NJ Press Photographer Arrested While Taking Fire Scene Photos

[x635 4,066]

Interesting story.

Herald News photographer arrested

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

BY ED BEESON

SPECIAL TO THE RECORD

PATERSON -- Police arrested a Herald News photographer Tuesday as she was trying to take pictures of a house fire on Highland Street.

Leslie Barbaro was charged with obstructing a governmental function when she allegedly crossed yellow caution tape that emergency personnel had stretched across nearby Sassafras Street, in the area of Butler Street, according to police.

FULL STORY: http://www.northjersey.com/news/crimeandco...fire_scene.html

[FFLieu 70]

Well, that's what happens when you cross over the yellow tape that says "Police Line: Do Not Cross."

[JetPhoto 626]

Sounds like guilty as charged.

[tdc202 0]

Maybe she is guilty but not knowing all the facts isn't a block anf half a little far to be "taping off" a house fire?

[LED138 10]

Living right next to the great City of Paterson, I can tell you that it is not uncommon to tape off that much area. They are an active department and most of their fires go to 3+ alarms. Alot of people, apparatus etc....It is also not the best area to walk around in...

I love how if a reporter gets arrested they are innocent before proven guilty, but other people(ie: firefighters, police, etc.) the media potrays them as guilty before proved innocent. I bet we all know what the defense will be......"It's my 1st Amendment right to take those photos..." I absolutely agree with the 1st Amendment, however...Do it behind the yellow tape!!!

[JCESU 20]

She must have thought the Police line was a suggestion....

[BFD2553 75]

And how well could you do your job- whatever it is from a block and half away? The article reads the cop in question delibrately obstructed the photographer (not the other way around) while pedestrians passed through. I'm sure there was a crowd gathered inside the tape directly across the street from the house in question. Why keep legitimate media behind the tape and let every buff with an FD jacket and a camera onto the fireground? For the record- I am a professional newspaper photographer and an active firefighter and former chief- so I'm well aware of "both sides of the issue". It's become the popular choice to restrict access to and then bash the media, but many of us have been on as many or more emergency scenes than all of you and are quite capable of working safely while being able to do our jobs properly and professionally. Showing a little professional respect at a scene goes a long way for both sides.

Edited January 28, 2008 by BFD2553

[mfkap 0]

Well, that's what happens when you cross over the yellow tape that says "Police Line: Do Not Cross."

Lets say that people are protesting something and the police want to break it up, but their methods are questionable. Can they put up a police line two blocks away so the press cannot observe it? If you start letting arbitrary rules decided by a single person impinge on the freedom of the press, it is a very slippery slope. If the police don't want you to leave your house, can they put police tape across your front door and then arrest you when you leave? It is extreme, but some might think that a 2 block radius of protection to keep out the press from a fire is also extreme. Revoking the constitutional rights of someone is not something to be taken lightly, or else they will be revoked frequently. Even if the photographer is never tried, the cop won because the photographer did not get the pictures she was trying to. She was already tried and convicted, because the penalty was executed before any trial. If the photographer was standing on top of an engine or walking over stretched hose it is one thing, but to set up an arbitrary barrier and then use it to enforce the law sounds like it might be a cop with a chip on his shoulder.

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either." - Ben Franklin

[INIT915 1,119]

We should let photographers, or the general public determine what is "too close" and what is "safe enough distance" from a fire, Haz-Mat, shoot-out, etc? Why even put up any tape, surely the public can be trusted, no?!?

[BFD2553 75]

We should let photographers, or the general public determine what is "too close" and what is "safe enough distance" from a fire, Haz-Mat, shoot-out, etc? Why even put up any tape, surely the public can be trusted, no?!?

Don't be silly- I said legitimate media. Those trained and experienced in covering the news. With that job comes an implied assumption of risk covering news events- same as a cop or firefighter, risks that professional journalists are well aware of. I don't see police tape up in Iraq or Afghanistan.

