little background on this story. This morning about 7am there was a single vehicle MVA (car into a tree on the interstate). Ended up a code gray. This photographer has been around for a few years, but in this situation the line seems to be blurred between photographer and first responder... What do you think? Note the bold text
Photographer Says Police Took His Camera
- Thread starter litning
- Start date
Not sure what recourse the police have, they shouldn't have let him into the scene in the first place.
The problem I have is that it seems as though he was using is relationship with the Fire Department and prior work as an emergency worker to gain greater than normal access to an accident scene. Just because you throw on turnout gear doesn't mean you can get right into the action at a fatal MVA and start snapping pictures. Taking pics for a FD is one thing, but taking them and selling for profit is another.
mcpd2025 said:
The Bold, underlined, italicized stuff below is what is important here. He was acting as a responder with the Penacook Rescue Department. Regardless of what he was doing there his "job" with the department was to take pictures of scenes and other incidents. We don't know what the photos entailed but with him being a former firefighter, EMT, and Police Officer, I HIGHLY doubt that he would take inappropriate photos to sell to the media. Especially since he was willing to hand over the camera without any incident. Just my .02.
ISU_Cyclone said:
Bingo.
I can't use my role as a detective to shoot homicide scene photos for the agency, and the turn around and use them for personal gain. If he wants to shoot scenes and sell the product, he need to get press credential and then follow all of the issuer's and emergency agencies protocols. If he wants to be a responder, he needs to put the photo stuff aside. If he wants to shoot photos for investigative and training purposes, that distinction needs to be made clear and well-defined.
well from calls in the past due to the nature of the call and family not being notified police will take the photographers pictures to help aid in the investigation to see if there is anything captured that was not seen due to the rescue effort. alot of stuff gets moved around and maybe this guy should of got the approval of the investigating police dept before taking any pictures
Another article... http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/p ... ion-charge
an interesting excerpt "Concord fire Chief Dan Andrus said Blackden has showed up to many fires and has never represented himself as an emergency responder."
Another one "But Shawn Brechtel, the rescue squad's assistant chief, said Blackden does not hold a position in the department. He said he was not aware of anyone asking Blackden to become the squad's photographer."
an interesting excerpt "Concord fire Chief Dan Andrus said Blackden has showed up to many fires and has never represented himself as an emergency responder."
Another one "But Shawn Brechtel, the rescue squad's assistant chief, said Blackden does not hold a position in the department. He said he was not aware of anyone asking Blackden to become the squad's photographer."
I was about to say something until I read this... I'll still say it, even thou it does not apply here.litning said:
Up in Ontario, Canada, photographers/media can become 'affiliated" with certain local fire depts, and have standard bunker gear and a "media" PIT pass issued to them. Now, they still have additional rules to follow, and I do believe they have to have all submitted photos (to the media outlets) pre approved by the FD brass...
Doesn't look like this guy did the above thou... Dumbass.
Fast LT1 said:
That is exactly it. This man owns a Pepper Spray and Mace shop in Concord NH. He has no current known affiliation with any Emergency Services orginization. He says he is a correspondent for 1RWN Newspapers, but thats not like a job, anyone can send in articles to possibly get printed. He drives around with an old ambulance equipped with emergency lights, a siren, multiple radios and scanners and the whole thing is decked out in graphics.
Its fine if you want to take picturesa of emergency scenes and even have scanners in your vehicle to know where the scenes are... but this guy just brings it over the top
http://www.wmur.com/news/24765147/detail.html
That is the full article, there is a video from a month ago when the news did a whole segment on him.
It news to me that he is affiliated with Penacook Rescue, I am going to try and find out if he truly is a member or not.
That is the full article, there is a video from a month ago when the news did a whole segment on him.
It news to me that he is affiliated with Penacook Rescue, I am going to try and find out if he truly is a member or not.
