who attacked the Word Trade Center took no photographs of the Twin Towers complex

Many police departments view advocates of photography as being anti-police, but this is simply not the case. Police have a great deal of power. They can detain you, deprive you of your freedoms, issue citations that can cost you a great deal of money, time and stress, all of which give them the power to intimidate. Such power demands oversight. If the police can record us, there is no justification for preventing us from recording our encounters with them. There is nothing anti-police in this at all.

Stay Calm and Respectful

In this video that takes place in Tampa, at the federal courthouse building, both the officer and the photographer are calm and respectful; indeed they have a reasonable debate about the rights of photographers in public places. There is no reason for such encounters to become confrontational; watch how the photographer stays calm as he debates the officer and stands up for his rights. This is how to conduct yourself during such an encounter.

A Terry Stop, by the way, is a legal term, meaning a brief detention by the police based on a reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in a crime, but without enough probable cause to make an arrest. If you are detained by the police you have to provide identification when asked. If you are not being detained by the police, than in many cases you are not legally required to provide identification. Read more about Terry Stops HERE. 

Jump to :34 to where the officer approaches the photographer





In the video below, activist Jimmy Justice explains how to safely and respectfully stand up for your rights when faced with demands that you stop legally taking pictures or video. Justice expresses a respect for police, and the difficult jobs they perform, while advocating a respectful, reasoned response.

Remember, the rights you have as Americans you have only because they were defended. If you do not exercise these rights, you will find you no longer have them

LINK to Photography Is Not A Crime, Carlos Miller's excellent pro-photography blog

LINK to The National Press Photographers Association, a tireless advocate of the rights of all photographers

To Photograph, or Intervene?

One of the ethical dilemmas of photographers involves capturing controversial or tragic events. Does a photographer stand back and take pictures, or intervene to help the subjects?

Photography is all about documenting events and people. Some images captured by photographers are powerful, heart breaking, startling, even horrifying. 

(image credit: Graeme Robertson/Getty Images)

But what do photographers who capture such images feel about their decision to keep taking pictures?

The Guardian has an excellent story about this subject, with photographers describing the circumstances of their arresting images and their thoughts about choosing to take pictures. This is a moral quandary every photojournalist faces at one point or another.

LINK to slide show story 


A perfect example of this concept is the iconic "Napalm Girl" photograph, below.

This is one of the most famous photographs ever published.

This grim image captured the horror of the Vietnam War the way no other photo had, and became famous worldwide, winning a Pulitzer prize for photography.

The photo was taken in the  Vietnamese town of Trang Bang by Associated Press photographer Nick Ut on June 8, 1972.

The children running down the road are fleeing from a napalm (a burning, jelly-like substance) attack launched by the South Vietnamese. The girl in the center of the photograph is Kim Phuc, and she was just nine years old when she ran from her village after it was attacked. The napalm jelly had burned through her clothes, and moments after snapping what would be an iconic photograph, Nick Ut brought the young girl to a hospital and demanded she be treated, saving her life. The Associated Press almost didn't run the story because of the nudity, but the local press chief decided that the image was so powerful it deserved to be published.

Kim Phuc eventually recovered from her burns and now lives in Canada. The Guardian newspaper has a fascinating story about Ms. Phuc, the life she led, and the origin of one of the most famous and iconic photographs ever taken.

President Richard Nixon, who was determined to win the war in Vietnam, reacted to the photo and its impact by stating he believed it was altered. More than any other factor, photography has the power to influence public opinion, and word events, and this image is exhibit A.

LINK to Guardian story

Link to Wikipedia entry about Kim Phuc

Boston Finally Admits Wrongful Arrest

The city of Boston, after five years, has finally admitted that the arrest of Simon Glik for recording police officers in public was wrong. Until this point, the city has steadfastly refused to admit their officers had done anything wrong.

Their intransigence will cost Boston taxpayers $170,000. 

CNET has a good article about this case, and the increasing confrontations between police departments who are able to record citizens in public without their consent, but are arresting citizens who record police. Wiretapping laws were never meant to suppress citizens' constitutional rights, and yet they are increasingly being invoked by the police to prevent recording in public. 

Yet another example: a Coral Springs, Florida woman was arrested by police and charged with felony obstruction and DUI - charges that were dropped after a recording of the altercation was made public. Now the two officers are being investigated, something that never would have happened without the recording.


