Indiana Man Arrested For Photographing Cops

[mrjarrell]

Haven't we been assured that Indiana cops don't care if they're recorded? Guess there's one that does mind and a judge that backs him up on it. Hope this guy not only wins his case, but sues the cop for all his department is worth.

Indiana Man Arrested After Photographing Traffic Accident | Pixiq

 

[Denny347]

IC 35-44-4-2
"Emergency incident area" defined
Sec. 2. As used in this chapter, "emergency incident area" means the area surrounding a structure, vehicle, property, or area that is:
(1) defined by police or firefighters with flags, barricades, barrier tape, or other markers; or
(2) one hundred and fifty (150) feet in all directions from the perimeter of the emergency incident;
whichever is greater.
As added by P.L.191-2001, SEC.1.

Even the local newsies here stay nice and clear of our crash scenes. Well past 150ft if no tape is up and there is usually not. I have never even needed to pay attention to this law. For as much as the news can be a PITA, they at least are professional enough to police themselves and know what they can and cannot do.

 

[mrjarrell]

But Judge Darren Dolehanty obviously did not watch the video that shows there were no flags, barricades or barrier tape defining the emergency area because he denied Fearing's motion to dismiss.
Besides, the "emergency" was already over by the time Fearing pedaled up.

Just another cop who hates cameras, Denny. Picked out something he thought he could make stick and went with it. Contempt of cop was what he really wanted to charge him with.

 

[Bunnykid68]

IC 35-44-4-2
"Emergency incident area" defined
Sec. 2. As used in this chapter, "emergency incident area" means the area surrounding a structure, vehicle, property, or area that is:
(1) defined by police or firefighters with flags, barricades, barrier tape, or other markers; or
(2) one hundred and fifty (150) feet in all directions from the perimeter of the emergency incident;
whichever is greater.
As added by P.L.191-2001, SEC.1.

Even the local newsies here stay nice and clear of our crash scenes. Well past 150ft if no tape is up and there is usually not. I have never even needed to pay attention to this law. For as much as the news can be a PITA, they at least are professional enough to police themselves and know what they can and cannot do.

The article said there were no flags, barricades, barrier tape or other markers. They should have left him alone.

Wow, this happened 6 days ago and we are just hearing about it.

 

[CarmelHP]

IC 35-44-4-2
"Emergency incident area" defined
Sec. 2. As used in this chapter, "emergency incident area" means the area surrounding a structure, vehicle, property, or area that is:
(1) defined by police or firefighters with flags, barricades, barrier tape, or other markers; or

Did you miss (1) above?

 

[Denny347]

Just another cop who hates cameras, Denny. Picked out something he thought he could make stick and went with it. Contempt of cop was what he really wanted to charge him with.

I will agree that this smalls bad and there must have been a better way to have handled it even IF the guy was breaking the law. I just like trying to see it from both sides even if one side is wrong.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Just another cop who hates cameras, Denny. Picked out something he thought he could make stick and went with it. Contempt of cop was what he really wanted to charge him with.

Why would you expect a motion to dismiss to prevail? Evidence of innocence / guilt is presented at trial, not through a motion to dismiss.

The article said there were no flags, barricades, barrier tape or other markers. They should have left him alone.

Wow, this happened 6 days ago and we are just hearing about it.

It looked like he was within 150 feet. What's the issue?

 

[Bunnykid68]

That cop should be fired. He is a complete douche bag and is trying to enforce laws that do not exist. End of story, the video says it all.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Why would you expect a motion to dismiss to prevail? Evidence of innocence / guilt is presented at trial, not through a motion to dismiss.

Because there was nothing to rightfully charge him with from what I could see.

 

[Denny347]

Did you miss (1) above?

Actually you missed the OR. It can be either marked OR 150ft...which ever is greater. This is a new one to me though.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Because there was nothing to rightfully charge him with from what I could see.

It looked like he was within the 150 foot minimum distance.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Why would you expect a motion to dismiss to prevail? Evidence of innocence / guilt is presented at trial, not through a motion to dismiss.



It looked like he was within 150 feet. What's the issue?

Ok once again us lowly citizens are supposed to know laws as obscure as stay 150 feet away from a wreck but the police do not even need to know we have the right to carry firearms. That is just insane

 

[Bunnykid68]

As I sit in my mom's basement thinking about this, I would have said "Am I being detained? Am I free to go?" Repeat as needed

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Ok once again us lowly citizens are supposed to know laws as obscure as stay 150 feet away from a wreck but the police do not even need to know we have the right to carry firearms. That is just insane

I didn't say that. I also didn't say the LEO couldn't have handled it differently. I don't understand the apples and oranges comparison between accident scene and firearms.

The law says 150 feet, which it looks like he wasn't. He didn't appear to be interfering, but appears was in violation. I didn't know there was a 150 foot free zone. Looks like lots of others didn't either. We can be pissed at the law I guess, but I think it's in place to provide an investigative buffer.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I didn't say that. I also didn't say the LEO couldn't have handled it differently. I don't understand the apples and oranges comparison between accident scene and firearms.

The law says 150 feet, which it looks like he wasn't. He didn't appear to be interfering, but appears was in violation. I didn't know there was a 150 foot free zone. Looks like lots of others didn't either. We can be pissed at the law I guess, but I think it's in place to provide an investigative buffer.

My whole point is SOME cops do not even know the gun laws(apples) but we are supposed to know that we cannot be within 150' of an accident(oranges). This guy was compliant and the officer was a dick. So, the only Citizens that know this obscure law are the ones reading this thread. The rest of Indiana has no clue. Other than that I am not really sure why I got all fired up about this story, usually I am pretty level headed about these things. Maybe I am just tied of seeing things the way they say it is and the way it really is.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Ok once again us lowly citizens are supposed to know laws as obscure as stay 150 feet away from a wreck but the police do not even need to know we have the right to carry firearms. That is just insane

Should you spend time in prison for violating an obscure federal law you didn’t even know existed?

These days, the government’s answer increasingly appears to be a resounding “Yes.”

 

[Bunnykid68]

Should you spend time in prison for violating an obscure federal law you didn’t even know existed?

These days, the government’s answer increasingly appears to be a resounding “Yes.”

That is not surprising in the least these days.

 

[Colts]

Within 150 ft or not, is this an example of good police work or an example of how not to handle the situation?

It appears to me to be an example of how not to conduct police business and if it is this LEOs standard mode of operation I understand why he does not want to be video taped.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Within 150 ft or not, is this an example of good police work or an example of how not to handle the situation?

It appears to me to be an example of how not to conduct police business and if it is this LEOs standard mode of operation I understand why he does not want to be video taped.

Yep, he is a dick

 

[newtothis]

A prudent person would (in theory) say "Hey, looks like an accident occurred, maybe I should go about my way and not videotape the scene of an accident; more importantly, maybe I shouldnt videotape officials engaged in their duties pertaining to said accident". I could understand somebody attempting to take a picture of the scene if it was gnarly, mostly because people are fascinated by things of a morbid nature; I think if he was dumb enough to stand around and video tape the incident before the cop got to him, that he should be tried for the offense or given the option to pay a fine for breaking the statute.

Cant say I feel bad for the guy, cause he implanted himself into the situation.