Search

Press Groups Join in Letter of Complaint to the Vice President’s Press Office

March 15th, 2013 by and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The National Press Photographer’s Association (NPPA) today joined with the White House News Photographers Association (WHNPA) and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) in sending a letter to Ms. Kendra Barkoff, Press Secretary for the Office of the Vice President of the United States. The letter, signed by NPPA president Mike Borland, WHNPA president Ronald Sachs, and RCFP executive director Bruce Brown, was written in response to a March 12 incident in which a journalist covering an event featuring the Vice President in Rockville, Maryland, was ordered by a Vice Presidential staff member to delete all images of the event on his camera.

As reported by the Capitol News Service, Jeremy Barr, a member of the Capitol News Service, a student-staffed news agency run by the University of Maryland’s Phillip Merrill College of Journalism, covered an event discussing domestic violence held by Vice President Joe Biden, Attorney General Eric Holder and Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin. Barr stated that he “unknowingly sat in a section of the crowd designated as a non-press area” because “I didn’t see any demarcation that would have designated a press entrance versus a general entrance.” “The event began and I took a few photos of each speaker,” said Barr, as “people a few rows in front of me were also taking photos.”

According to reports, after the event concluded Barr was approached by Vice Presidential staffer Dana Rosenzweig who asked Barr whether had taken any photos of the event. When Barr responded that he had taken photos, Rosenzweig demanded that Barr delete all images of the event from his iPhone while Rosenzweig watched, telling Barr that by sitting in the non-press area he had gained an unfair advantage over other members of the media who also attended the event. Barr complied with Rosenzweig’s request, stating that “I assumed that I had violated a protocol; I gave her the benefit of the doubt that she was following proper procedures.” Rosenzweig then ordered Barr to wait while she informed her supervisor of the incident, and after a ten minute delay Barr was permitted to leave.

Lucy Dalglish, dean of the Phillip Merrill College of Journalism, filed a formal complaint with the Vice President’s press office, stating that “this was pure intimidation,” and that “it’s clear from the circumstance that the journalist did nothing wrong.” Poynter reported that Dalglish stated in her complaint that “Rockville is not a third-world country where police-state style media censorship is expected.” Biden Press Secretary Kendra Barkoff apologized to Barr and Dalglish in separate phone conversations shortly after Dalglish’s complaint was filed. Barkoff told Dalglish that “the incident was a total miscommunication,” stressing that “it is never the press office’s policy to request that reporters delete photos.” Barkoff declined to speak about the incident on the record with the Capitol News Service, and calls to Rosenzweig were not returned.

In the letter to Barkoff the NPPA, WHNPA and RCFP state that “while we commend your office for immediately apologizing . . . we do not believe that such a blatant violation of free press/speech rights protected under the First Amendment should pass without comment.” The letter goes on to cite a May 14, 2012 letter from the Department of Justice to the Baltimore Police Department from a similar case which stated that “Under the First Amendment, there are no circumstances under which the contents of a camera or recording device should be deleted or destroyed.”

The NPPA, WHNPA and RCFP concluded the letter by commenting that “In order to ensure that situations like this one do not ever happen again . . . we would like to meet with members of your staff to discuss “event” coverage from your perspective and ours.” It is the NPPA’s hope that a meeting with the Vice President’s staff will better inform staff members as to the First Amendment rights of photographers and journalists, and will prevent future incidents such as this from occurring again.

Posted in DOJ, First Amendment, First Amendment rights, National Press Photographers Association, photographers, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Student, Vice President Press Office, Visual Journalists, White House News Photographers Association, WHNPA | No Comments »

Charges Against 2 Student Journalists Dropped in Atlanta

October 15th, 2012 by and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Charges against two student journalists arrested while covering the Occupy Atlanta protests last year have finally been dropped. College journalists Alisen Redmond of The Sentinel at Kennesaw State University and Judith Kim of The Signal at Georgia State University were arrested by police on November 5, 2011 on charges of “obstruction of traffic,” even though both women were standing with a group of other media reporters on a street that police had already closed to traffic.

Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed announced the decision to drop the charges on October 13 during a conference held by the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. When asked why he had failed to address the matter sooner, Reed responded that “he had not heard anything about it in the press or from his assistants.” Upon learning that the charges had been dropped, NPPA General Counsel Mickey H. Osterreicher said, “we applaud the city’s actions and hope this incident will serve as an example to others that it is never too late to make sure that justice is served.”

Osterreicher had sent Mayor Reed a letter on October 1 asking him to dismiss the charges against the students. Among other things, the letter, written on behalf of The American Society of News Editors, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, The Atlanta Press Club, Cable News Network, Inc., The American Society of Media Photographers and The Student Press Law Center, urged Mayor Reed to “use your good offices to help seek an immediate dismissal of these charges in the interest of justice.”

An even earlier letter from The Student Press Law Center’s Executive Director Frank LoMonte was sent on November 7, 2011. In that letter LoMonte asked Mayor Reed to “immediately initiate an investigation into the circumstances of these student journalists’ arrests, and that you instruct the Police Department to withdraw all charges against the students and against any journalist whose ‘crime’ consists of standing on public property non-disruptively gathering news.”

NPPA has repeatedly pointed out to numerous groups and law enforcement agencies that actions by officers to interfere with and detain those engaged in Constitutionally protected activity under color of law is wrong. The NPPA has also strongly objected to journalists being harassed, intimidated and arrested while covering news stories because they were not considered to be “properly credentialed” by the police.

Posted in Assault on Photographers, Attack Photographers, detained, First Amendment, First Amendment rights, National Press Photographers Association, News Photography, Newsgathering, NPPA, Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Wall Street Arrests, photographers, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism, Police, Recording Police, Student, students | No Comments »

NPPA SEEKS DISMISSAL OF CHARGES AGAINST TEMPLE UNIVERSITY PJ STUDENT

March 22nd, 2012 by Mickey Osterreicher and tagged , , , , ,

*******UPDATE – See reply from Philadelphia Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey.

******* UPDATE – See attached Philadelphia Police Commissioner’s Memo dated 9-23-11 regarding Photography and Recording of Police Officers While Performing Official Functions in Public Places.  Clearly the officers involved in this incident violated that policy.

The NPPA sent a letter to Philadelphia Police Commissioner, Charles H. Ramsey seeking the dismissal of all charges against Temple University photojournalism student Ian Van Kuyk. Mr. Van Kuyk was arrested on the night of March 14, 2012 outside his residence while taking pictures of uniformed Philadelphia police performing a routine traffic stop.  In addition to the dismissal of all charges, the NPPA also requested that the incident “be fully investigated with commensurate disciplinary measures for the officers involved.”

Mr. Van Kuyk, who was with his girlfriend (also arrested) said he never came closer than ten feet (10’) to the scene when he was ordered back, voluntarily backed up and was at least thirty feet (30’) away when a uniformed police officer approached Mr. Van Kuyk in an aggressive manner demanding that he stop taking pictures. Mr. Van Kuyk politely told the officer that he was a Temple University photojournalism student and also that he was within his rights to be taking photos on a public street.

Without provocation the officer then began pushing and shoving Mr. Van Kuyk. In response to Mr. Van Kuyk’s statement that his rights were being violated in a public domain the officer is alleged to have responded “Public domain, yeah we’ve heard that before!” whereupon he threw Mr. Van Kuyk to the ground and began pushing his face into the sidewalk. In order to avoid having the camera (which he announced was school property) damaged during this assault by your officer Ms. Feighan attempted to retrieve it from Mr. Van Kuyk’s hand but was also taken to the ground by another officer. They were then both handcuffed and placed in patrol cars.