[JCESU 20]

Well, if she is a so-called "professional" and felt her rights were being stomped on by those terrible POLICE OFFICERS there are channels for her argument. Perhaps calling for the Police Supervisor etc. Not commiting an unlawful act. One of the elements the courts look at when deciding such issues is "what is reasonable" and in this case I am sure they will find that the Officer and the perimeter tape were both reasonable. If the Police didn't take precautions and set-up the tape so idiots like her don't get injured during such emergencies they would be accused of malfesance. She wanted her way, didn't like being told no and was held responsible for her actions. I honestly don't understand what the problem is...Of course if the Police set up Crime Scene tape outside your house and arrest you for obstructing that would be unreasonable. But this is not the case in this situation. The Officer acted in good faith plain and simple. Most in law enforcement have dealt with the media. In my fourteen years I have had hundreds of interactions with the media, most if not all were positive, having made many good friends along the way. I assure you there are many ways to make a name for yourself-this isn't one of them.

[JCESU 20]

Don't be silly- I said legitimate media. Those trained and experienced in covering the news. With that job comes an implied assumption of risk covering news events- same as a cop or firefighter, risks that professional journalists are well aware of. I don't see police tape up in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Who decides who and what is the "legitimate media"? I have pen, pad and camera with me all the time. Does that mean I can walk into any scene and do whatever I want. In fact I feel an overwhelming sense of Journopathichillaryness coming on right now.

[helicopper 1,050]

Don't be silly- I said legitimate media. Those trained and experienced in covering the news. With that job comes an implied assumption of risk covering news events- same as a cop or firefighter, risks that professional journalists are well aware of. I don't see police tape up in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Exactly what "training" does the media receive in operating at a fire or crime scene? Perimeters are established for a number of reasons, safety being first and foremost. Iraq and Afghanistan are both sovereign nations - if you want to shoot pictures there and can find a commercial flight to get there, be my guest. Otherwise, I guess you're there as a guest of the US military or state department and they too have rules about access and conduct while in a combat zone. I'm not sure what your point is about those countries - although you'll be hard pressed to find anyone to sue if you get hurt there.

"Implied assumption of risk"? Really, is that right up until the time that they're injured and sue the municipality/PD/FD? Your implied assumption of risk is NOT the same as a police officer or firefighter - that stretch is ludicrous.

Lets say that people are protesting something and the police want to break it up, but their methods are questionable. Can they put up a police line two blocks away so the press cannot observe it? If you start letting arbitrary rules decided by a single person impinge on the freedom of the press, it is a very slippery slope. If the police don't want you to leave your house, can they put police tape across your front door and then arrest you when you leave? It is extreme, but some might think that a 2 block radius of protection to keep out the press from a fire is also extreme. Revoking the constitutional rights of someone is not something to be taken lightly, or else they will be revoked frequently. Even if the photographer is never tried, the cop won because the photographer did not get the pictures she was trying to. She was already tried and convicted, because the penalty was executed before any trial. If the photographer was standing on top of an engine or walking over stretched hose it is one thing, but to set up an arbitrary barrier and then use it to enforce the law sounds like it might be a cop with a chip on his shoulder.

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either." - Ben Franklin

Who is deciding that the police methods are questionable? Who determines that is the reason for a two block perimeter around a protest (or a fire)? Media helicopters are observing things just fine without worrying about crime scene tape so if you're so concerned about abuses of power, just ride along with them! Perimeters are hardly established by a single person or at a whim. They are established by police supervisors (at crime scenes) or by the police at the behest of the fire chief (at fire scenes). Two blocks is hardly an extreme radius at a multiple alarm fire. Your perspective is obviously slanted toward the media.

If this is an isolated incident, I'd suggest that there may have been more to the contact between the reporter and police officer than the article reveals. If this is a pattern of behavior excluding the media from incident scenes then I would suggest that the aggreived parties pursue appropriate action with the jurisdiction and PD administration.

As for the patently absurd example of placing crime scene tape at someone's door and then arresting them when they exit - there is no legal basis for an action like that and as JCESU said, it would not be considered "reasonable".

