back to article Sussex police try new tactic to relieve snappers of pics

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 …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
    1. Scorchio!!

      You missed a bit

      This bit: "As I later found out the man concerned was told at the scene that he would not be charged which makes the ostensible reason they seized my film seem slightly ridiculous."

      A lie, IOW.

  1. Thomas Hook
    Coat

    Evidence is evidence

    So, the police seize evidence of an assault (one human being having their human rights violated by another) and this is a Bad Thing? Let's not forget this could be key evidence in securing a conviction and would be questioned by the defence if it was allowed to leave the scene (where it could be edited/altered).

    No journalist I've ever met (which numbers in the hundreds) would ever give up their camera for the good of another human being when they have an editor to report to later that day, so I'd say the police having that power is vital.

    Mine's the coat with 'media impartiality?' written on it.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Black Helicopters

      ah bit what you fail to understand

      Is that the plod have this really nasty habit of "losing" evidence when it suits them.

      So for example we have the G20 where no cctv was working and where according to the Met they tried to save Ian Tomlinson only for the private video to leak which showed they lied.

      Its also been reported that the 4th Autopsy carried out on Tomlinson wont be released to the authorities by the plod who pushed him over, you have to wonder why, but not for long.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Black Helicopters

    Who says the police don't learn from their mistakes?

    "The officer reasonably believed the tape contained evidence of a protester being assaulted by someone taking part in the march...."

    Scenario:

    Mr plod realises that someone videoed him pushing someone to the ground and beating them to death, and so releaves said person of the evidence of a crime. Possibly this plod is from the MET, or Wiltshire (or other place...)

    Anon because they know where I live.

  3. Nigel 11
    Unhappy

    An easy techno-fix for professional photographers

    Pro cameras should be equipped with two media sockets, so that one is mirrored on the other. The police could request one, leaving the photographer with the other. It would also be a good idea if cameras digitally watermarked their media, so that any subsequent editing would be obvious.

    Another possibility would be cameras that upload via mobile broadband if a "panic button" is pressed. Uploading everything that the police officer was saying would be an added bonus!

    1. Ball boy Silver badge
      Thumb Down

      Techno-fix

      Nikon do have such a feature - damn useful it is, too - but it's no good when you're faced with an orificer of the law. Can you imagine the conversation going in your favour? "No, Officer: you keep that one, I'll have THIS one - they're the same pictures". <Sigh> "Okay son, you asked for it: I'm arresting you for deliberately obstructing an Officer of the Law. You do not..."

      Yep. Very useful those two slots. But not for this requirement. The only viable option is to have the second copy already stored away via the 'net - and storage device about your person will be subject to the same removal policy as the camera and its contents.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Thumb Up

      Canon has this kind of feature...

      It is designed to ensure that digital images cannot be modified (i.e. tampered with).

      However, that it shoots copies... no. Use Eye-Fi instead :-)

      1. Mark 65

        Re:Canon and dual cards

        As the 1D models have CF and SD card slots whereby you can write RAW to the CF and JPEG to the SD card you could make use of this or make sure the SD is an eye-fi.

        Most coppers wouldn't have a clue about the little SD card if you handed them the nice big CF one.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Boffin

      Digital Watermarking

      This is already becoming "required" (and implemented) in cameras (including phone cameras) sold or able to be sold in the US. While obviously not advertised by manufacturers that do this, there may be attempts to go "under the radar" by severely limiting the quality of the camera in the phone - as well as reducing costs. It is not clear if there is a threshold of quality vs. requirements for digital watermarking of images.

      Government first started mandating electronic watermarking in printers in the 1990s to curtail easy forgeries by using color printers (Xerox, et al). This was extended to scanners, to prevent accurate digital copies of currency, and has ultimately made its way into cameras (voluntarily for forensic science markets, an easy reference is http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/Research/DFRWSfinal.pdf) to prevent "forgery".