Got a link to his business? Kinda interested to see how he has it listed online..mfdbenji said:
Yeah, as other have stated-pick which you want to do: A freelance photographer, profiting from the pics, or a first responder with the FD. I'm a state certified fatal crash investigator, part of a multi-agency, county-wide team, our photo guys use government owned cameras, and can not use the photos for anything but the cases we work. Crossing, blurring, or tap-dancing on the line between official-nonofficial is a dangerous game, and this guy finally got bit.
litning said:
if he was permitted access other than what any bystander or media member would have been allowed, I would consider the photos to belong to the public safety agency/angencies.
What a Whacker!! He feels the need to dress & play fireman. I noticed he wore a radio strap to help look official..
it said he was loading his fire gear and helmet when they asked for the camera. No media i have ever seen have worn bunker gear at the scene. If im not mistaken, it is a crime to photograph a dead body in the United States. The only reason i say this was we just went to a medical examiners office and that was what was told to us, i can not confirm this but i have heard that from the departments i work for as well...
Just to play Devil's Advocate here, and I may be speaking out of my arse, but doesn't the fourth amendment protect people from illegal search and seizure? I would have had them produce a warrant before giving up a high dollar camera.
just to clear things up a bit, they aren't really going after him for the photography part so much as they are seeing if they are going to charge him with impersonation of a firefighter
Just to correct a partial error-
In fact, it is a crime in Tennessee to photograph dead bodies unless it is for official criminal investigation and medical examiner purposes. But those pictures are permanently sealed until trial. It used to be that you could take pictures as long as the victim was not identifiable facially, but that changed due to the fact that other forms of identification (such as unique automobiles, jewelry, clothing, or tattoos) were used as sources of identification.
This is not a federal law, just in Tennessee, but there have been lawsuits in most jurisdictions about victims that could be identified and whose pictures were sold to the media by freelance photographers. Or, where family members learned of the death of a family members because of pictures over a local TV news broadcast.
If you are doing this as an official of the department, then you should have enough professionalism and ethical behavior to seek releases from the victims and/or family members and indicate strictly if the videos are for departmental training purposes only. But in Tennessee, if there is a fatality - no pictures of the victim unless officially requested by the LEO with jurisdiction or as taken by a coroner or medical examiner investigator.
In fact, it is a crime in Tennessee to photograph dead bodies unless it is for official criminal investigation and medical examiner purposes. But those pictures are permanently sealed until trial. It used to be that you could take pictures as long as the victim was not identifiable facially, but that changed due to the fact that other forms of identification (such as unique automobiles, jewelry, clothing, or tattoos) were used as sources of identification.
This is not a federal law, just in Tennessee, but there have been lawsuits in most jurisdictions about victims that could be identified and whose pictures were sold to the media by freelance photographers. Or, where family members learned of the death of a family members because of pictures over a local TV news broadcast.
If you are doing this as an official of the department, then you should have enough professionalism and ethical behavior to seek releases from the victims and/or family members and indicate strictly if the videos are for departmental training purposes only. But in Tennessee, if there is a fatality - no pictures of the victim unless officially requested by the LEO with jurisdiction or as taken by a coroner or medical examiner investigator.
For those "doubting Thomases" that just won't believe a state law that might be contrary to what they think, this is the paraphrased version of the Tennessee Code Annotated in Title 39, part of our criminal codes.
Tennessee Code 39-07-119
It is an offense for an official . . .
(1)to grant authorization to an unauthorized person or an external entity to photograph, videotape, or otherwise capture visual images, or audio recordings in whatever form of a deceased human body,. . .(or human autopsy)
(2 )No person shall distribute, publish or otherwise disseminate any autopsy photographs, videotape or other visual image or any autopsy audio recording without the written consent of the next of kin or personal representative in the order established pursuant to subdivision ©(1)(A), unless such use is consistent with subdivision ©(1)( B) , ©(1)© or ©(1)(D).
The "consistent" uses are those for investigative purposes by medical examiner and law enforcement officials.
