Police. Photographers. Rights. And isn't this getting harder?

[MarkLe]

it's a matter of common sense, and understanding. Take me, for example: I do carry my credentials with me but I don't even think about taking pictures at certain places for fun: also to not waste police work.

They're doing a fantastic work about security: Im sure that they take everything under proper consideration, including stupidity.

after all what are we talking about here? They just ask you few questions.. is that a problem?

 

[Paul Grupp]

after all what are we talking about here? They just ask you few
questions.. is that a problem?

Sure it is -- loss of liberty is a slippery slope. There are a lot of things we could do -- why not let police randomly stop people and inquire about what they are doing? Why not let the police install cameras in your home and workplace -- after all, if you have nothing to hide, why care? Why not let police randomly search houses -- I'm sure they would be polite and courteous, and again, if you have nothing to hide, why would you care?

These things would all be effective in reducing crimes of all sorts, I am convinced. But we don't permit them because of the extent to which we value liberty.

Even so, I personally have no problem with giving up a little liberty if is is essential. For example, when I get on a plane, I'm happy to let the security guys take ALL the time they want looking through everybody's stuff. We know that this is an area where terrorists operate, and good searches are an excellent way to deter them.

Where we disagree is -- if the security measures are unlikely to be effective, yet they restrict our liberty and freedom, what's the point in taking them? Has there been one case where a terrorist posed as a photographer with a big lens and tripod, and then was caught be vigilant security guards? If so, then perhaps you have a point. If not, why are you so willing to sacrifice your way of life for something that seems extremely unlikely to prevent even the smallest crime?

I believe that some law enforcement agencies are using the hysteria over 9/11 to gain additional powers in areas that have nothing to do with terrorism. This too, is something we must be vigilant against -- it threatens our liberty just as much as the terrorists do.

Regards,
Paul
http://www.pbase.com/pgrupp

it's a matter of common sense, and understanding. Take me, for
example: I do carry my credentials with me but I don't even think
about taking pictures at certain places for fun: also to not waste
police work.
They're doing a fantastic work about security: Im sure that they
take everything under proper consideration, including stupidity.

after all what are we talking about here? They just ask you few
questions.. is that a problem?

 

[nrwhitman]

Interesting. Reminds me of a visit to Washington DC I made post 9/11, I think it was spring 2002. I was at a conference and the only time I had to visit the mall area was after dark. So I got my tripod and E10 and off I went. No problem till I started taking photos of the White house. Actually the gaurds were VERY helpfull. They explained the rules and (couldn't take photos from the sidewalk immediately in front of the white house, had to be on the other side of the street) Actually got into a interesting conversation with one of them as he seemed to be a photo buff.

Anyway, got some good photos, here is a link...

http://homepage.mac.com/rdwhitman/PhotoAlbum8.html

Rick

 

[Gary Reich]

Technically, you were not legally obligated to provide them with any information. You could have said nothing, refused to give them your ID, refused to give them anything and legally, you did nothing wrong as long as you were not on private property, there were no "No photography" signs posted and you were in full compliance with the law. In other words, they had no probable cause.

Problem is, the security guard could have made up any story he liked, as could the cops if you didn't comply with their requests for ID, SS# etc. Then when they arrested you for failure to comply with an order, you'd have a tough time in court getting out of it.

Them's the breaks - no good answers.

 

[Z (is real)]

after all what are we talking about here? They just ask you few
questions.. is that a problem?

Yes, it is likely a problem because it is a very bad security tradeoff. That is it does very little or nothing to prevent an attack and it is costly in terms of security resources. Add to that the large intrusion on personal liberties and you have a clear cut losing situation.

But it does a lot to make certain organizations feel like they are doing something and to make many people feel like something is being done. Add in a fair amount of convenience for certain interests in preventing pictures from being taken and this sort of thing is likely to continue. (E.g. most industrial plant operators are happier if no one takes pictures of their plant outside their control. If they can shut down recording of any of their operations as an antiterrorism measure, they've hindered a variety of environmental investigations as well.)

-Z-

 

[Daniella213202]

I guess it is more dependant of who you meet. A lot of things changed in the USA after the 911, but not everybody is paranoid. I do understand the high security and frankly it makes me feel more secure that they are high on alert.

As for this company, who knows? maybe they had a threat of some sort and that is why the police had some connection with them? We can not really judge unless we know the full story, can't we?

