Reporter arrested taking photos at fire scene

[Paper Trail]

http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/...ws/344389.html


A citation charging a Stephens Media newspaper reporter-photographer with obstructing a governmental operation was handed out last night while he was trying to take photographs at a fire scene in Maumelle.

State Police officials say they are investigating the matter, which involved state Trooper Thomas Weindruch and Maumelle Monitor reporter-photographer Bill Lawson. Lawson said Weinruch placed him in handcuffs for 30 minutes before releasing him.

Lawson says it was all like a bad dream. He said he identified himself as a news media representative but that the trooper didn't seem to consider that. Lawson took Weindruch's picture from about 10 feet away as the trooper approached him. Lawson described the trooper as "abusive, intimidating and downright scary."

Attorney John Tull is representing Lawson and Stephens Media.

Weindruch issued Lawson a citation ordering him to appear in Sherwood District Court on Feb. 26.

Obstructing governmental operations is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by up to 30 days in jail and/or a fine up to $100 upon conviction.

[Bureau Chief]

Well as before, if he was beyond the fireline or disobeyed a police order, then hes toast and deserves whatever he gets. BUT if he was obeying the law, then I say he should take this to court after it gets dismissed and sue for false arrest and unlawful restraint. Police getting a little too pushy for my taste lately. Im still trying to dig up info on Pennsylvanias new law that forbids filming police officers while doing their duty. My local elected moron, who supposedly voted for the law, claims to know nothing about it.

[!]

Originally Posted by Bureau Chief

Well as before, if he was beyond the fireline or disobeyed a police order, then hes toast and deserves whatever he gets. BUT if he was obeying the law, then I say he should take this to court after it gets dismissed and sue for false arrest and unlawful restraint.

Exactly.

[Paper Trail]

OK for police and government to film and wiretap US citizens though

Steve Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, June 12, 2007


A man has been charged in Carlisle, Pennsylvania with filming police officers during a routine traffic stop and faces up to seven years in prison for "wiretapping".

Brian D. Kelly is charged under a state law that bars the intentional interception or recording of anyone's oral conversation without their consent, reports the Patriot News.

The criminal case relates to the sound, not the pictures, that his camera picked up.

His camera and film were seized by police during the May 24 stop, he said, and he spent 26 hours in Cumberland County Prison until his mother posted her house as security for his $2,500 bail. Police also took film from his pockets that wasn't related to the traffic stop, he said.

Kelly, just 18 years old, is obviously extremely scared and has apologized profusely for not knowing the law. he has sought the help of the ACLU in the case.

[Paper Trail]

District attorney says future cases will not result in arrests

By John Hilton, June 20, 2007

Last updated: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 10:21 AM EDT


Cumberland County District Attorney David Freed withdrew wiretapping charges this morning filed against a Carlisle man who videotaped a borough police officer during a May 24 traffic stop.

And Freed announced a policy for future cases of recording during traffic stops: “When police are audio- and video-recording traffic stops with notice to the subjects, similar actions by citizens, even if done in secret, will not result in criminal charges.”

That decision will be communicated to all police agencies within the county, Freed said.

Freed said his review of state case law does not support the wiretapping charge against Brian D. Kelly, 18, who was charged under a state law that forbids the recording of oral communications without consent. If convicted, Kelly faced up to seven years in prison.

“Since the officer's words and actions were being recorded, he had no expectation of privacy or non-recording in the encounter,” Freed said in a statement he was expected to deliver after press deadline.

The district attorney stressed that his decision does not mean that Carlisle police made any mistakes.

Passenger in stopped vehicle

Kelly was riding in a vehicle pulled over at 4:18 p.m. for traveling 41.9 miles per hour in a 25-mph zone. In addition, Freed said the vehicle had a rear bumper height that was too low to the ground.

After writing out the citation and explaining to the driver that the entire stop was being videotaped from the patrol car, Freed said, the officer noticed Kelly's video camera. The officer seized it and contacted the on-call assistant district attorney for advice.



The officer was advised to confiscate the camera and tapes as evidence and to file a felony charge under the Pennsylvania Wiretap Act. Kelly was arraigned and placed in Cumberland County Prison in lieu of $2,500 bail.

Kelly posted bail and was released after about 26 hours behind bars.

Interpretation of law

The state wiretapping law prohibits the recording of “oral communication,” defined in the statute as a communication in which the speaker would have an expectation of privacy.

There are 15 exceptions permitting the interception of “oral communications,” Freed said, none of which covers the secret recording of a police officer during a traffic stop.

“Based on the language of the statute, there was probable cause to arrest Brian Kelly under the Pennsylvania Wiretap statute,” he said.

However, a similar case was overturned by the state Supreme Court, the DA explained, which ruled that “the interviewing officer could not have had an expectation of privacy.”

Freed noted that the court “declined to rule on the question of whether a police officer never has an expectation of privacy while acting in an official capacity.”