The law was enacted after a reality television show videoed and later broadcast pictures of bodies and autopsies in certain medical examiner's offices without getting proper permission from next of kin. The family sued the Medical Examiner and damages were paid after a civil trial.
If a police dashboard camera captured a death due to a motor vehicle incident or police-involved action, then the results might be released after a hearing for cause or if the victim's identifiable info was redacted (blacked out or scrambled). Other laws provide for those purposes.
What this "photographer" did was repugnant? To misrepresent he was on the scene in the capacity of a firefighter when he was freelancing taking photos at the scene.
And we do have official fire videographers and photographer's with Tennessee fire departments . . . but they are usually both professional photographers and trained/commissioned firefighters and this is an on-scene duty assignment similar to a Chief's aide. They record the activities of the personnel on-scene only for departmental training or safety review, not for resale to news organizations. The legal advisors to the fire services make sure they are aware of the State laws applicable to their actions.
Tennessee Code 39-07-119
It is an offense for an official . . .
(1)to grant authorization to an unauthorized person or an external entity to photograph, videotape, or otherwise capture visual images, or audio recordings in whatever form of a deceased human body,. . .(or human autopsy)
(2 )No person shall distribute, publish or otherwise disseminate any autopsy photographs, videotape or other visual image or any autopsy audio recording without the written consent of the next of kin or personal representative in the order established pursuant to subdivision ©(1)(A), unless such use is consistent with subdivision ©(1)( B) , ©(1)© or ©(1)(D).
The "consistent" uses are those for investigative purposes by medical examiner and law enforcement officials.
The law was enacted after a reality television show videoed and later broadcast pictures of bodies and autopsies in certain medical examiner's offices without getting proper permission from next of kin. The family sued the Medical Examiner and damages were paid after a civil trial.
If a police dashboard camera captured a death due to a motor vehicle incident or police-involved action, then the results might be released after a hearing for cause or if the victim's identifiable info was redacted (blacked out or scrambled). Other laws provide for those purposes.
What this "photographer" did was repugnant? To misrepresent he was on the scene in the capacity of a firefighter when he was freelancing taking photos at the scene.
And we do have official fire videographers and photographer's with Tennessee fire departments . . . but they are usually both professional photographers and trained/commissioned firefighters and this is an on-scene duty assignment similar to a Chief's aide. They record the activities of the personnel on-scene only for departmental training or safety review, not for resale to news organizations. The legal advisors to the fire services make sure they are aware of the State laws applicable to their actions.
Our department has an official photographer who is a firefighter. I believe he is allowed to sell the photographs, but I imagine has to get permission from a Chief first.
It sounds like the case here is more about this person not being a firefighter but entering the scene as if he were one, rather than strictly about the pictures that were taken. Although, if the pictures taken were inappropriate, then I could see that being a major issue as well.
It sounds like the case here is more about this person not being a firefighter but entering the scene as if he were one, rather than strictly about the pictures that were taken. Although, if the pictures taken were inappropriate, then I could see that being a major issue as well.
This was the last I heard...
Photographer fights the law
Local man takes case to higher court
By Maddie Hanna / Monitor staff
August 5, 2011
It's been several months since Concord photographer Brian Blackden was found guilty of impersonating an emergency responder for showing up at a Canterbury crash scene dressed like a firefighter. But convictions haven't put an end to Blackden's battles with the courts and the police.
Today, Blackden is trying to appeal his conviction - and he has an appeal pending before the state Supreme Court on a related matter. He's preparing to sue the state troopers association. And he says he's been harassed by members of a police motorcycle club who, he says, robbed his business.
"It's a personal thing with certain members of the state police," Blackden said yesterday, explaining why he plans to pursue the appeals and lawsuit. "And this is not a brand new fight."
Besides the impersonating emergency personnel conviction, Blackden was also found guilty by a Concord district court judge earlier this year of displaying red lights without authorization on the converted ambulance he drove to the Interstate 93 crash scene last August.
