Section 19? Thats a new one!

[TriggerHappy]

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 would a still image be capable of proving or disproving whether a vehicle was speeding?

 

[thewtam]

OK, I didn't necessarily mean for that analogy to be taken literally ! I was just thinking of a scenario to illustrate a question.

Read, officer suggests maybe a driver did something wrong. The point I am making is that the officer seemingly only has to say 'I suspect that...therefore I can seize your card'

How do you respond when the officer is patently abusing the power?.

Actually, Jamie, your question is spot on.

Faced with that scenario, 'how does a still image prove or disprove speeding?', yet the office still cites s19.

 

[david1701]

Isn't this going to be a massive issue to the press, if they shoot an MP slapping a slow waiter then a copper takes the card, the picture doesn't go into the papers where it ought to?

 

[TriggerHappy]

OK, I didn't necessarily mean for that analogy to be taken literally ! I was just thinking of a scenario to illustrate a question.

Read, officer suggests maybe a driver did something wrong. The point I am making is that the officer seemingly only has to say 'I suspect that...therefore I can seize your card'

How do you respond when the officer is patently abusing the power?.

Actually, Jamie, your question is spot on.

Faced with that scenario, 'how does a still image prove or disprove speeding?', yet the office still cites s19.

I can only answer for how I'd respond in that situation. I'd oblige the police officer and suggest that I was unsure whether any of my images would be of use. I'd then suggest he browse the photographs I'd taken on the back of my camera to see if any were of relevance. In all likelihood he'd find nothing of use but if he felt there was something that he could use I'd hand over my memory card glad that I could help.

I understand that the problem might be slightly different if the card contained images I was dependent on for an income. In that situation I'd probably explain to the officer that without the images I'd not be getting paid and request that either they or I duplicate the images I required to sell. I very much doubt that any decent human being would respond with anything other than full due consideration if you present your situation in a civilised way.

 

[TriggerHappy]

Isn't this going to be a massive issue to the press, if they shoot an MP slapping a slow waiter then a copper takes the card, the picture doesn't go into the papers where it ought to?

Playing devils advocate here...

Why ought such images end up in the papers? The evidence is in the police's hands and they can proceed with the situation within the letter of the law. It's not the publics place to play judge and jury on the situation. If the papers never get wind of the event but the police process him for his crime then surely justice is done and case closed. Who's to say it's necessary for the public to know?

 

[Musicman]

I understand that the problem might be slightly different if the card contained images I was dependent on for an income. In that situation I'd probably explain to the officer that without the images I'd not be getting paid and request that either they or I duplicate the images I required to sell.

Which isn't going to cut it if the cards are being seized as police evidence, with which they have very tight rules about what can be done with it to maintain a chain of custody and ensure that it is not tampered with.

I very much doubt that any decent human being would respond with anything other than full due consideration if you present your situation in a civilised way.

see above

However, journalistic materials are subject to Section 14 of PACE, which protects them as Special Procedure Materials, where an application to a court would have to be made to seize them. You should not have to rely on your powers of persuasion, but the law - which also addresses the question you raised in your following post.

The case in the OP relates to an ordinary member of the public and not a journalist, as far as I can tell.

 

[DemiLion]

Which isn't going to cut it if the cards are being seized as police evidence, with which they have very tight rules about what can be done with it to maintain a chain of custody and ensure that it is not tampered with.



see above

However, journalistic materials are subject to Section 14 of PACE, which protects them as Special Procedure Materials, where an application to a court would have to be made to seize them. You should not have to rely on your powers of persuasion, but the law - which also addresses the question you raised in your following post.

The case in the OP relates to an ordinary member of the public and not a journalist, as far as I can tell.

And Sects 11 & 13!

 

[TriggerHappy]

Well in that case it's just tough ****. I don't think the police claiming evidence to help with the prosecution of a crime is wrong in any way, even when the images they claim have value.

 

[Photo Plod]

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

Back to law school, my armchair-critic friend. We only require warrants generally to gain access to premises, but only in certain circumstances - s18 PACE and s32 PACE being two notable exceptions following an arrest. Our main seizure powers come from s19 PACE, which is exactly what was being exercised in this incident.

We can obtain production orders for certain kinds of special procedure material through the Crown Court (bank records and the like).

I don't know where you ever got the idea that we need to get warrants to seize any evidence in a criminal case, let alone spout it out on a forum like you know it as fact. If what you said were true, we'd never get anywhere with anything - and there would be a permanent queue two miles long outside every Magistrates' Court in the land.

 

[Ziploc]

Back to law school, my armchair-critic friend. We only require warrants generally to gain access to premises, but only in certain circumstances - s18 PACE and s32 PACE being two notable exceptions following an arrest. Our main seizure powers come from s19 PACE, which is exactly what was being exercised in this incident.

We can obtain production orders for certain kinds of special procedure material through the Crown Court (bank records and the like).

I don't know where you ever got the idea that we need to get warrants to seize any evidence in a criminal case, let alone spout it out on a forum like you know it as fact. If what you said were true, we'd never get anywhere with anything - and there would be a permanent queue two miles long outside every Magistrates' Court in the land.

