New CT Law Prohibits Photography By Responders

[x635 4,066]

Section 1. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2011) Any peace officer or firefighter, as those terms are defined in section 53a-3 of the general statutes, or any ambulance driver, emergency medical technician or paramedic, as those terms are defined in section 19a-175 of the general statutes, who responds to a request to provide medical or other assistance to a person and, other than in the performance of his or her duties, knowingly (1) takes a photographic or digital image of such person without the consent of such person or a member of such person's immediate family, or (2) transmits, disseminates or otherwise makes available to a third person a photographic or digital image of such person without the consent of such person or a member of such person's immediate family, shall be fined not more than two thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/TOB/S/2011SB-01099-R01-SB.htm

[FFLieu 70]

There's actually a similar law in NJ with respect to MVAs in that it's an actual crime scene until the police determine otherwise. The caveat to the law is that pictures are allowable such that they're used for relaying certain details to ED staff upon arrival.

[IzzyEng4 427]

This seems to be geared towards those who are abusing taking photos (meaning responders) then posting them up on news outlets, Facebook and such. It shouldn't affect buffs who are more conscious about what they take pictures off. There have been to many instances nationwide of this sort of abuse, now it just gives leverage to take action against that. It's one thing to be a first responder and take a photo of a patient at an accident scene for the purpose of patient care (showing the doctor at the hospital what the scene looked like) versus taking a photo for personal gain.

[Dinosaur 844]

This seems to be geared towards those who are abusing taking photos (meaning responders) then posting them up on news outlets, Facebook and such. It shouldn't affect buffs who are more conscious about what they take pictures off. There have been to many instances nationwide of this sort of abuse, now it just gives leverage to take action against that. It's one thing to be a first responder and take a photo of a patient at an accident scene for the purpose of patient care (showing the doctor at the hospital what the scene looked like) versus taking a photo for personal gain.

It will definitely affect buffs if they're responding with the FD (or EMS/PD). If they're not responding with the FD, they shouldn't be inside the perimeter and will have the same access as everyone else.

This should also make dealing with non affiliated types wearing turnouts easier. If they're not part of the FD response, they don't get access.

[IzzyEng4 427]

It will definitely affect buffs if they're responding with the FD (or EMS/PD). If they're not responding with the FD, they shouldn't be inside the perimeter and will have the same access as everyone else.

This should also make dealing with non affiliated types wearing turnouts easier. If they're not part of the FD response, they don't get access.

By my understanding, you mean a ride-along correct? Even so, if a buff (or another person from a different agency) is on a ride along, then they should be following the same rules as the first responders. Obviously if the person has permission to be there, then they are not affected by the rule. Honestly, if you are certified to help and allowed to operate on the scene, that is your first priority before taking any pictures. Obviously anyone that is taking pictures of an incident should be conscious of staying out of the way of the operations and be mindful of what they are capturing on film, which buffs are and take great pride in doing making sure that the photos are tasteful and not offensive.

I'm sure there will be some leeway as this is geared towards more of the abuses by a few of the first responders in this state and also some of the news media getting in the way.

ADDED

Also this law is referring as worded in the last few lines to the patient being treated and without their or a family member's consent to post the picture of them specifically on a public outlet. It's not written concerning anything about taking scene photos.

[abaduck 123]

'other than in the performance of his or her duties...' - I can see arguments developing there.

What about the helmet cams some guys wear?

Are they saying it's a crime to take purely personal photos during downtime, rehab, whatever?

Does 'performance... duties' only cover photos you're taking under orders, or also those you haven't been specifically ordered to take but grab when you have a free moment in case they're useful for training purposes or whatever?

To some extent it's simply codifying common sense - 'career or volunteer, you're here to WORK, not piss around taking photos'. But I'm uneasy about using the criminal law for such purposes; this should be a department disciplinary matter, not a criminal offence with jail time.

Mike

[Bnechis 3,961]

So much for the camera program that many EMS agencies got into because the MD's wanted to see pic's of the mechanism of injury and potentially see the patients conditions during extrication.

[Alpinerunner 61]

Also this law is referring as worded in the last few lines to the patient being treated and without their or a family member's consent to post the picture of them specifically on a public outlet. It's not written concerning anything about taking scene photos.

This is the key part of the law. It is only talking about taking pics of victims/patients! This should be common sense but obviously needs to also be legislated. This does not stop people from taking pics of wrecked cars or burning buildings.

