Section 19? Thats a new one!

[desantnik]

Off the back of the positive policing thread comes this one...

The problem of police decision-making on who is permitted to take photographs of what is highlighted again in a disturbing incident at the weekend, where film was seized at an anti-fascist protest in Brighton.

According to a statement by Sussex Police: "Under Section 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act [1984], an officer policing the event seized a video tape from a member of the public. Section 23 of the Act states that this can take place in 'any place', providing the officer is lawfully there and has reasonable grounds to believe it provides evidence of a criminal offence.

"The officer reasonably believed the tape contained evidence of a protester being assaulted by someone taking part in the march. It has been seized temporarily to ensure that evidence cannot be inadvertently lost or altered and will be returned, intact, to the owner as soon as possible."

This is an interesting development legally and not one that has been heard of elsewhere in the police.

The rest is here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/08/police_photography_s19/

Arrrrgh :bang:

 

[RevOnline]

Off the back of the positive policing thread comes this one...



The rest is here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/08/police_photography_s19/

Arrrrgh :bang:

To be fair, that sounds extremely reasonable. If you'd taken a video (or photo) of someone being assaulted, would you not be willing to hand over your memory card to a policeman on the scene? It's clearly going to massively increase the chances of catching and convicting the perpetrator.

Risking it being deleted, or manipulated, by allowing someone to take it home to retrieve the other pictures is a risk I don't think the police should take.

If they do start abusing this law as they have others, fair enough. But as it stands there are no problems with that.

 

[boyfalldown]

Risking it being deleted, or manipulated, by allowing someone to take it home to retrieve the other pictures is a risk I don't think the police should take.

ignoring all the issues around needing a court order to take this.
Why would I taking my cards home, be a bigger risk to them than an untrained (in handling that sort if evidence) be a bigger risk

 

[Donki]

As long as the police dont go about talking cameras/film/mem cards off everyone they see at who is present at an crime I see nothing wrong with it.

I think the key here is that the officer is present at the scene of the crime and actually does have reasonable grounds to believe that the film/memory cards has caught the crime happening. This sort of evidence is priceless to the police out court service basically refuses to take any cases where there is going to be certain conviction.

 

[RevOnline]

ignoring all the issues around needing a court order to take this.
Why would I taking my cards home, be a bigger risk to them than an untrained (in handling that sort if evidence) be a bigger risk

Because you might know the perpetrator and delete the photograph? It might be the first time you've used that camera and do it by accident?

And I reckon the police have someone capable of taking a picture off a memory card, I think that might have come up in the last decade or so in other crimes. But feel free to send them a CV if you think they haven't got someone, but I think they will have.

 

[boyfalldown]

Because you might know the perpetrator and delete the photograph? It might be the first time you've used that camera and do it by accident?

And I reckon the police have someone capable of taking a picture off a memory card, I think that might have come up in the last decade or so in other crimes. But feel free to send them a CV if you think they haven't got someone, but I think they will have.

yes someone, not that officer on the steet........who is just as likely to delete by accident. And your first comment, as always, ignores the need for a court order

 

[gingerweasel]

Seems reasonable to me.

 

[Marc]

yes someone, not that officer on the steet........who is just as likely to delete by accident

How do you delete a video tape/memory card by accident when you don't have the camera?

 

[madhouse]

I'd gladly hand over a pic if I'd captured evidence of a crime, not saying I'd be hugely happy with the plod having an entire memory card of snaps that I'd rather be looking at but I guess that's the small cost of justice - it says they give it all back intact after all.

 

[Simmotino]

I tuned out as soon as I saw the link was to 'The Register' to be honest!

 

[boyfalldown]

How do you delete a video tape/memory card by accident when you don't have the camera?

sure its possible, a big magnet would do a video tape if nothing else. The point I'm trying to make and maybe failing more is how do you prove to a court that evidence has been handled properly and is still in a legitimate state if you have untrained folks look after it?

 

[Marc]

sure its possible, a big magnet would do a video tape if nothing else. The point I'm trying to make and maybe failing more is how do you prove to a court that evidence has been handled properly and is still in a legitimate state if you have untrained folks look after it?

But they ARE trained to handle it, what makes you think they aren't? If it's evidence, they bag it and it is then handled by the people who are trained to process that evidence.