Too many us crime shows. The only thing I would be asking for is a receipt with the memory cards serial number on.

 

[Richard King]

They could : copy the card, and give the photographer a DVD of the rest of the contents
They could : replace the card with a new one
A copy of CCTV is acceptable, why not a copy of a CF card?

 

[cosmix3]

They could : copy the card, and give the photographer a DVD of the rest of the contents
They could : replace the card with a new one
A copy of CCTV is acceptable, why not a copy of a CF card?

I may be mistaken here, but that could have implications on any court case, if the evidance is publicly displayed (from the copy) the defendants leagal team can claim this is predudice to there case, CCTV footage is covered under the Data Protection Act so is not likly to end up being shown in a public forum.

 

[swanseamale47]

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.

The problem with this is it can take 6 months for the IT team to even look at it, then theres the issue of YOUR other pics on the card that are not evidence, coupled to the fact you may have had the camera pointing at a scene but it may not have actually taken any pictures.
The other problem for me is the "abuse" factor, we have all heard of the problems with the section 44, this is just another chance for the small minority of PC Plods to abuse his/her "powers" yet again.

 

[Richard King]

And if you have commercially valuable shots on the card, that need to be submitted today?

 

[Photo Plod]

And if you have commercially valuable shots on the card, that need to be submitted today?

I would hope that any officer would be as accommodating as possible and that you could come to some arrangement.

In my time, I've gone & bought USB sticks from shops, had people come back to the station with me, and even transferred some video footage to an iPod so that the owner could keep their camera or CCTV system without me needing to take it. I frequently get crime reports where officers note that "Witness has a photo of xyz on their phone", and usually said witness is politely asked to hold onto it until such time as we can attend and take it properly, without causing inconvenience - even if the photo is relatively important.

The list of options in any given situation is endless. The worst, and last, resort is to force a member of public to do something by having to resort to legal power - a theme that runs through many other strands of policing. I have never had to force anyone to give me images of anything, and can only imagine (vaguely) having to do so in a case of the utmost gravity...but then, in my experience, when you're dealing with murders and suchlike, most people bend over backwards to assist in any way they can.

 

[desantnik]

If you haven't bothered, I suggest you all go read the blog linked from the article I posted...

http://www.marcvallee.co.uk/blog/2010/09/police-seize-protesters-film/

In particular, read the comments, read the one from Glenn Williams - the guy who's film was actually seized.

This is not about Police using powers to seize evidence (which as PhotoPlod says, most people would be happy to give in support of the police - I would for sure) but instead the "usual" use of powers to intimidate and/or just p*ss off people who take a contrary view to an officer on the ground.

Thats abuse of powers plain and simple.

All the rest of this story appears to be a cover up of the truth here...

You'll even see the Sussex Police Media dude admit in the end that it was exactly that... in a surprising and refreshingly open discussion - never seen that before!

 

[cowasaki]

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?

This would not require a warrant

AND

They need the entire memory card or tape. The whole contents of the media will be exhibited. IF they exhibited just one image then the defence could say that the police were covering up images that put this into context. Like those adverts that showed a punk running and pushing an old deer over THEN showing more of the clip and seeing a load of bricks falling and him running and saving her.

The police have very strict evidence procedures when then take it themselves and they have to get other peoples evidence dealt with as close to this as possible.

The police use cameras with "Image authenication" switched on, format the memory card before use, don't delete ANYTHING including taking a picture of their own feet etc during an incident. This is to avoid these issues.

 

[odd jim]

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

No court order is needed for a police officer to seize anything they consider is evidence of an offence. Sec 19 of PACE covers this

Guys, this has been the law since policing existed (in one form or another) so there is no need to start worrying about this now..... Unless you are photographing a crime in progress and you then refuse to pass this to police, I doubt anyone here has cause to worry their kit will be seized :bang:

S44 was 'abused' by some officers as it was such a broad piece of legislation, s19 of PACE isnt, its very very specific and is NOT open to abuse.

Relax.

 

[madhouse]

Totally agree Jim, it's nothing to worry about - I don't even worry about s.44!!

In my book if you're abiding by the law you have nothing to fear from a visit by the plod, act like a prize idiot when they ask you a civil question and you deserve all you get. It'll stay that way till I have an experience to the contrary.

 

[desantnik]

S44 was 'abused' by some officers as it was such a broad piece of legislation, s19 of PACE isnt, its very very specific and is NOT open to abuse.

did you not bother to read my post earlier today?

 

[cowasaki]

did you not bother to read my post earlier today?

I did and this was, it would appear, a single incident not a wholesale misuse of powers. Section 19 has been with us since the introduction of PACE and has not been an issue.

 

[odd jim]

did you not bother to read my post earlier today?

Im explaining the law, not the article. I wasnt there so cant and wont comment on that, but yes I've read it.

Remember what the press do.... And the guy involved clearly has an axe to grind.