[The Fedora]

Hmmm. wouldn't that also affect the mics cops wear on their traffic stops? You know, the ones you can hear the conversations through on the dash-cam? Seems like the people in the cars pulled over wouldn't know they are being recorded.

[Paper Trail]

Wednesday, December 12, 2007
By STEPHANIE RICE, Columbian staff writer

A freelance photographer was given a one-year suspended sentence for crossing a police line.

Kristina M. Wright, 35, was working for The Columbian at the time of the Sept. 11 incident.

Wright pleaded guilty to obstructing law enforcement on Dec. 3 in Clark County District Court.

On Sept. 11, Wright and a reporter were sent to a home in Cascade Park where Vancouver police officers were investigating a death.

The death later was ruled a suicide, so the newspaper did not publish a story or a photograph.

The property was marked off with "crime scene" tape. According to a report by Officer Andy Hamlin, Wright ducked under the tape.

Wright said Tuesday that she was trying to find an officer and she had no intention to do anything illegal.

"I probably spent a total of 30 seconds under the tape," she said. "I never went into the house. My camera wasn't raised."

In exchange for her guilty plea, an assistant Vancouver city attorney dismissed a charge of criminal trespass.

The prosecutor asked Judge Rich Melnick to order Wright to perform community service, but Melnick declined after noting that Wright already does community service. The Vancouver resident takes photographs for Street Roots, a nonprofit newspaper in Portland that benefits the homeless.

[Bureau Chief]

Well she made that critical error in judgement and paid for it.

[guesswhoiam]

Originally Posted by Bureau Chief

Well as before, if he was beyond the fireline or disobeyed a police order, then hes toast and deserves whatever he gets. BUT if he was obeying the law, then I say he should take this to court after it gets dismissed and sue for false arrest and unlawful restraint. Police getting a little too pushy for my taste lately. Im still trying to dig up info on Pennsylvanias new law that forbids filming police officers while doing their duty. My local elected moron, who supposedly voted for the law, claims to know nothing about it.

I don't think it's a new law... it's part of the state's wiretapping law that forbids recording interaction with a second party without that party's consent. That includes the police. and watch what you say, I might know your local elected moron...

[Produce man]

She f^cked up, alright.

[Bureau Chief]

Heres a pic of the state trooper/storm trooper seconds before deciding to ignore the US Constitution and arrest a photog for doing his/her job.

Jerk. I wonder if these people even read the oath that they take when they took the job? It almost always includes something about defending the Constitution...and if it doesnt, maybe it should.

[Quagmire]

From KTHV's site...

Arkansas State Trooper Thomas Weindruch has been removed from enforcement duty status and assigned to temporary office duties at the department’s headquarters.

According to a news release from the agency, State Police Director Col.Winford Phillips ordered Weindruch not to wear the uniform of the department nor act in the capacity of a law enforcement officer. The reassignment will continue while state police conduct an internal affairs investigation based on the complaint of Bill Lawson, a Maumelle newspaper photographer.

Lawson accused Trooper Weindruch of inappropriate and hostile behavior as he attempted to take pictures at a Maumelle house fire Monday evening. Lawson filed a formal complaint against Weindruch with the state police.

Trooper Weindruch arrested and charged Lawson with obstructing a governmental operation. Lawson says, "While he had me handcuffed he got up in my face and was verbally abusive. I think he was really trying to pick a fight with me."

During the incident, Maumelle firefighters called Maumelle police to try to ease the situation. The police chief told Today’s THV when he arrived on the scene the arrest had already taken place. The citation had been written, the court date set, and there was nothing he could do.

A couple things stand out to me...one how it was made clear that he was to not even wear the uniform and how even the firefighters called the police. Something isn't right here...and it sounds to me like it might be the trooper.

[Bureau Chief]

agreed.

[Hard_reign2004]

Originally Posted by Bureau Chief

Well as before, if he was beyond the fireline or disobeyed a police order, then hes toast and deserves whatever he gets. BUT if he was obeying the law, then I say he should take this to court after it gets dismissed and sue for false arrest and unlawful restraint. Police getting a little too pushy for my taste lately. Im still trying to dig up info on Pennsylvanias new law that forbids filming police officers while doing their duty. My local elected moron, who supposedly voted for the law, claims to know nothing about it.

Yeah that law will get shot down in court!

Originally Posted by Bureau Chief

Well as before, if he was beyond the fireline or disobeyed a police order, then hes toast and deserves whatever he gets. BUT if he was obeying the law, then I say he should take this to court after it gets dismissed and sue for false arrest and unlawful restraint. Police getting a little too pushy for my taste lately. Im still trying to dig up info on Pennsylvanias new law that forbids filming police officers while doing their duty. My local elected moron, who supposedly voted for the law, claims to know nothing about it.

If the French do it, eventually the US catches up. We are in a lot of trouble, folks.