Edited January 28, 2008 by Chris192

[BFD2553 75]

OK- Chris and JCESU- You guys can slap the cuffs on me at the next fire scene I show up at to do my job. But you have to do it from two blocks away. Sound "Reasonable"?

Edited January 28, 2008 by BFD2553

[xfirefighter484x 234]

I see both sides of the coin here. My $0.02 is this:

If Police/Fire Line Tape is up, ASK PERMISSION to cross it. If you present as legit media, most times, you may be allowed to pass. Just taking it upon yourself to cross the posted lines and then expect NOT to take some heat??? That is just asking for trouble.

Also, no offense to the media, but some, I repeat SOME (not all) look to sensationalize. When a firefighter/police/EMS person gets in trouble for ANY reason, even when its not affiliated with the firehouse, how many times do they find it necessary to say "The off-duty firefighter/volunteer firefighter/police officer was arrested for DWI".

If it was in a department vehicle, or on a scene of a call, its one thing. When its just some idiot being stupid, its another!!

[/rant]

Edited January 28, 2008 by xfirefighter484x

[X2321 133]

Some police departments issue working press cards to "Legitimate Media". To obtain a working press card you usually have to obtain a letter from your employer and provide copies of the newspaper with some of your pictures published in them. This has to be done every year. Only some big departments issue press cards, NYPD and Westchester County are the only agencies around here that issue press cards. Most of the times it is not a problem to show any one of the above mentioned press cards to get into a scene. The police tape is usually put up to keep everyone else away from the scene. The problem is when a police officer keeps away a legitimate press photographer but allows others to gets by. Do you think its fair when they keep the local newspaper photographer blocks away from a house fire when there are 4 helicopters flying above the scene with cameras that can zoom in and read your helmet shield. Like BFD2553 stated we know the risks and we are professionals. We have a job to do just like everyone else, and that job happens to be gathering the news.

[Oswegowind 17]

Identify yourself, ask permission (humbly), and maybe they will let you inside...maybe...but crossing the line otherwise is ludicrous!

[LT. 22 1]

Some police departments issue working press cards to "Legitimate Media". To obtain a working press card you usually have to obtain a letter from your employer and provide copies of the newspaper with some of your pictures published in them. This has to be done every year. Only some big departments issue press cards, NYPD and Westchester County are the only agencies around here that issue press cards. Most of the times it is not a problem to show any one of the above mentioned press cards to get into a scene. The police tape is usually put up to keep everyone else away from the scene. The problem is when a police officer keeps away a legitimate press photographer but allows others to gets by. Do you think its fair when they keep the local newspaper photographer blocks away from a house fire when there are 4 helicopters flying above the scene with cameras that can zoom in and read your helmet shield. Like BFD2553 stated we know the risks and we are professionals. We have a job to do just like everyone else, and that job happens to be gathering the news.

You keep saying you guys are professionals and you know the risks and I'm sure you are/do, but so are the Police officers. They are doing there job! And that job happens to be keeping people behind the yellow tape. What it really comes down to is she broke the law.

And maybe the civilians walking in the background got through because the police officer was busy dealing with the PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER.

[RWC130 594]

I am in favor of allowing legitimate media to cross the yellow tape provided it will not interfere

with a an active crime scene or safety issues on a fire scene.

Yes, just like Firefighters and Police Officer the Press has a job to do.

I agree!

Does a "Press Pass" allow you to just cross the line?

Just curious, I don't know.

I hear what you are saying BFD2553 and you have a good point.

From what I have observed most members of the media establish a relationship with local police and fire and

more often than not crossing the yellow tape is not a problem which I am sure you have experienced.

BFD2553, I for one like it when you take my photo! LOL!

I have a question....

Let's say Police Sgt, Police Officer, Fire Captain, or Fire Chief allow a member of the press

to cross the yellow tape, or if no tape is up just allow them to get too close and the member of the

press gets injured who is responsible?

On the flip side of things I also can understand why the Police or Fire would want and would need to

keep EVERYONE including Press away from a scene. SAFETY FIRST!