He is charged with five (5) offenses (four (4) misdemeanors and one (1) felony): Obstructing Justice, Resisting Arrest, Hindering Apprehension and two (2) counts of Disorderly Conduct. Ms. Feighan, who originally was at the same station was later taken to a different station where she was detained for more than eighteen (18) hours. Neither of them were told the names of the officers involved, nor did they receive a copy of an accusatory instrument. Ms. Feighan’s preliminary trial was held on March 20th (less than a week after the incident) and Mr. Van Kuyk’s is scheduled for April 16, 2012.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

it is also alleged that at least two (2) officers came up to Mr. Van Kuyk’s window and made threatening comments to him. He was then taken to the 1st  District police station where he was held for nearly twenty-four (24) hours. He was not allowed to make a telephone call for nearly eight (8) hours at which time he was told (for the first time) that he was being charged with disorderly conduct.

 

Upon Mr. Van Kuyk’s ROR he came to learn that he was being charged with five (5) offenses (four (4) misdemeanors and one (1) felony): Obstructing Justice, Resisting Arrest, Hindering Apprehension, Disorderly Conduct and Disorderly Conduct – Fight II. Ms. Feighan, who originally was at the same station was later taken to a different station where she was detained for more than eighteen (18) hours. Neither of them were told the names of the officers involved, nor did they receive a copy of an accusatory instrument. Ms. Feighan’s preliminary trial was held on March 20th (less than a week after the incident) and Mr. Van Kuyk’s is scheduled for April 16, 2012.

 

Posted in Access, First Amendment, First Amendment rights, Fourth Amendment, Fourth Amendment rights, National Press Photographers Association, News Photography, Newsgathering, NPPA, photographers, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism, Police, Public Photography, Student, students | 3 Comments »

Judge Dismisses All Charges Against R.I.T. Student Photojournalist Covering Occupy Rochester Protest

January 12th, 2012 by Mickey Osterreicher

Inside an almost packed courtroom, Supervising City Court Judge, the Hon. Teresa D. Johnson issued her Decision in the People v Acuff, et al.  All charges against 28 defendants were dismissed without prejudice.  Those defendants, except for one, had been part of an Occupy Rochester protest. The lone journalist was my client, 20 year-old R.I.T. photojournalism student Jonathan Foster. Mr. Foster is also a student member of the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) which is why I had been asked to represent him.

Mr. Foster was charged with trespass (New York State CPL § 140.05) and for violating the Rochester Municipal Code (§79 -2- c. Remaining after park closing hours) on the night of October 29, 2011. From videotape evidence and a witness statement, it appears that Mr. Foster was on a public sidewalk at the time of his arrest although the accusatory instrument, based upon information and belief, stated he was in Washington Square Park shortly after its 11.p.m. closing time. His assigned story and photos were published 5 days later by the weekly R.I.T. Reporter in print and online at http://reportermag.com/article/11-04-2011/occupy-rochester-leads-to-arrests.

Before we ever got to court I had written letters to the Rochester Police Department, the District Attorney and the Mayor. All requested the same thing – dismiss the charges against Jonathan as had been done in so many other cities around the country where journalists were caught up and arrested along with protesters. All the letters were ignored.

In the letters I argued (to no avail) “that although not unlimited, the media enjoys a broad right under the First Amendment to photograph in public places such as streets and sidewalks. These rights are rooted in the First Amendment’s strong protection of speech within ‘public forums,’ the most commonly recognized examples of which include streets, sidewalks, and public parks.”

I was surprised that the police and prosecutors were unmoved. Months before this incident, I had met with Rochester Police Chief, James M. Sheppard, in order to help his department draft improved police-press guidelines after Emily Good (also one of the defendants in this case) had been arrested in June and charged with obstruction of governmental administration as she videotaped a traffic stop from the front lawn of her house. Her charges were dropped but not until the video had gone viral and the case became nationally publicized.