Here's one more: a security video proves that a man who spent three days in jail was the victim of a clear-cut case of false arrest by an officer, who claimed his life had been threatened. Now the officer is facing several serious charges for lying. If not for video of the encounter, this man would have probably spent a lot of time in jail. LINK

Further proof of why recording of the police is so important. The website Cop Block, whose goal is police accountability, has a good article listing nine reasons to film encounters with police. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the rights you have, you have only because they were exercised. Use 'em or lose 'em.

Nine Reasons To Record Police Encounters

Link to CNET story Boston admits it: Cell phone photography is not a crime

Link to Boston Herald story Police reverse stance on taping of officers’ actions

Link to Miami Herald story Broward driver busted by cops, exonerated by cell phone
Link to the ACLU's excellent web page describing photographer's rights, and how to interact with the police who demand you stop recording

Lawyer Educates Police About Wiretapping Law

I had seen this video before, but it's worth posting as a case study about how to defend your rights when confronted by the police about recording encounters.

A group called SHARK (SHowing Animals Respect and Kindness) protests the activities of a Pennsylvania gun club's pigeon shoots, in which pigeons are released from cages and shot multiple times, until they are dead. SHARK considers the practice barbaric and regularly protests outside the club.

Gun club owners have responded with a variety of threats, harassment, and even assault, going so far as to intentionally try to run over protesters, none of which has resulted in any meaningful police response. Indeed, it has become clear that the police department of Bensalem, PA sides squarely with the gun club, and has consistently refused to take any action against members of the club.

In this video, Bensalem police (accompanied by a gun club member) responds to two women who are protesting the club, with the intention of making them go away. Unfortunately for the police, one of the women is a lawyer who refuses to back down and forces the police officer to make several concessions. She stands up for her rights perfectly, even going so far as to ask what the police response will be if she chooses not to comply.

I think the police officer in the video realizes he has bitten off more than he can chew. Very interesting video, well worth watching. This is how defending your rights is done.

Steve Hindy, a member of SHARK, has documented on video multiple instances of Bensalem police inaction and corruption with respect to this particular gun club.

LINK to SHARK website
LINK to SHARK YouTube Channel

VIDEO:

Funny UK Confrontation With Photographer

Oh my god did this video make me laugh!

It seems like a Monty Python sketch, but it's real. A photographer in England on a public walkway is harassed by security guards for  a factory, who can't cite what law prevents him from taking pictures.

The photographer stands up for himself perfectly, refusing to be intimidated, and the exchange is absolutely priceless. The security guards are beside themselves with frustration that they cannot bully him.

I discovered this on one of my favorite blogs, Photography Is Not A Crime, by Carlos Miller, a man who devotes a lot of effort to defend photography. The video was taken as part of an article the videographer was writing about Golden Wonder security; the link to the article is HERE.

UPDATE: The New York Times has an article about the harassment photographers endure in New York City by security guards, civil servants and police officers who do not have an understanding of the law and equate photography with a security risk. LINK

...and, just for kicks, below is Monty Python's classic sketch Argument Clinic. If you've never seen it, you're in for a treat.

Obama Administration Defends Recording of Police

In an encouraging development, the Obama administration has come out in support of a citizen suing the Baltimore police department for violating his first, fourth and fourteenth amendments. In the federal lawsuit, Christopher Sharp complains that Baltimore police confiscated his cell phone as he was recording them beating his friend before arresting her. When his cell phone was returned, all of the images and video files on it had been deleted. The Baltimore police have been particularly hostile to citizens' attempts to record their conduct, it turns out.

The city of Baltimore tried to head off the lawsuit by acknowledging citizens have a right to record the police and providing clarified rules to its officers, but the Justice Department deemed this insufficient. Cities that have violated the law and the rights of their citizens by harassing and arresting them when they dared to record public officials are starting to attract the attention of the Federal government.


To see why this is so important, consider the video below, in which a sheriff's deputy punched a special needs woman without provocation. An Iraq war vet videotaped the encounter, and refused demands by the deputy to hand over the camera, fearing the evidence would be destroyed. 

Remember, the rights you have you have because they are defended. If you do not stand up for them, you will lose them.

LINK to Ars Technica story

LINK to a John Stossel segment about the authorities' battle against citizens who record them


LINK to Magnum Arts' position on creative freedom and the reason behind posts like these


Support the ACLU. They fight for the rights of citizens to express themselves, whether that expression is popular or not. 