      Though this is not "codified" in an official (and therefore - searchable) regulation or order, I personally know of two court cases where forensic evidence was tendered (but not filed with the court - again, not yet public information) that the identity of the phone, including serial number, was offered to be extracted from digital images alleged to be made with the phone to confirm that they did, in fact, come from said phone belonging to the person who possessed the images. It was later determined for both cases, under different issues, that it was not necessary. Each case dealt with a different manufacturer of phone (Nokia, Motorola), so this does suggest that it is industry-wide.

  4. David Perry 2
    FAIL

    Assuming they return it...

    I took a photo of an incident about 5 years ago that I was witness to, and deleted the photo cos I couldn't see anything in it. The police, on hearing this, asked if they could have memory card to do an undelete - and sent someone round to do the formal handover. They never returned it though...

  5. BenR
    WTF?

    I can't help but feel...

    ... that we're only getting half a story here.

    At an anti-fascism demonstration/protest march, there is a bit of a fracas that is recorded on film/tape. Fine.

    Police (quite rightly) want to try to find those responsible for said fracas, presumably with a view to prosecuting. Good and proper.

    Police have obtained some suspected evidence - this is where it gets a bit murky.

    S19 allows officers to confiscate property if they have reasonable grounds to believe the property is evidence to a crime. If someone is camcordering the event, then I would suggest that's reasonable grounds straight away. The bod from the Met suggested (QUOTE) "that in his experience the easiest way to obtain photographic evidence of a crime was "to ask the individual concerned – or their editor where news media were involved". (/QUOTE) All well and good.

    <theoretical musings>

    BUT - what happens if you're at an anti-fascism rally, you record an event such as said fracas, a policeman asks if you'd be willing to turn over the tape/memory card voluntarily. You, being a dyed-in-the-wool anti-fascist, have no intention of complying with the fairly reasonable (in this case) demands of the officer.

    I would suggest that in the situation outlined, the use of S19 to obtain said (suspected) evidence was only right and proper. As long as the coppers return it in a reasonable time and in the correct condition, I don't really see a problem with this.

    </theoretical musings>

    That being said, given certain recent incidents, I wouldn't put it past our boys in blue to completely misuse and abuse these particular powers until a Beak gives them a legal bitch-slapping for doing so...

    WTF - because, well WTF? More information?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Unhappy

      You will find...

      That journalists (real ones, who comply with all the appropriate legislation, codes of conduct and journalistic practices) will happily turn over evidence, AFTER they've made a copy to preserve their journalistic material. Pulling out Section 19 only serves to upset the media more.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Sorry

      S19 only applies on premises not in a public place.

  6. BristolBachelor Gold badge

    Nikon cameras

    I believe that certin Nikon bodies will let you store the photo twice on 2 different cards (Raw on one, JPEG on the other). Plod only needs JPEG, so presumably you could keep the other card - the same as the way they record interviews on 2 tapes?

    Unfortunately I bought into Canon, so no good for me. Of course I could always buy a Canon WiFi adaptor for each body, but would then need my laptop always on, and besides the WiFi adaptors cost almost the same as a 2nd-hand car (Reg standard unit).

    1. Lionel Baden

      Laptop ??!

      why not just use a smart phone ???

  7. Andus McCoatover

    50/50 on this one, to be honest.

    "The officer reasonably believed the tape (tape?? WTF? Betamax, perchance?) 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."

    That seems reasonable - ish. Evidence-tampering is a criminal offence - rightly so.

    The other side of the coin is that if it were Sussex Police doing the assault, taking part in the march by walking with the marchers I'd expect "Sorry, Squire, we lost it. How much did it cost? Will a fiver cover it?"

    Wot, no bluetooth cameras out there???

    (Update, there is at least one.

    http://www.gadgetguy.com.au/jvc-s-bluetooth-video-camera-the-ins-the-outs-and-the-heart-stopping-price-article-9127-5.html)

  8. Tequila Joe

    Nothing to see... Move along

    Quote - "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."

    Well, not 'inadvertently' anyway.

