PSA: New Law

[Arbelest 29]

I know there are a decent number of first responders on this forum whether it be police/fire/ems. Take a few minutes to read this new law Gov. Christie signed about motor vehicle crashes to protect your self from civil liability. From my interpretation of the law you can still talke photos of the vehicle as long as the person is not in it still, but others may think differently. For those of you who aren't first responders take pictures of anything or anybody that you want.

 

Bill To Protect Privacy Of Accident Victims Signed Into Law

August 8, 2012

TRENTON – Legislation that would prohibit first responders from photographing or disclosing pictures of accident victims and patients to the public without their consent has been signed into law by Gov. Chris Christie.

“This is not an injunction on our first responders, who act bravely and save lives, but the callous few who violate the privacy of the people they are charged with protecting,” said Assemblyman Craig Coughlin (D-Middlesex). “In an era where photos and videos can live in perpetuity online, no family should ever have to worry about distressing images of their loved ones being displayed without their consent.”

The new law (S-199/A-789) prohibits a first responder who is dispatched to or present at the scene of a motor vehicle accident or other emergency situation, for the purpose of providing medical care or other assistance, from photographing, filming, videotaping, recording, or otherwise reproducing in any manner, the image of a person being provided medical care or other assistance, except in accordance with applicable rules, regulations or operating procedures of the agency employing the first responder.

“Situations that require emergency medical attention are distressing enough without a victim or their family members having to worry about their privacy being invaded,” said Assemblyman Herb Conaway (D-Burlington). “This is a matter of respect and dignity, especially given the fact that victims or patients are usually in no position to grant authorization to these images.”

The law defines “first responder” as a law enforcement officer, paid or volunteer firefighter, paid or volunteer member of a duly incorporated first aid, emergency, ambulance or rescue squad association, or any other individual who, in the course of his employment, is dispatched to the scene of a motor vehicle accident or other emergency situation for the purpose of providing medical care or other assistance.

The law also prohibits a first responder from disclosing any photograph, film, videotape, record or other reproduction of the image of a person being provided medical care or other assistance at the scene of a motor vehicle accident or other emergency situation without the prior written consent of the person, or the person’s next-of-kin if the person cannot provide consent, unless that disclosure was for a legitimate law enforcement, public safety, health care, or insurance purpose of pursuant to a court order. A person who knowingly violates this prohibition on disclosure is guilty of a disorderly persons offense, which is punishable by imprisonment for up to six months, or a fine of up to $1,000 or both.

In addition to any other right of action or recovery otherwise available under the laws of the state, a first responder who knowingly violates this prohibition, is liable to the person whose image was taken or disclosed, who may bring a civil action in the Superior Court.

The court may award (1) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $1,000 for each violation of the bill; (2) punitive damages upon proof of willful or reckless disregard of the law; (3) reasonable attorney’s fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred; and (4) such other preliminary and equitable relief as the court deems appropriate.

[Recon Racoon 49]

In a way I agree with this law. There is a problem with some first responders where they are more worried about getting a pic of that triple fatal accident than cutting the car apart to save the kid trapped under the dashboard. Believe it or not, its a problem, especially among volunteer fire and rescue. And I'm not saying everyone does it, but there are those couple that just do it because they can.

[JayF281 0]

There is no way not to agree with this law. As a FF/EMT it just is common sense that you DO NOT take a picture of someone that is being cared for, even before it was state law it was against HIPPA laws and other federal laws. Not to mention just plain dumb. Its on thing to take a picture of the wreckage or whatever but don't take pictures of the patients.

[voyager9 3,443]

The new law (S-199/A-789) prohibits a first responder who is dispatched to or present at the scene of a motor vehicle accident or other emergency situation, for the purpose of providing medical care or other assistance, from photographing, filming, videotaping, recording, or otherwise reproducing in any manner, the image of a person being provided medical care or other assistance, except in accordance with applicable rules, regulations or operating procedures of the agency employing the first responder.

 

The law defines “first responder” as a law enforcement officer, paid or volunteer firefighter, paid or volunteer member of a duly incorporated first aid, emergency, ambulance or rescue squad association, or any other individual who, in the course of his employment, is dispatched to the scene of a motor vehicle accident or other emergency situation for the purpose of providing medical care or other assistance.

 

I can't say I'm surprised, given the recent incidents where family members end up seeing photos of their loved ones taken by responders. It's hard to argue too much against it. Some key thoughts:

 

It seems to still allow the department to take and use photos for official purposes as long as they have a policy in place. This law focus on personnel taken their own "unofficial" pictures.

 

It applies to those providing care/assistance, so my guess is department photographers are exempt?

 

It's limit to covering pictures of the actual person.. images of the scene are ok.

 

Also limited to personnel who were dispatched so off-duty (which are really considered civilians in this case) would be exempt.

 

I also notice that the fines/penalties apply to the person, not the agency.. in fact the agency isn't mentioned at all, even in the part about civil liability... in other words, don't expect your agency will have your back if you get caught doing this..

[voyager9 3,443]

In a way I agree with this law. There is a problem with some first responders where they are more worried about getting a pic of that triple fatal accident than cutting the car apart to save the kid trapped under the dashboard. Believe it or not, its a problem, especially among volunteer fire and rescue. And I'm not saying everyone does it, but there are those couple that just do it because they can.

 

I think that's a pretty broad brush you're painting with.. I don't know of anyone in the emergency services who would sacrifice patient care in order to take pictures... Now, the real issue is that while 2-3 people are actively providing care, there are others who are standing by. Those are the ones you tend to see break out the cell camera.

