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

[Vera]

I can't really answer your specific questions, other than to point
out that this kind of arbitrary infringement of civil liberties is
all too common these days. To a certain extent, the terrorists have
won......

But it will become increasingly irrelevant now that cell phones
with built in cameras are becomming common. It will be possible to
take as many pictures as you like of anything without anyone
knowing.

I guess they might ban cell phones..............

--
Steph's Digitals
http://www.stephsdigitals.com

--there is a lot of difference between a cell phone image and a 400 mm zoom image. I know that here in oz in theory you may take any photos as long as you are in the public domain but i think since 9/11 we have all become much more scared of what may be happening.
Vera

 

[phototakeouter]

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

Did they take these photos or were they photos that were already publicly available?

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.

I think pgrupp was asking for examples where
a) someone has been found posing as a photographer to some nefarious end, or

b) those restrictions against photographers have actually prevented some crime from being committed.

regards.

 

[Peter Galbavy]

I have a few questions, the reason behind them follows the questions.

What information can a police officer request when you are being
stopped for taking photographs?

Where are you ?

This is just my polite, regular rant about questioners remembering to be clear about where they are - although it is fair to assume that if they don't, then they must be "yanks" as the rest of the world know you...

Each country has it's own rules and it's own legal system. They can be radically different.

rgds,
--
Peter Galbavy
http://photasmagoria.com/
Help decode CRW files: http://www.wonderland.org/crw/

 

[Ken Phillips]

... as what Rumsfeld does is off shore, for the most part.
Ken

I have a few questions, the reason behind them follows the questions.

What information can a police officer request when you are being
stopped for taking photographs?
What rights do I have to get a copy of that information?
What rights does the officer have for sharing that information with
a commercial organization, that originally called the police?
How do you - professional photog's - handle being stopped by the
Police?
Is there an organization that supports photographers and their
rights to take photographs that might provide advice on such
matters?

I realize these are really questions for a lawyer, but I am
interested in the perspective of professional photographers.

Background:

I was taking some pictures over the weekend, and was asked by a
company security guard to stop. I was taking these pictures from
the side of the road, and was not on company property. Rather than
be a jerk, I asked him his reasoning, and packed up my camera and
walked back to my car, the company security guard followed me in
his truck.

By the time I got to my car there was a California Highway Patrol
officer waiting for me. Clearly the company had a direct line to
the police. A few minutes later another CHP car pulled up and then
a local Sherrif's car.

Everybody was courteous. The CHP ran my drivers licence, asked me a
couple of question and made it clear I had not done anything wrong,
but said they like to keep track of these things. The local cop was
a little different, and it is from this interaction that my
questions arise.

He was very careful to make it clear he was not harassing me, he
made this point several times. But he also took the make and model
of my camera. He wanted to know what the focal length of my
telephoto was. He took my social security number, and drivers
licence. The name of my employer. Why I took photos, and what I
intended to do with the photos I took. He asked me several times if
I had ever been arrested, and asked me if I belonged to specific
groups. I made it clear to him that whilst I am answering these
questions the information must not be given to the company. They
had no rights. He agreed and said they just like to know these
things. He would not even be filling a report. I don't trust him.

This was not a military installation. Nor was it state or federal
installation. It was admitted by the CHP, and the Police officer
that this had nothing to do with Homeland Security. The Sheriff
also made the point that they come out at the request of the
company, as a courtesy to the company.

--
Al
http://www.pbase.com/ib1yysguy
Set low goals and you'll never be disapointed.

--
I don't believe in fate, but I do believe in f/8!
http://www.ahomls.com/gallery.htm

 

[nick66davis]

...iin fact the cell phone camera is a far more subversive piece of equipment that a nice big SLR with a long zoom. The cell phone allows you to be covert and surreptitious about taking photographs...your subject (if a person) may have no idea whatsoever that you have just taken a picture. In this day and age where paedophilia is rife I'm afraid that the use of cell phone cameras by such monsters will become more and more prevalent.