    Can't help but wonder what would have happened to the pics of the police assault on Ian Tomlinson if they had been similarly seized, bearing in mind the Met's description of events before the pics publicly surfaced and contradicted the Met..

    I guess seizing the evidence might save the CPS from this sort of embarrassment in similar future events (http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE66L03020100722):

    - "After a thorough and careful review of the evidence, the Crown Prosecution Service has decided there is no realistic prospect of a conviction against the police officer in question for any offences ... and no charges should be brought against him," said the Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer.

    - He said other offences were considered but ruled out, including a charge of common assault which Starmer admitted could not be brought as there was a six-month time limit.

    Anyone else think the CPS were incredibly pessimistic with their approach of "no realistic prospect of a conviction against the police officer in question"? I'm sure they'd seem more convincing and Authoritative if the public hadn't seen the pics.

    Maybe it's time for citizens with cameras to start operating in teams to make sure evidence can surface when it is at odds with Authority's story, or is that against some terrorist legislation... sorry, anti-terrorist legislation?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Big Brother

      Police state

      "Quote - "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.""

      Like, never. Nor the camera. Why it's always that the seizing happens swiftly but the returning happens extremely slowly and never voluntarily?

      If you threaten to sue you might get your camera back, but phographs? Never.

      It looks very much that the police force may choose freely what laws (or parts of the law) they obey and what not, which by definition is the police state and not far from fascism.

  9. peter 45
    Unhappy

    Script for coppers to follow

    Plod "I am seizing your camera under section 19 as I believe it contains evidence of a crime"

    MoP "what crime"

    Plod "Sections 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 Harassment, alarm or distress"

    MoP " Huh. Who was causing Harassment, alarm or distress"

    Plod. "You were"

    MOP "How? I was just taking photos"

    Plod "Exactly! So you admit the offence then?"

  10. Dan 55 Silver badge
    Black Helicopters

    Someone in the police has been sitting down and thinking about this...

    They've definitely decided they want to take cameras off the public, they're just trying every law they can think of. They need bringing down a peg or two, they're there to ensure that the law is followed, not to make up their own laws.

  11. Ancient Oracle funkie

    Misleading ...

    ... or just incorrect first paragraph.

    As a keen amateur photographer I'm well aware that HM Plod seem to have a shaky grasp of the law in regard to photography. However this article, on the facts reported, has nothing to do with "who is permitted to take photographs of what".

    The tape, not the camera, was seized as the officer believed that it contained evidence of a crime being committed. Still a pain in the ar$e for the owner but not what the article would have you believe.

  12. Peter Mount
    Pint

    Blackberries & other phones

    Don't know of an automatic method (yet), but take the photograph on the phone (using the media card) but have the phone upload to a remote service when you take it- twitpic comes to mind as I can do that manually.

    So as long as you have signal, they take the copy on the phone but it's still out there...

    Beer icon as I've just come back from lunch ;-)

    1. HighlightAll
      Linux

      Nokia N900

      If the its camera were a little snappier... Put an SD card into it then RAID1 a partition on the phone's internal 32GB drive to the SD card.

      "Here occifer, have the SD card..." with a pleasant smile.

      Shame, you can't do this on, say, an HTC Desire because its internal drive is iccle.

  13. Spanners Silver badge
    Boffin

    I want

    an app that automatically emails every picture to a predetermined address. I would think it would be good if the address was asterisked out after being entered.

    1. HighlightAll

      Tor

      'nuff said.

      Need a touching-nose icon.

  14. Christoph

    It's not just photos of Plod committing crime that's the problem

    There have been plenty of incidents of police and prosecution accidentally forgetting to pass to the defence evidence which helps the defence case.

    If they've arrested someone for a crime and confiscated all the photos of what happened, are they going to present all those photos as evidence, or only the ones which help the prosecution case?

  15. Mark McNeill
    Linux

    If you've got a clever phone & a decent signal

    http://www.miqlive.com.

