Just came across this story.

Photojournalist arrested after filming with drone near Gatwick airport | UK news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/31/drone-photojournalist-arrested-gatwick-aiport-near)

A photojournalist with all the right credentials was arrested whilst operating his drone mid flight. It's a strange story because the guy had already told the police what he was doing and had the CAA permission to work certification.

So having handcuffed him the police then had to land the (phantom) drone. I can only think that he might have annoyed them by not doing what they wanted immediately and I think the scene he was trying to film was a particularly tragic one where a mother and 2 children had been killed in a caravan fire.

Other news photos of the scene show the caravan park through a police cordon. So for me, legality and common sense aside, the question is whether we really need aerial shots of the scene of a raw tragedy involving children.

Welcome to todays news.

An ethically minded cameraman would know that this job was a troublesome one that probably should not have been done. A morally minded cameraman would not have done it.

I have to agree, I don't think we need this kind of ghoulish footage.

I can't help but wonder what would be the ramifications of some kind of accident caused by the drone while the police were messing about with it, they obviously were not skilled in its use.

Dave

A photojournalist with all the right credentials was arrested whilst operating his drone mid flight. It's a strange story because the guy had already told the police what he was doing and had the CAA permission to work certification.
It is a strange story, and I can't help thinking it's one where the devil's in the detail - and that's what we don't know. It seems unlikely he had told the police on site what he was doing, then all of a sudden - with drone in air - they got upset enough to arrest him without further warning?

In a way the CAA permission is a bit of a red herring - you may have a valid car driving licence, but if a policeman tells you "you can't drive down that road", you're breaking the law if you do so.

I can confirm that the drone pilot, who is fully CAA accredited and has all the necessary expertise to fly the drone, HAD informed the police of his intentions.

The police decided to arrest him because the caravan community being filmed became upset and there was the prospect of a "breach of the peace".

But rather than stop any breach of the peace emanating from the community, the police decided instead to arrest the journalist - who was operating entirely lawfully, whatever your view on the ethics - so as to remove the source of the community's irritation.

He was later released without charge though the drone was kept confiscated until the next day.

Regards
Dave

I think it highly probable that the police could see a situation arising with the residents becoming upset and instructed the journalist to stop what he was doing to avoid the residents becoming aggressive. The Journalist probably took the high ground and pointed out his permit to fly and refused to stop flying for his own selfish reasons. If he also attempted to resist the police stopping him flying, then he would quite rightly be in breach of the peace.

In sensitive cases, the police are quite within their rights to use their own judgement to protect people's privacy and a journalist has no free license to ignore their instructions, legally or morally. If he thinks the police were in the wrong, he can take legal action against them, but I think he would end up losing.

Roger

Would it be cynical to wonder if the enraged community who we cannot even call by the name we've called them for years is the reason for the somewhat unusual action? Rights are a funny thing nowadays.

You are probably right about the community Paul, but I'm sure that it would be inappropriate to take close arial pictures of any site at which three people had just been burned to death and was still being investigated by police. It would certainly infuriate me if it was my own family that had suffered. The communities that you are referring to are usually very private close families, whatever else they may be.

Roger

The police decided to arrest him because the caravan community being filmed became upset and there was the prospect of a "breach of the peace".

But rather than stop any breach of the peace emanating from the community, the police decided instead to arrest the journalist - who was operating entirely lawfully,........
The question to then be asked was if he was requested to stop filming before his arrest - or did they simply go up to him with "you're under arrest"!?

Because if the police fear a breach of the peace, my understanding is that they have the power to request anybody to desist from any activity, leave the scene, whatever. It's only if any individual then refuses to comply in reasonable time that they should then be liable to arrest.

Even if he was acting lawfully in the first place (CAA permissions, notified police etc) then the moment the officer in charge asked him to desist, if he then refused to do so, it's my understanding that he could then be seen to NOT be "acting lawfully" any more. The best reference I've found is Practical Law ? Books (http://uk.practicallaw.com/books/9781847669810/chapter03#PH-ch03-UID4) - which is applicable in the UK, and any failure to cooperate (ie refusal to land the drone immediately) could likely put him in breach of "Obstructing a Police Officer in the course of his duties".