[voyager9 3,443]

There is no way not to agree with this law. As a FF/EMT it just is common sense that you DO NOT take a picture of someone that is being cared for, even before it was state law it was against HIPPA laws and other federal laws. Not to mention just plain dumb. Its on thing to take a picture of the wreckage or whatever but don't take pictures of the patients.

 

Agree with the common sense and dumb parts.. but my understanding is HIPPA only applies if the agency bills for its services.

[diamondd817 828]

Holy crap. Had no idea such a problem existed and that we needed laws for it. Learn something new all the time.

[Arbelest 29]

 

It's limit to covering pictures of the actual person.. images of the scene are ok.

 

 

I would even go as far as saying as long there are no faces or distinguishing marks in the photos it is still okay for the pictures to be taken. Some trauma docs/nurses like pictures to help in their evaluation of the patient. As for taking picures of patients it was recommended to take pictures of cuts and lacerations so badnages didn't have to be re-opened at the hospital. Then again it goes back to there being no faces or distinguishing marks in the photo.

[BlueLineFish 615]

I have no problem with this. Your first responsibility on scene should be assistance not pics. If all victims are gone then scene pics are ok.mnever should a victim be in pictures

[KpdPipes 388]

Holy crap. Had no idea such a problem existed and that we needed laws for it. Learn something new all the time.

it isnt just that, there have been more than a few cases where actual films of Fatal MVA's have been leaked to the Media. IIRC one even hit the news before the Next of Kin had been Notified and they got to see their Daughter (I Believe) Die in front of them before they were officially notified as they recognized the car.

[woodentoe 14]

If I'm not mistaken, this all was spurred by some douchbag who snapped photos of a crash victim and posted them on the Internet as if to say "see kiddies, don't text and drive"

 

Then the teenage girl's family got to see picture of their daughter gutted in the roadside.

 

I tend to think we have enough laws, but it is hard to argue with this.

[Arbelest 29]

Don't get me wrong, everyones first priority is to provide assistance but once there are enough people there and a manpower pool is formed that is when most pictures are taken. Idle hands are the devils tools.

[voyager9 3,443]

I would even go as far as saying as long there are no faces or distinguishing marks in the photos it is still okay for the pictures to be taken.

 

That would be the 'common sense' approach but if the law is written as above: prohibits a first responder from photographing, filming, videotaping, recording, or otherwise reproducing in any manner, the image of a person being provided medical care or other assistance. Then any picture of the person is prohibited.

 

Some trauma docs/nurses like pictures to help in their evaluation of the patient. As for taking picures of patients it was recommended to take pictures of cuts and lacerations so badnages didn't have to be re-opened at the hospital. Then again it goes back to there being no faces or distinguishing marks in the photo.

Agree, though this probably falls under the "except in accordance with applicable rules, regulations or operating procedures of the agency" exception.

[Arbelest 29]

So my initial interpretation is wrong then, always happy to get others oppinion on the subject. I avoid this problem all together and keep my phone inacessible during calls. To many other people out there taking videos of police/fire/ems personnel doing their job and then posting the videos on youtube/facebook, so i will eventually see it.

[NJDrew1 0]

Seems like a common sense law. I have no problem with it whatsoever, even as a photographer.

[Kaiser7 33]

I've seen shock images online that were obviously taken by first responders. I'm okay with this, not even so much that they take the pics first, but more that if someone I loved was in a horrible accident, and the image was posted on /b I'd be pretty upset also.

[Recon Racoon 49]

I think that's a pretty broad brush you're painting with.. I don't know of anyone in the emergency services who would sacrifice patient care in order to take pictures... Now, the real issue is that while 2-3 people are actively providing care, there are others who are standing by. Those are the ones you tend to see break out the cell camera.

You're right it is a pretty broad brush I used. I was in a pissy mood last night and that turned into me making accusations. I know not everyone does it. But I've heard about people doing (my dad's a first responder, Fire and Rescue). Guy hopped off the truck and first thing he did was take out his phone and try to get a pic. So it happens, but really only arse holes do it.

 

I've seen shock images online that were obviously taken by first responders. I'm okay with this, not even so much that they take the pics first, but more that if someone I loved was in a horrible accident, and the image was posted on /b I'd be pretty upset also.

Shock images don't even bother me anymore. And /b/ doesn't post as much gore as they used to. Sites like best gore are responsible for stuff like that. They usually get righteous images from the scene of like triple fatals, motor cycles vs tractor trailers, you know the good gorey stuff. And those images are cool and stuff, I just don't think getting that pic is more important than trying to at least clear the accident up first.

[JayF281 0]

Agree with the common sense and dumb parts.. but my understanding is HIPPA only applies if the agency bills for its services.

 

HIPPA laws are so vague at times. Ive been in the field for about 10 years now and have NEVER taken pictures of a patient but have taken pictures of the wreckage (without patients in the picture) or even of the scene in general. But as I have stated I have been extremely cautious to not have any patients in the picture, and if I was taking a picture I was NOT the one responsible for patient care at the time. It basically boils down to common sense. Its kinda sad that they have actually had to sign it into law because there was obviously a problem with it happening.

[diamondd817 828]

If I'm not mistaken, this all was spurred by some douchbag who snapped photos of a crash victim and posted them on the Internet as if to say "see kiddies, don't text and drive"

 

Then the teenage girl's family got to see picture of their daughter gutted in the roadside.

 

I tend to think we have enough laws, but it is hard to argue with this.

 

Well I hope that douchebag got fired.

[JayF281 0]

Cant be any worse than the two members of the Cali Hwy patrol that took picutres of a body from a really nasty crash and the family found out. Google "porsche girl"

[KramD52 0]

Sadly, some people fail to use/have common sense and because of those morons more laws have to be enacted. There shouldn't have to be a law like this on the books (see also texting while driving) but unfortunately in today's digital age society it is a necessity.