  16. Graham Bartlett

    @David Perry 2

    Obvious question, but have you asked them?

    My understanding is that if the police take something off you, they are required to give you a receipt for it. There then follows a long chain-of-custody paperwork so that they can show where they got it and where it went (otherwise the drug dealer's lawyer could easily stand up in court and say "so how do we know the £20 note contaminated with cocaine which the lab checked was the same £20 note taken from my client?"). So if you wave your receipt at them, there's a fair chance they'll be able to do something.

    Depends if you can be arsed or not, of course. A 5-year-old memory card might not be worth the time to wander over to the station.

    1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge
      Boffin

      Cocaine and Bank Notes

      Interesting factoid:

      More than 99% of bank notes in London ARE contaminated with cocaine:

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/464200.stm

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Boffin

    Use these instead ........ video sunglasses

    http://www.iwantoneofthose.com/immortal-sunglasses/index.html

  18. blackworx
    Black Helicopters

    All this talk of on-the-fly uploading...

    ...wonder how long it'll be before nearby access points mysteriously start "having technical difficulties" whenever there's any public order "policing" being done?

  19. OffBeatMammal

    auto image upload

    while a nice idea has a couple of drawbacks...

    - battery life: having a radio always on will diminish the battery life on the camera :(

    - speed: uploading a RAW image over a crappy GSM connection?!

    - cost: assuming cellphone upload the carriers are going to rake it in

    ... and all this for a very small percentage of images that are "lost" to the Police.

    Perhaps the answer is a return to old style Police Boxes witha USB hub so you can connect your camera and upload a copy of all the images/video for the date/time concerned and then both the photographer and the police have a copy to do with as they will...

    Heck, equipment to do that is portable enough to add to every police car and probably add to their utility belt...

    The moment they confiscate the only copy of an image there is going to be finger pointing... this solves that issue

    1. heyrick Silver badge

      I saw a "backup box" in our supermarket.

      €180, has a harddisc, USB host, various card slots. You insert media and press a button. All the known media files (MP4, MP3, AVI, JPG...) are copied from the card to the internal disc. I would imagine there's a delete-once-copied feature. Looked like a good way to clear off my SD cards that I use with the Neuros OSD, but I don't have €180 spare right now.

      If the inept government can blow millions on inept IT contracts, it can surely drop one of these in each cop car (well, a modded one to use SSDs; more shock-resistant). That such technology isn't turning up any time soon should, rightfully, raise eyebrows. It isn't about preserving images containing evidence of a crime, it is about getting those images out of the public arena.

      1. david wilson

        @heyrick

        If they're just collecting /information/, then copies of things might be fine.

        However, if they're actually collecting potential /evidence/, they may legally need to do all kinds of things regarding chain of evidence, and might at best need some kind of custom box where they could record the relevant details, which effectively ends up being a portable PC with a card reader and custom software which prevents any tampering with the collected information.

        In practice, it may even be that at the moment, they'd technically actually have to keep the /original/ card as evidence, at least until it made its way into the hands of a suitably trained/authorized person to do the initial copying.

  20. RW
    Unhappy

    Why the coppers hate photographers

    It's because they're doing things they're ashamed of and which are probably illegal. They'll deny it, but they know this in their heart of hearts.

    When did the cops stop acting like public servants and start acting like uniformed thugs countenanced by law?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Flame

      When did the police stop being public servants?

      When Thatcher sent the Met to disrupt and attack the Miners in order to provoke them for bias news reporting, I was there as part of my job and saw what the Met did but UK Police forces were ordered to cover it up.

      Posted anonymously because the only truth is the word of the Police.

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Boffin

    I happen to have PACE 1984 sat right beside me

    s.19 PACE 1984 (with relevant sections shown)

    (1) The powers conferred by subsections (2), (3), and (4) below are exercisable by a constable who is lawfully on any premises.