The law is necessarily grey in the whole area, but my understanding is that any officer in such a situation would have to have in his mind that he may have to explain his actions to a superior later - and the word "reasonable" takes on huge legal significance.

*IF* the drone operation was (reasonably) seen as likely to give offence, *IF* the operator refused to promptly comply with a request to land, then I suspect the police officer would be found to have acted "reasonably". If the drone operator was just getting on with his job and was arrested without warning, it's a different matter.

I don't think who the community is has any relevance to the matter. What is relevant is whether the police think anyone is behaving in what might be described as a "provocative" manner, or in such a way as to cause unnecessary offence. In this case, with the deaths of a mother and two young children, then flying a drone above the area is at best tactless and hardly surprising if it caused a strong reaction. General CAA authorisation has nothing to do with it. It's in principle no different to a photographer going up close to the scene of a fatal car crash to take obtrusive photographs.

Sadly, I can see it as just one more nail in the coffin of tighter and tighter restrictions on drone usage. It seemed as if "light touch regulation" might win the day (at least in the UK). Episodes like this can end up as ammunition in the hands of the "anti-drone" lobby, who may use such to argue along the lines of "see, he was licensed, but even then they can't be trusted".

the police in the UK had a bad reputation in dealing with anyone with a camera since at least if not befoer the Anti Terrorism Act came into being, some were over the top zealots about it, while others approached it in a calm and sensible manner, after a good number of instances, one which I remember reading about, where a photographer covering a wedding was arrested! the police put together a guidance document, which i'm aware a good number of photographers in the UK always pack in their bags, I'm not sure if the Surrey force have the same thing, but this one is from the Met Photography advice - Metropolitan Police Service (http://content.met.police.uk/Site/photographyadvice) which gives all kinds of advice in dealing with the media and the general public including distressed/bereaved people, which is what Mr. Mitchell was arrested for, I dont think it was the fact that it was a drone, I suspect if he attempted to get any type of coverage with any device the cops would have arrested him, morals aside wrongly.

I dont think it was the fact that it was a drone, I suspect if he attempted to get any type of coverage with any device the cops would have arrested him, morals aside wrongly.
The laws which he may have contravened seem to be "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" rather than anything specifically to do with photography, drone or whatever.

So (legally) the same as if he had been shouting abuse. The reaction I'd expect would be for the police to ask him to desist, issue a warning, then only arrest if he continued with such behaviour.

So the key question is as said earlier - was he requested to stop filming before his arrest - or did they simply go up to him with "you're under arrest"!?

From the link I posted earlier it gives the following case law example:
"3.31 Therefore in Albert v Lavin[35] an off-duty police officer was entitled to use reasonable force to detain someone who jumped the queue at a bus stop, in order to prevent the other passengers assaulting him and a breach of the peace occurring."

So there may not be law as such to prosecute simple queue jumping - but if any action may reasonably be seen as "provocative", a police officer is entitled to take action to stop the situation escalating. If such a situation did escalate, then anybody committing an assault would likely be charged with such, but may plead "provocation" as a mitigating circumstance. But it's in the general interest to stop any situation escalating in the first place.

The question to then be asked was if he was requested to stop filming before his arrest - or did they simply go up to him with "you're under arrest"!?

I don't think either side come out particularly well in this story.

The moment of arrest is shown In a video posted and accessed via a google search around this story.

VIDEO: The moment a freelance cameraman is arrested by police | Meridian - ITV News (http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/update/2014-12-31/video-the-moment-a-freelance-cameraman-is-arrested-by-police/)

The approaching officer is heard saying ' Sir, this is a final request can you please bring your drone down' The pilot responds ' I will but with you coming at me like that I cannot control this plane' The situation then breaks down with the photographer saying 'you cannot do that'

So what can be deduced from this is that the aerial camera operator had been previously asked to bring his machine down but had continued filming and that the police officer overreacted rather than allowing the operator time to bring the craft down.

