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

MarkLe said:

as I understand we're all liberals in hour hearts,

Click to expand...

Speak for your own views only please.

In this case the distinction is about doing things that actually work to prevent terrorist attacks (or illegal activity in general) versus things that do not. That you have chosen to cast the argument on a political spectrum removes you from constructive dialog on making our country safer.

MarkLe said:

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?

Click to expand...

Airplane security is a compeltely different matter and one in which there are many effective countermeasures against sepcific direct threats. (But also a number of rather useless or even counterproductive security measures being touted.)

MarkLe said:

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?

Click to expand...

Screening in airports is directed at people who are entering the plane, working on the plane, etc. with the intent of preventing attacks using the plane or attacks to the plane. Such screening can be very effective. There is relatively little screening to enter an airport itself as a person or with a vehicle. Any screening in the outside environs of an airport mostly relies on other people in the airport reporting suspicious behavior. The real security effort is focused on people with access to the planes or getting on the planes.

For Federal Buildings, we generally have an equivalent countermeasure in that people entering the building are screened for weapons, etc. Vehicles entering the building may be authenticated and possibly screend. (Authentication involves knowing who is and is not allowed into certain areas and verifying that they are who they say they are. Screening involves searching the vehicle, etc.) People walking in front of the building, or even taking pictures of the building, are numerous and admiring almost always uninteresting from a security perspective.

We can get into a discussion of how useful photographs are in an attack. Generally, I'd be more worried about someone walking up to the building and recording a GPS waypoint than I would be about exterior photographs of structures.

Put another way, which should we be more worried about, someone with a tripod taking a picture of a building, or someone walking into a public place and setting down a backpack and walking off. Or dropping a moderate sized bag into a trashcan? If the security people are off questioning the photographer, how much easier is it to do one of these other things?

MarkLe said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is a very serious matter. Reasoning such as yours makes our environment less safe, not more so.

-Z-

The sate of Florida has CWP available for law abiding citizens.
I have hda mine for over 12 years now.
Vaughn

greentank said:

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)

Vaughn T.Winfree said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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

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

I speak anything, any time, whatever I like, whenever I like, using any form, language, with background sound, also background music if I want to, regardless if you like it or not.
in other words: I couldn't care less if you do, or if you don't.

after reading your post I see that we're saying the same things, with the only difference that you asked me to speak in a way you like more: that I can't do.

PhotosByChris said:

Unfortunately this is something that we have to live with these
days. You think you have it bad? Try living in NY. The Patriot Act
has given the authorities new powers to harass us in more ways then
one. Try taking pictures of a bridge and see what happens.

Click to expand...

I don't think we should have to live with it. This is still a democracy (at least on paper). If you don't like things, get out and vote. The reason we have a government that gets away with abridging our rights is because less than half of Americans vote, and of those, even fewer bother to do any research and cast an intelligent vote.

Lisa
--
LisaFX
http://www.pbase.com/lisafx

I think this will answer a lot of questions. It is based on the ACLU Bust card mentioned earlier.

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

Sincerely,

James A. Rinner

pgrupp said:

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.

Click to expand...

Paul, you have hit the nail on the head. The Patriot Act is not in anyway limited to terrorists or suspected terrorism. It gives blanket authority to law enforcement to bug, wiretap, detain and harrass people, American citizens and others, without any probable cause or a warrant. Terrorism is the foot in the door, and we are already halfway down the slippery slope (pardon the mixed metaphors, lol).
--
LisaFX
http://www.pbase.com/lisafx

ucs308 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Hi,

I have read your thread with interest.

The company you mentioned, Harris Ranch, is typical of corporate agricultural interests in Kern County, California.

Companies that live outside the law always tend to be paranoid.

The fact is, Harris Ranch pads the bottom line by using extensive amounts of illegal alien labor.

It seems that “law enforcement” officers have plenty of time to harass a photo hobbyist, but no time to enforce obvious federal law violations occurring at the same moment, less than a mile away from the site of your harassment.

Wouldn’t it be great if the police would actually enforce laws on the books , instead of playing the heavy for ruthless business interests?

Can you say “corruption”?

Cheers!

Thanks for the quote Nick. I was trying to remember that one. I had thought it was Jefferson, so I was off the mark.

Lisa

nickjc said:

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

Steph said:

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

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
LisaFX
http://www.pbase.com/lisafx

Even with Post 9/11, this seems to be over reacting. Obviously, after everyone ran the ID's and found out you are who you say your are, well why not let it go. BUT I would NOT have given them my social! As long as your DL has correct information, that should have been quite enough.

Call the largest newspaper in the area. They'll have information about that company. If it's a public company, it's public info. If it's private, it's more difficult. BUT that company will still pay taxes to someone in that County.

I'd be curios as to what they are hiding. I know in Montana, if you stop and take a photograph of a lovely country seen with cattle, and wheat, and not a building in site, within a few minutes, Military folks have surrounded you and asked you for your film. Minute Man Missiles. AND there are NO Postings any where.

Let us know what you find out.
Lisa O
a.k.a. Gutsymtngal
Have ALWAYS been a Rebel, NOW I shoot with one!