 

[a1ex2001]

Arrrrgh :bang:

Why Arrrgh doesn't seem to be a police officer abusing his powers at all, looks much more like an officer collecting evidence to prosecute a criminal that will be returned to the owner once the case has gone to trial?

Every police action is not a conspiracy against photography, sometimes they are just trying to catch bad guys and it's the register for pitty sake second only to the daily fail in bad reporting and sensationist journalism!

 

[boyfalldown]

But they ARE trained to handle it, what makes you think they aren't? If it's evidence, they bag it and it is then handled by the people who are trained to process that evidence.

back at you Marc, why do you think they are? I know to you or I a camera & cards are relativly simple......but the one time I've had dealing with police and a camera he certainly wasn't trained

 

[Donki]

back at you Marc, why do you think they are? I know to you or I a camera & cards are relativly simple......but the one time I've had dealing with police and a camera he certainly wasn't trained

So if a police officer sees a crime taking place and also notices a member of the public with a camera pointed in the direction of the crime he shouldn't approach and take the camera/film/memory to be handed in as evidence? I would have thought that the camera would just be taken in and looked at by a member of their IT team, I wouldn't have thought it would just have been looked at at the side of the road.

 

[neil_g]

back at you Marc, why do you think they are? I know to you or I a camera & cards are relativly simple......but the one time I've had dealing with police and a camera he certainly wasn't trained

memory card/tape goes into an evidence bag.. hardly rocket science..

 

[Marc]

back at you Marc, why do you think they are? I know to you or I a camera & cards are relativly simple......but the one time I've had dealing with police and a camera he certainly wasn't trained

How do I know that the police are trained to handle evidence? :shrug:

 

[zeugma]

Having read through and absorbed the comments thus far (hopefully), I wonder how long it will take for them to return the media to its owner?
Logically, to preserve public support (if they're still interested in that) they would seek to return the original at the earliest opportunity.
The cynic in me thinks it will end up "in the system" and be returned when they feel like it.
As regards them requesting a copy of what might be important evidence, no problem at all. After all, it might be the difference between a successful prosecution or not.
I think the problem, if and when it comes, will be with an individual officer's interpretation of the situation on any given occasion.

 

[Astraeus]

Does this not circumvent the legal requirement for police to obtain warrants prior to seizing possession as evidence in a criminal case? :shrug:

 

[Marc]

Does this not circumvent the legal requirement for police to obtain warrants prior to seizing possession as evidence in a criminal case? :shrug:

Pretty sure you don't need a warrant to seize evidence at the scene.

 

[Astraeus]

Pretty sure you don't need a warrant to seize evidence at the scene.

Is this at the scene of is this on a person? I think the latter requires a warrant. You couldn't just go confiscating the possessions of everyone in the vicinity of a crime...could you?

 

[Marc]

Is this at the scene of is this on a person? I think the latter requires a warrant. You couldn't just go confiscating the possessions of everyone in the vicinity of a crime...could you?

If a police officer is attending a scene and someone is there having filmed the event, the officer is entitled to take that evidence. It would be preposterous for them to have to go away and get a warrant as the evidence could be tampered with in the meantime or that person could leave the scene.

They have to have just cause to seize the evidence so no, they wouldn't just go confiscating possessions of everyone in the vicinity.

 

[DemiLion]

ignoring all the issues around needing a court order to take this.
Why would I taking my cards home, be a bigger risk to them than an untrained (in handling that sort if evidence) be a bigger risk

yes someone, not that officer on the steet........who is just as likely to delete by accident. And your first comment, as always, ignores the need for a court order

Which part of Sect 19 requires a court order?

For reference:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1984/pdf/ukpga_19840060_en.pdf

The answer is that a constable is empowered to seize the camera in this case without an order.

The reason why they would do that is something called The Chain of Evidence.

 

[Astraeus]

If a police officer is attending a scene and someone is there having filmed the event, the officer is entitled to take that evidence. It would be preposterous for them to have to go away and get a warrant as the evidence could be tampered with in the meantime or that person could leave the scene.

They have to have just cause to seize the evidence so no, they wouldn't just go confiscating possessions of everyone in the vicinity.

Do you have anything to back this up? I'm interested in reading into this as I suspect it may not be as simple as the police being allowed to take whatever they like from a person, especially if that person was not involved in the commission of an offence. There is no question that, where the suspect a person is in possession of an item used in the commission with the offence, that can be seized, but to confiscate the items of a possible unknowing bystander is oppressive.