It can also be seen that that the pilot seems to be operating from a safe location away from people. It would seem that the Police Officer snapped and grabbed at the remote.

So I think the pilot was operating in a safe and legal manner technically and that he would have avoided any confrontation if he had complied with the initial request to desist filming or taking photographs. But it would seem that he stuck to his guns despite being asked to stop.

I'm really not a fan of ambulance chasing photojournalism, especially in case like this where a mother and 2 children have died tragically but think that the aerial photographer was probably within his rights.

But with more drones being used for journalistic purposes it would be good to try and establish a code of ethical working practices when dealing with situations such as this.

Having filmed at quite a few hard news events in the past involving deaths, it would seem that the photojournalist in this case seems to have failed the attitude test. Shooting these news stories there's point where you know where you've pushed the boundary to its limit, stayed for that extra grabbed moment, but know you have reached the time to withdraw.

In this case, the policeman approached in a non threatening manner having seemingly;given previous instructions to stop, while the photojournalist seems to give the impression (from the tone of his voice. although we can't see his body language) that he may be continuing to stall for time. The latter could have defused the situation (humour helps) and brought the drone back by how he interacted with the police, by conveying that he knows that the time limit has finally been reached.

At a banger racing circuit I just happened to be mere feet away from a pretty interesting looking crash, but the driver didn't get out, and just sat there, and eventually the officials realised something was wrong, and then it was a comedy scene trying to remove the roof, the battery powered saws were flat, and eventually a real fire engine arrived and removed the roof quickly.

I shot the crash and about a minute of the aftermath, then got surrounded by people pushing and shoving, wanting me to stop shooting - I persevered for a few minutes but it just heated the situation even more and eventually I gave in and stopped. Perfectly within my rights, but certainly a breach of the peace would have happened if they had persisted. Withdraw and be safe. My sound man was twenty or so feet away, and he wasn't taking any chances, he saw the crowd around me and beat a retreat. Not sure who was actually the sensible one.


Look at the Top Gear Argentina Special - even through all the spin and editing, you can see it was serious stuff - and looking at the Discovery, they were pretty lucky.

To fairly comment we still really need to know the detail of what happened in the minutes before the arrest, but on the basis of what that video shows us, the policeman's initial comment about "final request" does seem to imply the drone operator had been told to desist from filming previous to the videoed incident of the actual arrest, and we can only assume he didn't comply promptly. Possibly even landed, relocated, and took off again? (Hence the policeman coming across the field?)
So I think the pilot was operating in a safe and legal manner technically and that he would have avoided any confrontation if he had complied .........

I'm really not a fan of ambulance chasing photojournalism, especially ....... but think that the aerial photographer was probably within his rights.
He may well have been operating in a safe and legal manner initially, but the moment he failed to promptly comply with the initial request to land he was no longer acting legally.

I go back to what I put earlier - you may have a valid car driving licence, you may have a roadworthy and taxed etc car, you may be driving within the speed limit, but if a policeman tells you "you can't drive down that road", you're breaking the law if you do so.

I'm also BNUC-S qualified, but if a police officer requested that I land I'm pretty sure I'd land first, argue later.

I can't think of a single situation where you can have a police officer ask/request/command you to do something (or not do something) and you choosing to ignore them, argue with them or simply not comply would make the situation any better. They aren't going to go away.

Like it or not, if you resist their requests you're only going to make them more determined and whether you are right or wrong will be irrelevant until much later. You can be sure of your rights 'till the cows come home, in the end they can arrest you, confiscate your gear and then (probably) let you go with no charge with seemingly no consequences for the arresting officer.

The vast majority of police officers aren't going to ask you to do something (or not do something) for absolutely no reason, and you may not be aware of all the circumstances until later, if ever.