[JCESU 20]

OK- Chris and JCESU- You guys can slap the cuffs on me at the next fire scene I show up at to do my job. But you have to do it from two blocks away. Sound "Reasonable"?

We all know that these scenes are controlled chaos at best. Which can turn ugly in the blink of an eye. Its not about a silly arrest(DP) which is gonna take the Officer off the road for a few hours and amount to nothing but aggravation. But when in all probability, you have a large group of people on one side of the tape, and ONE Officer, to keep the scene safe and clear because resources are already stretched thin. What do you think the crowd is gonna do when the see one (or more) people cross the tape and the Officer does nothing? The mind set of the crowd is gonna be-BS if she can do it why can't get we closer? And now you have a scene that is uncontrolled chaos and the firefighters can't do their job and care to the victim(s) is compromised because you have civilians standing in your way. Everyone would like a front row seat, myself included, but not at the cost of bringing more danger to an already dangerous job. The Supreme Court had ruled years ago that the media had a right, or even an obligation, to report an unbiased , factual account to the community, things that effect them. But not so when an inherent danger exists to a third party that otherwise wouldn't exist in the first place or that risk is now increased by their actions.

[SageVigiles 1,194]

I would definitely agree that permission would first be required before someone in the media could cross the line. There are limitations to the press' rights. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... in order of importance.

[IzzyEng4 427]

Maybe there was a problem with the media before with this one officer of the department or with the FD? There are so many angles we can go here. We'll have to wait an see, I beleive there are three sides to the story, hers, theres and the truth. We'll have to wait and see about the FOI ouctome of this in my opinion.

[helicopper 1,050]

OK- Chris and JCESU- You guys can slap the cuffs on me at the next fire scene I show up at to do my job. But you have to do it from two blocks away. Sound "Reasonable"?

Sounds like your main issue is the size of the perimeter. OK, let's look at this objectively (because I frankly don't care if it's 10 feet or 1000 feet - the fire chief asks for it and he/she gets it!):

A three story building is on fire creating an immediate hazard/potential collapse area of about 60 feet (1.5x the height of the structure guestimated at 40 feet for simplicity - you fire types chime in here if that is off).

Operating apparatus and fire personnel are occupying the next 100 feet (again a conservative estimate because we don't know where the hydrants were or exactly where apparatus was placed.

EMS, the Red Cross, and staged fire apparatus occupy the next 100 feet.

Using these conservative numbers, you wind up with an area of about 260 feet. Depending on where the intersections in Paterson are, this could easily be 1 1/2 blocks. The picture below shows how this would measure from the actual scene. Depending on where this reporter's "interaction" with the cop took place, it's not unreasonable. Of course, she could have simply walked around the corner and approached another police officer if she was having problems with the first one.

Do these street closures seem unreasonable? Bear in mind it is impractical to close a street in the middle of a block.

Does a "Press Pass" allow you to just cross the line?

Just curious, I don't know.

From what I have observed most members of the media establish a relationship with local police and fire and

more often than not crossing the yellow tape is not a problem which I am sure you have experienced.

Let's say Police Sgt, Police Officer, Fire Captain, or Fire Chief allow a member of the press

to cross the yellow tape, or if no tape is up just allow them to get too close and the member of the

press gets injured who is responsible?

Good questions - a press pass will not permit you within the perimeter at a crime scene, it may facilitate better access than your average bystander, but that's up to the boss at the scene.

Sounds like she didn't have any kind of rapport or relationship with the cop in question; again she could have walked around the block to another cop and tried again rather than forcing his hand by crossing the barrier.

I'd like someone to answer the liability question.

[mfkap 0]

From what I have observed most members of the media establish a relationship with local police and fire and

more often than not crossing the yellow tape is not a problem which

The problem with this is that the media then depends on the police to give them permission to do their job. Write an article about the PD and their questionable use of funds, you have to take your pictures from the next city over from then on. If you need the police permission to exercise your constitutional rights, again, it is no longer a right. They aren't privileges granted by the constitution, they are rights. Oh, I know that most police officers are far too noble to hold a grudge like that, and welcome any and all inquiries into their operation, but ya know, it could happen.