He appealed that conviction to the state Supreme Court, which last month accepted his case. Blackden, who said he turned on the ambulance's lights to caution oncoming cars after fire officials instructed him to park behind their vehicles at the accident scene, said his appeal cites conflicting statutes on the use of red emergency lights.
He's also trying to appeal his conviction for impersonating emergency personnel and said he will go before the court next week to argue to change his bail conditions, which have remained in place because of his appeal and bar him from coming within 500 feet of an accident.
"It's a matter of principle, number one, because I did nothing wrong," said Blackden, who hasn't taken pictures at accident scenes since he was arrested last year. A former freelance photographer who sold his work to local media outlets and to a national first responder publication, Blackden maintains that he wears protective gear to be safe, not to sneak onto a scene.
But Blackden - who has a pending lawsuit against the state police for taking his camera after the August incident - said he's also motivated by past run-ins with members of the state police.
"There's been bad blood between a few people, and this is stemming from that," he said. "And it's payback time."
Blackden, who tried earlier this year to gain ownership of the state troopers association trade name, said he's now preparing to sue the association for allegedly using his photos on a website without his permission. The association, which had let its nonprofit status lapse with the secretary of state's office, was eventually able to reregister its name.
Blackden said this week his goal in that dispute had been to get the state troopers to claim ownership of their name for the purposes of the copyright infringement lawsuit he intends to file. "Now that I have them always up to owning the name, I can prove they stole my photographs," he said.
A message sent to the troopers association through its website was unreturned yesterday. Trooper Bill Graham, the association's past president, said in an email yesterday that the dispute over the trade name had been resolved, and there were "no additional issues related to that incident."
Blackden is also fighting the state through the Division of Motor Vehicles after a trooper at the crash scene in Canterbury last August filed motions to revoke Blackden's driver's license as well as the plates on his ambulance, according to Blackden.
"It gets to the point of ludicrous," said Blackden, who said he already took the bulbs out of the ambulance's red lights last year at a judge's instruction. Blackden also uses the ambulance as a showroom for his pepper spray supply business, which is based on North State Street.
Meanwhile, Blackden said he's continued to have trouble at his business since May, when he reported being robbed by five members of a police motorcycle club who showed up at the store and took a vest that Blackden said bore their club's colors.
The Monitor has not named the club since no arrests have been made, but Blackden has publicized the group's website to local media outlets and is offering a reward for information that leads to the arrests of club members involved in the May 21 incident.
"My goal is obviously to bring these people to justice and know who they are so I can protect myself from them," he said, noting that motorcycles have repeatedly driven by his store since the incident, slowing and revving their engines. The female mannequin often on display outside his shop was also beheaded, Blackden said, and he's gotten numerous hang-up phone calls at his store.
"In my opinion, it's a form of harassment," he said.
Concord police Lt. Keith Mitchell said this week the theft reported by Blackden is still under investigation.
"We really do hope we can conclude this in the very near future," Mitchell said.
Photographer fights the law
Local man takes case to higher court
By Maddie Hanna / Monitor staff
August 5, 2011
It's been several months since Concord photographer Brian Blackden was found guilty of impersonating an emergency responder for showing up at a Canterbury crash scene dressed like a firefighter. But convictions haven't put an end to Blackden's battles with the courts and the police.
Today, Blackden is trying to appeal his conviction - and he has an appeal pending before the state Supreme Court on a related matter. He's preparing to sue the state troopers association. And he says he's been harassed by members of a police motorcycle club who, he says, robbed his business.
"It's a personal thing with certain members of the state police," Blackden said yesterday, explaining why he plans to pursue the appeals and lawsuit. "And this is not a brand new fight."
Besides the impersonating emergency personnel conviction, Blackden was also found guilty by a Concord district court judge earlier this year of displaying red lights without authorization on the converted ambulance he drove to the Interstate 93 crash scene last August.