I personaly have been taken photographs of bridges here and even some military facility in Silicone Valley and nobody ever asked me anything. When I took the photo of the bay bridge in San Francisco, there was a police car on my way and they never said anything to me.

Maybe New York now have very specific restrictions and I can understand why, not that I approve really, but I understand.

With stories like these, and NY "no photos of bridges" policy, I
recommend that everyone takes USA of their holiday list.
Alaska is still on my list, I hope people there are less paranoid.
IMHO, the terrorists must be celebrating...

--
Minë Corma hostië të ilyë ar mordossë nutië të
Mornórëo Nóressë yassë i Fuini caitar.
Un thoron arart’a s’un hith mal’kemen ioke.
Saurulmaiel

 

[MarkLe]

as I understand we're all liberals in hour hearts, but when something happens in our house we (all of the sudden) change. Just like the example of the airplane: tight security will be ok when we'are in it.. isn't it? If you are liberal and against all kind of intrusions in your personal life, you supposed to be against that as well. what's the difference between screening at the airport and screening in front of a Federal building?

Our security services will keep doing what they're doing regardless of how selfish we are. and there is not much to do about it (forunately)

and that's not a joke at all.

 

[Karl H. Timmerman M.A.J.D.]

We live in difficult times ... difficult ... because we need to balance our "security" as a society and the "rights" of individuals. I wonder how Isreali folks do it?? Live in fear? Wonder how Palestinian folks do it? Live in fear as well? There has to be a better way. Sometimes being human gets in the way of "living".
Regards
Karl
Karl H. Timmerman M.A.J.D.
http://www.karltimmerman.com
http://www.karltimmerman.com/ramblings.html
'The best part of taking the moral highground ...... is the view'.

 

[santa]

No, it doesn't sound like a restricted area. Go read the Patriot Act. It doesn't even MENTION photography. Not once. There are a very few conditions under which photographs are illegal and they pertaint to top secret classified facilities and such. No bridges. No commercial buildings. Period. A few buildings are copyrighted (bizarre) but this wasn't the case here, I'm sure. Bottom line is if you are shooting from a public sidewalk at a public building, you are free to shoot. You may get arrested by some idiot or strong armed by security guards in spite of your right to shoot, but you almost invariably have the right to take pictures. And red, amber, yellow or pink alerts don't affect it either.

do a web search for "the photographer's right" and you will find a pdf on the subject.

One link among many is:
http://www.christopherelkins.com/weblog/2003/05/the_photographe.html

I have never been stopped but I carry along a printed sheet that explains these issues in the event I am questioned or stopped. I'd most likely be less than willing to stop shooting but it depends on the situation and whether I'm ready to be arrested and go through a civil lawsuit. In some instances I might, at other times I'm sure I would not wish to go through the hassle. You may be right, but you may also have a cell mate for a short while until things are cleared up.

ucs308

nothing happened after all. From what you're describing it looks
like you were photographing a restricted area. you didn't know it
and the police did their job. About the private guards, if you
believe that they treated you with little respect I'd write a
complaint to their headquarters.
I don't believe that they have the rights to ask you personal
information like your social security number, not until the real
police is involved.
I understand your frustration, but we all have to understand the
situation we're in. I live in New York City, and the idea that only
professional photo-journalists are allowed in certain areas makes
me feel better. In other words, when I see somebody taking pictures
of a bridge or anything similar I do take a closer look and I do
wonder.
I understand your frustration, and you have all my sympathy: I'd
write that complaint to the private security organization.

 

[Steph41073]

We live in difficult times ... difficult ... because we need to
balance our "security" as a society and the "rights" of
individuals. I wonder how Isreali folks do it?? Live in fear?
Wonder how Palestinian folks do it? Live in fear as well? There
has to be a better way. Sometimes being human gets in the way of
"living".
Regards
Karl
Karl H. Timmerman M.A.J.D.
http://www.karltimmerman.com
http://www.karltimmerman.com/ramblings.html
'The best part of taking the moral highground ...... is the view'.

When you give up your civil liberties to enhance your security, you lose both.......
--
Steph's Digitals
http://www.stephsdigitals.com

 

[MarkLe]

Santa,

As a professional photographer I know the act very well. But thanks for the link anyway.

As I said before, even if I have my proper ID on me, I try to don't shoot at certain areas.

