New Texas Law Would Ban Photographing Police From 25 Feet Or Less

Just to clarify, it's a proposed bill, not actual law yet.

It sounds as though it would be difficult to enforce. And why would it be needed?

Is the 100ft for anyone carrying a gun in case they become confused between the gun and the camera? Surely they would need to be closer to properly identify which is which, not further away. Then again that would make them a bigger target. Hmm... tough call.

Barbara:

There is another thread here on FAA that talks about Los Angeles. It recently lost a case where police arrested photographers who were photographing police officers, and the city had to send it's officers to training classes about not arresting photographers, and the city had to pay out a big monetary judgement.

Paparazzi and other photographers don't always respect common sense boundaries. Police need a certain amount of elbow room to do their work, without having to concern themselves with photographers physically getting in the way. I see this as an attempt to create a zone around police officers where they don't have to concern themselves with photographers exercising their "right" to stick a camera lens in the officer's face. We can argue all day long about whether this zone is the right size or not, but since I'm not a police officer, and I'm not a photographer, I'm bowing out of that debate.

Although I will say that I can't imagine that a reasonably competent photographer couldn't get just about any picture they wanted with a telephoto lens from 25 feet away. Personally, I think that if I'm 25 feet away from a dangerous armed suspect who is in the process of being arrested... I'm way too close.

"...Paparazzi and other photographers don't always respect common sense boundaries. Police need a certain amount of elbow room to do their work, without having to concern themselves with photographers physically getting in the way. I see this as an attempt to create a zone around police officers where they don't have to concern themselves with photographers exercising their "right" to stick a camera lens in the officer's face..."


Well said, Cheryl.

The law makes no mention that I can tell that a situation with an armed suspect is any different than two LEOs standing on a street corner chatting about teh weather and a photog shooting from 12 feet away. Same law would seem to apply.

I understand LE's need for elbow room but if that's the rationale, it shouldn't apply exclusively to photographers because singling them out could be construed as LE not wanting to have their actions documented.

"...Paparazzi and other photographers don't always respect common sense boundaries. Police need a certain amount of elbow room to do their work, without having to concern themselves with photographers physically getting in the way. I see this as an attempt to create a zone around police officers where they don't have to concern themselves with photographers exercising their "right" to stick a camera lens in the officer's face..."

25 feet though? And we're not talking paparazzi. We're talking mostly about regular folks with cameras, some of them on their phones. I understand the need for an officer to be able to do his or her job, so in that way we're not talking about people sticking a camera "in the officer's face." The 25 feet rule pretty much means that if an LEO doesn't want you to record, all one of them has to do is to walk up to you while the scene might be happening away from him and you!

Keep in mind that they may be recording you via body cameras at this same time. I guess it would mean that when I was pulled over two summers ago for shooting trains, I could have been cited because I recorded the stop as I sat in my car.

Very slippery slope here.

i doubt it would ever pass. and what counts as photograph? a cell cam? a plain cam? a dash or security cam? seems more like they want to hide or do something real bad if they don't want to get caught at something. how about google glass, how would they stop or prove that? what about zoom cameras? that new camera can do like 800times or something like that. i could be across town with a camera like that.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

From the posted copy of the Bill"

"...(f) AA
For purposes of Subsection (a)(1), an interruption, disruption, impediment, or interference that occurs while a peace officer is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by law includes a person:..."

"...what about zoom cameras? that new camera can do like 800times or something like that...."


Mike, then they wouldn't have to worry about encroaching on the 25 foot limit. ;)

the question is - are the banning it because they are worried that a photographer will catch them in the act of hurting someone? or is it to protect you - a camera looks like a gun to a stupid person. or it getting stuck in the cross fire and they don't want to fill out the paperwork... this is texas, they love guns there (i can say that i was born there). there is usually a reason why they don't want people close.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

"...(f) AA
For purposes of Subsection (a)(1), an interruption, disruption, impediment, or interference that occurs while a peace officer is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by law includes a person:..."

That's still a bit vaque and could leave a lot of room for interpretation by officers who simply don't want to be "filmed" for any reason. Also, in some cases, i'm sure one could be seven feet away and not be a disruption. It's the "performing a duty" that opens it up for anything such as making a traffic stop while the person inside the car is rolling on video.

