CHP Officer pulls over media crew...

[chpbound]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXHTAAZxqDc


They make the CHP or the Police for that matter – look like the bad guys…Why can’t people film all the good things the CHP does on a daily basis!! ( like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ik-GbOSz38 )

[SB 405]

Don't ya just love the people who respect the law.

[WantToBeCHP]

Some people are just dumb.

[CHPUSMC]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXHTAAZxqDc


They make the CHP or the Police for that matter – look like the bad guys…Why can’t people film all the good things the CHP does on a daily basis!! ( like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ik-GbOSz38 )


It's hard to cram any good news in with all the negative things they have to fit into a 30 min newscast.

$10 says Officer Horta still has a job.

[bcjack]

Without all of the facts, we really can't say who is right and who is wrong. There is a little touch of "Attitude" on both sides of this show.

If the Fire PIO gave them permission to be there, the news people are acting lawfully. If the Fire PIO told the media it was ok to be there and didn't share that info with the CHP Agency Rep. so he or she could pass it to the field units, shame on the Fire PIO.

The media does have access to areas that the public does not...Read 409.5(d) PC very carefully.

WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A SERIOUS FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE!!!

[HwyChaser]

Without all of the facts, we really can't say who is right and who is wrong. There is a little touch of "Attitude" on both sides of this show.

If the Fire PIO gave them permission to be there, the news people are acting lawfully. If the Fire PIO told the media it was ok to be there and didn't share that info with the CHP Agency Rep. so he or she could pass it to the field units, shame on the Fire PIO.

The media does have access to areas that the public does not...Read 409.5(d) PC very carefully.

WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A SERIOUS FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE!!!

I don’t think the officer had an attitude at all. You can only ask nicely so many times before you issue a stern order. From the looks of the clip, they had been stopped before and told they were not allowed up the mountain yet. I’m sure the officer was polite during the initial contact. They continued up the mountain after the first stop…that is disobeying a lawful order regardless of what Fire’s PIO said. The officer was doing exactly what he was told to do. If they would have waited a few more minutes until the officer got the word media was allowed up the mountain, they would have been on their marry way.

The average person watching the clip might think “Oh, he’s in trouble now…they just asked for his name and I.D.!!” That is a daily occurrence in law enforcement.

[bcjack]

Chaser:

you're right. But since I don't have all of the facts, I don't feel I can objectively criticize anyone involved. That is why I stated they both were showing some "Attitude".

The point I was making was there appeared to be a GIANT failure to communicate, if in fact the media had been given the ok to go up the mountain and the Officer had not received the word to let them.

The simplest solution to that story, based on the 7 minutes of video we had available, and IMHO as a Fire PIO would have been for the media people to shut up, phone the Incident Information Officer (They are all provided with a phone number for the Lead PIO) and get the latest information from the Lead PIO. If the Officer was open to it, let the Officer talk to the Lead PIO and get the facts. OR, the media people could have provided the Officer with the Lead PIO's phone number and let him call. Either way, the confrontation was really not necessary and only brought a bad light on both sides of the deal.

[SweetTaterPie]

Listening to the radio conversation toward the end of this video I arrived at one conclusion: the media folks in the van disobeyed a lawful order given them prior to the change in status, and Officer Horta faithfully acted according to the most current information available to him:
1. the media van had been earlier directed to leave the area, under apparently different media admissibility instructions to LE (i.e., area closed to everyone, including media).
2. The refusal to comply with the order was evidenced by the driver's excuse to the officer for still being there (i.e., they needed to stop for a cellular call...cell service issue), and, their failure to deny Officer Horta's assertion of earlier orders to leave the area. Pursuing a CVC 2800 violation was still up to the officer's discretion, and would likely not have occurred at all. As is all too common, the bucket-mouthed male passenger stoked the furnace.
3. There was a violation of CPC 148 (a) at the scene of the fire emergency, most certainly by the cameraman. When asked to remove himself from the roadway he mouthed off; and, when advised that his presence and continued interference with the officer/driver contact constituted resisting and delaying a peace officer, he decided to argue with the officer.

Officer Horta acted on good faith and in accordance with the law. Whether the female news-shark had actually been given permission by on-scene CDF personnel prior to the stop is not established by the video. She certainly did not argue against Officer Horta's assertion she'd been ordered to leave earlier, on more than one occasion. The radio call Officer Horta made to ascertain status only established that the scene was now open to the media. Officer Horta was correct in his protection of the "crime scene," for such it was (potential arson event). CPC 409.5 does not deal with the exclusion or admission of media at a crime scene. If CDF merely closed the scene in accordance with CPC 409.5, they failed to consider the fire may have been set deliberately.