Good professionals are not flying alone. You can achieve much better pictures when you separate the pilot from camera operator. Having a second person "on the ground" increasses dramatically the safety.
There are so many things that can happen - so its allways much more safe to have someone on the side. Someone who can even speak with an asking policeman or security, hold the childs or animals away and secure your landing area.
And as a professional journalist ist the first what you do: showing you journalist identification and speaking with the police on the place.
Remember - pilot always bears full responsibility. He ,ust be prepared to safely resolve even this situation.

As to the morality of using drones to shoot this sort of news footage, I really can't see how it's any worse or different trying to shoot it from the air than the ground.

I agree, except that the police would cordon off a scene such as the one described, which would prevent photographers getting in close. Aerial footage though is not constricted by cordons and could well create moral conflicts and confrontation that the police may wish to avoid.

Roger

As Roger says - but also that a drone is very obvious to everybody on the ground - and therefore far from tactful to people who may have just suffered a very painful tragedy.

And why shouldn't people do what the police tell them to, they're paid to keep the peace after all? Except for those engaged in nefarious activities, they're not out to "get us". It's a crying shame so many children in this country are not brought up to respect the police like they used to be!

The trouble is, nobody is prepared to take responsibility for their own actions any more, it's always somebody else's fault.

Dave

people should do what the police say when it's a lawful order, they might not be' out to get' people but unfortunately, they are not very well informed about the 'law' which is their job to uphold.
see the vid;
Common Law / Civil Law Jurisdictions - YouTube

:-)

Sure, many of us have come across ill informed Police or Civil Officers whilst carrying out our trade and sure the law is clearly on our side when it comes to filming on the street (That's here is the UK ) but the journalist (dronalist?) arrested for breaching the peace whilst attempting to get overhead shots of a burnt caravan in which people have just died is a different scenario.

Normally a situation like this would be covered by a couple of GV's, a statement from the Police Officer or Fire commander in charge and maybe a couple of vox pop interviews.

Now it could be that he was 'within his rights' and was qualified to operate his drone commercially, but the availability and capability of these drones might require a clarification of the laws that govern journalists reporting from incidents such as this.

Either way to comply with his CAA certification the operator should have been operating on a strict 'line of sight' basis and really should not have been working on his own. The training I have carried out for the BNUC
( Basic National Unmanned Aircraft Systems Certificate) emphasises the importance of working as part of a team. Had this operator been working with another crew member they would have been able to negotiate with the police leaving the pilot to concentrate of his job and to bring the aircraft down safely.

His take off and landing area should also have been clearly laid out with visible barriers. The pilot is legally required to fully document this incident and this will become a part of the review when he applies to have his licence extended.

If a fully trained operator does not work in the correct manner it will damage the overall perception toward the responsible use of UAS and this could well result in a kneejerk response towards introducing highly restrictive legislation that will affect both amateur and professional operators.

people should do what the police say when it's a lawful order, they might not be' out to get' people but unfortunately, they are not very well informed about the 'law' which is their job to uphold.

These possibly seem to be more like special constables, part time volunteers, than full time police (assuming they're actually real). I've never seen a cop with their hands in their pockets like that when dealing with a possible offender, they tend to be all business.

I don't see any connection between the drone incident and the video that Rob linked to. The drone incident was related to a major incident and crossed the line between journalistic coverage and decency and respect. It was also policed by an experienced officer who had requested previously that the operator stopped filming.

The second video from 8 years ago was of someone in their garden filming two very young officers on patrol, with no other purpose than to draw attention to himself and provoke them. There was clearly no point other than gaining a reaction in an attempt to make them look silly. They foolishly rose to the bait with no knowledge of his civil rights and on making enquiries, walked away without further comment. The videographer took delight in quoting a piece of widely circulated internet information to use in his anti police video. I think it shows him up in a worse light than the young police officers.

