This is another bad law passed , based on emotion, not of common sense. Some photos ar taken for training, some for press release, and some for fund raising. Yes, it was bad taste for someone to post on their Face Book, but who told the grieving family? I would think that person wasn't any better than the poster. Also you can't stop someone from taking pictures out in public, so why punish the squad member.

I totally agree n. Horrible and stupid thing to do for sure however passing laws just to make someone feel better is just not right.

@n Are you kidding me! You must be a hose holder.
This law will stop you from taking public pictures at these type of scenes.
It's not the first responders job to take pictures they are suppose to assist, rescue or protect. Someone's misery is not your kodak moment or rescue trophy.

@Lance-A hose holder? Seriously? Whether paid or volunteer these men and women go through vigorous training. They answer calls any time of the day or night and the volunteers still have to go to their job in the morning. They deserve far more than to be called a "hose holder" by some keyboard commando. Too bad the only hose you are probably capable of holding is behind your zipper. If you ever man up enough to hold a 50 foot long 5 inch round hose while wearing safety gear you might want to look into volunteering. Why bother though when it's easier to sit in front of a screen making disparaging remarks about those who do right?

Law or no law don't people have morals...C'mon what if that was his close family member....a law not against the law.....it's just sad to have to waste time to make it a law

Hey Lance-a-hose, don't talk the talk if you never walked the walk. First responders take pictures at fire scenes,accidents,Haz-mat calls and other calls to use for training later on. First responders will view the photos and see what could have been done differently or to see if the scene was safely secured. The person should not have put that on Facebook. These pictures are also put in National first responder magazines so other people can learn from them. It has nothing to do with the patient and are not used as a TROPHY !!!!! So instead of bashing these people that get up at 3am to pull some drunk out of his car after he just killed an entire family hitting them head on,why don't you JOIN !!!!! Giving back to the community is very rewarding!!!!! Hope to see you out there.

While I agree that first responders should not be distributing photos taken at accident scenes for their own gratification, photos have long been a valuable tool for Emergency Room personnel. Pictures taken of the accident scene and damage to a vehicle - mechanism of injury - can be invaluable in helping to determine what internal injuries a patient may be suffering. I hope this law does not hamper the efforts of those trying to provide the best care for those involved in the accidents.

Sorry Annonymous, unless you get written permission to use the photo, you can't even show the doctor how bad the car was mangled and how they were removed by the first responders. They didn't think about this before they passed this.Had NOSE input from first responders or this clause would have been added. Sad we will just hurt people more than help them.

THANKS JOHN !! You read my mind !!!!

I think there is a bug in the Patch web site software. Someone (initials JS) made a vulgar comment on this article ("Lance, your a [certain bodypart]") which was quickly removed (as it should have been. But it still appears rather visibly for everyone to see on the Home page. So the bug is that after a comment gets deleted from an article, it should also get deleted from the recent comments section on the home page at the same time.

Jon,that comment has been removed on the Home Page by Dan, the Patch Editor. He keeps everyone in line around here, just give him some time..

If you consider "keeping everyone in line" not censorship. Danny boy picks and chooses what gets published based upon if the comment fits his view. This rag should be called Chairman Hubbard's Red Sheet.

I suppose the Legislature and Governor never heard of a little thing called The First Amendment, which FORBIDS such legislation. People out in public are in PUBLIC, and there is no right of privacy in public. That's why paparazzi can take pictures of celebrities anywhere in public, and sell them for publication anywhere. If an incident occurs in private, for instance a heart attack or fall down the stairs in a private home, the law can forbid taking fotos or displaying them. But on a public street? No. Taste, not law, must govern. There are legitimate reasons for taking and displaying fotos of accidents, as for instance to teach people not to text while driving. And mistakes or malfeasance on the part of first responders can also be exposed, for prevention of similar mistakes/failures in the future. It truly does amaze me that we went to the trouble of ratifying a Constitutional amendment that says that governments may not restrict free speech or the press, but legislatures everywhere endlessly try to defy it. If bad taste were illegal, many of Christie's utterances would long ago have landed him behind bars.

