I got my new Camera Phone, which can even zoom. So far it’s been a few dozen pictures of me at my desk, the dog, the cat, the wife napping, etc.
The other day as I was driving to work, I saw someone in front of me throwing garbage out the window. I’m talking garbage by the handful, repeatedly. So I zoomed in with my phone and got him in mid-toss, then zoomed out and got another mid-toss with license plate.
This got me wondering: could I turn in my photos of the litterbug to the police and have them act on them? More generally: have there been any known cases where police used those photos as evidence? Would there be legal ramifications for trying to submit them as evidence? Are images from Digital Cameras considered viable as evidence?
Don’t have a cite handy, but I do recall in the news a few weeks ago a man tried to pull a teenager into his car, and she got away, using her cel phone to take a picture of the suspect. The police used the photo to apprehend him.
Slightly (but just slightly) off topic, my friend was just involved in a hit and run (she was the victim, not the offender).
I told her that I know a guy who always keeps a disposable camera in his glove compartment. When he’s hit by a car, he immediately takes their picture and the license plate picture… even if there’s no film or the film is old and useless, simply because it pretty much ensures the other people will not run off.
I told her to get a camera phone just in case it happens again. I think it’s great policy, especially in larger cities like L.A. because of the high A.F. (asshole factor) of the local driving population.
there should be some standards to ensure the quality of evidence. If the license plate number from a digital photo is the only thing that led the police to the man, they better be damn sure he’s the one who did it (or that there even was a crime) before they charge him. A digital picture is not enough, in my mind.
But… this has nothing to do with camera phones. You can apply that to ALL cameras. And I’m sure there are standards, and experts who examine photos for signs of doctoring. None of that is new.
Only advantage I’ve found on camera phones is that folks tend to have their phones on them at all times, even when they wouldn’t be carrying a camera.
You can apply that to all cameras, you’re right. But it especially applies to camera phones, and all digital pictures, because a significant portion of the american population has either the ability or could easily obtain the ability to alter these.
Dooku - do you think the police might charge you with driving without due care and attention? Perhaps you were stuck in a traffic jam while you were playing with your camera - but you did say you were driving to work…
Yes, a significant proportion of people could “doctor” a digital image in Photoshop (say) well enough that a casual observer would be fooled, but not so well that the faked images would pass good “forensic” examination, surely?
As Ficer67 says above, such a photo would come with eyewitness testimony – most people have the capacity to lie, doesn’t mean we can’t take testimony as good evidence.
Just a bit off topic, to address filmyak’s contention that the “only advantage I’ve found on camera phones is that folks tend to have their phones on them at all times, even when they wouldn’t be carrying a camera.”
Admissability of evidence aside, the fact that the kid took the guy’s picture with his camera phone caused him to drive away before completing the abduction, thereby possibly preventing a sexual assault or even murder. Was the picture enough to convict the guy? Probably, but as pointed out, not on its own. Did it prevent “attempting to lure a juvenile into a car, criminal restraint and assault” from becoming far worse? Almost certainly.
As a parent, I am really beginning to see the possible deterrent factor of a camera phone against pedophiles, at least.
Great point Casey. But I also think there’s a possibility that, after getting their picture taken by someone they are trying to abduct, a kidnapper may be even MORE determined to catch the victim – to get control of the camera and picture.
My phone has the ability to upload the pictures to a website, but it’s not instant (takes about 30 seconds, after you go through the menu and push a few buttons) – and you have to hope the police think of looking there.
Well I don’t know what “driving without due care and attention” is - I don’t think that’s a specific law in California, but if that were the case, what would stop the police from charging everyone with that offense who looked up a phone number on their cell phone while driving? Or talking on it while driving? Or throwing piles of garbage out the window while driving?
My FIL the police chief says that talking on the phone etc. does qualify as “driving without due care and attention”, but it’s generally unenforcable except when it can be shown to be a factor in an accident.
This week in the UK, it has become an offense to use a phone without a handsfree kit while driving a car.
I guess “Driving without due care & attention” is probably a UK specific term - a catch-all that’s not as serious as “Dangerous driving”, which usually involves some kind of accident.
That aside - how much do you feel you are in control of your car while you’re taking photos?
Whenever I read Dooku’s posts, I pictured Christopher Lee. Going forward, based on the above post, I will think of Bill Murray, as John Winger, taking photos of the lady in the back of his cab as he drives.