I use my common sense: but if you want to shoot wherever you like, you can still do it, nothing is going to happen, even if you get questioned I'm sure that you don't have anything to worry about it. They will just question you, not a big deal (unless you have ties with some terrorist organization, and in that case you'll probably get arrested).

 

[Todd Corzett]

I have had a few run-ins with rent-a-cops as well as local and state officials while photographing airports. I began shooting around John Wayne Airport in Santa Ana, California about a year ago. I made the mistake of shooting from private property, and was approached by a rent-a-cop and told that I was not allowed to take photos of the airport/planes because the airport forbids it. I did not question him, and proceeded to pack up and leave. I then contacted the media director for the airport and explained my situation. The media director informed me of the airport's protocols, and said that if I had any problems to have them contact him. I printed a copy of my emails and I keep them with me whenever I'm photographing around the airport (from public property). Several times after I've been there and a local or state officer approached me... All I do is pull out the emails and my business card and they go on their way. If they did have a problem I would politely ask for a phone number I could call to talk with supervisors to get a better understanding of what the laws say.

You will never get anywhere being confrontational with officers or rent-a-cops. Often times they don't know what your rights are, and if they aren't listening to you... it's best to just leave and come back in a few hours after talking with someone official. Yes, things are different after 9-11... but that doesn't mean you can't photograph.

-Todd...

--
-----
Unit One Studios
http://www.unitonestudios.com

 

[Paul Grupp]

Mark -- you keep missing the point -- why take measures that are ineffective. Again -- name me one instance of a terrorist posing as a photographer.

This has nothing to do with selfishness or anything like that. Tight security should be there where there is a serious threat. Where there is no threat, or the security would be ineffective against the threat, than what is the point?

as I understand we're all liberals in hour hearts, but when
something happens in our house we (all of the sudden) change. Just
like the example of the airplane: tight security will be ok when
we'are in it.. isn't it? If you are liberal and against all kind of
intrusions in your personal life, you supposed to be against that
as well. what's the difference between screening at the airport and
screening in front of a Federal building?

Our security services will keep doing what they're doing regardless
of how selfish we are. and there is not much to do about it
(forunately)

and that's not a joke at all.

--

Regards,
Paul
http://www.pbase.com/pgrupp

 

[nickjc]

This reminds me of a similiar occurance I had not too long ago.

Preamble, my brother inlaw's father was a narc and homicde detective in NYC...other frineds are in SOD etc...I have been hunting with cops, fishing with cops, skiing with cops for years...and to a man and gal they all say the same thing.....

I was taking some pics of the GW bridge and the Hudson...local sector partrol car shows up...the questions begin...nice enough..then they start getting to personal...and smart ass'y at my 'lack of cooperation' to thier questions as to: Why? For? Where I live? etc...Where I work?...NONE of this is their business....but I gave them the usual, name, rank serial speach...

I proceeded to tell them that unless I had broken some law and they were going to charge me for it, all their questions were erroneus and bordered on harrassment and did not need a response....

I was proceeding to get ready to leave the scene as they did not have a charge and the partrol Sgt. showed up...I gave him my side and he sent me on my way with an apology.....

Last thing I saw was him chewing out the sector car crew.... ;^ )

My .02 and your mileage may vary...BUT, going back to what I have always been told..." Charge me or let me go " And if they do charge you, first thing you do is ask for your lawyer.....

Post 911 there are sensible laws and sensible surveillance...BUT increasingly so there are WAAAYYY to many **** Traciy's out there...

Later

Nick

 

[Vaughn T.Winfree]

Quick story and a few facts as far as US law goes.

A security guard in a near by restaurant told me I could not take photos where I was standing.. I was in a local public park taking night photos off the river with the city lights. I was standing near the restaurant that had

open view to the river as well... I politely explained that I was on public property and that I had no intentions on leaving until I was finished.

The police came shortly after. They asked me what I was doing. I stated that I was taking pictures. My tripod and camera was facing the river with boats and a bridge in the background... The officer asked for and ID, and I gave him two ID's.. One was my drivers license, and the other was my concealed weapons permit... One officer asked why did I present my CWP to him.. I explained that I had to present it to him because I was carrying my Sig Saur .45 ACP on my right hip.. He then asked why I was carrying a weapon. I stated that it was night time and I am alone with expensive gear. I also explained that I knew my rights in that matter.. After runnig a quick check, they explained that the management of the restaurant called the police because I was taking photos of their guests on their outdoor seating area. I showed them a few photos on my cameras LCD. Then I explained that they should talk to the manager for calling in a false accusation.. The officers visited the restaurant and then drove away leaving me to finish what I started....

