Dog Got Your Tongue?

Thanks to Paul Wellman for sticking to his guns. Thanks to Nick for reminding us why he had to. Thanks to the good work of some of the folks at the Indy who are desperately trying to keep this town honest.

I'm all for freedom of the press and protecting sources, but if the news media uses their press credentials to cross the tape and enter a crime scene, then any pictures they take should be joint property of law enforcement and journalism.
It has to be give and take relationship.
I can't just go into a crime scene and start taking pictures, but the media's excuse is that I have a right to know what is happening.
This particular situation has nothing to do with protecting sources. The press wasn't there because "they had a hunch" and had done tons of leg work to get this scoop, they were following the police to a crime scene and then demanding access, but all the while being expected to be treated like a fly on the wall.
Save your indignation for when it's your own story and work with the authorities to help rather than hinder.
Shane Butler
Ventura

Ditto Shane, good comment!!!

Shane,
Hate to say it but you are so wrong in this matter. Paul Wellman did not cross the yellow tape. The photos were shot behind the tape. So your point is moot.

Why would anyone want freedom of the press? The government knows what's best for us. We don't need no stinkin' Bill Of Rights. It's just a bunch of Commie Crap anyway!

Amendment IV : "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

With folks like "InTheKnow" and "danceawakening" around I guess the name Senator Joseph McCarthy has been forgotten.
I weep in vain for our lost and rapidly dwindling freedoms.

Kudos to Paul Wellman and The Independent for sticking to their guns and fighting this absurd infringement of Freedom of the Press. And boo to the News-Depress for willingly turning their images over Atkins, in complete defiance of standard journalistic ethics.

Wellman and The Independent did what they thought was right, and as a former journalist, and photo-journalist, I completely agree with them. I was never in the same position, but I did shoot numerous photos of crime scenes--mainly car crashes--and I always observed proper protocol and stayed behind the police lines unless I was escorted by an officer.

When the appeal was lost, Wellman and The Independent did something very few other news organizations have the courage to do: make the images available to everyone, not just the Public Defender.
>>Dave Reynolds, formerly of Buellton

I applaud the INDY for printing all the pro and con opinions. It is certainly better than the News Press would do, but I am a little bummed at the assumption that we are all photojournalism ethics majors. Seems to me there are two sides to this, the journalism-freedom of the press purists, and the rest of us who have to pay taxes and wait for due process to occur while you stand up for your principal. I think this situation was different and I agree with the judge. Choose your battles. Even with your explanation of your side, I don't see how it would have harmed anyone just to say "here, I took these, maybe they will help?" Naive or just solid civic mindedness? Conversely, it was very cool to publishing them all as an alternative.

Perhaps, if the Indy had arranged a private viewing with the attorney, to decide whether any of the photos would help with the defense, then the issue could have been settled--even should they desire some of the photos.

I understand the need to protect reporters under shield laws, but I also believe that the defendant's rights would be violated, IF there were help found in the photographs.

On the other side, and more of where I think the shield law applies, is when the government is looking for evidence to convict. In other words, they should not be able to seek damning evidence, especially if there is not already prior "reasonable cause" to do so.

I would think that the term "fishing" applies moreso to the prosecution, than the defense. The rights of the individual should come before the shield law, but the shield law before the "public need" for prosecution.

The only other thing I can think of that might be relevant:

The street where the pictures were taken is/was a public place--where no "resonable expectation of privacy" exists. And, by that logic, any photos taken in the street would not be considered particularly confidential, and could be seen as fair game.

[As an aside, the problem with the wording, "expectation of privacy", is that the concept is a particular one. I only wish there were "resonable expectations of ANONYMITY" laws.]

The Poodle has it wrong this time. Too close to the action to see the public policy issues? And why the attack on the public defender? She isn't the "state." Those defending the reluctance to aid the defense would probably have no problem if the photos were sought by the prosecution to find a "gang banger." Aren't we interested in a fair trial and justice for the defendant? Would you really prefer the teenager be convicted without a defense that would work to get the evidence that might acquit? Or should they simply take your word for it that the photos wouldn't help? Think it over.

Can we vote for our fav?

1156... this guy is definitely guilty...

Get over yourself Nick Welsh and the Independent. This is not about protecting a confidential source. By taking photos of a crime scene while possible suspects are around the area, that photographer became what is called a "percipiant witness." Holding press credentials does not make you immune from becoming a witness. By taking pictures those pictures are real evidence of a crime (or the aftermath of a crime, which sometimes holds a wealth of information). I understand if you get information from someone who was there and they want to remain confidential, that you should not have to reveal that source. Don't get me wrong, I get that, and I support the law in that type of case. But in that type of situation you are just receiving second hand information, thus you are not a witness to any actual event, you are just being told what happend by a witness. That is not the case here. The photograher became a precipiant witness to things as they were occuring and his photos are real evidence. There is a reason the judge ruled that you must turn the photos over and there is a reason that the California Supreme Court did not even bother to review it. The reason is that the law is clear on this point, the photos need to be turned over. What troubles me is that your readers who are not familiar with the law in this area will actually take your opinion piece as fact regarding the law in this case, and assume that you somehow have a better understanding of the law in this area than a judge, which, with all due respect, you simple don't have. He wasn't wrong Nick, you and the Independant were wrong. Nick, please allow an educated attorney in this area who's opinion differs from your and the Independent to explain the other side in your column next week.

Very well put johnny123 I totally agree. Noletaman isn't talking anymore now is he?