Reading mode: Light Dark

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

Go to last post
l.x. said:
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
Click to expand...
I second that and am shure that it's similar in Netherland, France, Italy....
to name some.
No one takes notice of someone taking pictures, except of feeling flattered :-)

Reading all the answers in the thread I'm getting worried about what's
going on in US society. And it seems not only to be related to 9/11, terrorism,
child porn and so on. I'm often shocked by the rude speak in several threads,
when someone with a different meaning is asap bashed by others.
No gentlemen anymore...?

--
Regards,
Peter B.
'Sorry for my poor English. I'm an alien.'
 
pgrupp said:
Paul Grupp said:
after all what are we talking about here? They just ask you few
questions.. is that a problem?
Click to expand...
Sure it is -- loss of liberty is a slippery slope.
Click to expand...
Loss of life is forever- getting blown up leaves a slick spot

There are a lot
Paul Grupp said:
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
Click to expand...
That is just absurd- The first thing that happens whenever a crime is committed no matter where it is committed is a question gets asked- The question "where were the cops?" The response is usually "probably getting a doughnut". When it happens to you and your a victim it changes your perspective...does it not?

-- I'm sure they would be polite and courteous, and again,
Paul Grupp said:
if you have nothing to hide, why would you care?
Click to expand...
It has more to do with being a part of the solution that a part of the problem. The US is still new to this terrorism occurring on our soil. What you might want to remeber is the biggest part of the problem will fall to local law enforcement to solve - trying to tip toe around and deal with "feelings" doesn't make it any easier to get the job done. If you don't like the polite approach go to a country where they don't hjave a Police Brutality Law...they ask questions in a much different way.
Paul Grupp said:
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.
Click to expand...
And we know it after the fact that three airplanes were blown up - we didn't know it ahead of time- unless you know something more than the rest of us do.....
Paul Grupp said:
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?
Click to expand...
You forget that the obvious is the least suspsious thing you can do...I can walk into a building and if Iam confident and sure in my words I can get in fairly easy without ID....but a terrorist would never try that...right?
Paul Grupp 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 Grupp said:
The hysteria of 9/11....who did you lose on that day? Again, I think we are all on a new learning curve and I think that if Law Enforcement is expected to find a way to stop it, and trust me they have been tasked to do so, offering solutions, working with police will bring about a faster solution that works, keeps us all safe and doesn't give up on Liberty and what it is really all about.
Click to expand...
Good discussion and I hope I have not offended you - I simply have a different perspetctive and only wished to offer it.

Rick
Paul Grupp said:
Regards,
Paul
http://www.pbase.com/pgrupp
MarkLe said:
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?

:)
Click to expand...
--
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for sharing the European view. As an American, I agree with you. It is scary that there is less public outcry over our rapidly vanishing civil rights. It becomes easier to understand the inertia and helplessness that people must have felt in other countries as their rights were slipping away. When your rights are taken away in slow increments, and with supposedly good reasons, you don't notice how much you've lost until it is all gone. Maybe in a decade or two you all can come and liberate us ;-).

Lisa
l.x. said:
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
Click to expand...
--
LisaFX
http://www.pbase.com/lisafx
 
tanneuby wrote:
snip
tanneuby said:
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...
I think there is a case in front of the Supreme Court right now regarding a fellow who refused to provide ID and was arrested. It made it there because currently there is no national law requiring citizens to carry ID. A drivers license while driving, but not for walking around town. You don't have to have it, period, and can't be arrested if you don't have it. If the Supreme Court changes that, then we will be in a new situation where every individual must have their Identity Card.
 
pgrupp said:
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!
Click to expand...
About 15 years ago I saw a San Francisco PD patrol car in the UK, driving on the A3 about 20 miles south of London. (I lived for three years in San Fransisco so I know what they look like.)

I assume that either Arnie was sending out early scouts or it was on the way to a movie set!
--
Chris R
 
I have concluded any business that might require me to visit America. The threat of terror I can understand and, regreatfuly, accept, the lose of freedom I can't. Remenber that as a visitor I have NO constitutional rights, as I was informed by a Detroit cop that was harrassing me, after HE hit my car!

A few years ago my wife and I flew fron Japan to Malaysia, my wife had some scissors in her carry on, they were placed in a envolope and carried by the aircrew, at KL we gave them the reciept and reganied our property, I belive that the US "confisates" (steals) them now.
Ah well.
Chris
Jón Ragnarsson said:
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...
Click to expand...
--

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Albert Einstein
 
I admit I did not read this entire thread but I do appreciate it.

Incidents such as the above can lead to precedents that restrict our rights - esp. right to free press.

When shooting WTO in Seattle rights were yanked like candy from a baby right up to my front door, and if I had been able to leave my home with a camera without being shot at (rubber bullets) and tear gassed I'd have hard evidence of police beating and abusing citizens, much like rowdy football buddies, well outside the supposed (and still challenged) 'protest free zone'. In a residential neighborhood. Any neighborhood.