I have had to research this in the past as I have had situations where

rent-a-cops, security, and police have stopped me taking photos at night around the city. I am careful to make sure I am taking photos from public places. Lets be perfectly clear.

They do NOT have the right to detain you for taking photograph from public property. If someone detains or threatens you because you are taking a photograph, they can be liable.
A police officer does NOT have the right to ask for a S.S #.

A police officer does NOT have the right to ask you the make, model, and focal length of your cameras lens.. Its simply in appropriet and irrelevant questioning. No one has the right to confiscate your film or memory card.
Thats theft and they can be liable.
Law enforcement can confiscate during an arrest.. But thats it!!!
They better be ready for a major law suit if that ever happens.

Too many people have taken the security issue to an extreem, and they use it to violate the rights of law abiding citizens.

If you are are confronted by a security guard or police, I would suggest that you never raise your voice and be courteous at all times.
But for God sake, stand your ground if you did nothing wrong.

An officer can ask for ID, and thats OK... Remember, its NOT a crime to take a photograph... Always ask for their name, who they work for, and who their supervisor is.. You may need that information in the future..
Take Care,

--
Vaughn T. Winfree
Friends Don't Let Friends Shoot Film

pBase supporter http://www.pBase.com/vaughn

 

[nickjc]

ARe your related to Ben Franklin??? ;^ )

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
..................................Benjamin Franklin

When you give up your civil liberties to enhance your security, you
lose both.......
--
Steph's Digitals
http://www.stephsdigitals.com

 

[Todd Corzett]

Post 911 there are sensible laws and sensible surveillance...BUT
increasingly so there are WAAAYYY to many **** Traciy's out there...

I completely agree with this, every street cop wants to be the one to save the world... and often times have no clue what they are talking about. By keeping calm and professional you have nothing to fear unless you're 1) on private property and didn't know about it. 2) photographing restricted materials/places without knowing it. 3) doing something illegal other than photography. There are a few places that have restrictions on photography, like (from what I've heard) the Lincoln Memorial doesn't allow tripods inside, but guards/police in these areas should site specific reasons... not just 'you can't photograph here.' And if you do have any problems, get their name and call the supervisor... street cops shut up quickly when you have authorization from higher sources. I even get back out of my car when they show up as I'm leaving just to show them that they can't do anything.

'charge me or let me go'... very true! I don't think you even have to tell the police who you are, but then they can detain you until they find out... Just showing some ID and a business card (or not even that) is more than enough when you're not breaking any laws. I love it when I'm not doing anything wrong and police bug me... they can spend all day trying to find dirt, I'll just smile back!

-Todd...

--
-----
Unit One Studios
http://www.unitonestudios.com

 

[greentank]

Vaugh...

Were you able to get your CWP because you were a photographer? Or do you live in a state where CWP's are available to anyone? Just curious.

(1D) Mark (II)

Quick story and a few facts as far as US law goes.
A security guard in a near by restaurant told me I could not take
photos where I was standing.. I was in a local public park taking
night photos off the river with the city lights. I was standing
near the restaurant that had
open view to the river as well... I politely explained that I was
on public property and that I had no intentions on leaving until I
was finished.
The police came shortly after. They asked me what I was doing. I
stated that I was taking pictures. My tripod and camera was facing
the river with boats and a bridge in the background... The officer
asked for and ID, and I gave him two ID's.. One was my drivers
license, and the other was my concealed weapons permit... One
officer asked why did I present my CWP to him.. I explained that I
had to present it to him because I was carrying my Sig Saur .45 ACP
on my right hip.. He then asked why I was carrying a weapon. I
stated that it was night time and I am alone with expensive gear. I
also explained that I knew my rights in that matter.. After runnig
a quick check, they explained that the management of the restaurant
called the police because I was taking photos of their guests on
their outdoor seating area. I showed them a few photos on my
cameras LCD. Then I explained that they should talk to the manager
for calling in a false accusation.. The officers visited the
restaurant and then drove away leaving me to finish what I
started....