Photographer Shot By Oakland PD

 

Malo Periculosam Libertatem Quam Quietum Servitium - "I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery"

Even though this blog is about cartooning, drawing and photography, I have a section devoted to efforts by the police and authorities to limit and censor the rights of artists and photographers, efforts that damage our society as a whole. I do not bring politics into my classes, however it is important to take a stand to protect your rights, because if you don't, you will have no rights at all.

These are troubled times that we live in. With worldwide protests come confrontations and efforts by some authorities to limit the rights of journalists and photographers. Case in point this shocking video that shows a blogger and videographer who is obviously not provoking or threatening the police in any way. All he is doing is shooting video.

He is shot by one of the police officers for no apparent reason and without warning. The projectile may have been a rubber bullet or a crowd control beanbag; it is impossible to determine from the video. The always-excellent blog Photography Is Not A Crime has more information HERE.


Is it even legal for police officer to shoot a photographer just because he does not want to photographed? Is that what this country is all about?


UPDATE: The San Jose Mercury News has an article in which experts in police use of force are expressing shock about this incident. Read it HERE. 


UPDATE #2: The officer who fired the beanbag bullet has been identified, and has been removed from the SWAT team and is now under investigation, as is the captain of this unit, who has attempted to justify and dismiss the shooting. LINK




The Oakland Police Department has been accused of a variety of abuses in its interactions with protesters. It is not releasing any information about these abuses either; a request by the ACLU for information about the department's use of force has been denied. Read about it HERE.

To read Magnum Arts' position on censorship and artistic freedom, click HERE.

ACLU Sues Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department

 "If you have rights and you don’t try to exercise them, then you have no rights at all.” - Yao Bo, Chinese social commentator

Once again the ACLU steps up to defend photographers from overzealous and illegal harassment of photographers. The Los Angeles Times reports that the ACLU has sued the sheriff’s department and several of its deputies on October 27,  alleging they harassed, detained and improperly searched photographers taking pictures legally in public places.


In response, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Capt. Mike Parker made a statement that perfectly captures the police department's ignorance of the rights of photographers: "Should we really ignore suspicious activity?" Parker asked. "We have an obligation to the public to answer questions and we are going to ask people why are you taking that picture. It is our duty to protect the public."

Photography is not a crime. It is a form of free expression. It should not be treated as suspicious.

LINK to story


The ACLU has a page that describe your rights under the law when taking pictures, see it HERE.  Consider making a donation to the ACLU HERE. 

Florida Recording Law

Florida is a two-party consent state, meaning you must have permission of both parties before recording any encounter (such as a police stop, or a conversation on a sidewalk). 

However, there is a very important exception: all parties need to have an expectation of privacy in order for the act to be lawful. In short, if you are in public or in a place where your conversation might reasonably be overheard by someone else, having to obtain consent from all parties does not apply.

The Citizen media Law Project has a lot of very good information about Florida law and recording others in public. Check it out HERE.

In a related case, Chris Geo recently won dismissal of charges after being arrested for photographing a FEMA warehouse. As Chris Geo points out in the excellent video below,  "Unless we claim them [our rights], we don't have them." The video covers the three things which can happen to you during a police encounter, and how Geo won dismissal of his case. It's a long video but filled with good information.

Defending himself, he skillfully pointed out the flaws in the state's case:

1. It is not illegal for a person to film a federal building (which the government was forced to concede in a previous court case, link HERE)
2. Geo was arrested for refusing to provide his driver's license; there is no state, local or federal law requiring a citizen to have a driver's license. Indeed, lots of people do not drive, or have driver's licenses. Would that subject them to arrest?
3. There is no state, local or federal law requiring a citizen to present a driver's license to an officer on demand
4. The arresting officer did not indicate the encounter moved from a voluntary field interview to a Terry stop, which would require reasonable suspicion, or probable cause (read more about what a Terry stop is HERE)

John Stossel: The War On Cameras

John Stossel interviews Reason Magazine Senior Editor Radley Balko, who has written a well researched article on the price citizens pay for recording the police (read it HERE). Innocent people have been arrested, threatened with years in prison, their cameras confiscated without charge or warrant, and in some cases the contents of those cameras have been erased by the police, destroying evidence of police misconduct. If you wish to support the efforts to stop such abuses, see the list of links on the right, and give these groups your support. Tell 'em Magnum Arts sent you!