Paparazzi crowd Britney Spears and her security on a sidewalk.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a new bill into law that will make it easier for the Britney Spears’ security team, and those of other celebrities, to protect them and prosecute over aggressive paparazzi.
Assembly Bill 2479 makes it a criminal act to willfully follow another vehicle too closely or commit reckless driving in pursuit of “any visual image, sound recording or other physical impression of another person for a commercial purpose. “ It also makes surrounding a celebrity or a celebrity’s vehicle in a manner that prevents escape illegal and punishable with fines and imprisonment.
Press secretary Sam Katzen, who represents Assembly Speaker Emeritus Karen Bass, the person who created the bill, confirms it is the first criminal “anti-paparazzi” law enacted in California.
An Assembly analysis from earlier this year reports that California began enacting laws to rein in aggressive and overzealous paparazzi in 1998 in the wake of Princess Diana’s death. The analysis suggests that despite those laws, the Assembly continues to hear reports on “increasing tension between celebrities and photographers, which at times has escalated to the point of physical confrontations.”
Jesse Martell, a Los Angeles-based private investigator who has been involved with the Spears’ camp in attempting to serve her ex-boyfriend and paparazzo with restraining order papers, has direct experience with some paparazzis’ driving tactics.
“As a licensed investigator, I have witnessed first-hand the paparazzi chasing celebrities in their vehicles, blocking other motorists, weaving in and out of traffic, and generally creating dangerous driving conditions. On April 12, 2010, while working for a celebrity, I encountered five separate vehicles driven by paparazzi. My vehicle was consistently blocked and cut off as these drivers drove at an excessive rate of speed and aggressively maintained close proximity to the celebrity’s vehicle,” he wrote to Gov. Schwarzenegger, May 2010.
Martell describes to me that while the new law takes a step in the right direction with regards to public safety, it doesn’t prevent the paparazzi from conducting surveillance.
“It’s a lot like the secret service in protecting the president,” he says as to nature of his assignments.
He watches for “anything that could possibly go wrong or that could put the client in danger.”
While Martell supports the new law, he proposed to Gov. Schwarzenegger a tougher law to restrict surveillance that Martell describes as the “act of following a person to monitor or observe the behavior and activities of the individual or individuals.” Martell wants a law that prohibits automobile surveillance except for law enforcement officials and licensed private investigators.
“Such a law would make it a crime for a person to follow another in a vehicle to monitor their activity. This would prohibit paparazzi from conducting dangerous surveillance activity. This law would also be effective in stopping any person or groups that may be plotting to harm another person. Introducing and approving such a bill will only strengthen public safety,” he wrote.
He meanwhile says that the new law may soon produce a prosecution and readers here will be some of the first in the public to understand what is happening. Martell says that under the previous civil law, an investigator such as himself, was required to support any allegation against paparazzi with independent corroborating evidence that the defendant had ”engaged in a pattern of conduct” and that the invasive conduct was “committed for a commercial purpose.””
He means that if there was any act done with an expectation of a sale, transmission, or publication of an image or recording, investigators and others had to connect a specific image or a picture obtained with direct reckless actions in disregard to safety or trespassing to be able to file a civil claim.
In other words, with the new law, paparazzi can be arrested and prosecuted for reckless acts used to chase a celebrity or falsely imprisoning a celebrity on a sidewalk or in a vehicle.
The law is intended to promote public safety and applies to anyone, not just paparazzi, who tries to get a picture a celebrity using any of the methods now barred by the law, says Martell.
Read more on this story at The Huffington Post or view the original part II content here at FNS.
Good story: another exclusive.
Would the proposed second part of the law have a chilling effect on free press? Imagine a reporter on the political beat. I just saw an encounter at a press conference where one reporter out of favor with the party incumbant was denied access. The report kept following the group, and loudly asked questions. What if he used a car to get to the rally or speaking engagement: would he or she be breaking the law? What does Jesse Martel mean by ‘stopping’?
“Such a law would make it a crime for a person to follow another in a vehicle to monitor their activity. This would prohibit paparazzi from conducting dangerous surveillance activity. This law would also be effective in stopping any person or groups that may be plotting to harm another person. Introducing and approving such a bill will only strengthen public safety,” he wrote.”
There are already laws on the books for reckless driving. Enforcement, anyone?
Thanks for breaking this story here.
It would take alot of work before this propossed bill of prohibiting surveillance is passed. However, one must consider that organized crime figures and terrorist groups conduct this method of activity to obtain intelligence before striking with a terrorist act. The activity is legal for anyone to conduct, until that person or group of individual crosses the line, which causes federal and local authorities to wait and conduct alot of monitoring until they have enough evidence to perhaps file a conspiracy with the intent to commit a terrorist act. until then, criminal inteties will also watching.
Although there are laws on the books for reckless driving, they are not linked with a specific group or with a specific civil law. The connection is very revelent, especially when one chooses to prosecute then file a civil claim using the same evidence obtained from the criminal case.
Thanks, Illuminti, for taking the time to explain.