Skip to comments.Orlando Cop Tries to Intimidate Man from Photographing Emergency Scene
Posted on 05/26/2013 5:14:07 PM PDT by redreno
An Orlando police officer tried his best to intimidate a man from photographing paramedics tending to another man being carted onto an ambulance.
The cop told Brian Green that he was in violation of the federal HIPAA law which has nothing to do with public photography before ordering him to delete the images.
Green started video recording the encounter, asking the officer for his name and badge number. The cop responded by providing his badge number, 16758, but covering his name tag with his arm.
Green believes it may be Lt. Anderson but he is not positive.
(Excerpt) Read more at photographyisnotacrime.com ...
Uneducated LEO’s cost local communities billions in legal fees.
sunglass cam is best
Sue the police department for harassment. Giving an inch is preparation for parting with a mile.
City cops are actually an occupying force, as compared to most Sheriffs and their deputies.
Without adequate training many officers assume absolute authority in their dealings with the public. These individuals operate on the assumption that their word is law. They have enforcement power which includes arresting anyone who they believe is a threat to their authority. They are rogues with no concern for the rights of private citizens.
Went to the doctor last week. Had to remember my number (#12) when they called “Number 12?”. I asked the office staff why I’m “Number 12” and not Mr. ******. They said it’s because of HIPPA. Whatever....
The fact that a specific doctor is treating a specific person is actually covered under hipaa. That rule is not intended for cases like this. With everything the govt is doing to enforce hipaa laws you can expect more and more paranoia like this.
C’mon...you have a reasonable right to photograph in a public space. Common sense dictates that you don’t videotape someone who is in a stretcher and being helped medically. Whether it is illegal, I’m sure lawyers have a field day. But what if it was you, your family, that whiny prick. It’s morally reprehensible.
Do you really know HIPAA ( Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.) doesn’t cover this? Remember who wrote it. I would not be surprised if it did specify cover photos taken by police and emergency workers taken at the seen of an accident. I know if a IT person causes a failure in computer system that causes medical records to be lost it can be a criminal offense.
Agreed. Just because you have the right to do something doesn’t mean you should do it. Plus, I can’t think of a real good reason why anyone would feel the need to do this.
Oh piss off.
I agree with you but I’m sure some righteous turd will accuse you of trying to overturn the constitution. I’d ignore them if they did. Doubtful you’ll change such a mindset.
Do you feel as strongly about the feelings of the family of a jihadi filmed being ripped to shreds by a chopper’s forward guns and it being uploaded to youtube?
HIPAA laws include EMS services if the patient is identified/identifiable.
“Cmon...you have a reasonable right to photograph in a public space. Common sense dictates that you dont videotape someone who is in a stretcher and being helped medically.”
First of all, you have an absolute right to photograph in a public place. There is no expectation of privacy in public places, therefore, you cannot violate anyone’s privacy in a public place.
Secondly, public officials (including cops and other public servants) have no expectation of privacy while performing their jobs. They all seem to be overly sensitive to this for one reason: the Rodney King beating video.
So to recap: the man who was being treated in a public place had no right to privacy. The cops and paramedics had no right to privacy. The cop who confronted the photographer thought he was protecting the victim’s right to privacy when he had none at all. In short, the cop and paramedic citing HIPPA had no idea what they were talking about and had no right to interfere with someone taking pictures of the scene. Now, you may think what he was shooting was tasteless, but that’s why we have a first amendment. The man taking the photos was no different than any photojournalist in that situation, and should have been accorded the same deferential treatment under the first amendment.
I disagree. I recently had a chance to flip through the photos of a local freelance news photographer who was active in the late 40s and early 50s in our city.
I saw amazing photos that documented those decades. And i was struck by a thought. Almost all of them would be difficult to impossible to take today. It was astounding how close he was to many of the incidents. Arrests, accidents, and incidents of every description. There was one of a cop laying in the street being given first aid after he wrecked a motorcycle. Ever think those guys photographed in soup lines during the great depression were particularly happy at that moment?