I am a firefighter and EMT, and I understand issues at a fire scene. I also have never seen someone arrested for crossing the tape. Here is a question for all you fire photographers. You get to a fire scene three towns over, throw on your turnout coat, and cross the line. Should you be arrested? Or are you a "firefighter" so you know how the be safe on a fire scene?

[tdc202 0]

Living right next to the great City of Paterson, I can tell you that it is not uncommon to tape off that much area. They are an active department and most of their fires go to 3+ alarms. Alot of people, apparatus etc....It is also not the best area to walk around in...

Thanks LED I should have known that but in a stupor with pain meds from a recent surgery. I'd like to know if there was a problem withthis photographer and other Police Officers in the past? I'm not accusing the Police of anything so please my brothers in LEO don't take it that way.

[Oswegowind 17]

Thanks to Chris for the great illustration! LMAO...get a life

Now, back to the point...You can't just make up your own rules, the police make the rules on the scene on an as needed basis pertaining to the individual conditions existing. I like taking pictures too, but if someone said that I couldn't pass the line, I wouldn't pass the line. It all comes down to respect and courtesy! If the reporter is respectful and courteous, I have a mighty good feeling that the officer may react in the same way. However, if the reporter just pushes through, well off to jail you go, at least you get a free meal and phone call out of it...LOL

I have vast experience with dealing with the police as a civilian, I get stopped all the time...I am always respectful and courteous and it has always paid off! I mean the chances they haven't heard of MFY are dwindling, but my theory is that of courtesy and respect and recognition that they are just doing their job...

[FFLieu 70]

"Leslie Barbaro was charged with obstructing a governmental function when she allegedly crossed yellow caution tape that emergency personnel had stretched across nearby Sassafras Street, in the area of Butler Street, according to police."

She crossed the line. Boom, end of story. She was where she was not authorized to be, and therefore, subject to sanction by local law enforcement.

[firemoose827 324]

We all know that these scenes are controlled chaos at best. Which can turn ugly in the blink of an eye. Its not about a silly arrest(DP) which is gonna take the Officer off the road for a few hours and amount to nothing but aggravation. But when in all probability, you have a large group of people on one side of the tape, and ONE Officer, to keep the scene safe and clear because resources are already stretched thin. What do you think the crowd is gonna do when the see one (or more) people cross the tape and the Officer does nothing? The mind set of the crowd is gonna be-BS if she can do it why can't get we closer? And now you have a scene that is uncontrolled chaos and the firefighters can't do their job and care to the victim(s) is compromised because you have civilians standing in your way. Everyone would like a front row seat, myself included, but not at the cost of bringing more danger to an already dangerous job. The Supreme Court had ruled years ago that the media had a right, or even an obligation, to report an unbiased , factual account to the community, things that effect them. But not so when an inherent danger exists to a third party that otherwise wouldn't exist in the first place or that risk is now increased by their actions.

Very well put. I have a question for you and Chris192 about the media. What if the dept had an appointed Public Information Officer, and they had a good working relationship with the local press. Could the PI Officer escort the press over the line, let them take pictures and ask a few questions, than escort them back? I would think that the PI officer would be a great assett ( sorry spelling) to any dept, Fire police or EMS, so that they can coordinate the press at large scale events and the press can still do their jobs.

Another question for anyone. Fire Scene Photographers, and dept appointed photographers, are they given special leeway to enter the scene and grab shots? Or do they have to have special credentials like a department ID? Just curious because I too am interested in taking some fire scene pictures.

In this case the reporter was wrong to cross the line after the police officer instructed her not to. It probably was chaotic for him to be controlling the crowd by himself and not have to worry about the press wiggling through the line and getting hurt.

