Right to photograph affirmed as extension of "right to see," legal counsel advises Baltimore police

Interesting. And fantastically rational.

Unusually lucid and reasonable argument - remember Maryland is where you can be found to be performing an illegal act by recording a traffic stop.

This should prove interesting when we start seeing unedited videos and photos of decapitated traffic accident victim on the net.

"This should prove interesting when we start seeing unedited videos and photos of decapitated traffic accident victim on the net."

Oh, that's already happened several times.

I used to have bookmarks for references to gruesome photos that reached the public web because law enforcement or emergency medical personnel decided to "share" them online, without authorization. If I'm recalling correctly in most cases someone decided to share those photos via e-mail. But once something is leaked via e-mail it's just a matter of time before it goes public.

It's still a reasonable risk that's preferable to prior restraint and confiscation of personal property without due process.

Well, it sounds like good news. Will it be applied by the police department? That remains to be seen.

Lex, love the photo at the bottom of the post. Looks like the reaction someone would have after spending 20 minutes setting up the darkroom, another 20 minutes making the 'perfect' print, and then, finding out the fixer is exausted!

Can the videos include sound? In the past it's been the sound that's been the issue and it's been equated with an illegal wiretap. A number or prosecutions have been brought on the basis that it's illegal to record a conversation unless all parties involved agree. This varies state-by-state.

Of course sound should be allowed on the same basis, i.e. the police can't go up to someone and tell them to close their ears.

...If you plan to record telephone calls or in-person conversations (including by recording video that captures sound), you should be aware that there are federal and state wiretapping laws that may limit your ability to do so. These laws not only expose you to the risk of criminal prosecution, but also potentially give an injured party a civil claim for money damages against you...

See http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations

...Maryland is where you can be found to be performing an illegal act by recording a traffic stop.

Probably not. From the article: "...a judge in Harford County threw out wiretapping charges last year against a motorcyclist who secretly videotaped his own traffic stop."

I'm all for freedom of the press and "freedom to see" but this is in some ways tantamount to freedom to rubberneck. Of course, those driving along the highway should have the freedom to slow down and look voraciously on to see the bloody accident on their way home from work, but if you've ever sat in the traffic, you know how annoying this obsession with accidents and other's pain can be. I would guess that most snaps of police actions are no more than the equivalent of pornography. Since we can't easily draw the line these days between journalism and every individual photographer's over-inflated sense that he's doing something vital with his camera, I'm happy this ruling has been made. At the same time, I think everyone with a camera is not that significant in the scheme of things and, even if the right is granted, it doesn't mean it should be acted upon. In most cases, I'd say the thing to do would be to move on. Not everything deserves or needs or cries out to be made into a photo, even though it can.