Freedom of Information vs Police: Can Police Confiscate Cameras?

Dr. Jim Kelly, associate professor of journalism at Southern Illinois University Carbondale, posed the question to panel members at a discussion of the Freedom of Information Act and Open Meetings Act.

Kelly was part of a panel consisting of media members and local government officials hosted by the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at the university.

Though Kelly related his question mostly to an incident at SIUC a year earlier, he cited five instances in the last five years when citizens or photojournalists had their camera equipment seized by police officials after taking pictures of arrests.
In September, 2005, SIUC student Matt Bowie was crossing campus when he observed a uniformed campus police officer arresting someone. He stopped and began taking pictures. Then, an undercover officer who was in the crowd stepped forward and instructed him to hand over his camera or risk expulsion and arrest. Bowie complied and then headed to the School of Mass Communications to look for allies and to get the equipment returned.

The camera was returned a day later, thought he film in the camera had been exposed to additional light, making the pictures difficult, but not impossible, to process. The university offered little in the way of explanation and has turned over an investigation into the incident to state officials. A year later, they have not offered any report on whether the officer acted properly.

The point of contention is whether a journalist, or any one else with a camera or camera phone, should be allowed to take photos of police while making arrests. And, strangely, the only one who answered the question directly was a police chief from suburban St. Louis. He acknowledged the right of the public to take pictures, but said given the circumstances, he would have approached the photographer and their news organization to discuss withholding the photos.

At issue, he said, is whether the photos identified the person being arrested and the role of the person being arrested. Police officers have a duty to protect those who are being arrested from being wrongly convicted by the public without a trial. "We can talk about innocent until to proven guilty until we're blue in the face, but once the media posts a picture of you being arrested, in the minds of some people, you are guilty," he said.

Police may also have been concerned that the person being arrested could be used as an informant and could be placed in danger if his criminal cohorts knew he had been arrested. A year later, it is still difficult to assess why police officers ruined Bowie's film because all requests for information about the arrest under the Illinois freedom of Information Act have been denied, citing a pending investigation. It is unclear whether that is the state's investigation into the university police force's action or the investigation into the arrest itself.

Ultimately, the panel pointed out that no real answer exists, though cases like this are becoming more frequent across the country, as more and more citizens are carrying digital cameras with them at all times. Until it reaches the courts, photographers are left with ruined or deleted photos and no real recompense, except, in some jurisdictions, an apology. At SIUC, Bowie hasn't even received that.