It was a sad situation for that family. You can understand the pain. But here's the solution. You do not go on the internet and look for items that cause pain and discomfort. Some of my posts and opinions on this website cause discomfort to certain people. Many photos and posts by others cause me discomfort. Therefore the solution is, do not allow yourself to go on the internet to seek and view disturbing photos or anonymous postings that cause you to feel pain and discomfort. How a law like this can pass the Constitution test is beyond me.

So would this law even apply in thise case?
.... the agency EMPLOYING the first responder

The picture was taken by a VOLUNTEER.

Maybe I misunderstand what the law truly states, but according to the article these law prohibits first responders from distributing any photos taken from an accident scene. It seems they are still allowed to take pictures that would be used for future training and analysis. So why is it so horrible that it should be against the law to use photos/images that were taken while working/volunteering and post to public sites. If they want to be paparazzi stop being a volunteer and start ambulance chasing.

Why would a first responder need to post victims photos and information on Facebook? That is the issue here. Not pictures for evidence, or later analysis, or 'training'(that one is thin), or for magazine publication. The picture was posted on Facebook as a trophy, nothing more. Good law. For a change.

As a chief of a volunteer dept it is my roll to make sure this doesn't happen. I have a photo policy inplace that prohibits the distribution of any scene photos. We do indeed take photos for training purposes and those photos must be approved by the chief. There was a case out west that happened they all parties involved had gotten sued. We must protect our own. If you don't have a policy you should concider writing one.

I take pictures for a local Fire Dept. If I know theres a bad accident with someone hurt or maybe killed, I dont take any shots of it. If I have before I found out about the death, I give it to the dept. I feel this law isn't going to stop people passing by with a cell phone taking a picture. They may not know just what they are looking at. To say all first Responders are the people taking pictures, putting them on facebook, thats just unfair! Their there working the job! Not standing around getting a shot!.. The person who wrote "hose holder" I hope you never Need Them One Day!.. You'd Be VERY HAPPY To See Them Come To Save You!.. How Dare You!

The Hose Holder Comment was a little much. But there should not be Emergency Responders taking pictures unless it is a Chief Officer. A Mangled Wreck or an ejected Body is not used for training. What if the crash is considered a crime scene. We don't need Emergency Responders with 6 months on taking pictures and posting them. Leave it up to the Fire,Rescue Chief or Police Dept to take Photos and keep it in house or be properly released to the public.

WOW, I am a VOLUNTEER EMT/FIREFIGHTER was in NJ now in Pa. We take pictures..... AFTER the victims have been transported, NEVER a person. This knucklehead that took the photo shoulld be dismissed from his/her squad..... as for hose head I challange you to walk a shift in my bunker gear on a hot day

More nanny state nonsense. Make a law, that will sort out the problem.

I think it's a good law for a change too. That poor family. I would be livid if a first responder posted pictures of one of my dead family members on facebook. Of course you can't stop someone who just happens to be passing by but an EMT, no way.

Ive been an EMT for 7 yrs and cannot agree more with this law. This is someone's privacy, someone's life, someone's family who do not want ther family business posted all over the Internet. I have seen plenty of hose holders and emts use these pictures as badges of honor. Like hey "look what I got to do!'. Get over yourself. This is a business where HIPPA EXISTS FOR A REASON. If we cant talk about te call we were on, what makes it right to have a picture of it? Training purposes, isn't that a load of crap. You can get plenty of legalized photos for training purposes on the Internet or whatever. GROW UP YOU ARROGANT EMOTION, ATTENTION SEEKING responders. Remember this is NOT a job to expect thanks and praise for. People tend to forget that a patient is a person who expects you to care about them, and Not a photo opportunity.

