1989-03-24 Comments of Star Tribune.pdf - Minnesota Judicial Branch

1. Still Camera Shutter Noise
Observational and interview data both reveal a distrac-
tion problem with the shutter noise of still cameras.
While this problem does not occur in a majority of
cases, it does occur frequently enough to warrant
action. The cameras causing the problem are among
those in the list of approved makes and models attached
to the Rules. The control of still camera obtrusive-
ness is the only area in which the rules are not
"tough" enough.
.
Rarely did the evaluators observe or receive reports
of the use of a blimping device which completely mutes
the noise of still cameras. In the People v. Robbins
trial, a sheath was used to mute still camera noise,
but even this did not completely eliminate the problem.
The use of a blimping device represents an additional
cost or convenience factor which evidently the media
generally prefers to avoid, particularly since the rules
do not require their use so long as an approved camera
is used.
The Judicial Council has available alternative approaches
to dealing with the still camera noise problem should
it decide to do so. It may refine the list of approved
cameras to include only those with relatively quiet
shutter clicks (such as the Leica model). Or, it may
require the use of a blimping or sheathing device on
all still cameras having shutter click noise louder
than the quietest models. Or, it may leave the rules
as is Znd rely'upon the discretion of an informed judge
to control the problem.
-230-