[INIT915 1,119]

This is the key part of the law. It is only talking about taking pics of victims/patients! This should be common sense but obviously needs to also be legislated. This does not stop people from taking pics of wrecked cars or burning buildings.

Actually, read it closer. You can even take pictures of the victims/patients, if within the performance of your duties. So if you can articulate a legitimate use, i.e., QA/QI, relaying information to the ED, etc., you should still be covered. You'd be best covered in your agency by developing a policy covering when pictures are to be taken for official purposes.

This act seems to target pictures being taken by responders for their own (ab)use.

[thomaspaine 1]

Well said, INIT915. Unfortunate that this issue even needed to be addressed by the legislature. The photography targeted by this bill is purely exploitative and hugely unprofessional. Glad they're looking out for patients rights.

[FFBlaser 24]

We can take pictures of anything except the actual patient, (HIPPA).

[INIT915 1,119]

We can take pictures of anything except the actual patient, (HIPPA).

Food for thought? Does HIPPA apply to everyone who might be taking pictures? Think about it...

[SOUSGT 357]

We can take pictures of anything except the actual patient, (HIPPA).

Actually

Actually if you look at the wording it states: “who responds to a request to provide medical or other assistance to a person”, There is no mention of a patient. Nor is there any allowance of what could be photographed. Therefore the person covered by the law could not be photographed at all (unless it was done in the performance of the responders duties).

The law in its wording states responds to provide medical or other assistance to a person. This could be any thing call from a blown tire to a fatal. If I read this right, a police officer with a dash cam responding to a call of a disabled motorist has to turn it off before he arrives in order not to photograph the person unless he suspects a crime may have been committed or the recording has to do with his/her official duties (I don’t know if protecting the officer counts), the same car that comes upon the scene of a MVA involving a motorcycle can leave it on.

It seems that the camera crew from COPs are OK unless they are moonlighting from their day job in emergency services.

Seems like they took a decent concept and screwed it up. Surprise, surprise.

[INIT915 1,119]

Actually

Actually if you look at the wording it states: “who responds to a request to provide medical or other assistance to a person”, There is no mention of a patient. Nor is there any allowance of what could be photographed. Therefore the person covered by the law could not be photographed at all (unless it was done in the performance of the responders duties).

The law in its wording states responds to provide medical or other assistance to a person. This could be any thing call from a blown tire to a fatal. If I read this right, a police officer with a dash cam responding to a call of a disabled motorist has to turn it off before he arrives in order not to photograph the person unless he suspects a crime may have been committed or the recording has to do with his/her official duties (I don’t know if protecting the officer counts), the same car that comes upon the scene of a MVA involving a motorcycle can leave it on.

It seems that the camera crew from COPs are OK unless they are moonlighting from their day job in emergency services.

Again, I would disagree with your interpretation. Using your DV example, I'm not sure why you suspect a dash cam would need to be turned off to avoid risking videotaping the aided party. The law clearly says capturing images outside the performance of your official duties.

Now, imagine your same scenario, but this time, the cop uploads the video to his Facebook account because the person videotaped was good looking, or fall down drunk, or some other crazy situation. Then, clearly, that video is not being used for the furtherance of the performance of official duties.

I think your reading too deep into this.

Now, as for COPS film crews. First, most, if not all of that video was probably filmed in states without such statutes. Secondly, upon securing a waiver, this law would be a non-issue.

[ny10570 745]

So much for the camera program that many EMS agencies got into because the MD's wanted to see pic's of the mechanism of injury and potentially see the patients conditions during extrication.

Not at all. Add to your official duties documenting mechanism of injury and patient condition during extrication via photography and voila it is allowed. want to play it safe, as long as no patient photos are included this doesn't appear to apply.

This seems pretty simple. It applies only to those summoned to the scene. If you're not responding as a provider you're not covered.

If you are on scene working, any images recorded must be in accordance with your job. If you're wearing your helmet cam, if its part of a dept training program you should be allowed. Still unsure, after everything is said and done. Reach out to the family, explain what was recorded and get a release signed.

No release signed, destroy all images. Release signed, utilize to the extent allowed by your agency's rules.

This just adds a penalty to what should already be common sense practice.

[IzzyEng4 427]

Technically HIPPA does not cover photograph's, it only covers patient personally collected data. I think it is an attempt to cover the loophole as we would all assume that a paitient's image would be considered "data". I'm only assuming. I have a close family friend who is a state represenative for my area, I'll see if I can contact her and get some more information about the history of this bill and correct information about it.