LAPD can detain photographers?

[GMack]

Loading…

blogs.laweekly.com

Noticed at the bottom the ACLU got involved with the Long Beach Sheriff's Department for much the same. Our local newspaper photographer got stuck in "detainment" (i.e. jail) for 48 hours over the weekend for trying to tell them the guy they were arresting wasn't drunk but "mentally challenged." He took photos of the arrest as it was an editorial story unfolding and they busted him for interfering or questioning authority or some such nonsense. He was released after the weekend sit. The paper wanted an apology, but that was ignored since it wasn't an arrest, just "a 'detainment' to check out the facts."


I got questioned by a sheriff recently out in the CA desert for photographing old weathered buildings. They don't get why anyone would do that even as a hobby much less art. I just told him it was my retirement hobby to get me out of the house and walk and move around a bit. If I had said "for commercial use later," it would have led to questions about permits and insurance and other stuff since even the CA state parks now want some DP245A permit on file to shoot in them now. I don't get the connection between too much pro-looking gear (other than "Hey! You need a commercial permit Mr. Hollywood looking guy!") as being used by a terrorist over someone who really has that intent who may just use an inconspicuous cell phone or similar and not lugging around $5,000+ in gear with them. Probably a claim could be made "You must have bought all the expensive gear with drug money" and they'd seize it.


Mack

 

[David Clarke29]

GMack wrote:

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/08/photography_suspicious_activity_terror_lapd.php

Noticed at the bottom the ACLU got involved with the Long Beach Sheriff's Department for much the same. Our local newspaper photographer got stuck in "detainment" (i.e. jail) for 48 hours over the weekend for trying to tell them the guy they were arresting wasn't drunk but "mentally challenged." He took photos of the arrest as it was an editorial story unfolding and they busted him for interfering or questioning authority or some such nonsense. He was released after the weekend sit. The paper wanted an apology, but that was ignored since it wasn't an arrest, just "a 'detainment' to check out the facts."

I got questioned by a sheriff recently out in the CA desert for photographing old weathered buildings. They don't get why anyone would do that even as a hobby much less art. I just told him it was my retirement hobby to get me out of the house and walk and move around a bit. If I had said "for commercial use later," it would have led to questions about permits and insurance and other stuff since even the CA state parks now want some DP245A permit on file to shoot in them now. I don't get the connection between too much pro-looking gear (other than "Hey! You need a commercial permit Mr. Hollywood looking guy!") as being used by a terrorist over someone who really has that intent who may just use an inconspicuous cell phone or similar and not lugging around $5,000+ in gear with them. Probably a claim could be made "You must have bought all the expensive gear with drug money" and they'd seize it.

Mack

Yes Mack, we were experiencing similar behaviour by the police in the UK a while ago - making it up as they went along - usually referencing anti terrorist legislation with a touch of made up stop and search provision thrown in for good luck. It only stopped when people started to go to law about it and press photographers put unlawful stop and detain behaviour all over the front pages of their particular newspaper. I am very pro police but if the laws are insufficient then specific laws should be drafted and approved in Parliement - not make it up as you go.



Dave. (UK)

 

[digitalshooter]

[No message]

 

[ChazSelf]

digitalshooter wrote:

 

[Cy Cheze]

ChazSelf wrote:

digitalshooter wrote:

--

Simply not so. Lying to police may be a crime, but unless it contributes to further crime, it doesn't come close to hurting us "all".

Perhaps Mr. NT insinuates that a person who tells a cop that he is taking pictures of old buildings "as a hobby" simply is not believable. Or perhaps that photographs taken of an arrest will contain "lies" or complicate an otherwise swift verdict and sentence against a defendant. Otherwise, the world will collapse and all will suffer perdition. It's simple, right? After all, photography is a paranormal or deviant behavior. Who, in their right mind, would pick an activity that involved wandering seedy locations, attending accidents or fires, or intervening in conflict situations?

Duh, that's what "first responders"get their kicks from. If nothing else happens to be buzzing, better pick on a guy with a camera: write up a report and show you are vigilant. Maybe the guy will lose his temper and resist arrest. Put the guy in the slammer for a night and keep the jail busy. HQ will like that.

Anyone up to real mischief, on the other hand, has plenty of nonchallant or unnoticeable means to plan a heist or attack. A camera is a rather dorky and stupid substitute for a cell phone, whether as a means of image capture, communication, or detonation. Most simple burglary, break-ins, arson, or vandalism is committed by people without recourse to anything other than perhaps a crow bar, gasoline, or rocks.

 

[barkingghost]

This is unfortunate. Back in the mid 1980's my personal interest in photography was old abandon industrial complexes. The police were not paid to go on these sites as site security, and no one called them--just a bored cop.

My focus was on strong shadow elements without the interference of 'life' (e.g. humans), and it allowed me to wander and take my time without the unnecessary need to wait out humans haven walked into my composition frame, or being harassed by some power-tripping thug with a badge.

Now terrorism and child pornography are excused in every matter, even if what I am doing is 100% legal. I feel like I need to have a trial attorney walking with me when I shoot.

 

[coffeeaddiction2012]

Unfortunately this seems to be a common occurrence with many police all over the country, there has been many cases of illegal seizures and detainments of people when taking photos of police in action, they don't like people watching, especially if they are doing something wrong.

 

[Chuck Lantz]

"dont forget that when folks lie to the police, it hurts us all!"



... and it hurts us all a lot worse when the police lie to us.

 

[Chuck Lantz]

And when you consider that it's the Los Angeles police, you can be pretty certain that they are doing something wrong. As everyone knows, they have a long history of being caught on camera while violating civil rights, so they are naturally prone to being more than a bit suspect when they see a camera in the area.

 

[drteng]

Agreed. It's ridiculous to think that a person wanting to get photos of something would be using a huge SLR/potentially large lens. It's simply not necessary and everyone around you knows that you're shooting. It's far more unobtrusive to use a little point and shoot, some of which have amazing zooms, or a newer phone with a decent camera.

 

[nonuniform]

drteng wrote:

Agreed. It's ridiculous to think that a person wanting to get photos of something would be using a huge SLR/potentially large lens. It's simply not necessary and everyone around you knows that you're shooting. It's far more unobtrusive to use a little point and shoot, some of which have amazing zooms, or a newer phone with a decent camera.

It's not about terrorism. It's about control. The police are a control mechanism in our society. Sometimes that's a beneficial service, controlling drug dealers, murderers, etc. but in fact, crime rates are fairly low in most areas (Oakland, I'm sorry for your losses).

The police want homogenous behavior. Go to work, but your coffee at Starbucks, shop at Home Depot, watch tv, eat at Applebees.

Depart from the norm and they get scared that things are no longer in their control.

I saw a lot of bizarre behavior while covering the Occupy movement in California and NYC last year. I watched the NYPD corral and prevent anyone from a press badge getting near the police interactions with demonstrators. If you wanted to get the story, you had to be part of the demonstration, which got a little dangerous and basically put you outside the law and a potential police target. Not good.

The Oakland police did something similar. Anyone with a camera was a target.

On the other hand....

I've had my share of casual interactions with police while shooting landscapes, or with my 8x10 on the sidewalk of various cities. Usually, it's a "what are you photographing" and followed by "why". If it's personal work, I'll just say, I want to document the city the way it is right now...and then they'll tell me about some cool old building down the street that I should definitely capture. If it's a job, I have a CofI and it used to be if I wasn't blocking the sidewalk I didn't need a permit and security. I dunno what the rules are now.

So, it's sad to me that general attitude is that cameras are dangerous, it wasn't always that way.

 

[Wubslin]

...I'm not breaking the law.