Judge tosses anti-paparazzi counts in Bieber case
LOS ANGELES (AP) - A judge dealt a blow Wednesday to a California law meant to crack down on reckless driving by paparazzi by saying the statute is overly broad and should not be used against the first photographer charged under its provisions.
Superior Court Judge Thomas Rubinson dismissed counts filed under the law against Paul Raef, who was charged in July with being involved in a high-speed pursuit of Justin Bieber.
The 2010 law raised the penalty for those who drive dangerously in pursuit of photos for commercial gain.
The offense is punishable by six months in jail and a $2,500 fine but went unused until Raef was involved in the freeway chase of Bieber that topped 80 mph and prompted several 911 calls.
Raef still faces traditional reckless driving counts and has not yet entered a plea.
The judge cited numerous problems with the paparazzi statute, saying it was aimed at newsgathering activities protected by the First Amendment, and lawmakers should have simply increased the penalties for reckless driving rather than targeting celebrity photographers.
He also said the law could be used against photographers rushing to shoot a wedding or political rally, or even a private citizen such as himself on the way to an event that might generate photos worth selling.
While Rubinson's ruling only affects Raef's case, the law could be struck down completely if prosecutors appeal his decision, said Brad Kaiserman, an attorney for Raef.
Kaiserman argued the law was unconstitutional and meant to protect celebrities, not the public.
"This discrimination sets a dangerous precedent," he said.
Prosecutors countered that the law could be applied to people in other professions, not just the media.
"The focus is not the photo. The focus is on the driving," Assistant City Attorney Ann Rosenthal argued.
While the media is granted freedom under the First Amendment, its latitude to gather news is not unlimited, she said.
"This activity has been found to be particularly dangerous," she said of chases involving paparazzi.
Rosenthal also said the judge should look at factors specific to Raef's case, not hypothetical scenarios. She declined comment after the hearing.
The law was prompted by the experiences of Jennifer Aniston, who provided details to a lawmaker on being unable to drive away after she was surrounded by paparazzi on Pacific Coast Highway.
Superior Court Judge Thomas Rubinson dismissed counts filed under the law against Paul Raef, who was charged in July with being involved in a high-speed pursuit of Justin Bieber.
The 2010 law raised the penalty for those who drive dangerously in pursuit of photos for commercial gain.
The offense is punishable by six months in jail and a $2,500 fine but went unused until Raef was involved in the freeway chase of Bieber that topped 80 mph and prompted several 911 calls.
Raef still faces traditional reckless driving counts and has not yet entered a plea.
The judge cited numerous problems with the paparazzi statute, saying it was aimed at newsgathering activities protected by the First Amendment, and lawmakers should have simply increased the penalties for reckless driving rather than targeting celebrity photographers.
He also said the law could be used against photographers rushing to shoot a wedding or political rally, or even a private citizen such as himself on the way to an event that might generate photos worth selling.
While Rubinson's ruling only affects Raef's case, the law could be struck down completely if prosecutors appeal his decision, said Brad Kaiserman, an attorney for Raef.
Kaiserman argued the law was unconstitutional and meant to protect celebrities, not the public.
"This discrimination sets a dangerous precedent," he said.
Prosecutors countered that the law could be applied to people in other professions, not just the media.
"The focus is not the photo. The focus is on the driving," Assistant City Attorney Ann Rosenthal argued.
While the media is granted freedom under the First Amendment, its latitude to gather news is not unlimited, she said.
"This activity has been found to be particularly dangerous," she said of chases involving paparazzi.
Rosenthal also said the judge should look at factors specific to Raef's case, not hypothetical scenarios. She declined comment after the hearing.
The law was prompted by the experiences of Jennifer Aniston, who provided details to a lawmaker on being unable to drive away after she was surrounded by paparazzi on Pacific Coast Highway.
"He also said the law could be used against photographers rushing to shoot a wedding or political rally, or even a private citizen such as himself on the way to an event that might generate photos worth selling."
Â
Â
Ok then, use the statue like that!
Â
I am no fan of the cult of celebrity nor the seemingly endless rights celebrities get over the "common" citizen, but doing 80 to get a photo? I can see that being a special law if there exists a place where many people regularly speed just to get a photo of someone of something.
Â
If you're going 80 to get to a wedding to shoot, you screwed up. If you're going to "an event" that a photo might be created that is "worth selling" you're still speeding and you're still being unsafe.
Â
I think this judge just doesnât' like Beiber. I can sympathize, I don't either, but it does not make this law a violation of people's rights. You can still get your photo, just don't do it while driving recklessly on an interstate.
Â
There should be laws against ANYONE photographing ANYONE without their consent. That way, EVERYONE is covered.
What's a Bieber?
 @MikeyÂ
She's a famous singer from Canada.
 @RalphCramden Blame Canada!!
I didn't realize that Celebs were a protected group...Like minorities and homosexuals I guess?
Ridiculous to have laws that specifically protect celebrities. Good decision. I agree...make the penalties for reckless driving more severe for everyone.
 @Portlander29 You sound like a bigot and an idiot..
He sure looks gay?
 @RandyH Is that a question or a statement?
Â
If you want to see what a gay person looks like, look in the mirror. They look just like you and me and everyone else. While there are some who are a little or a lot more flamboyant, the majority of gay people look just like everyone else.
@Mikey maybe he meant happy
You think so?
Â
Naaaaaa.
Good, sound, dare I say - common sense decision.