Even where I work our security department are considering banning camera phones from the company premises to prevent corporate espionage...how the hell they expect to enforce that I dont know!!!

I think its a sad fact of lfe that when you are out in a public place taking photographs that we now have to be very careful as to what direction we point a camera in and as to what is actually in our picture...these days you can take an innocent shot (say on a beach at the seaside) of a family member and if you should capture another persons young child in your picture in beachwear (or less as little kids often love to "go natural" on the beach) then you run the risk of putting yourself in a position where you can be subject to the long arm of the law.

In my opinion political correctness has, by and large, gone mad. I understand and sympathize fully that there are certain people and circumstances that the responsible majority have to protect against the irresponsible minority.

We as photographers have to be more careful and just think a little bit before tripping the shutter.

--there is a lot of difference between a cell phone image and a 400
mm zoom image. I know that here in oz in theory you may take any
photos as long as you are in the public domain but i think since
9/11 we have all become much more scared of what may be happening.
Vera

--
kind regards

Nick

'To appreciate a rainbow you need some rain'

http://www.pbase.com/nickjdavis

 

[JulesUK]

really? I'd not heard that.

The only time I've come across that was Poland in the late 80's / early 90's which was a hangover from the cold war days. You couldn't take pix of state buildings either.

Of course, one of the first photos I took in the small town I arrived in was the beautiful stone prison and the iron bridge in the background! Had to be done! Still, I could run faster than the Police in their Trabants!

--
Jules

Oly 4 0 4 0 Z
T i f f e n tube, filters & Megaplus Wideangle.
P e n t a x SFXn (it actually uses what they call 'film'!!)
A small tripod, a mini tripod, a green lens cloth...
http://www.pbase.com/jules

 

[Dave Beaman]

One thing to worry about in what you posted is that you might be detained for "obstruction of justice" whatever the hell that is. So here you are legally taking pictures, the officers show up and you refuse to cooperate. They get you for obstruction of justice. And the justice involved is your right for "pursuit of happiness"

dave

 

[Paul Grupp]

Peter,

Actually, he DID identify where he was. We Americans can be arrogant, but so far, the California Highway patrol, mentioned in the original post, still patrols only within the borders of the United States, although perhaps our new Austrian governer of California might want to change that!

Regards,
Paul

I have a few questions, the reason behind them follows the questions.

What information can a police officer request when you are being
stopped for taking photographs?

Where are you ?

This is just my polite, regular rant about questioners remembering
to be clear about where they are - although it is fair to assume
that if they don't, then they must be "yanks" as the rest of the
world know you...

Each country has it's own rules and it's own legal system. They can
be radically different.

rgds,
--
Peter Galbavy
http://photasmagoria.com/
Help decode CRW files: http://www.wonderland.org/crw/

 

[MarkLe]

phototakeouter
my previous post was pretty clear already

 

[MarkLe]

just to restate the obvious, but refusing to cooperate with a police officer usually doesn't bring any good.

 

[ucs308]

Thanks for all the responses. The message seems to be clear. Be polite, professional, aware of the personality of the guy your dealing with - jerk or nice guy - and be firm.

A conspiratorial mind, my mind when the dark forces are stirring within me, could be forgiven for believing the questions were asked in such detail because the police will give the information to the company, because the company keeps track of "threats" to its interests. I answered the questions out of curiosity. Though I do believe the guy crossed the line, but am not sure, and will not be 100% certain until I talk to a lawyer. I am not planning on taking action.

For those interested this past weekend I decided to go out into the countryside and take pictures of animals, yep.. Sheep, Steer, Cows etc. One of the places I photographed was the Harris Feedlot in Coalinga, California. Objectively I have no issues with a feed lot, but I know many people do. I took the pictures for no political reasons. I was not aware in advance of my trip that they would be sensitive, but I was aware once I got there it was clear. The Razor wire, double fences, and 24 hour security gave it away, along with the "No Parking". Along the stretch of road in front of their land. BUt to clarify again. There is no reason at all that you cannot take pictures of this place, provided you do so from public land, which I did. I parked my car legally, walked to the site where I wanted to take pictures, took my shots, and moved on when asked to do so, largely because I was done. And as I told the police officer I am not a member of PETA, or any of the groups he reeled off.