MarkLe said:

after reading your post I see that we're saying the same things,

Click to expand...

We are most definitely not saying the same things.

-Z-

Will Rose said:

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.

Click to expand...

Incorrect, the officer has a right to "frisk for weapons" if they have an articulable reason to, i.e. a bulge in your waiste band, you have been known to them to carry weapons in the past...

Will Rose said:

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.)

Click to expand...

You are correct to some extent, you do not HAVE to do anything, but be prepard to be arrested or detained. You definitly have to provide ID, if you chose not to cooperate with what the officer is investigating by answering questions, how is the officer to know what is going on? They would be doing a disservice to just let you go. The courts have upheld detaining people "for a reasonable period of time" while doing an investigation as to if something crinimal has happened.

Will Rose said:

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.

Click to expand...

The officer has the "right" to ask you anything they want. They could ask you to pull your pants down and cluck like a chicken...The correct way to state it is YOU have the RIGHT to not do or respond. A good officer will ask MANY questions to determine if there is or is not probable cause of a crime. You see, to develop "probable cause" it takes an investigation. That investigation could be as simple as asking a person who they are, why they are taking pictures and such. You CAN be detained until the officer is able to determine probable cause.

Will Rose said:

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.

Click to expand...

Again, you are not obligated to answer these questions, but he was not "abusing" his authority. He was being a good cop.

Will Rose said:

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.

Click to expand...

Rent a cops have the right to detain you if you are on the property they are and agent for. You cannot be detained by one off that property unless they effect a citizens arrest.

If an officer is called by someone, whoever, about a suspicous incident or a suspicious person, they have an obligation to respond and ivestigate this.

Will Rose said:

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

Cheers....

Click to expand...

tanneuby said:

Incorrect, the officer has a right to "frisk for weapons" if they
have an articulable reason to, i.e. a bulge in your waiste band,
you have been known to them to carry weapons in the past...

Click to expand...

No, the courts have held that once stopped based on an reasonable suspicion, based on articulable facts, that you are involved in criminal activity, the officer's saftey then takes precedence. The officer does not have to see a "bulge" or have any knowledge of prior weapons posession. The officer is allowed to conduct a pat-down search for his own safety, for weapons only. Generally, any other items uncovered in the search, such as contraband or illegal drugs, are inadmissable, as the scope of the pat-down is explicitly limited to weapons that are readily available (i.e. a pistol in your briefcase is not subject to search, unless the briefcase is open and within your reach).

tanneuby said:

You are correct to some extent, you do not HAVE to do anything, but
be prepard to be arrested or detained. You definitly have to
provide ID, if you chose not to cooperate with what the officer is
investigating by answering questions, how is the officer to know
what is going on? They would be doing a disservice to just let you
go. The courts have upheld detaining people "for a reasonable
period of time" while doing an investigation as to if something
crinimal has happened.

Click to expand...

Generally there is no requirement to provide identification, absent a specific statute, such as anti-loitering statutes, that require it. This varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Additionally, the officer may not detain someone for refusing to answer the officer's questions, absent such aforementioned specific statutes. And usually, the law that would require you to answer ANY questions (the anti-loitering statutes), are punishable by citation only, and not arrest. In that case, the officer still may not arrest you for failing to answer or provide ID, but only issue a citation.

tanneuby said:

The officer has the "right" to ask you anything they want. They
could ask you to pull your pants down and cluck like a
chicken...The correct way to state it is YOU have the RIGHT to not
do or respond. A good officer will ask MANY questions to determine
if there is or is not probable cause of a crime. You see, to
develop "probable cause" it takes an investigation. That
investigation could be as simple as asking a person who they are,
why they are taking pictures and such. You CAN be detained until
the officer is able to determine probable cause.

Click to expand...

That's why I put "right" in quotes. I meant that they have no statutory authority for it, and that one is under no legal obligation to respond. Any person of course has the right to walk up to anyone and ask anything they want. I was trying to differentiate for our readers from the officers actually authority to stop, pat down, etc.

tanneuby said:

Again, you are not obligated to answer these questions, but he was
not "abusing" his authority. He was being a good cop.

Click to expand...

Again, I disagree here, but I guess we can't know for sure without interviewing him. I fail to see the relevance of asking the persons make and model of camera, other than, for purposes of intimidation, to reinforce to the person that they are now and will continue to be under intense scrutiny. Asking why the photographer took photos, and what he intended to do with them, is inappropriate when the officer has already determined that the photographer is engaged in legal activity (photography on public property).

I see no difference here from the following: Imagine the photographer was also carrying a plastic grocery bag. The officer asked to see the contents. The photog complied, and the officer discovered a new package of disposable razors, shaving cream, a toothbrush, hairspray, Chap-stik, a six-pack of Coca-Cola, and a package of condoms. The officer then asks "Why do you buy condoms? What are you planning to do with those condoms?" This sort of behavior is abusive, in my opinion, and is intended to reinforce to the photog that "I have a badge and a gun. I can make any inquiry I want into your personal affairs, and there's nothing you can do except accept it."

tanneuby said:

Rent a cops have the right to detain you if you are on the property
they are and agent for. You cannot be detained by one off that
property unless they effect a citizens arrest.