    (4) The constable may require any information which is [stored in any electronic form] and is accessible from the premises to be produced in a form which it can be taken away and in which it is visible and legible [or from which it can be readily be produced in a visible and legible form] if he has reasonable grounds for believing-

    (a) that

    (i) it is evidence in relation to an offence which he is investigating or any other offence

    (b) that it is necessary to do so in order to prevent it being concealed, lost, tampered with or destroyed

    (5) The powers conferred by this section are in addition to any power otherwise conferred.

    It appears that the Sussex police appear to have used the above to seize the video. As a professional photographer, and someone who has vested interests in the police (hence having a PACE book beside me), I am in two camps regarding this. When I am out taking photos for a night club I get regular work from, I end up taking photos which the police may become very interested in. As a professional, I endeavour to keep these photos on my camera and process these along with the rest of the photos I provide to the club, where the police may seize the photos. I would be highly frustrated if my memory card were seized throughout the night and I weren't to obtain it back until many hours later, but generally I have been able to discuss with the police that I am making all my photos available to them through the club, and lock the photos in camera to prevent deletion. However, I can also see how other photographers wouldn't be aware of the need for police to have access to these photos, and could easily delete these potentially critical photos to save space on their camera.

    I would suggest that if the police did start to use PACE 1984 s.19 seizures, they would more likely do this to the casual photographer/videographer, than journos. In this instance, if the videographer would have been able to convince the constable that (s)he was not going to remove/delete the footage, and s.19.4.a.ii wouldn't have applied, and thus s.19 wouldn't have applied in this instance.

    1. Red Bren

      Use an iphone?

      "The constable may require any information which is [stored in any electronic form] and is accessible from the premises to be produced in a form which it can be taken away"

      So if the "evidence" was recorded by an iphone or other device without removable storage, is the officer exceeding their powers if they try and take the entire device away?

  22. Ben Rosenthal
    Big Brother

    also in two minds

    few years ago I wouldn't have batted an eyelid at a copper "doing their duty" , but all the illegal stop and searches and beatings that we now get to hear about have made me highly suspicious of the boys in blue and I now assume the crimes they are so eager to get evidence of, are of their own doing.

    1. david wilson

      @Ben Rosenthal

      >>"...but all the illegal stop and searches and beatings that we now get to hear about..."

      I'm wondering what kind of timescale you're thinking of.

      What past decades are you comparing with today and thinking of as a Golden Age of policing, and in what part of the country?

  23. david wilson

    Sure, they'll destroy anything they don't like.

    Even for the paranoid, there's a significant risk if the police did confiscate material incriminating a police officer or other official, and ended up 'losing' it, that risk being that in a great many situations, they'd have no idea how many other people might have recorded the events, or possibly even already uploaded copies wirelessly.

    That'd be a tricky one even if they just took material from one person, but if they'd confiscated material from multiple people and it *all* disappeared, it'd be extraordinarily difficult for them to try and explain that away when the footage from the people they didn't find turned up.

    Whatever faults some individual officers may have, the police aren't collectively stupid, and except in fairly rare situations, aren't likely to happily conclude that having one copy means there aren't others, or that having lots of copies must mean they have them all.

    That doesn't mean that an individual officer might not try and do a bit of independent data-losing, but that's something that has happened over the years with or without the sanction of any particular act - after all, if someone's seen their mate being filmed seriously assaulting someone, they might consider the minor slap on the wrist they might get for grabbing the offending camera to be worth suffering.

    Still, it's refreshing that no-one has [yet] tried to blame NuLabour for the 1984 act.

    I guess it must be medication day down at the outpatient clinic for sufferers of dailymailitis.

  24. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    Reminds me of the Dziakanski taser-killing

    Back in late-2007, Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski was tasered to death by the RCMP at Vancouver airport. The tragic incident was captured on a mobe by a bystander. Plod seized the video with a promise to give it back. Plod then issued false and misleading statement after false and misleading statement after false and misleading statement. Eventually our bystander hero had to launch a lawsuit to get back his video, which he promptly made public. Thus was revealed all the malfeance, incompetance and lies. Eventually the Braidwood Inquiry issued a couple of thick reports that tore a strip off the RCMP's hide, and implicated the taser as the most-likely cause of death.