One point that is clear from this discussion though is that self and peer censorship is growing. This is scary. Brooklyn Bridge has so many pictures in publication that a few more shots will not hurt. The fact that authorities can make their workload lighter by co-opting us to censor ourselves and our fellow citizens is frightening.

I will take more pictures. I think it is an interesting place. But I am now more certain that my SS# is for me to keep.

 

[Ed Halley]

Thanks for all the responses. The message seems to be clear. Be
polite, professional, aware of the personality of the guy your
dealing with - jerk or nice guy - and be firm.

I didn't read all the responses, but check out The Photographers Right,

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

This is a brochure you can print and keep in your camera bag, refer other interested people, including cops. It's written by a lawyer whose intent is to have people know their own rights and stand up for their own rights.

The ACLU also produces a similar card which outlines simpler basics like "can they demand ID from you?" The simple answer, if you're not IN your car, is to ask whether you're under arrest. If you're not under arrest, there's not much they can do to you legally. If you are under arrest, then they are more accountable for all the actions they take against you. Unfortunately, if you're IN your car, they also have the right to see your driver's license, as driving is a state-sanctioned privilege.

--
[ e d @ h a l l e y . c c ] http://www.halley.cc/pix/

 

[d-og]

Your post describes more or less the legal situation here in Switzerland, too. Becaue I am preparing a trip to the US and plan to take pictures (not restricting myself to ducks and sunsets), I was at first quite intimidated by the orignal poster's experience.

In spite of the right to take pictures, there seems to be a climate where everyone's civil rights can be trampled upon, using homeland security as an excuse. So the police and security personnel, without being backed by laws, are free to do as they like, knowing everyone is afraid to act up.

Therefore, knowing your rights is essential. In a situation like this, I guess it's best to keep cool and be friendly -- but to mention the legal situation and insist that your rights be respected.

d-og

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.)

 

[mojo104351]

You might want to print out and carry the ACLU's "Bust Card" (or even consider making a donation to the ACLU or other local organizations that stick up for civil rights). The "Bust Card" outlines your rights under a few different scenarios.

Just remember, sometimes, sticking up for your rights (especially in this day and age) will entail a certain amount of inconvenience and can turn into a major headache.

The card is available in PDF here: http://archive.aclu.org/library/bustcard.html

 

[detefon]

Now there's a stupid thing created by our infamous President called Homeland Security that won't allow you to photograph even if you're at Times Square.

Luiz

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...

 

[Manta Ray Arts]

A few general points which may have already been made. It is rare that you can be compelled to identify yourself. You might want to do it anyway to keep things pleasant. Otherwise, police have a way of seeing "fertive gestures" and "evasive behavior" that give them articulable grounds for reasonable suspicion, and then allow them to formally "detain" you without "arresting" you. Most ID on demand laws have been struck down for vagueness. Once you got to your car, the CHP have the right to know whether you are licensed to operate it. So giving up your driver's license is fine. The rest you are/were not obligated to do. Certainly your SSN is off limits without a court saying you have to give it and the details about your camera equipment are absurd. The Sheriff was probably just testing to see how cooperative you would be, knowing he was asking for information you didn't have to give him. There is nothing that you can do to prevent the Sheriff from breaking his "promise." He can call the company, he can file a report (which the company can then get a copy of), and you have no remedy. Moreover, the Sheriff has the legal right to lie to you (it's called "permissible deception").

You haven't told us the nature of the company you were taking pictures of. You haven't told us whether you have any prior relationship with the company or whether you just liked their architecture. You haven't told us why you wanted to take these photos.