I'm not doubting your knowledge on this subject but it is an interesting point.

EDIT: Just seen DemiLion's post. Whilst it is a disgraceful abuse of police powers, it is sound in the eyes of the law. Certainly an instance of a sledgehammer being used to crack the proverbial nut, however.

 

[DemiLion]

Does this not circumvent the legal requirement for police to obtain warrants prior to seizing possession as evidence in a criminal case? :shrug:

Is this at the scene of is this on a person? I think the latter requires a warrant. You couldn't just go confiscating the possessions of everyone in the vicinity of a crime...could you?

You generally don't require a warrant to seize, just to enter and search.

 

[Marc]

Do you have anything to back this up? I'm interested in reading into this as I suspect it may not be as simple as the police being allowed to take whatever they like from a person, especially if that person was not involved in the commission of an offence. There is no question that, where the suspect a person is in possession of an item used in the commission with the offence, that can be seized, but to confiscate the items of a possible unknowing bystander is oppressive.

I'm not doubting your knowledge on this subject but it is an interesting point.

I think Mark answered your question in the post below mine. The police are empowered to seize things if they have just cause to believe they are evidence. Can't back it up as my knowledge is gleaned from speaking to police officers and being married to someone in the job for 20 years.

 

[Donki]

Do you have anything to back this up? I'm interested in reading into this as I suspect it may not be as simple as the police being allowed to take whatever they like from a person, especially if that person was not involved in the commission of an offence. There is no question that, where the suspect a person is in possession of an item used in the commission with the offence, that can be seized, but to confiscate the items of a possible unknowing bystander is oppressive.

I'm not doubting your knowledge on this subject but it is an interesting point.

EDIT: Just seen DemiLion's post.

You are blantantly twisting it, it says "providing the officer is lawfully there and has reasonable grounds to believe it (the film/memory card) provides evidence of a criminal offence". He cant go up and demand the persons underpants for example, I think you should be writing for the Daily Mail!!

 

[Astraeus]

You are blantantly twisting it, it says "providing the officer is lawfully there and has reasonable grounds to believe it (the film/memory card) provides evidence of a criminal offence". He cant go up and demand the persons underpants for example, I think you should be writing for the Daily Mail!!

That s19 clearly confers the power to confiscate said person's underpants if the police officer believes they are evidence of a crime which he is investigating. "Reasonable grounds" is a catch-all for police officers and requires very little evidential backing up.

 

[DemiLion]

..He cant go up and demand the persons underpants for example, ..

Creating a malodorous discharge occasioning a Breach of the Peace??

 

[Donki]

That s19 clearly confers the power to confiscate said person's underpants if the police officer believes they are evidence of a crime which he is investigating. "Reasonable grounds" is a catch-all for police officers and requires very little evidential backing up.

:rules: Give me your underpants BOY!!

I think you are being a little hard on our bos in blue..... or a dark green if your over here .

 

[TriggerHappy]

Don't see the problem here. The police suspect evidence of a criminal act has been recorded on someone's camera and have claimed that evidence to help with the prosecution. If it was my memory card I'd gladly hand it over knowing that I'd get it back in due course. It's only a memory card and I have spares. Had the police not claimed the evidence I bet the same paper would be complaining about the number of people getting away with crimes unpunished.

 

[Astraeus]

Don't see the problem here. The police suspect evidence of a criminal act has been recorded on someone's camera and have claimed that evidence to help with the prosecution. If it was my memory card I'd gladly hand it over knowing that I'd get it back in due course. It's only a memory card and I have spares. Had the police not claimed the evidence I bet the same paper would be complaining about the number of people getting away with crimes unpunished.

I certainly wouldn't be opposed to handing over my memory card. I think it's insane to exercise a power conferred under PACE before simply asking for the card though. :bang:

 

[Lynton]

and here we go again................ popcorn anyone?

So if i understand this correctly...........

a) a crime may have been committed
b) a person with a camera may have captured evidence that could potentially prove this one way or the other.
c) PC plod wishes , at the scene, to take the memory card as evidence, which if necessary will confirm a) and possibly identify the perpetrator.