    What plod doesn't get is that the public have more cameras than them. It's getting to the point where there will be cameras recording the seizure of the first camera. They have to start acting as if they're being recorded for the nightly news, because they are being recorded.

    With any smart phone, one can take a picture and have it on the web in less than a minute. Video takes several minutes to be transcoded and posted, but only about a minute to exit the phone. "You want a copy of my video officer? Look it up on YouTube. It'll be appearing there any minute."

    FAIL because plod is living in the past.

    1. david wilson

      @AC 16:09

      So even in that example, the police didn't destroy the video evidence.

      It's one thing for them to pretend they lost their own footage, or that cameras in a car/police station/whatever weren't switched on*, but rather riskier to destroy anyone else's evidence.

      (*Though even /that/ is rather harder when things are more likely to be digital, and leave trails that are harder for the average person to completely remove, compared to the old days when it could just be pretended that tapes had run out, broken, or gone missing.)

      Regarding the Dziekański case, though keeping the video evidence for a month does seem excessive, there really is at least some room for adult debate about how quickly things should end up being broadcast if there isn't a particularly pressing need for them to be shown one day rather than another (ie they're not related to some ongoing situation).

      For example, imagine a rather less clear-cut case, where someone took a video of a late-night altercation where a few people (police /or/ members of the public) at first sight looked like they probably were the aggressors in the situation, but given time span covered, the angle of the shot, what was/wasn't obscured, etc, it was still consistent with a different explanation.

      If there were also a few eyewitnesses, who had imperfect views and/or alcohol-blurred memories, if they could be interviewed before seeing the video, they could well give more generally reliable information than if interviewed after seeing it.

      Also, assuming that they gave evidence which agreed with the general impression of the video, if it turned out they had seen it before being interviewed, they might well be worthless as witnesses in a court case.

      There's certainly a balance to be struck between instant publication on the one hand, and the possibility of officially embarrassing video being sat on until it's thought to be maybe less embarrassing, or until PR people have prepared the ground.

      However, even if scoops might be good for journalists, getting things out onto the news (and now, onto youtube, etc) as fast as possible isn't some Universal Public Good, and really can end up having a downside, potentially meaning that the video evidence ends up pushing all other possible confirming evidence out of the way.

      That's bearable when things really are clear-cut, but often they may well not be, and the result could be people (in authority or just regular citizens) getting away with things they really are guilty of.

      People who are particularly suspicious of the system, and the way that officials do sometimes seem to get away with serious or even deadly force on one technicality or another should understand that instant broadcast can end up giving another technicality by which people could end up getting away with things.

      Who do you think is maybe more likely to have evidence against them thrown out, or a trial declared unfair, on the basis of prior witness exposure to video evidence - you, or a policeman?

  25. Kubla Cant

    Phone Cameras

    If you've taken stills or video with a phone then you could MMS them to another phone before surrendering your instrument to the police. With a smartphone you could probably email them, too.

    Any refusal to allow this would be prima facie evidence that the officer is less concerned with preservation of evidence than with its suppression.

  26. david wilson

    Maybe a sensible approach

    Now that pretty much everything will be digital and hence largely viewable at the scene, assuming the situation is calm enough to allow it, possibly a smart way to proceed would be for a senior officer present to actually look at the footage in question in the presence of the photographer, to see whether it's worth having in the first place (does it show the incident at all, and in sufficient resolution), and whether it clearly shows that a crime was committed or that one wasn't committed?

    If accidental loss has around the same ballpark probability as deliberate loss, it could be useful for the photographer to see if they actually had got a great shot of a crime (by state or citizen), or if they'd managed to take a picture that was blurred, of the wrong thing, or even had managed to take great pictures, but had bracketed them either side of an actual event.