Jonathan and I had been in court together twice before. On November 17, 2011, I appeared on his behalf and filed a motion to dismiss. On that occasion he came with his parents who had driven five hours from Pennsylvania to support their son. The ADA offered and ACD (Adjournment Contemplating Dismissal). That would have meant that after 6 months and a few hours of community service the charges would have been automatically dismissed. We rejected that offer because Jonathan had already performed a community service by taking an publishing the photos but more importantly, since the OWS movement is unlikely to go away anytime soon, I worried that Jonathan would find himself back covering another demonstration, with its risk of another arrest. If that happened these original charges could be reinstated along with the new ones. It’s what’s known as getting jammed-up.

Instead I filed a 21 page motion to dismiss, arguing first that the information forming the basis for the arrest was defective in that “every element of the offense charged and the defendant’s commission thereof must be established by ‘non-hearsay allegations of the factual part of the information and/or of any supporting depositions.” Almost two months later the court agreed, finding that Chief Sheppard (did I mention that he was there that night, made a number of arrests, had his picture taken by Jonathan and signed the accusatory instrument against all the defendants?)  “does not sufficiently allege non-hearsay factual allegations establishing every element of trespass.”

The dismissal motion also argued that the charges against Mr. Foster should be dismissed “in the furtherance of justice.” Pursuant to CPL §170.40, “an accusatory instrument . . . may be dismissed in the interest of justice . . . when, even though there may be no basis for dismissal as a matter of law . . . [where] such dismissal is required as a matter of judicial discretion by the existence of some compelling factor, consideration or circumstance clearly demonstrating that conviction or prosecution of the defendant upon such accusatory instrument or count would constitute or result in injustice.” In Jonathan’s case there were many such factors, the first of which was that that at the time of the alleged incident he was not there to protest but as a journalist covering a story of public interest. The United States Constitution has long protected the right to a free and robust press. The ability to gather and disseminate news is abridged when the government, under color of law, interferes with and arrests journalists reporting on issues of public concern.

Another factor to be considered in a motion to dismiss in the interest of justice is the “character and condition of the defendant.” Here Jonathan had much to commend him. He is in his junior year with a 3.43 GPA, attending R.I.T. on a presidential scholarship and a member of the honors program. He is an Eagle Scout. He has never been in trouble with the law, has never been arrested or charged with any crime before the instant matter. His first pictures were published in the Reporter Magazine in October 2009 and he has worked for the Reporter Magazine regularly since October 2010. In October 2011 he became a staff reporter/photographer.

Additionally, Mr. Foster was wearing (go to link to see a photo of his arrest) a sky blue shirt from his school magazine over his raincoat with large block letters spelling “REPORTER” on the front and he identified himself as such at the time of his arrest. He was also taking pictures with a professional Nikon camera, lens and flash unit, whereby any reasonable person should have observed and known that he was a journalist covering a news story.

In the meantime the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle printed an editorial on November 23, 2011 The headline read “Uphold First Amendment rights” and went on to state that Jonathan’s “prosecution could have a chilling effect on First Amendment rights to freedom of the press. District Attorney Mike Green should reconsider.” He didn’t.

In another appearance on December 14, 2011, I made those arguments orally along with more than a dozen other attorneys representing various defendants. The judge listened and then reserved her decision. Until Today.

But today the Judge never reached those issues and denied dismissal on those grounds because then she would have had to dismiss “with prejudice,” which, means that Monroe County would be precluded from re-filing the charges. Remember the second sentence of this story? “All charges against 28 defendants were dismissed without prejudice.” Pursuant to today’s decision, that means should police or prosecutors decide to re-file any of these charges the “complaints and supporting depositions [ ] must establish non-hearsay allegations with respect to each individual defendant.” (emphasis added)

As a photojournalism student Jonathan says that this incident proved a valuable if not difficult lesson for someone just starting out. Let’s hope it is a “teachable moment” for the police, prosecutors and the courts as well.

 

Posted in First Amendment, First Amendment rights, Interest of Justice, law, Legal, Motion to Dismiss, National Press Photographers Association, News Photography, Newsgathering, NPPA, Occupy Rochester, Occupy Wall Street, photographers, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism, Police, Public Forum, Public Photography, R.I.T., Rochester Police, Student, students, trespass, Without Prejudice | No Comments »