You might not think those are relevant facts. But the Sheriff (and the CHP) are trained to think of these things. Quite apart from 9/11 or Homeland Security risks, there are plenty of other worries for law enforcement. Are you a disgruntled former employee planning to come back later and overwhelm the security of the building, take hostages and kill people? (Remember the 101 California Building incident in San Francisco? The disgruntled former client had "cased" the building in preparation for his mayhem). Perhaps you were planning to rob the place (was it a company that keeps cash?). Perhaps it was the local clinic for Planned Parenthood and you were taking pictures of doctors and nurses going to work to perform procedures with which you vehemently disagreed but for which they still had a consitutional right to provide and they feared for their safety?

Try writing a set of rules which protect everyone (including the photographer) in each of those situations.

It ain't easy.

The bottom line is that you gave up more information that you were legally required to do, you did it "voluntarily" and you have no recourse if that information is given to the company or if the Sheriff files a report making it a public record.

Formal disclaimer: This is not legal advice and cannot be relied up on as such....

I have a few questions, the reason behind them follows the questions.

What information can a police officer request when you are being
stopped for taking photographs?
What rights do I have to get a copy of that information?
What rights does the officer have for sharing that information with
a commercial organization, that originally called the police?
How do you - professional photog's - handle being stopped by the
Police?
Is there an organization that supports photographers and their
rights to take photographs that might provide advice on such
matters?

I realize these are really questions for a lawyer, but I am
interested in the perspective of professional photographers.

Background:

I was taking some pictures over the weekend, and was asked by a
company security guard to stop. I was taking these pictures from
the side of the road, and was not on company property. Rather than
be a jerk, I asked him his reasoning, and packed up my camera and
walked back to my car, the company security guard followed me in
his truck.

By the time I got to my car there was a California Highway Patrol
officer waiting for me. Clearly the company had a direct line to
the police. A few minutes later another CHP car pulled up and then
a local Sherrif's car.

Everybody was courteous. The CHP ran my drivers licence, asked me a
couple of question and made it clear I had not done anything wrong,
but said they like to keep track of these things. The local cop was
a little different, and it is from this interaction that my
questions arise.

He was very careful to make it clear he was not harassing me, he
made this point several times. But he also took the make and model
of my camera. He wanted to know what the focal length of my
telephoto was. He took my social security number, and drivers
licence. The name of my employer. Why I took photos, and what I
intended to do with the photos I took. He asked me several times if
I had ever been arrested, and asked me if I belonged to specific
groups. I made it clear to him that whilst I am answering these
questions the information must not be given to the company. They
had no rights. He agreed and said they just like to know these
things. He would not even be filling a report. I don't trust him.

This was not a military installation. Nor was it state or federal
installation. It was admitted by the CHP, and the Police officer
that this had nothing to do with Homeland Security. The Sheriff
also made the point that they come out at the request of the
company, as a courtesy to the company.

--
http://www.mantarayarts.com

 

[jrod]

take all the pics you want
--
Your Creative Station - http://www.clubmedia.com
Overflowing with Design Links - http://www.mixinvisuals.com

 

[Manta Ray Arts]

Add that to my list of hypotheticals that these rules have to cover. We live in a complex world.

--
http://www.mantarayarts.com

 

[Steph41073]

It won't be long before the 6 and 12MP cellphones with 6x zoom arrive!
--
Steph's Digitals
http://www.stephsdigitals.com

 

[ucs308]

I declared the subject of my photo's in another post in this thread. You can see it here.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=7774421

I have no prior relationship with the company. But as I explained in the post above I ultimately recognized they were sensitive. I understand the root of the police officers questions. But I don't believe that my SSN was relevant to the local officer. I agree with you, he was probing to see how far he could go. The CHP officers were less intrusive.

I agree there is a balance, a delicate one, for law enforcement, and for the photographer. We all have rights and responsibilities, how firmly one wants to state their rights is a judgment call, one that is easier to make when you actually know what the boundaries are for both sides.