What's next?

I saw this story in the Maryland Gazette in the US and was amazed at the growing number of cases of intrusion and erosion of personal and civil liberties that I have been hearing about in recent times and felt the need to comment.

I, myself, was at The Nikon Super GP races on the Gold Coast 2 weeks ago when I was waiting for a helicopter to take some aerial shots of the track and of the Gold Coast generally, when I was approached by 4 police officers.

Surrounded might be a better way of saying it, when they demanded to look at the pictures on my camera. I asked why to which they responded that there had been reports of a photographer taking shots of young children and teenagers and needed to check for any paedophilia type activity. I showed them the pictures happily, moving the screen shots backwards and forwards to show them on the camera. They then wanted my personal information, details etc to which I indicated that I had been cooperative and clearly was not in any violation of any moral or immoral code and was reluctant to give such information when no offence or remote indication of such had been established. Then they demanded them under threat of arrest. They were insistent.

Not wanting to destroy my purposes for enjoyment and decorum, I gave the details to the police and then they left with a smile. They were not rude as such, but the mere suggestion of me being associated with a reprehensible form of behaviour did not, and does not sit well with me.

I accept warmly the need to be vigilant and aware of those who would have less than admirable photographic leanings that are clearly in violation of accepted norms of behaviour with children, but lets not throw the baby (or the photographers that are good, professional and worthwhile) out with the bath water as well.

I think the actions of the Queensland police in this instance were somewhat dictatorial, a little unkind and of a very scary nature when viewed with an eye on the possible ramifications when people end up having police files, notes, insinuations and conclusions are made without there being any basis or reasonable foundation of mal-intent. When I am clearly not in violation they still demanded details to which I remain somewhat defiant on. I had nothing to hide, and I was open, but I am worried for where this sort of stand over behaviour leads. It is increasingly becoming apparent that guilty until proven innocent is becoming more of a practice instead of the reverse. I have no intention to escalate the complaint further, but it is a little disconcerting.

Severn man says police forced him to delete photos
'I felt like a sheep and they were the wolves'

By MARC SHAPIRO, Staff Writer
Published 11/04/09

The sudden jostling of Antonio Amador's heating system woke him up early on the morning of Oct. 24.

He knew something was up when the world outside his window was glowing.

"I looked through the back window of my house and saw the ambulance, police and fire and thought 'something big happened,' " the Severn man said.

What made his electricity flicker was the 2002 Acura crashing into a utility pole on New Cut Road, just across from the entrance to his neighborhood.

Amador, who has been quietly building a case for speed controls on the busy road, grabbed a small camera and walked over to the scene to take some photos. He joined several neighbors already there.

"Suddenly I hear this screaming, like somebody really mad," he said. "I see this guy charging at me saying, 'delete those pictures now!' "

What followed was what Amador and the ACLU believe was a gross violation of his civil rights and an abuse of power by police.

Amador said the officers came up to him and ordered him to delete his photos. He tried to explain why he was taking pictures in a calm manner, but said that didn't make a difference.

"They couldn't care less," he said. "They threatened to handcuff me just because I questioned why I should delete my photos in the first place."

County police spokesman Justin Mulcahy declined to comment on Amador's allegations, except to say all complaints against the department are fully investigated.

When asked to explain whether an officer could order someone to delete photos taken at an accident, he pointed to the department's policy granting news media access as long as long as they don't interfere with an investigation or put others at risk.

A staff attorney from the American Civil Liberties Union office in Baltimore said Amador was perfectly within his rights and called the police actions "flagrantly improper."

"We're allowed to take photos outside of whatever we want," David Rocah said. "We don't need the approval of the police or any other government agency. It's completely beyond their authority."

The accident on Oct. 24 claimed the life of 20-year-old Joseph Martin Zapushek of Glen Burnie.

As he approached the intersection at Upton Road about 4:30 a.m., he failed to negotiate a curve in the road and lost control of his 2002 Acura. He ran up a grassy embankment, then struck the pole.

Firefighters tried to treat Zapushek, the son of a Baltimore City police officer, but he was declared dead at the scene. Police said they have preliminary evidence that alcohol played a role in the crash.

Amador didn't know anything about the person killed or the possible cause. But he said the officers stood over him and made sure he deleted every photo, and then ordered him to leave.

"At that point, I should have gotten these guys' names and badge numbers, but I was scared, man," he said. "It's their word against mine."

Amador, a photographer and graphic designer, took photos just days before the fatal accident when a pickup truck skidded off New Cut Road and crashed into two parked cars in his neighborhood.

"We've got a really bad speeding problem here," he said. "That could have been fatal. My girls ride bikes around there."

While Amador was saddened by Zapushek's death, he called the confrontation with police disturbing.

"I felt like a sheep and they were the wolves," he said. "I think they just abused their power and disrespected me."

Amador filed a complaint Thursday with the police department. He has received follow-up e-mails and voice mails, but has not had a chance to discuss the complaint with police.

Rocah said police have no authority to demand to see a bystander's photos, order them deleted, arrest the bystander or order him to leave unless he was interfering or committing a crime. Legally, they even need a warrant to look at the photos.

Amador said he snapped most of his photos from the sidewalk. He took about two steps into the road, well back from the scene.

"We hear about this periodically," Rocah said. "I think in a well-run police department they take proactive steps to make sure their officers know the rules because they are potentially setting themselves up for liability if they don't."

The story link is here