This law is
1. overkill and
2. contradicts the 1st amendment
Of course the behavior of the first responders could and should be governed by the statutes of agencies employing them. But having a special law for privacy in public space!..
Once again politicians making hot air and brownie points with their influential constituents.
Well, that's why we elected them, didn't we?

Candid, I disagree that this law is not necessary. Many first responders are volunteers and are not governed by agency statues except that they would no longer be allowed to volunteer...not good enough. They still get to list it on their resume masking the low life they really are.

You cannot legislate morality.

Well crafted or not, this law seems pretty clearly unconstitutional. The better way would be to require that rules and policies are in place regarding photography for all police, fire, EMTs, etc. in the state, and clearly defined punishments for violations of those rules.

These "volunteers" just can't wait for other peoples loss (property-human). To go play emt, or fireman. If you want to volunteer help the homeless , go to the spca. Leave this work to professionals.

These wackers should be incarcerated for posting those pictures! I have been an EMT for 19 years and I can't ever think of a reason to take a picture of someone dead in car. Training purposes? Really? Common what a load of crap! What can unlearn from looking a pictures of a dead victim? I will tell I what u can learn....you can learn that you are insensitive and have NO business being in this field! These Wacker type "EMS Professionals" are an embarrassment. To our field and our cause

If this were a common problem, then I would support the law. I'm sure that these volunteer organizations have codes of conduct, which are probably derived from state and national associations that they may be affiliated with. Why not encourage them to add this to there lists of dos and don'ts.

I have been a vol ff for 5 yrs and a emt for 2 in NJ and in my fire department we have SOP's & SOG's (Standard Operating Procedures, Standard Operating Guidelines) that prevent us from taking pictures of patients/victims on any scene. Once they have been removed from a wreck the chief can take photos of the vehicle for training purposes only and no personal info like the tag or make of the vehicle can be viewed. If the tag is in the picture it must be blacked out. I think this law is bogas and that invades the first amendment. As for calling ff hose holders you couldn't do a day in my gear so get over yourself. Emt's have to adbide by HIPPA or be penalized so they should have thought this out and made the departments put into effect better SOP's & SOG's.

I wanted to add that what i mean by training is go over the pictures and see if there was anything that could have been done better or faster ect.

Snj is right 100%

No picture of the victim needs to be taken. As for the training rationale, the police dept. takes official photos and could share them if that is the reason. All EMS need to work together. Privacy laws should be respected, remember it could be your relative. There is no excuse for cell phones or cameras on the duty staff for EMS., and before anyone comments yes I was an EMT for years and my husband is a Paramedic.

Photographs of the face and body are essential and doing so must be arranged and organized immediately and as soon as possible after death. In many situations this can be extremely difficult, or in the way of operational procedures.
Having served as a mortuary disposal specialist, photograph and video documentation was just as vital as body position and location. All of which was immediately turned over to investigators, detectives, EPA officals etc.
Keep in mind that body recovery begins immediately, avoiding cross-contamination of persons and personal items. Always give priority to the living over the dead. Dispel myths about health risks posed by corpses, and respond to all wishes of the family.

That would include the showing of photographs, video, or any other personal items without the consent of the lead investigators and the families of the victim's.
There are no advantages in telling or showing any information that has been collected, unless they are part of same recovery team as where the information was gathered.
Training experts do not use "raw never before seen video or photographs" as part of any exercise, they use information that has been carefully selected, inspected, and directed for a specific use, so there is no reason to have any " raw material" when you leave the area being investigated. Since all evidence is automatically part of the investigation, a responder can be charged for with-holding any.

Several years ago my uncle was killed in a fire. A local firefighter took and posted pictures of his body recovery. I have no idea why he would such a hurtful thing. The only reason that makes sense is he had sick morbid personality type that like to show off death to his friends. I am a firefighter too. I do believe in taking pictures after the incident for discussion points. Taking personal pictures of hurt, mutilated and dead people that are not intended solely for investigative purposes but for pleasure sounds more like a psychological issue. When I respond I want men and women on the scene whose focus is on the task at hand of rescuing and saving. Someone who is also concerned with getting a 'cool' blood and guts shot need not apply.