He appealed that conviction to the state Supreme Court, which last month accepted his case. Blackden, who said he turned on the ambulance's lights to caution oncoming cars after fire officials instructed him to park behind their vehicles at the accident scene, said his appeal cites conflicting statutes on the use of red emergency lights.
He's also trying to appeal his conviction for impersonating emergency personnel and said he will go before the court next week to argue to change his bail conditions, which have remained in place because of his appeal and bar him from coming within 500 feet of an accident.
"It's a matter of principle, number one, because I did nothing wrong," said Blackden, who hasn't taken pictures at accident scenes since he was arrested last year. A former freelance photographer who sold his work to local media outlets and to a national first responder publication, Blackden maintains that he wears protective gear to be safe, not to sneak onto a scene.
But Blackden - who has a pending lawsuit against the state police for taking his camera after the August incident - said he's also motivated by past run-ins with members of the state police.
"There's been bad blood between a few people, and this is stemming from that," he said. "And it's payback time."
Blackden, who tried earlier this year to gain ownership of the state troopers association trade name, said he's now preparing to sue the association for allegedly using his photos on a website without his permission. The association, which had let its nonprofit status lapse with the secretary of state's office, was eventually able to reregister its name.
Blackden said this week his goal in that dispute had been to get the state troopers to claim ownership of their name for the purposes of the copyright infringement lawsuit he intends to file. "Now that I have them always up to owning the name, I can prove they stole my photographs," he said.
A message sent to the troopers association through its website was unreturned yesterday. Trooper Bill Graham, the association's past president, said in an email yesterday that the dispute over the trade name had been resolved, and there were "no additional issues related to that incident."
Blackden is also fighting the state through the Division of Motor Vehicles after a trooper at the crash scene in Canterbury last August filed motions to revoke Blackden's driver's license as well as the plates on his ambulance, according to Blackden.
"It gets to the point of ludicrous," said Blackden, who said he already took the bulbs out of the ambulance's red lights last year at a judge's instruction. Blackden also uses the ambulance as a showroom for his pepper spray supply business, which is based on North State Street.
Meanwhile, Blackden said he's continued to have trouble at his business since May, when he reported being robbed by five members of a police motorcycle club who showed up at the store and took a vest that Blackden said bore their club's colors.
The Monitor has not named the club since no arrests have been made, but Blackden has publicized the group's website to local media outlets and is offering a reward for information that leads to the arrests of club members involved in the May 21 incident.
"My goal is obviously to bring these people to justice and know who they are so I can protect myself from them," he said, noting that motorcycles have repeatedly driven by his store since the incident, slowing and revving their engines. The female mannequin often on display outside his shop was also beheaded, Blackden said, and he's gotten numerous hang-up phone calls at his store.
"In my opinion, it's a form of harassment," he said.
Concord police Lt. Keith Mitchell said this week the theft reported by Blackden is still under investigation.
"We really do hope we can conclude this in the very near future," Mitchell said.
psteele: Please keep us informed of what happens. This case has many issues, including freedom of speech, impersonating a fire fighter, possible illegal access to an emergency site, having red lights, etc. This guy is rather young to have had several jobs as EMT, fire fighter, and LEO. Were these paid or volunteer positions I wonder? If paid, was he discharged for being odd, or creating problems? I am a vol. photographer for LACoFD, fully credentialed. To get accepted we go through a LiveScan, FBI, CA Dep't. of Justice, local PD, DMV, and financials check, then a 1 hour interview by three senior background investigators who check with neighbors, friends, and anyone else they can find. While this may seem excessive, LACo doesn't want a problem since we have full access to emergencies, including private property, and to stations because we can ride with crews. We cannot sell photographs if we have access beyond what the media has been granted, and all photos/videos are department property, though we share rights. If this guy went through any check, he may have been eliminated, since from reading the accounts, he seems a little off.
