Justin Bieber photographer: Experts say new paparazzi laws not needed

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

As Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus called for stronger anti-paparazzi measures after a photographer trying to snap a picture of Bieber’s Ferrari was killed Tuesday, experts said the laws already on the books are enough -- they just need to be enforced.

‘We have plenty of laws,’ said Blair Berk, a Beverly Hills attorney who has represented numerous celebrities. ‘Better enforcement of the existing laws is the answer.’

The photographer was killed Tuesday evening when he was hit by a car while crossing Sepulveda Boulevard near Getty Center Drive. A California Highway Patrol officer had pulled Bieber’s sports car over for a traffic stop; the photographer arrived on scene, snapped photos and was struck as he returned to his own car.

A friend of Bieber’s was driving the car at the time, officials said. The pop singer was not in the vehicle.


Law enforcement sources said Wednesday that it’s unlikely charges will be filed against the driver of the car that hit the photographer.

In a statement Wednesday, Bieber went on the offensive, calling on lawmakers to crack down.

‘Hopefully this tragedy will finally inspire meaningful legislation and whatever other necessary steps to protect the lives and safety of celebrities, police officers, innocent public bystanders and the photographers themselves,’ he said.

Since the late 1990s, California has seen its anti-paparazzi laws evolve. Initially, the law passed in the wake of the Princess Diana’s 1997 death in a Paris tunnel expanded California trespass law by creating civil damages in cases in which a person knowingly entered a private property to capture, images or sound of personal or family activity when that physical invasion would be offensive to a reasonable person. The law also created the concept of constructive invasion of privacy with the idea that no person could use a telephoto lens or microphones to intrude on a property.

In 2005, after a flurry of incidents involving Reese Witherspoon, Scarlett Johansson and Lindsay Lohan, California increased the penalties for such privacy intrusions and also added the ability to sue for an assault committed with intent to capture a visual image.

In 2009, Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, with the support of the Screen Actors Guild and with a strong push by actress Jennifer Aniston, got a law on the books that imposed civil fines of up to $50,000 for anyone who buys a photograph illegally taken.

Then, in 2010, state lawmakers enacted legislation that made it a crime to recklessly drive in pursuit of a commercial photograph, with punishment of up to a year in jail if a minor was involved.

Last year, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge threw out charges related to the first-of-its-kind anti-paparazzi law in a case involving Bieber being chased on the 101 Freeway by a photographer.

The judge said the law violated 1st Amendment protections by overreaching and potentially affecting such people as wedding photographers or photographers speeding to a location where a celebrity is present.

The Los Angeles city attorney’s office is now appealing that decision.

Bieber was pulled over by the CHP on the 101 Freeway in the San Fernando Valley and cited for driving his Fisker sports car at high speed. The pop star said then he was being chased by a photographer, Paul Raef.

Raef’s attorney, Dmitry Gorin, agreed that new anti-paparazzi laws are unnecessary.

‘There are plenty of other laws on the books to deal with these issues. There is always a rush to create a new paparazzi law every time something happens,’ he said. ‘Any new law on the paparazzi is going to run smack into the 1st Amendment. Truth is, most conduct is covered by existing laws. A lot of this is done for publicity.’


Scott Sterling had Type 1 diabetes, family says

Two charged in Christmas Day shooting of Pasadena coach

Man charged with murder after body found encased in concrete

-- Richard Winton and Andrew Blankstein