Am i missing the big point here

At least the officer has only taken the memory card. Could have taken the whole camera etc etc , which would have been far worse.

I have not been trained in how not to accidentally delete photos from the memory card, but so far seem to have a 100 % success record in not doing so. It's hardly rocket science.

Seems to me to be fairly switched on copper taking the opportunity to gather evidence as and when necessary from all those present. Is a warrant needed for this? No.

Simples.

Whilst I will defend peoples human rights blah blah blah, sometimes a bit of common sense is in order and the relationship can work both ways. Had the owner of the memory card "kicked off" then i am sure the police could have got a little "awkward" should we say.

Basically, act like a tw#t and the cops will treat you like one. Act civil, helpful etc, and life is easy.

 

[Astraeus]

Whilst I will defend peoples human rights blah blah blah, sometimes a bit of common sense is in order and the relationship can work both ways.

Basically, act like a tw#t and the cops will treat you like one. Act civil, helpful etc, and life is easy.

Exactly. Common sense would have seen the police officer ask for the memory card without recourse to PACE. It's unclear whether or not this action was taken and it's superfluous to my point anyway which is that PACE should be a last means. :rules:

 

[DemiLion]

I certainly wouldn't be opposed to handing over my memory card. I think it's insane to exercise a power conferred under PACE before simply asking for the card though. :bang:

Exactly. Common sense would have seen the police officer ask for the memory card without recourse to PACE. It's unclear whether or not this action was taken and it's superfluous to my point anyway which is that PACE should be a last means. :rules:

Can you show any proof of the fact that that is not exactly what happened?

Seize is a technical and legal term, and even if an officer had politely asked for the memory card in question, he would still have been deemed to have 'seized the evidence' because that is what is required by PACE.

 

[madhouse]

Can you show any proof of the fact that that is not exactly what happened?

Seize is a technical and legal term, and even if an officer had politely asked for the memory card in question, he would still have been deemed to have 'seized the evidence' because that is what is required by PACE.

+1

Is it possible that section 19 was only mentioned in the statement so that people didn't go spouting off that the evidence was obtained unlawfully because they just asked for it?

 

[thewtam]

Trying to make sense of this since with all the furore over s44 etc I have never heard of s19 (I realise it is a different act).

To create a scenario, what happens to the photojournalist who captures potentially a number of crimes in action, a punch here, a punch there at a demonstration? The police are there, see the sequence of events and demand his memory card.

Looking at it perhaps in an unrealistic way but nevertheless theoretically possible, could the police round up everyone at a demo and seize every memory card under this s19?

 

[tdcist]

Looking at it perhaps in an unrealistic way but nevertheless theoretically possible, could the police round up everyone at a demo and seize every memory card under this s19?

In Theory yes.....

I deal with this a lot at work, as we are a public building with a lot of CCTV round it, we are in the centre of town, the police are always in asking to see CCTV between certain points, If they see something they think is important, then they ask for a copy on DVD... In this case we dont worry about getting it back.

I know if i was to get beaten up outside a club or bar, and someone was taking photos/videos, i'd want as many photos videos witnesses as possible to make sure justice was made!!

 

[magicaxeman]

and take the camera/film/memory to be handed in as evidence?

No the officer cannot seize the camera, just the recordable media it is using, be that film, card, tape, disc or drive (in the case of microdrive)

They can only seize the camera if it is believed to be stolen or has been used to commit a crime

 

[thewtam]

So what if a photojournalist has photos which have serious commercial value and/or important newsworthy status and for example is expected to upoad images to his newsdesk/agency asap. The images may hold evidence but doesn't s19 conflict with the guidelines on journalists and the rules regarding evidence and court orders?

It seems to be, under the right circumstances, a catch all clause for the police.
What if a photographer photographs a police officer committing an offence and the officer's partner cites s19? And the card disappears.

Say I am out and about and I photograph a street scene where a car may or may not have been speeding, can't be proved by anyone but an officer takes a disliking to me photographing in public and seizes the card under s19, citing a potential speeding car?

How do you respond to that?

Don't get me wrong I like the police. We need the police. We need them on that wall.
But 'code reds' are plain wrong and undermine the principles of the police. s44 in many ways became that 'code red' for the public and photographers. s44 seems to have been dealt with but what may take it's place.

Which perfectly legitimate and proper seizure legislation could be abused?