    Possibly one of the worst (and easily possible) outcomes would be for the police to genuinely lose a memory card that actually had nothing worthwhile on it, but end up with the photographer thinking that they'd actually been deliberately denied their chance at fame, fortune and justice.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Almost Sensible...

      ... but there might not be a 'senior officer' on hand on every occasion. Likely at a demo, sure, but then what's 'senior' mean? If we assume that the constable's up to no good, should we trust the sergeant? They've been constables, and they spend a lot of time with constables, so wjhat if they're sympathetic to the PC? What about an inspector? A superintendent? Who's word can we trust, if we assume that all cops are bent? And if we don't assume that all cops are bent, why demand oversight for the original PC?

      And don't forget that if we're talking about evidence that's thought to have been collected on a device of some sort, there are rules about how officers must handle it. Defense lawyers tend to have a great time flanneling juries with talk of how data was 'corrupted' because officers viewed it too many times, or because the device was used by someone without the proper training, and most juries don't know enough about it to argue with an expert.

      1. david wilson

        @AC

        >>"And don't forget that if we're talking about evidence that's thought to have been collected on a device of some sort, there are rules about how officers must handle it."

        Fair point, though I guess if the police had asked the photographer to use their device to show them the footage, they wouldn't have handled it at all until they took possession of the card, and would at least have someone else they could call as a witness for what they did look at.

        It's really a case of at least giving the photographer a chance to see what, if anything, they might be giving up, and giving the police a chance to see if the pictures are actually worthless, dubious, good, or maybe things that deserve immediate attention (such as identifying a guilty individual they can get hold of at the scene).

        Possibly if a quick glance shows the images really do look useful, that could prompt getting hold of someone better-qualified to look after the pictures ASAP?

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Big Brother

    Sussex Police

    Sussex police have a reputation which used to, and obviously continues to, "dog" them. In the '90s I was stopped in my car having committed no offence, during daylight hours, just before Christmas. I was asked if I had been drinking - duh - and answered that regrettably I had not and after a walk around my 205 was allowed to return to Hampshire - about 3 miles away. Of course I also had to go the local Hants cop shop with my driver's licence and insurance certificate where the reaction said it all; I was not the first. Think there's some sort of masonic thing going on there, but then if men want to wear pinnies and do funny handshakes in private then who am I to complain? I just pay my taxes. Then again I suppose in some parts of the world I would have had the pleasure of a taser for my comments.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      WTF?

      Tyrants Indeed

      So Sussex police are 'dogged' by a reputation for:

      * Using a long-established power to stop any vehicle at any time and speak to the driver without a specific reason (https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q723.htm);

      * Asking you a sensible question about drink-driving given that most forces run a campaign on it at Christmas - you don't say that they breathalysed you, so I'm assuming they were happy to take your word for it, the unreasonable totalitarian bastards;

      * Making a cursory examination of your vehicle;

      * Using the above long-established power to require you to produce your licence (which, technically, it's an offence not to have with you, but see https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q648.htm);

      * Allowing you to return home.

      Wow. And this earns them an ignorant rant about Freemasonry and "I Pay My Taxes". I always love "I Pay My Taxes", with the strong implication that doing something that everyone's required to do by law somehow entitles you to preferential treatment. Incidentally, have you ever taken the time to speak to a mason? Find out what they actually do, and what codes of conduct they have to follow? Or is the implied conspiracy theory there just more satisfying for you?

      And no, of course you weren't the bloody first person ever to have to produce your documents. Why on Earth would you suppose you were?

      1. david wilson

        @AC

        The couple of times I've been stopped (or rather, decided to pull over because I was obviously being followed) for possible drink-driving, I've found the police perfectly friendly, and not hugely interested in documentation. I think I offered my licence once, and the other time, they didn't even ask.

        Even the time I had clearly too many drunk people in the back of a minibus, and was fairly obviously on my way back after an extended lock-in, all they were really bothered about was the fact that I was sober.

This topic is closed for new posts.