Click to expand...

The authority of private security guards varies greatly from one jurisdiction to another, even if they are on the property owned by their employer. Generally, they may detain you until a police officer arrives if and only if they have witnessed you commit a crime (such as trespassing). Violation of corporate policy does not contitute a crime. Say you go into a mall and take pictures, which is against their policy. They can ask you to leave, and if you do not you are trespassing. But they may not detain you for simply taking pictures, nor may they confiscate your camera or film. Further, the standards needed to be met before physical restraint may be used are much higher for private security than for police, and the consequence to them, should they apply it without legal standing, can be severe. Many security firms instruct their employees not to use physical restraint unless physical damage to property or persons has occured.

I appreciate the back and forth, tanneuby, but now I think we're too far beyond the scope of the forum, unless everyone wants to have a long conversation on the legal and ethical aspects of law enforcement.

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

Cheers,

Will

A lens with a lot of zoom could arguably be considered an invasion of privacy. While it might be OK to take a picture of someone’s house from the street, one is not allowed to take pictures of the interior with zoom or infrared, not to mention “starlight” lenses. (Which BTW are really fun to play with.)

What questions can an officer ask you? Pretty much anything. Which ones do you have to answer? None (unless they are related to operation of a motor vehicle. Even then, in Ohio anyway, the officer may have to be able to articulate a valid reason for a motor vehicle stop.)

note If a report is made, it becomes a public record. Even if no report is made, under certain circumstances, an officer can be made to devulge the contents of his notebook.

ucs308 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Sorry, you have some good points, just not quite correct by case law. We could go round and round about this, but unless you have been a police officer or criminal attorney, it would be sensless. Being an officer myself, it pains me to see some of the views and assumptions about us that this post brought up. I do this stuff everyday and I have not lost a challenge in court. We are human and not robots. We do make mistakes sometimes, but being on this side, I do beleive most of us try to do the right thing. I do not like to identify myself as an officer as it is usually not relevant. I am an aspiring photographer which is why I am on this forum. Sorry if I got too off topic.

tanneuby said:

Sorry, you have some good points, just not quite correct by case
law. We could go round and round about this, but unless you have
been a police officer or criminal attorney, it would be sensless.

Click to expand...

Then I guess it wouldn't be senseless. And I'm not a police officer.

And I'm quite sure, based on past experience, they are correct where I am, and other places. But you're right, let's not bicker.

tanneuby said:

Being an officer myself, it pains me to see some of the views and
assumptions about us that this post brought up.

Click to expand...

I hope you don't mean my post particularly, but rather the thread in general. I tried to be fair, and didn't intend to paint everyone with the same brush. I'm sorry if it came across that way.

tanneuby said:

I do this stuff
everyday and I have not lost a challenge in court.

Click to expand...

I of course have no knowledge of your particular professional conduct, and did not mean to imply otherwise. I take you at face value, that you are a conscientious an well-meaning officer. But I'm sure you'll grant that some challenges are stronger than others. It also helps that when an officer and a detainee give differing accounts of an encounter, absent independent evidence, the presumption of truthfulness goes to the officer.

tanneuby said:

We are human
and not robots. We do make mistakes sometimes, but being on this
side, I do beleive most of us try to do the right thing.

Click to expand...

I agree with you completely. However, police officers being human, I've seen quite a few that do the wrong things; people who get into it for the wrong reasons. A few people let the power with which they are invested go to their heads, and take things farther then they are entitled. It happens with police officers, it happens with prosecutors, and it happens with defense attorneys.

Since we will not have the opportunity to try this case (even if it were to become one) I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on whether the officer in the original anecdote stepped over the line.

But I do hope our exchanges have shed some interesting light on the topic for the other readers.

I've enjoyed our chat...

Cheers,

Will

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

All the rights and freedoms that the US is "giving" to Iraq have to come from somewhere.

ucs308 said:

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.

Click to expand...

...Even right in front of NYPD. I have never had a problem.

http://www.thecityneversleeps.com

pgrupp,

I agree with you. One should not be detained when clearly doing nothing illegal. He would have to be ready to arrest me under those circumstances. If a company or private individual doesn't want something seen or photographed, keep it out of sight. What next; can we be expected to be detained for looking at something?

While it is clear that not all police are a problem, it only takes one to really mess up your day. I'd be tempted to try to return the favor and mess up his.
Dan M.

in sydney i have been approached by police about 1/2 the times i have taken photos in the city .

each time they have been very curtious and asked for licence details/identification and what i am doing ie if i am pro etc.i always give them what they require as i have nothing to hide.if they are helping to protect the comunity then who cares

ucs308 said:

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

Click to expand...

ucs308 said:

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.

Click to expand...

To me, it seems very strange that the "land of the free" has become so anti-liberal in many regards without a public outcry. In Germany (a country liberated by the US), this would be unthinkable.

Here the rule is, if you don't want me taking pictures of you and your stuff in public, then stop emitting light in my direction. The only restriction currently under discussion is taking secret photographs of people undressing in a gym and the like.

LX+R