The value of some photos often won’t be appreciated for decades. They don’t all have to be published widely of course, but taking them is fine.
And two final thoughts. If Oswald was shot today, there would not be a single photo of it. We would get a press release and be left to wonder. Photo restriction are for the old USSR, not America.
Last, a victim of an accident can use often those photos to help prove who was there, what happened, what the road signs did or didn’t say at the time, etc. This can be extremely iseful later when dealing with insurance companies and city agencies who say “prove it”.
Cameras good,,, people who supress photography, bad.
This is perfect example of just how petty and ignorant cops can be. What a tool.
HIPAA does indeed apply at the scene. To the PARAMEDICS. They cannot release information, etc. But it does not place a magic veil of secrecy around the victims of an accident scene, and prohibit all passersby from speaking of seeing Betty Lou getting put into the ambulance.
We can all spread the story as much as we want. Medical and rescue professionals may not. But John Q. Public? Absolutely yes.
Plus, I cant think of a real good reason why anyone would feel the need to do this.
Luckily we do have to wait to act until you feel there is a good reason.
Very insightful, and I agree.
I think it is a natural evolution for the guv that fears your guns would also grow to fear cameras.
Perhaps even more.
What is mightier than the sword? A pen. What is mightier than a pen? A camera.
We’ll be seeing much, much more of this.
I see you failed to acknowledge my larger point about the morality and ethics of it and omitted that comment entirely. Just because ACLU lawyers solidified its legality doesn’t mean it’s morally acceptable. I also don’t think this Green urchin is a “photojournalist”. Lastly, there are many instances where names and pictures are withheld in reporting as a matter of decency...think rape victims. I think the officer used great restraint.
No cop can use that here in this area. All LEOS have cameras in their cars....and...there are cameras all over the city...private and public
Wow,,, amazing idea.
It’s just ridiculous. One of my docs used to have a sign-in sheet but they had to get rid of it because someone complained that it infringed on their privacy. And it was in an orthopod’s office, not an AIDS clinic for Heaven’s sakes.
HIPAA doesn’t cover things done in public which are easily observable. I doubt the photographer had the guys name.
HIPAA also only applies to Covered Entities and Business Associations; healthcare providers and their vendors.
HIPAA laws dont apply to some random guy on the street using his camera.
Oh its getting worse Grams. New interpretation of the regulations have greatly expanded what companies have to comply.
I’ve said it before and again. If the police are acting in a proper and professional manner the videos will just make them look good.
We can argue about the validity later.
HIPAA does cover interactions between first responders and patients. This is generally seen every day by the fact that the names of patients are not transmitted over open ambulance, fire and police radio bands in most major cities.
HIPAA does not cover anything related to public photography, video recording, or audio recording, by unrelated third parties in public spaces.
However, the conversation inside the ambulance between the first responder and the patient should be covered in theory by HIPAA.
“I see you failed to acknowledge my larger point about the morality and ethics of it and omitted that comment entirely.”
Addressed it here far more succinctly, it would seem, than you were capable of understanding:
“Now, you may think what he was shooting was tasteless, but thats why we have a first amendment.”
There was nothing immoral in the act of photographing the scene itself. Nothing. People shoot stills and video of dramatic scenes like this and worse every day. It’s a fact of life. Deal with it.
” I also dont think this Green urchin is a photojournalist.
So then you share Dick Durbin’s view that only people with press credential’s are protected by the first amendment??? Nice to know you think the constitution doesn’t apply to every citizen with a camera, computer, and a voice.
“Lastly, there are many instances where names and pictures are withheld in reporting as a matter of decency...think rape victims.”
This was not such a scene. Perhaps your inability to understand the difference is what’s really at the heart of the matter here.
I asked the office staff why Im Number 12 and not Mr. ******. They said its because of HIPPA. ...And at my girlfriend’s Dr.’s office as she was getting a new appointment, the receptionist called out in front of the whole reception room “You’re not having your period, are you?” The GF sheepishly said “No.” Broad said “What?” I jumped in and yelled “Why? You want to check, bitch?”
Lighten up, Frances. News is news.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.