Here's a challenge:
You draft a law that cuts a reasonable compromise between keeping the paparazzi (or criminals who might think holding a camera would be a great way to interfere with an arrest or other police work) at bay so the police can do their legitimate work, and allowing photography of police officers who are misusing their authority.

If anyone is actually interfering with a police issue, then that person should be detained or arrested on those charges. If he is "in their face" or on the crime scene, there doesn't need to be a law stating 25 feet. By doing this, you go a long way to making anyone with a camera a criminal. Also, if you can't tell the difference between a gun and a camera, you probably don't need to be in law enforcement. I've never seen a camera or a phone that looks like a gun. But I guess if someone thinks my Canon 60D looks like a gun, I'll just get shot and deal with the consequences later.

i can see people wanting to get their 5min of fame by getting in the face of a cop with their phone just to get a news clip of it. and that really deserves an arrest. i can also see people trying to get a cop as street photography and tossing them a paper saying its legal for them to do that. (for those that don't know it, we had someone here that does that, well did that).

i guess if you held a camera at gun level it would make sense. there are few that hold a gun to their face, that would make for an interesting video actually.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Not sure why they need a law except perhaps to make things more clear to the LEOs when they can and can't detain someone for using a camera. In some cases LEOs have used the "interfering" excuse when attempting to stop someone who was 50 feet away, well out of range to really be interfering. I remember one where a woman was filming from inside her house. One of the cops saw her and pretty much forced his way in then arrested her and confiscated her cell phone. All illegally of course.

The reality is that most cops are good people and have a job to do. Keep your distance and they will leave you alone. More often than not, they'd prefer to have video evidence of an arrest. Where I live the Police union supports body cameras. One of the few things that both the union and police brass agree on.

"...the question is - are the banning it because they are worried that a photographer will catch them in the act of hurting someone? or is it to protect you - a camera looks like a gun to a stupid person. or it getting stuck in the cross fire and they don't want to fill out the paperwork......"


This is one of those "What if" deals. I have a brother who is a retired cop, and he worked the streets for 20 years, and his biggest complaint that I heard over the years were the gawkers and interlopers that would try to get right up on the scene stuff he was doing in the line of duty. My other brother, a retired firefighter/paramedic also told of the same problem. Too many nosey people being where they shouldn't be, and impeding their work.



Edited to add Chuck's response, which I concur with 100%:

"The reality is that most cops are good people and have a job to do. Keep your distance and they will leave you alone."

... don't leave witnesses in Texas ...

Is Texas still part of the US? Sometimes I forget.

In principle, totally agree. Having shot off the City Desk for numerous newspapers, I can say that being within 25 feet of any police or fire operation is too close. The potential to interfere, not to mention cause or receive injury, is high. Not to mention, of course, with even a slight telephoto it is not necessary.

As to the tape measure, sort of wondering why it is mentioned. If arrested, all the prosecutor would need is an image. With exif info showing camera, lens, and FL, it would be very easy to reproduce distance. Might be debatable if + or - 1 foot, but if shown to be 20 feet they could nail your rear. If shown to be 50 beet, you nail theirs.

As to who moves the boundary, not even debatable. In a police or fire operation, things move and change fast. Emergency responders continually shift. It is not THEIR responsibility to watch you and where you are. They are too busy involved in the operation. It is YOUR responsibility to stay out of the way no matter how and how fast things change.

One Scenario:
So you're watching the police doing something interesting, perhaps wrong, so you grab for your cell phone and pull it out to record the scene. The police see this at the periphery of their vision. Not sure if you drew a weapon or a camera, they're distracted, perhaps turning a dangerous situation deadly.


Nearly identical Scenario:
So you're watching the police doing something that might be wrong, so you grab for your cell phone and pull it out to record the scene. The police see this at the periphery of their vision. Sure that you either drew a weapon or a camera, they're distracted momentarily, and perhaps deterred from doing anything wrong.