 

[desantnik]

An Axe to grind? I'd say his "axe" is that by the sounds of things he's been around such things a fair few times in the past.

If it happens to you once, maybe you just say, well, thats just tough luck, but if this "type" of thing happens a lot you have to start to think that even though perhaps not centrally orchestrated, there are a number of individuals setting themselves against your cause...

 

[DemiLion]

An Axe to grind? I'd say his "axe" is that by the sounds of things he's been around such things a fair few times in the past.

If it happens to you once, maybe you just say, well, thats just tough luck, but if this "type" of thing happens a lot you have to start to think that even though perhaps not centrally orchestrated, there are a number of individuals setting themselves against your cause...

Or you could just wear a tin foil hat, and everything will be fine from then on.

 

[odd jim]

An Axe to grind? I'd say his "axe" is that by the sounds of things he's been around such things a fair few times in the past.

If it happens to you once, maybe you just say, well, thats just tough luck, but if this "type" of thing happens a lot you have to start to think that even though perhaps not centrally orchestrated, there are a number of individuals setting themselves against your cause...

Simple paranoia I'd say. Did this affect you?

And I re-itterate my previous post, police seizing evidence has been around since day one - no need to get concerned now.

Maybe you'd be better off contacting the MET and speaking with the officer directly as you seem to have spoken the the guy involved. Both sides and all that?

 

[Musicman]

The Register have a follow-up article today

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/09/sussex_police_filming_rights/

There's some history here...

Meanwhile, the argument continues over whether the police were right to seize film in this particular instance. According to Cloke, there were two violent incidents that might have been filmed by Williams – and Williams may not even have been aware of the fact that he had filmed one of them.

Williams agrees that this is possible, but remains sceptical. He told us that he has had film or cameras seized by police on three previous occasions. In one case, a complaint went as far as the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), who agreed that the police had not dealt correctly with his initial complaint.

The matter was bounced back to the police, who continued to claim that they had been entitled to remove his camera, agreed that a common assault might have been committed against Williams by the police officer involved, but as six months had elapsed - the police took eight to nine months in all to deal with the matter - no further action could be taken.

In the most recent case, he says that he was told that his film was required as possible evidence of a violent assault when "someone in an invalid carriage drove over an officer’s foot". However, he believes the reasons given by police for taking his film are retrospective justification and their actions were actually motivated by spite.

Williams' film remains with the police forensic unit, where it has languished for the last week, and will be returned to him when they have cleared their current backlog and managed to take a look at it.

 

[desantnik]

Simple paranoia I'd say. Did this affect you?

And I re-itterate my previous post, police seizing evidence has been around since day one - no need to get concerned now.

Maybe you'd be better off contacting the MET and speaking with the officer directly as you seem to have spoken the the guy involved. Both sides and all that?

Well,

1) It didn't affect me directly, but lots of things don't effect me directly (famine in the third world, the banking crisis, even the general election) but that does not prevent me from having an opinion on it and a desire to see it happen differently.

2) I'll give the Met a call later and ask them about Sussex Police. I should think they will be most helpful :shrug:

3) "both sides", again, I appreciate it might be taxing when having a written discussion to have to actually read some stuff, but that link once again contained both sides of the story in a quite uniquely frank and open discussion (for which praise is most deserved). However, my point remains... if you can see it that is.

 

[odd jim]

Well,

1) It didn't affect me directly, but lots of things don't effect me directly (famine in the third world, the banking crisis, even the general election) but that does not prevent me from having an opinion on it and a desire to see it happen differently.

2) I'll give the Met a call later and ask them about Sussex Police. I should think they will be most helpful :shrug:

3) "both sides", again, I appreciate it might be taxing when having a written discussion to have to actually read some stuff, but that link once again contained both sides of the story in a quite uniquely frank and open discussion (for which praise is most deserved). However, my point remains... if you can see it that is.

...the officer was on 'mutual aid' from London (or so I've read but I'm prepared to stand corrected)...

No photographers should be worried about this, and the article itself, in relation to the 'unique' use of sec 19 PACE is wrong. In addition, the use of s19 in this case was fully justified, the footage was believed to contain evidence of a GBH, a very serious offence, why is the guy moaning about having his footage seized, surely if someone was the victim of a GBH we'd all want to help? I know Mr Williams' take is different but they honestly wouldnt waste their time seizing it without reason. Mr Williams almost seems to have a police paranoia thing going.

Right, I'm off to enjoy some photography!

 

[STOWITBELOW]

People seem to worry a lot about police misuse of their powers. When a victim of crime they are quick to complain about police inactivity. They seem to want it both ways. I would hand over my memory card if it helped convict an offender. It's part of the price to be paid for the society we live in, like jury service, or giving a statement/evidence as a witness. The Police, police not only by consent, but more often only with people's help. I'm not a believer they are perfect, but sometimes (public disorder for example) if your not part of the solution........... If innocent bye standers were out of the way it would b----------------e much easier to see the wood for the trees. If you've evidence of offences really you should be volunteering to hand it over, not complaining it may be seized.