This was in effect Marshall law.

Every step towards infringement of our rights that goes unchallenged (regardless of 'patriotic' intentions) is one that we can kiss goodbye when they are MOST important - under crisis - worse yet - in peace.

James
 
while I'm ranting -

How do we suppose NYC got cleaned up so quickly (pre 9/11) ? Was it through reform, policing or controlling events covered by the press (photogs) hence perception?

I think a combination of all, and the ramifications remain chilling.

James
 
santa said:
I think there is a case in front of the Supreme Court right now
regarding a fellow who refused to provide ID and was arrested. It
made it there because currently there is no national law requiring
citizens to carry ID. A drivers license while driving, but not for
walking around town. You don't have to have it, period, and can't
be arrested if you don't have it. If the Supreme Court changes
that, then we will be in a new situation where every individual
must have their Identity Card.
Click to expand...
But in many areas there are local ordinances, that have been in place for years, that seek to criminalize this behavior.

Firstly, as I already mentioned, anti-loitering laws. Many such local ordinances compel citizens to be able to produce proof of identification if stopped by a police officer for loitering. Usually, this is punishable only by citation (a ticket and a fine).

Secondly, vagrancy laws. Have you ever left home without your wallet or purse? You could be a criminal! Some municipalities have a definition of vagrancy that takes into account support infrastructure and lodging (do you have a home?), but others have a very narrow definition: if when stopped by the police on a public way, if you do not have a least a particular sum of money on your person, you are guilty of vagrancy. In some jurisdictions, the officer may take such a person into custody solely for the vagrancy violation.

Fortunately, for photographers and absent-minded people, in most places these ordinances are rarely inforced, because like jaywalking, they breed too many lawsuits for harassment.

(Funny story, I have a colleague who when he was in college was on a scavenger hunt for which he was supposed to obtain a ticket for jaywalking. He found a patrolman and jaywalked several times right in front of him, and got no reaction. He then called to the officer, and jaywalked to him from across the street, and when he reached him the officer said something like "What can I do for you sir?". He asked him "Aren't you going to give me a ticket for jaywalking?" "Nope." "Why not?" The officer said "We don't ticket that anymore. It's a do not enforce."
Which is probably why it was on the scavenger hunt list. :)

Cheers...
 
Polar Bear said:
Remenber that as a visitor I
have NO constitutional rights, as I was informed by a Detroit cop
that was harrassing me, after HE hit my car!
Click to expand...
That is not true. The U.S. Constitution give you, as a foreign visitior, the same rights as it gives everyone else, except where it explicitly limits a right to citizens, like voting. The rights pertaining to freedom of speech, religion, association, and criminal procedure are the same for you as for anyone else. If a police officer told you otherwise, he was either misinformed or lying.
Polar Bear said:
A few years ago my wife and I flew fron Japan to Malaysia, my wife
had some scissors in her carry on, they were placed in a envolope
and carried by the aircrew, at KL we gave them the reciept and
reganied our property, I belive that the US "confisates" (steals)
them now.
Click to expand...
You are correct that in the U.S. such material is oftn "confiscated" (stolen). What you might not be aware of is that the law says that it is not just an offence to take scissors on a plane, it is an offence to even attempt to do so. Here, when you get into the airport security line with the pair of scissors, you are subject to arrest at that point. It does not matter if you are anywhere near a plane, nor if you know what is on the list of prohibited items. If they want, then can take you into custody, as sometimes happens when people get angry about their property getting "stolen".

At some airports the item is confiscated with no recourse. At others, they will allow you to divest yourself of it in some way, such as giving it to someone else (the person who brought you to the airport for example) or by mailing it home to yourself.

For a list of what you may and may not bring on an airplane in the United States, check here: http://www.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/Permitted_Prohibited_12_18_2003.pdf

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

Cheers,

Will
 
First off I have to say I totally understand your frustration and desire to keep your sensative private information safe and you should never release your SSN, however you were taking photos of private property. The property owners should have a resonable expectation to privacy, especially when they may be a target of overzelous individuals with an agenda that could be harmful to the business. It would be in a similar fashion you would want/desire privacy in your business or home if an unkown photographer decided to show up and start snapping pictures of your property. At the very least I would want to know what they were doing. I am not saying what happened is right or wrong, its just the security guard is doing his job of protecting the business, LE, albeit a little overkill on the part of the Deputy, is doing their job also. If he did not do a thorough field investigation and you are one of the afermentioned individuals, he could be held liable.

