Is It Legal for Police to Take Your Picture

Since 9/11, a disturbing trend of innocent people harassed by police for taking still and video photos in public places has emerged across the country. The police are not allowed to delete your photos or videos under any circumstances. The officers were charged with tampering with evidence, obstruction and theft for taking a photographer`s memory card. If you are outdoors in public spaces where you are legally present, you have the right to take any clearly visible image (see note below for sound recording). This includes images and videos of federal buildings, transportation facilities (including airports) and police officers. Photographing and filming things that are clearly visible in public spaces is a constitutional right – and that includes transportation facilities, the exterior of federal buildings, and police and other government officials who perform their duties. · In situations where you are an observer but not part of the conversation, or in states where all parties to a conversation must agree to the recording, the legality of the recording depends on whether the state`s prohibition on recording only applies if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. But no state court has ruled that police officers who do their job in public have a reasonable expectation. · Typically, these laws aim to achieve the important goal of protecting privacy, which is to prohibit the “eavesdropping” of private conversations. However, in almost all cases, police audio recording is legal. Always remain polite and never physically resist a police officer. If you are arrested or detained for taking photos: You have the right to take pictures in public places, but you do not always have the right to record what people say.

Pennsylvania`s wiretapping law makes it illegal to record private conversations — which can include conversations in public places — without the consent of all parties to the conversation. Conversations with the police as part of their duties are not private conversations, but many other things you can record on a public highway are. Almost sure it`s actually legal. Dubious, yes, but legal. I believe it falls under the same rule as in sight. In this context, artistic expression should never be cooled for fear of unwarranted police control. No one should ever find an FBI agent on their doorstep just because they photographed art in public spaces. The right of citizens to capture the police is a crucial check and balance.

It creates an independent record of what happened in a particular incident, free from accusations of bias, lies or faulty memory. It`s no coincidence that some of the most high-profile police misconduct cases involved video and audio recordings. Police officers cannot confiscate or demand viewing of your digital photos or videos without a court order. The Supreme Court ruled that the police can`t search your phone if they arrest you unless they receive a warrant. While the court didn`t specifically rule on whether law enforcement can search other electronic devices, such as a standalone camera, the ACLU believes the Constitution largely prevents you from searching for your digital data without a court order. It is possible for courts to allow the temporary seizure of a camera without a court order in certain extremely “urgent” circumstances, such as when it is necessary to save a life or when the police believe in good faith that it is necessary to prevent the destruction of evidence of a crime when applying for an arrest warrant. · In states that allow recording with the consent of a single interlocutor, you can record your own interactions with officials without violating wiretapping laws (since you are one of the parties). This does not seem right.

I would take your ticket with the names of the officials to the downtown offices and see if it is legitimate. Photographing and filming things that are clearly visible from public spaces is your constitutional right. This includes federal buildings, transportation facilities, police and other government officials who perform their duties. Unfortunately, law enforcement officers often order people to stop taking photos or videos in public places, and sometimes harass, detain or even people who use their cameras or cell phone recording devices in public. The balance of authority supports the view that there is an independent right, the right to privacy, the violation of which gives rise to a cause of action. 41 Am.Jur. 927; 168 A.L.R. 449. The American Law Institute`s Restatement recognizes the existence of the legal right to privacy. Restatement, Torts, Volume 4, Section 867.

In that case-law, this Tribunal has had only three opportunities to discuss the existence of this plea. Each time, it has succeeded in resolving the issues at stake, without deciding whether or not an interference with privacy rights constitutes cause of action. We have before us your letter of 10 June 1953, in which you ask the following question: a municipal police station should not provide television stations with police photographs of persons arrested for a crime for broadcasting in connection with television news before sentencing, unless these persons flee justice. If you are in public spaces where you are legally present, you have the right to photograph anything that is clearly visible. This includes images of federal buildings, transportation facilities and police. Such a photograph is a form of public government oversight and is important in a free society. If you believe your right to protest has been violated, please contact the ACLU Pennsylvania toll-free at 877-PGH-ACLU (Western Office) or 877-PHL-ACLU (Eastern Office). · The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) recognizes that photography in and around airline security checks is allowed, as long as you do not interfere with the screening process.

The TSA is asking that its security screeners not be photographed, though it is unclear whether they have a legal basis for such a restriction if the monitors are clearly visible to the traveling public. · The TSA also warns that local or airport regulations may impose restrictions that the TSA does not impose. It is difficult to determine whether airport sites or authorities actually have such rules. If you are told that you are not allowed to take pictures at an airport, you should ask what the legal authority for this rule is. InHodgeman v. Olsen, 86 wash. In Case 615, the Court found that the public`s relationship with a person convicted of a crime was such as the convicted person`s right to privacy [[Orig. op.

page 3]], which the convicted person might have with respect to the publication of his or her photograph in various rogue galleries, at least to the extent that such publication was necessary for the protection of the public. Many jurisdictions are bound by the rule that a photo of a suspect cannot be displayed in a gallery of thugs before sentencing. It seems that publishing an image that could only be taken for identification purposes would be even more offensive by a medium as popular as television. The ACLU has fought and will continue to fight for the right to film and photograph police to be respected by law enforcement. Of course, as with everything, there are exceptions and narrow limits. That`s why we`ve created a new photographers` rights web resource, including a “Know Your Rights” page. Everyone – photographers and police officers – should be aware of the rights we have in America when we photograph in public spaces. Note that the right to photograph does not give you the right to violate other laws.

For example, if you are not allowed to take pictures, you can still be accused of trespassing. The ACLU, photographer groups and others have been complaining about such incidents for years – and we`ve won in court time and time again. Recently, an appeals court ruled on behalf of an ACLU client that Americans have the right to film police during their arrest in a public park. This question is still open in Washington State. In our view, there is a risk that the presentation of a police photograph of a person charged with a crime and subsequently acquitted could form the basis of an action for damages, in which the chief of police could be named as one of the defendants. In such a case, the possible plea [[Orig. op. page 2]] would be based on an interference with the right to privacy. The right to privacy has been defined as the right of a person to be left alone, to live a life of isolation or to be free from unwarranted publicity. 77 S.J.J. 396.

Ultimately, it is a question of striking a balance between the individual`s right to privacy and the legitimate public interest in disseminating news. Unlike defamation and defamation cases, truth is not a defense against unauthorized violation of the right to privacy. Barber v. Time, Inc., 159 S.W. (2d) 291. With respect to video recordings, there is an important legal distinction between a (fully protected) visual photographic recording and the audio portion of a videotape, which some states have attempted to regulate through state interception laws.