[bcjack]

taterpie;

Good points. We could speculate until the cows come home...but from what I saw and heard, the news people were most likely out of line and their conversation does show that, but, absent any specific information, the "Crime Scene" part of PC 409.5 usually cannot be invoked for "The entire mountain" and if the crime scene provision is invoked, the Incident Commander still has a legal obligation to provide the media with a "Viewing Area" that is reasonably close to the incident. None of this info is available from this clip, so we can only assume one of two things...The media people were wrong...OR the Officer was wrong.

[1982]

Well lets another part. Perhaps the Officer was doing what his supervisor told him to do. Why does it give the media the right to act with total disrespect? Why could they not present their information to the officer without acting as though they are so important and need to be there. People wonder why situations like this escalate, this is a perfect example. I am not saying take what an officer tells you as gospel but at least respect what he is telling you, because he has the authority to do so. If you feel his information is incorrect then contact someone above him. Just because you feel the officer is wrong doesn't give you the right to be condescending. And I love how the media acts like this is such an atrocity and how the CHP has just bullied them around. Give me a break.

[SweetTaterPie]

Well lets another part. Perhaps the Officer was doing what his supervisor told him to do. Why does it give the media the right to act with total disrespect? Why could they not present their information to the officer without acting as though they are so important and need to be there. People wonder why situations like this escalate, this is a perfect example. I am not saying take what an officer tells you as gospel but at least respect what he is telling you, because he has the authority to do so. If you feel his information is incorrect then contact someone above him. Just because you feel the officer is wrong doesn't give you the right to be condescending. And I love how the media acts like this is such an atrocity and how the CHP has just bullied them around. Give me a break.

Amen! While I will not even try to assert that CHP officers are 100% right in everything they do or say, 100% of the time, I will opine that Officer Horta showed a great deal of restraint in not welcoming camera-boy to the land of the forcibly restrained. He was certainly justified in hooking up loud-mouth for 148(a), and another officer might have done so...regardless of the change in media accessibility status. There's no quicker route to incarceration than interjecting yourself, as a passenger, into the enforcement proceedings between officer and driver...experience has proven that.

[SemiMBA]

I have traveled to nearly every state and in most of Europe and Asia. I can safety say that the CHP is among the most restrained and professional law enforcement agencies I have ever encountered. This officer was well restrained. He gave a lawful order and it was ignored. I would have hooked and booked both of them, and impounded the vehicle.

[jttegx]

i hate the news media. their all annoying and exaggerate too much.

[bcjack]

i hate the news media. their all annoying and exaggerate too much.

What experience do you have working with the media?

Where was your experience working with the media?

IMHO, you can't lump ALL media into a single pigeon hole. There are hundreds, if not thousands of good media people out there. As with most things, the minority s***birds out there are the ones that we remember most, and the good ones fall off the map.

[SweetTaterPie]

What experience do you have working with the media?

Where was your experience working with the media?

IMHO, you can't lump ALL media into a single pigeon hole. There are hundreds, if not thousands of good media people out there. As with most things, the minority s***birds out there are the ones that we remember most, and the good ones fall off the map.

BC: Don't let that obvious hook-with-worm from Jttegx suck you in. Critical thinkers know that using all, every, never, always, et cetera, when speaking about anything, including the media, is unfair, whether the talk is negative or positive.

[RetSgt]

Video should more appropriately be titled “Media Harassing CHP Officer”

Right, we don’t know all the facts but here’s what I saw……

The Officer was obviously concerned that the media members were not following directions which was the purpose for the contact. It appeared to me that both of these people were antagonizing the Officer and trying to get a reaction out of him which is why the person with the camera was secretly recording the Officer at first. The guy with the camera miss quoted the officer saying the officer told him to turn off the camera and lied and embellished the circumstances to someone on a phone. He likely reports the news the same way……

If you are a professional member of the media, why would you want to harass the Officer who is just trying to do his job and keep people safe? If you have a problem go talk with his supervisor and stop acting like a couple of horses asses on the side of the road.

I think the Officer acted with great restraint and did a reasonable job of keeping his cool under the circumstances. Personally, I would have loved to work that complaint with a copy of that video which clearly documented that the passenger as an antagonist liar.

[Mac]

...Personally, I would have loved to work that complaint with a copy of that video which clearly documented that the passenger as an antagonist liar.
+1

[highway sentinel]

i hate the news media. their all annoying and exaggerate too much.


"Their...?" perhaps "They're" might be a better choice....

[bts80]

Should she have been arrested?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXHTAAZxqDc

[Chippysgt]

Damn, it was like having a flashback. Now I remember why I enjoy retirement so much.

I would have hooked both of them up in a flash. Officer Hurta had tremendous restraint, almost to a fault.

[bts80]

Chippysgt, is the media really this bad when it comes to getting what they want, or is this a odd circumstance?

[bcjack]

bts80:


http://www.chpforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2219

The thread for the media video...