I have been a firefighter for over 35 years and a Chief Officer for 18 years. Taking pictures of an accident scene or fire scene is in my opinion essential on many levels. TAKING PICTURES OF VICTIMS ALIVE OR DEAD IS UNNECESSARY AND UNACCEPTABLE. Lets not even get started about how wrong posting pictures of victims is. The way I read the law in this article, it does not stop first responders from taking pictures, just stops them from taking pictures of the victims. Pictures are very valuable to me as a Fire Chief and should be to all firefighters and EMS personnel. Pictures can tell you what was going on at that particular second. Pictures can fill in some blanks when trying to recall the scene later when writing reports. Including pictures as part of a report is also invaluable. I don't use pictures much for training but for memory recall they are excellent. I think this is a good law as I read it in this article and will have no problem following it.

This is another example of the problems with a full-time legislature. Legislators want to be 'first' to keep their name in public. Come re-election time he/she can say "I passed Cathy's Law", or whatever letter of the alphabet we're up to now. We have serious problems in this State but things like this take up time and no effort so the serious items go by the wayside. This law seems ill-thought as well.

Our ability to electronically transmit anything,at any time seems to have gotten in the way of what is morally and ethically acceptable. What would be the value in posting pictures of someone who has died? If we have to pass laws to tell stupid people what they can and can't do, I am in favor of that.

@Tony. Well said. Any first responder worth their weight would agree. It enhances the current HIPPA laws. Nobody trampling on anyone's rights. Instead we are protecting the rights of people not in position to protect themselves - the victims and their families.

Tony
Documenting the living and the deceased is vital in all major accidents-fires etc. Especially where there is chaos, such as explosions, major floods and such disaster's whereas a person can perish moments after being found alive. Such incidents require time frames and location points as the situation changed, or in areas that are unstable such as hostage situations.
Katrina is a major example where people were photographed leaving flooded areas and re photographed days later after they re entered the area and drowned in their own homes. Investigations documented that some of these people were treated earlier, were stable and leaving with first responders, then appeared deceased in later documentation. They slip away to retrieve pets, belongings etc.
At the local level, crash victims leave they're vehicles, fire victims leave to search for pets or other family members, and in these cases documentation may be vital to the investigation or later disgarded as un necessary.

i know this might sound corny, but i feel this is one of those cases where a proverbial "village elder" could navigate through this better than a lawmaker. i wish we had them! there's a lot to parse through with this case....i think the element of posting on the internet took it to an unecessary level, even though it does not violate the 1st amendment.

I take pics at accidents and fires etc. I am a volunteer firefighter. I never take pics of the people or person in there vehicle or emergency personnel getting the person or people out the vehicle. That part is so disrespectful. I take pics after the scene is cleared with the person or people already gone! Yes I do post pics on face book so other firefighters can see them and maybe help them if they come upon a scene in a similar way. Each firefighter or rescue or emts etc. has there own specific way of doing things but, we as firefighters are help with whatever situation you are in whether a fire or mva or whatever. We are all trained to do what we have to.Some pics that are on some of the sites have people in there vehicles yet and that is really disrespectful cause you see the mans head bleeding and a lady in a car where medics are helping her and another one with the plate showing and another one with a person showing still sitting in the vehicle.These are none of the pics I take cause they are not from my fire company. I edit all my pics before I post them.

If you do that, you'll have many first responders quitting the business, then who are you going to call? It sounds like the person made a mistake. I was involved in a head on collision two years ago, and the 18 year old boy who caused the accident that almost took a womans two small kids, he was so proud of what he did he went home a placed the pictures and everything on Facebook. To make matter worse the cop talk to the kids father and theyd decided not to give the boy a summons for running a red light. He gave the women a summons for having an expired license instead. Nothing happen to the boy except his daddy went an bought him another new BMW for graduating high school.