[JCESU 20]

Could the PI Officer escort the press over the line, let them take pictures and ask a few questions, than escort them back? I would think that the PI officer would be a great assett ( sorry spelling) to any dept, Fire police or EMS, so that they can coordinate the press at large scale events and the press can still do their jobs.

Most Cities and Towns, at least in NJ, have PIO's for such situations-not always at scenes though-obviously depending on place, time and circumstances. Paterson does have a PIO. If the Photographer was professional as the Record claims then I have to imagine she would have been aware of this and established a rapport with the PIO. In JC if the PIO or an Officer is going to escort a person passed the line, for whatever reason, then usually it is put over the air for all to know and hear so there aren't any issues. But they aren't brought into an area where danger exists and they stay with them for safety and security reasons until they leave. If there isn't a PIO clearly available I would suggest grabbing a Police Supervisor and explaining your situation. If its presented in the right manner and it doesn't deplete resources or create a safety issue you may be extended some courtesy to achieve your goal.

If I have past experiences with a person from the media and they have given me a hard time, crossed the line etc., of course I am gonna pay special attention to them if they arrive at a scene-because of their past actions and that they have zero credibiltiy. Thats one of the things I am sworn to do. The media always waves the constituiton when they do something wrong-but that gets old quickly when people with logic and good common sense examine the facts.

Good luck with your photo taking.

[LED138 10]

Living right next to the great City of Paterson, I can tell you that it is not uncommon to tape off that much area. They are an active department and most of their fires go to 3+ alarms. Alot of people, apparatus etc....It is also not the best area to walk around in...

Thanks LED I should have known that but in a stupor with pain meds from a recent surgery. I'd like to know if there was a problem withthis photographer and other Police Officers in the past? I'm not accusing the Police of anything so please my brothers in LEO don't take it that way.

I honestly do not know if the PPD & the Herald have bad blood between them... Heres another reporter "just doing his job". I might add that this reporter is from the same parent company as the arrested photographer.

Publication date: June 13, 2007

BERGEN RECORD REPORTER ARRESTED FOR SOIL-SAMPLING

Police arrested Bergen Record reporter Michael Gartland June 2, 2007, as he was seeking to obtain a soil sample from a Paramus, NJ, school which had been closed when its grounds were found to be contaminated with pesticides.

Reporters must often defend their rights to gather news with a notebook, tape recorder, or camera — but on the environmental beat a test tube may be just as important a tool, and one whose importance is less well established in law. The company that publishes the Record, North Jersey Media Group Inc., went to court to recover soil samples that had been confiscated in the incident. Paramus officials agreed to return the samples June 12.

Gartland was arrested along with a worker for an environmental testing firm and charged with trespassing after they went to the public middle school to collect soil for an independent analysis.

Gartland had broken the story about the tainted soil — which was found five months ago — and school officials' failure to notify parents until May 23.

Officials closed the school May 29 after authorities found aldrin, dieldrin, and chlordane in mounds of soil on its grounds. The mounds were removed by the state Department of Environmental Protection on May 30. But other soil outside the school was still contaminated. Tests have not shown any contamination inside the building.

Paramus School District Superintendent Janice Dime said May 31 that she had known of the soil contamination in January, but that the district wasn't legally required to remove it. She later defended not telling parents of the problem.

Then on June 4, Paramus police threatened to arrest Gartland again, as he tried to cover a closed meeting of the school board in a public building.

After days of parents calling for Dime's firing, and Dime's refusal to resign, the school board finally put Dime on "extended leave pending further notice." On June 11, the school board fired the company that had failed to remove the tainted soil.

Misdemeanor trespassing charges are still pending against Gartland, the testing company worker, and a Record photographer who accompanied them.

Reading through the replies it does seem that a few "trained, camera equipped" fire-chasers are slightly slanted towards the media. As JCESU and others stated the facts are clear. The yellow line was drawn, she chose to disobey a lawful order. Therefore she should have the cuffs slapped on her, even if its blocks from the fire scene. Facts are facts, lines are lines, and laws are laws. Theres no other way to look at it.

OK, time to move along to other pastures and wait and see how this plays out.