[Chippysgt]

Well, it has been 13 years since I retired but I never ran into news media people that bad during my career. I worked in LA, Riverside, Yolo, Sacramento and Merced counties and never had anyone be that big an A-Hole. The flashbacks I refer to were people acting that stupid who were not news media.
One of the big problems for Officer Huerta was that he was all by himself. If I had rolled up on that scene as a Sgt, I would have growled at the guy with the camera so loud he would have peed himself and if he kept provoking he would have been wearing handcuffs and there would be no second chances. If Huerta would have told me that she had been given a lawful order three times and disobyed each time and her only excuse was she had to make a phone call, she would have been hooked up too and no second chance. The only second chance I believe in is protective armor.................

Starting with Rodney King, the handheld camcorder became our worst enemy.

I worked for Gary Condit for 8 years. When he got into trouble the news media were like sharks in blood filled water. That went on for months. They camped out at his office and home 24 hours a day. They were relentless. I am not saying he was right, I am saying they were wrong.

[Chippysgt]

bcjack,

If I knew how, I would merge this into the other thread but I am doing good to be able to post notes.

:lol:

[bcjack]

bcjack,

If I knew how, I would merge this into the other thread but I am doing good to be able to post notes.

:lol:

Leave that for ole' dw....:lol:

[dw]

Leave that for ole' dw....:lol:Completed.

[gabriel]

My thought as a civilian on this is that when a sworn officer comes up to a vehicle the passenger should be completely quiet and speak only when spoken to. If the guy with the camera would have kept quiet that situation would have gone a lot better. I think the guy made the Officer doubt himself a little bit which fueled the fire. I dont know what I would have done because I'm not a trained CHP officer yet :) :biggrin:

[AyatollahGondola]

Starting with Rodney King, the handheld camcorder became our worst enemy.

You don't really believe that, do you ChippySgt.?

[SB 405]

I think the problem with people recording incidents involving police officers is most times the person doing the recording has not covered the incident from it's begining so what you end up viewing is a snip-it of what went down.

[gabriel]

I think the problem with people recording incidents involving police officers is most times the person doing the recording has not covered the incident from it's begining so what you end up viewing is a snip-it of what went down.

Yep... amateurs and professional news media alike. Everyone shows what is convenient.

[SB 405]

And because so many people love that fifteen minutes of fame they are more than happy to contact the media once they see what they have recorded.

I can hear it now...."Hello channel seven...yeah I got this tape of two cops beatin' a guy up,you interested?"

[AyatollahGondola]

I think the problem with people recording incidents involving police officers is most times the person doing the recording has not covered the incident from it's begining so what you end up viewing is a snip-it of what went down.
I have a hard time believing that in entirety. Some, if not a large percentage, probably have alot of the "total" incident on there. Agreeably, the media cuts out the parts they don't consider valuable to their agenda...whatever that ends up being. But videos, whether ameteur or professional, have been very useful for law enforcement overall. It might take a while for the public to learn about the media's and others' misuse of them, but many Americans are waking up to that.
I don't want to dredge up the king fiasco, but the video was not the actual cause of that. It's public airing may have been slanted, but you have to admit that if you look at it from the perspective that you would giving someone a speeding ticket; regardless of whether or not you saw the whole incident that caused the recipient to speed, they were still speeding and the ticket was warranted. King was a criminal; he endangered lives and property; the pursuit and takedown were required. Some of the actions during and directly after that were out of policy and now both law enforcement and the public are addressing that. But in perspective, the videotaping craze that is sweeping the country has also caused many, many criminal prosecutions that probably would not have otherwise occurred. there would logically be some LEO's getting immortalized for making improper or out of policy decisions, or just showing a human side in the course of the job, but I believe the numbers are not going to justify declaring the camcorder LEO enemy #1.

[SB 405]

Let me explain a little more in depth. I think many will agree a large number of these recordings are taped at the end of a pursuit. That person standing on the balconly was not present ten miles down the road when the suspect hi-jacked a vehicle and fled. I also don't think to many people are following police cars around with a camera filming people being stopped for a broken tail light. It's the sirens,squealing tires and general comotion that make people grab a camera and run out of the house.

[CHPwhat]

When you ask the passenger does he have to give you his information?

[SweetTaterPie]

When you ask the passenger does he have to give you his information?

"Ask" and "have" are mutually exclusive terms, in the context of your question. If, as in the case of this thread subject, a passenger decides to interject him/herself into the contact between the Officer and the driver, the passenger has made himself a party to the stop. As was also the case, the passenger created a condition whereby the Officer could no longer focus on his contact with the driver and, instead, had to redirect himself to the passenger. The passenger has in essence initiated a consensual encounter with the officer, and the Officer, who had no cause to identify the passenger before, may now perceive the passenger as a threat/impediment to performance of his/her duty. At that point, the Officer has a legally justifiable reason to identify the passenger, and to arrest him/her if he/she persists in interfering: PC 148 (a) 1:

Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.