I would say, on balance, that freedom should prevail. If the whole world is recording your actions, it is mainly the wrongdoers that will suffer. Though photos can be deceptive on cause. The photo showing the cop hitting somebody with a nightstick may not as convincingly show the thug trying to get the cop's gun, for example. But if we err, it needs to be on the side of liberty and constitutional rights.

regarding the distance, 25 feet is about as far away as you can get and show reasonable detail with most cell phones. (Is he reaching for the cop's gun?)
You don't always have your main camera, much less a telephoto. Everyone has a cell phone, and this law is written, I'll bet, primarily for Joe Public, not for Fred Photographer.

Edward Fielding Edward Fielding17 Hours Ago
Is Texas still part of the US? Sometimes I forget.

Dear Ed,
Guessing by your unfiltered remark you are from New York. Stay there. Your picante sauce sucks.

Joseph
In Texas we have a huge problem with photographers from North Carolina crowding our crime scenes.

Mike,
Its not so much that we love our guns, its that we love our freedom to have a gun.

Gregory,
Todays constantly improving technology allows for pictures of accident victims to be on the 6 oclock news before the peace officer can even identify and notify next of kin. This is probably more to do with integrity of the crime scene and allowing the peace officer to do their job without assigning more for crowd and traffic control. And while we should worry about our photographic freedoms on this site, lets ask ourselves, where were the cameras when the two cops were killed in New York, the two officers shot in Ferguson, etc etc. The camera is always on the cop but I would point out unfairly and that people with wrong intentions are behind those cameras or we would have found those who shot the cops a lot sooner.

Rudi
I lived in Germany, I feel much safer here.

Joseph, what's the big deal? if the law passes you will just have to find other subject matter to take pictures of, or risk going to jail. Police have a difficult enough job without having to worry about strangers taking their picture, the uniform makes the officer an easy target for those that would wish them harm.

The only thing that worries me here is that it may set a precedence. Once they get this law into place, then they can cite it as a precedent to put another one into place saying you can't photograph police at all. Then it could go one step further to eliminate photography in public, if you want to take it to an extreme.

So the precedence worries me, the law itself is simply common sense. Some people don't have sense enough to just give police some room to do their job. You can see this any time you see an emergency vehicle on the road, lights and siren going. How many people do you see pull over and give them the road? I'm usually the only one. And this is already federal law, it was probably one of the questions on your driving test.

As far as keeping the 25 foot distance, that should be no problem, even my lowly 135mm lens would do that nicely. I might even have to back up a couple of steps...

It's not just the cops, it's also the person who the cops are interacting with. Suppose you just had a major accident, and as you're talking to the cop someone sticks a camera in your face (with a stupid flash, no less), how would you feel? Or if you were being arrested. Nobody has been convicted yet, and we're "innocent till proven guilty"; yet now your closeup pic is plastered all over social media in handcuffs.

And then there's the safety of the photographers. Not everyone in this country likes cops (Ferguson, for example). If you're right there in the mashup, you could be hit by stray bullets.

Or put yourself in the cops place. How would you like strangers walking up, free to get all in your space with a camera while you're trying to do your job? Everyone likes to point out "what do they have to hide?" But 25' is reasonable to me. I can understand, to an extent why they want further space with someone who's armed.

I doubt the law has anything to do with safety. You can bring a gun to church or a bar but a camera is dangerous?

I might add here in nh we are becoming the texas of new England. We'll probably have the same law proposed soon.they will have background checks for cameras before guns.

This is merely a transparent move by the ultra right to set precedent that attacks the Frist Amendment. This has been ruled on by the Supreme Court many times. IF this makes it through and gets signed it will be challenged. And that is the point. The authors will be shopping for a favorable Fed judge who will uphold (not likely) then if needed it will crawl back to the Supremes.

The ugly truth is this proposed "law" has almost nothing to do with keeping police safe and everything to do with giving them a shield against being exposed for bad acts.

The pen is mightier than the sword and an image is worth a thousand words. This is what is really behind it. Fear of a photograph exposing wrong doing.

Fear? Well, probably but it is really about protecting authority so that it goes unchallenged. Many conservative states have passed draconian laws in the past 6 year, nearly all struck down by the courts. They keep probing.