I have had to research this in the past as I have had situations where
rent-a-cops, security, and police have stopped me taking photos at
night around the city. I am careful to make sure I am taking photos
from public places. Lets be perfectly clear.
They do NOT have the right to detain you for taking photograph from
public property. If someone detains or threatens you because you
are taking a photograph, they can be liable.
A police officer does NOT have the right to ask for a S.S #.
A police officer does NOT have the right to ask you the make,
model, and focal length of your cameras lens.. Its simply in
appropriet and irrelevant questioning. No one has the right to
confiscate your film or memory card.
Thats theft and they can be liable.
Law enforcement can confiscate during an arrest.. But thats it!!!
They better be ready for a major law suit if that ever happens.

Too many people have taken the security issue to an extreem, and
they use it to violate the rights of law abiding citizens.

If you are are confronted by a security guard or police, I would
suggest that you never raise your voice and be courteous at all
times.
But for God sake, stand your ground if you did nothing wrong.
An officer can ask for ID, and thats OK... Remember, its NOT a
crime to take a photograph... Always ask for their name, who they
work for, and who their supervisor is.. You may need that
information in the future..
Take Care,

--
Vaughn T. Winfree
Friends Don't Let Friends Shoot Film

pBase supporter http://www.pBase.com/vaughn

--
http://www.pbase.com/greentank
10D, 17-40L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 50 1.4, 28-135 IS

 

[MarkLe]

photographs of federal buildings in NYC were found in the hands of terrorists, and that's just an example.

All I'm saying is to show a little understanding, and cooperation. They're there to protect this Country and us.

Am I missing the point? Ok. Let me go to specific examples: Verrazano Bridge in New York. There are signs that specifically don't allow the use of any form of camera while you're in the bridge (for a reason, if I may add) , now you go there and take pictures. What do you expect? Think of yourself as the person in charge of the bridge patrol.

pgrupp, please try to understand what Im trying to say, and also let's remember that we (as americans) are still under threat.
the same for british, Italians, Spain and australian for example.

as of myself, I'll do whatever I can to help the police and my Country in that matter. Again I live in New York and it never happened that I was questioned simply because I don't let this happen. They have enough to worry about and for sure they don't need to worry about me.
Again, and I know that you agree with me now: let's use some common sense.

best,
MArk Le, NYC

 

[Will Rose]

If a police officer arrives he has a right to establish your
identity and to check and see if any warrants are outstanding. A
patrol officer on the street does not normally have access to
arrests records at the time of the contact. He has a right to ask
you what you're doing. He may tell you what brought you to his
attention or he may not. If he makes a written report you can go to
the police department and get a copy of the report.

Thanks to Patrick for the perspective from a police officer's point of view. If you are in the United States, there are a few other things you should be aware of.

A police officer only has the right to stop you if he has a reasonable suspicion, based on articulable facts, that you are involved in criminal activity. When thus stopped, the officer has the right to determine if you are carrying weapons, by frisking you if necessary.

You have the right not to respond to his questions. If the officer says, "Sir, I'd like to ask you some questions." you have the right to say "No, thanks, I'd like to be on my way please" and walk away. (Although some jurisdictions have anti-loitering laws that compel you to explain your presence, or to produce identification.)

If the officer blocks you path or physically restrains you, you would be well advised to stop, but things now get a little greyer. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the officer may not detain you unreasonably without probable cause, and that extends to making you wait 60 seconds while he checks you for warrants. Some courts have held that "evasive behavior" is grounds for detention. If the officer, under color of authority or by taking your arm, compels you to accompany him into an enclosed space, the Supreme Court has held that at that point you are under arrest, regardless of whether or not the officer has said so, and regardless of whether or not you have been Mirandized.

Outside of his belief that you are involved in a crime, or to validate your presence against a loitering statute, the officer does not have the "right" to ask you anything else, and you need not answer any other questions. If you ask to leave, and he further detains you, then you are effectively in custody, and he runs the risk of being sued for false arrest if he does not still have probable cause to believe you are guilty of a crime.

The length of time this person was detained sounds inappropriate, and he certainly was not obligated to answer questions about his occupation, model of camera, style of photography, etc. That officer was, in my opinion, being abusive of his authority, with the intention of frightening the photographer out of taking more pictures in the area.

Some officers, less scruplious than Patrick, have been known to depend on the fact that many people falsely think the police can stop whomever they want, and that you have to answer all their questions.

This does not constitute legal advice. Contact an attorney in your jurisdiction for that.

Cheers....