I work for a municipal government in California and do all the photography for the City. I have been stopped numerous times by security for taking photos of private business in our City we were using for a Property Enhancement program. From my experience most businesses just feel a little intimidated to have photos taken of their building and operation without their prior consent. You may try obtaining permision next time to save everyone a little headach. Interesting thread, good luck!
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...
--
m.munoz
 
ucs308 said:
I made it clear to him that whilst I am answering these
questions
Click to expand...
Did u really say "whilst" to the CHP? Suprised they didn't haul you in on that alone! :> )
ucs308 said:
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...
 
No problem.... ;^ )

My FAv is...

"Those that beat their swords into plowshares, often plow for those who do not"....

Nick
lisafx said:
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
Click to expand...
 
Before we all get raving paranoid about loss of liberty, let's take a more informed look at this incident.

You were photographing a stockyard, a rather unsightly place that ordinarily doesn't draw the attention of photographers. That stockyard had been harassed by PETA. Therefore, the security guards concluded that you might be a PETA member planning another attack, because people don't normally stop and take photographs of a stockyard.

Most likely, that company had experienced criminal activity on the part of PETA members - that group has become increasingly militant. This gave the local and state police probable cause to show interest in someone who was acting in a slightly unnatural fashion.

But, I'm sure the police explained all of this to you. This was a case of mistaken identity, prompted by activities that you didn't know about, and excaberated by some slightly odd behavior on your part. They did not arrest you, take your equipment, or even detain you.

Legally, you can take photographs of a stockyard that has been harassed by PETA. Legally, I can sit in an unmarked truck full of heavy drills and locksmith's tools in a public parking lot near a jewelry store, late at night. Should I get my shorts in a wad if that activity draws police attention? Hardly.

In defending ourselves, yet maintaining an open society, we have our work cut out for us. A steady application of common sense can separate legitimate threats to liberty from hurt feelings.
 
...that our last presidential election here in the US has shown many people that their votes simply do not matter. People can lose the popular vote and still make it into the presidency.

Regards,
Brian
lisafx said:
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
Click to expand...
--
Brian



Digital Image Gallery:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/spiritmist/Brian_Geldziler_Digital_Image_Gallery/index.htm
 
Brian G. said:
...that our last presidential election here in the US has shown
many people that their votes simply do not matter. People can lose
the popular vote and still make it into the presidency.
Click to expand...
Perhaps if you took a class in civics you would learn of the electoral college which is how we have been electing presidents for many, many years. It's the law of the land.

Tom
 
(E.g. most industrial plant operators
Z (is real) said:
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.)
Click to expand...
Not to mention industrial espionage. Many years ago, the Japanese were always over here getting tours of industry and were always snapping pictures. Many wore plaid shirts. The plaid pattern was generally 100mm squares. When they got back, they would used the known length of the plaid on the pictures to measure the machinery and copy it.

Also, the structure on the outside of a building such as piping, coolers, steam exhausts, tanks, process equipment and the lilke can be analyzed by a competant engineer and determine what kind of equipment is being used in the manufacture of something inside. This can be worth billions in some cases.

Tom
 
Hi Tom,

Lol. Yes, I mistyped there. Thanks, though for your civility in pointing that out. It speaks volumes about you. :)

Kind Regards,
Brian
Tom March said:
Brian G. said:
...that our last presidential election here in the US has shown
many people that their votes simply do not matter. People can lose
the popular vote and still make it into the presidency.
Click to expand...
Perhaps if you took a class in civics you would learn of the
electoral college which is how we have been electing presidents for
many, many years. It's the law of the land.

Tom
Click to expand...
--
Brian



Digital Image Gallery:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/spiritmist/Brian_Geldziler_Digital_Image_Gallery/index.htm
 
TrapperJohn said:
Before we all get raving paranoid about loss of liberty, let's take
a more informed look at this incident.

You were photographing a stockyard, a rather unsightly place that
ordinarily doesn't draw the attention of photographers. That
stockyard had been harassed by PETA. Therefore, the security guards
concluded that you might be a PETA member planning another attack,
because people don't normally stop and take photographs of a
stockyard.

Most likely, that company had experienced criminal activity on the
part of PETA members - that group has become increasingly militant.
This gave the local and state police probable cause to show
interest in someone who was acting in a slightly unnatural fashion.

But, I'm sure the police explained all of this to you. This was a
case of mistaken identity, prompted by activities that you didn't
know about, and excaberated by some slightly odd behavior on your
part. They did not arrest you, take your equipment, or even detain
you.

Legally, you can take photographs of a stockyard that has been
harassed by PETA. Legally, I can sit in an unmarked truck full of
heavy drills and locksmith's tools in a public parking lot near a
jewelry store, late at night. Should I get my shorts in a wad if
that activity draws police attention? Hardly.

In defending ourselves, yet maintaining an open society, we have
our work cut out for us. A steady application of common sense can
separate legitimate threats to liberty from hurt feelings.
Click to expand...
Well said, Trapper John.

Tom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top