The rise of protests around the country aimed at police abuses have taken on validity in the mind of the populous BECAUSE we have visual proof in the form of recording by private citizens.

How close were those cameras to the event? You don't have to ge thisclose to record the action.
25' really isn't that much, it's not like they're saying "stay across the street". Measure out 25' yourself, then shoot a pic with a common 50mm lens. You can still see pretty much everything.

With attitudes like some witnessed here which assume and paint police with such a wide brush and in such a negative way, it's amazing any decent person would want to enter the profession. I am more convinced that when after many years of service, I finally said "take this job and this gun & badge and shove it" I made the right choice.

Mario, my own comments were not aimed at disparaging the police. I was merely pointing out the political realities of the proposed law. Which is an attempt to cloak authoritaritive actions in some level of darkness. I can support my country, my military, my God without totally blind allegiance.

It has already been alleged that police wearing body cameras have turned them off or covered them before doing wrong.
Police wrongdoers are a tiny minority, but observation that puts a little fear of the public into the government is a good thing.
We are not their servants, government is OUR servant. Keeping them honest as possible is important.
Too bad we can't require body cameras on legislators.

My point of contention isn't really the 25 feet. It's the fact that a legislator somewhere thinks some magical distance is going to be helpful in all situations. In some cases, maybe 10 feet is clearly enough space. In other cases, they may need to clear a city block. If I'm walking down a sidewalk and a fight breaks out between an LEO and a suspect ten feet away from me, am I supposed to count off 15 feet before I can get my camera out. (I'd use my phone to call 911.) In the case of being on a sidewalk, it may be virtually impossible to get 25 feet away.

Multiple people have used the term "in the face of" to insinuate that we'd be right up on the action. I addressed this before, but apparently I need to again. If anyone is actually interfering with a police issue, then that person should be detained or arrested on those charges. If he is "in their face" or on the crime scene, there doesn't need to be a law stating 25 feet. By doing this, you go a long way to making anyone with a camera a criminal. Another thing the 25 foot rule would do is limit the chance of recording audio that might be relevant in a trial or embarrassing on YouTube or Facebook.

Someone mentioned videoing someone being arrest who is presumed innocent and their right of privacy. This is kinda an odd argument which seems to say we should not video someone being arrested because they be innocent. And they might be. But it's a freedom of speech issue really. Not to mention that once that person gets to booking, their mug shot is placed in the public record. Many times, the news media will then run the mug shot and say, for example, "John Smith was arrested and charged with robbing the Bank of Wichita...: When he's presumed just as innocent now as when he was arrested on the sidewalk and filmed by three people on their phones.

"...Many conservative states have passed draconian laws in the past 6 year, nearly all struck down by the courts...."


Not to get too political, but to me, that sort of coincides with the length of time the current [left of center] administration has been in office. Just my personal thoughts.

Gee Greg, ya think?

I heard an interview with the guy who wrote it - He couldn't answer many questions and agreed it was poorly written "so far" and that if it was passed things would have to be changed. He was asked why we needed the law in the first place if there were laws existing about interference with a policeman in the performance of his duties. He was asked about the traffic stop and if the wife was shooting video to protect her husband that she could be ticketed. Texans do not want this law. And if they do pass it it won't make much difference except in safety situations. Cops don't want another law they have to be trained to understand - they are not lawyers and do not have the time to stop and think about legal ramifications. On the opposite side of the fence, California passed a law that cops can be photographed anytime anywhere and are training their policemen now.
To me its very similar to the cell phone laws - we have a distracted driver law - why allow a bunch of people who don't drive (they ride in limos and cabs) to govern the difference between talking on the phone or eating hamburgers? Why do we let them pass law on what size Coke they can buy at the 7-11? Why do they pass law on banning smoking in restraunts that WANT to allow smoking? The answer is ALWAYS about money or power in politics. If they didn't get them, they wouldn't want to run for office. But not to get political, the idea is that photographers have the same rights as all citizens until they point their cameras at something like a child at the playground, a window of a house, a cop beating up someone, etc. It shouldn't be about passing laws, we should just have good manners - but we don't and so they are going to keep trying to pass laws to protect us from ourselves. When they are regulating how much we can eat and drink - its too late.