This was filmed not long after the London bombings, around the time that there had been an arrest in London of a cameraman who was suspected of taking pictures for possible terrorist use. It was proved that he was taking tourist pictures as a visitor and no prosecution was made. As a result, there was a wide internet circulation of a section of a legal document telling people what the police could or could not do when someone was filming. this was followed by several instances of failed arrests as people proceeded to test it. Police are also now aware of the rights of photographers and videographers as can be seen by the number of people filming the police during demonstrations. At the time this video was taken, the two officers are unlikely to have been familiar with the law on this particular subject.

Roger

The training I have carried out for the BNUC
( Basic National Unmanned Aircraft Systems Certificate) emphasises the importance of working as part of a team. Had this operator been working with another crew member they would have been able to negotiate with the police leaving the pilot to concentrate of his job and to bring the aircraft down safely.

That is the most important point.

there isn't any connection, I was merely responding to Dave's statement that "people should do what the police tell them to do" and used that particular vid to illustrate that people dont have to do what the police tell them to do 'all of the time', just because they have a badge and uniform doesnt mean they can make up laws to cover their inexperience or ignorance of the law.
I'm all for good even handed policing but the police must be aware and obey the law too. The internet is littered with incidents of police officers involved in such behaviour.

Getting back on topic, Mr. Mitchell apparently is intending to sue the police for false arrest.

Drone photographer to sue police for false imprisonment after arrest at scene of Surrey caravan fire | Press Gazette (http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/drone-photographer-sue-police-false-imprisonment-after-arrest-scene-surrey-caravan-fire)

Hii Rob, my post wasn't intended in any way as a rebuff to you or your post, merely an observation.

In the face of a difficult and frequently challenging job, the police are often faced with people who show a total lack of any respect for the law and go out of their way to goad and try to embarrass the police with pointless time wasting such as this video. The police are of course perfectly able to make mistakes and get things wrong, particularly when needing to make instant judgement calls. When these mistakes have detrimental consequences, then they need to be brought to task,

I hope that the drone pilot's appeal fails and that he takes responsibility for his lack of respect for those who have lost their loved ones and the repeated requests of the police.

Roger

I tweeted this link at Consumer Electronics Show attendees. I had a drone company handle in the tweet so as to draw more eyes.I don't know anything about these folks besides seeing them on twitter.

@thatdroneshow
That Drone Show - Daily video podcast about Drones (http://www.thatdroneshow.com/)

Hi Roger, no offence taken, I do understand that police face lots of challenging and difficult situations every day, but I also believe that they also are duty bound to uphold the law especially as it impacts on them, in the video of Mr. Mitchell's arrest they havent exactly covered themselves in glory, it could be even argued that they might have been causing a breach of the peace!
One thing is clear, they acted irresponsibly when they grabbed the controller from the operators hands, it might have been a different story had the drone, during the struggle, been brought down on top of someone or vehicle or whatever.

From a moral/ethical standpoint - I would agree that filming this sort of thing is somewhat distasteful and not a newsworthy item.
Of course, poor morals aren't against the law.

:-)

Rob - reading the report from your earlier post, there seem to be a lot of queries between what the operator says happened, and some of the other evidence. Most notably if all he had done was introduce himself to the police, wait, then take off without any further word (as he claims), then the officers first words in the video of the arrest - about "final request" - seem a little odd? And if (as claimed) "The picture above shows the scene of the fire in the far distance. Mitchell said he did not fly his drone any closer to the scene of the tragedy than that." then why was any complaint made anyway? The police certainly seemed to be taking the residents complaints seriously.

I'll stand by what I said earlier - the devil's in the detail, and without knowing that it's wrong to draw too many conclusions.

In principle, Rob, I agree when you say "One thing is clear, they acted irresponsibly when they grabbed the controller from the operators hands......" - but to play Devil's Advocate, then what if he had been told to stop before and had tried stalling for time with the same excuse? ("You've got to let me land safely!") IF such happened, then they may have just decided he wasn't going to do the same thing again. As I said before, I'm not drawing too many conclusions without knowing the full detail.