# I had someone to call cops on me



## samal (Jun 7, 2010)

I just got my Tamron 17-50 at the post office and naturally had to go out and take some test photos with it.  I was babysitting tonight so I took my 3 year old daughter with me for a walk down the block

2 house from mine, there was some kind of bush that interested me.  So, I decided to take a picture, while my daughter was playing with something on the lawn next to me and tried different angles, naturally standing close to the bush and moving around.  

Finally I took a picture and turned around to see some people across the street, looking very suspiciously at me.  I didn't think much about it, but 2-3 minutes later, a motorcop came over and rode his bike right over the sidewalk to intercept me.  He demanded to know where i lived, who was the girl with me, what did I take a picture off.  After I showed him the picture on the camera and the bush, my ID and walked with him to my house, he was satisfied and left.  Those people were very disappointed and finally walked away as well.

that made me think, how boring must be life for some people and how intrusive and nosy can people be!  On the other hand, should I be happy that we have those people around as next time they could prevent real crime from happening?

Oh, the bush in question:


----------



## supraman215 (Jun 7, 2010)

Wow. That's crazy. It's amazing the havoc cameras cause these days. I can understand their concern but the fact that their your neighbors and did that is strange.


----------



## ghpham (Jun 7, 2010)

What is so crazy about a person watching out for their neighbors? You were close to trespassing on someone else's property looking suspicious.  

The only sad thing is these days, people don't even know who their neighbors are.


----------



## TheSolicitor (Jun 7, 2010)

Cameras are the new guns.

They make EVERYONE nervous...neighbors, cops, friends, family...it sucks.  I hate you had the five-oh called on you, but I'm glad it seemed to work out!

Good shot, though!


----------



## manaheim (Jun 7, 2010)

You showed him your ID?  

Hell, I don't think I would have even showed him the pictures I took.  Too funny.

(and yes, you might have spent a night in jail for that because he'd probably bust you just to make your life difficult, so no, I wouldn't really recommend that)


----------



## samal (Jun 7, 2010)

manaheim said:


> You showed him your ID?
> 
> Hell, I don't think I would have even showed him the pictures I took.  Too funny.
> 
> (and yes, you might have spent a night in jail for that because he'd probably bust you just to make your life difficult, so no, I wouldn't really recommend that)



I had a 3-year-old with me, last thing I wanted is confrontation.  The cop was somewhat an asshole.  After I showed him the pic, he asked me with a smirk "So, you like bushes?"  I told him "I like pictures".  I guess he had hard time believing that I was spending time to take a picture of a bush :lmao:


----------



## TheSolicitor (Jun 7, 2010)

You may find the site www.carlosmiller.com to be of some interest after this interaction...it's more commonly known as PINAC or Photography Is Not A Crime.  I spend a fair amount of time there.


----------



## Sam6644 (Jun 7, 2010)

Haha, as long as you're on the sidewalk you can take pictures of whatever you want.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 7, 2010)

Sam6644 said:


> Haha, as long as you're on the sidewalk you can take pictures of whatever you want.


 
I think that might be a bit of an exageration, but you can definitely shoot _most_ of what you want.


----------



## manaheim (Jun 7, 2010)

Yeah totally understand the three year old thing. 

btw, the "you can take pics of whatever you want" isn't EXACTLY correct.

You can't break out the zoom lens and shoot into someone's window.  Essentially, you can take pictures of pretty much anything visible from public spaces as long as you don't violate anyone's reasonable expectation of privacy.

(and no, I'm not an atty nor do I play one on tv)


----------



## Live_free (Jun 7, 2010)

samal said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > You showed him your ID?
> ...



If he would have approached me I would I would've said "Anything I can do for you officer?" He probably would ask to see my ID and for me to stay there. To that I would say "Do you have any grounds on which to hold me?" If  he said to stay there with him he would be breaking the law, without giving me a reason that is. I would then ask for his badge number and call his superiors. But if he said he had no ground I would ask if he was holding me and if not I would walk away, if he was, again he is breaking the law.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Jun 7, 2010)

Had the child not been there I would have had a hard time not taking a picture of the nosy people, but I certainly understand your not doing so in that situation.  I've had a couple interactions with the police while out shooting but it's always at night.  They just don't realize it's possible to take long exposures until you explain it to them.  Luckily I haven't had to deal with any real pricks for a while.  The last guy seemed genuinely curious about how to do what I was doing, so it was actually kind of cool.  I came off sounding like I knew what I was talking about.


----------



## Mendoza (Jun 7, 2010)

Maybe if people weren't so fearful and reactionary they would be less apt to interpret a man taking a picture of a (purple smoke bush) as some sort of crime.  I wonder what they reported to the police, exactly?


----------



## ghpham (Jun 7, 2010)

Mendoza said:


> Maybe if people weren't so fearful and reactionary they would be less apt to interpret a man taking a picture of a (purple smoke bush) as some sort of crime. I wonder what they reported to the police, exactly?


 

suspicious character snooping around a neighbor's yard.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 8, 2010)

TheSolicitor said:


> You may find the site www.carlosmiller.com to be of some interest after this interaction...it's more commonly known as PINAC or Photography Is Not A Crime. I spend a fair amount of time there.


 
PINAC sounds like something a person who speaks like a dyslexic person writes would say.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 8, 2010)

ghpham said:


> Mendoza said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe if people weren't so fearful and reactionary they would be less apt to interpret a man taking a picture of a (purple smoke bush) as some sort of crime. I wonder what they reported to the police, exactly?
> ...


 
And to think, all the people that called the cops just had to do was go and ask if the OP was of Arabian descent and/or affliated with a terrorist cell...

:er:


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 8, 2010)

Ever notice how the people who most fear a thing are the most vocal about it?

Why would you be afraid of a camera, hmmm?


----------



## gsgary (Jun 8, 2010)

I would have told him to F off


----------



## pbelarge (Jun 8, 2010)

gsgary said:


> I would have told him to F off


 
You might get away with that in the UK, but not here in America. Cursing at police is not welcomed.



manaheim said:


> btw, the "you can take pics of whatever you want" isn't EXACTLY correct.
> 
> You can't break out the zoom lens and shoot into someone's window. Essentially, you can take pictures of pretty much anything visible from public spaces as long as you don't violate anyone's reasonable expectation of privacy.
> 
> (and no, I'm not an atty nor do I play one on tv)


 
If a person is on public property, unless there is a local law, the only items that are not permitted to be photographed are Federal buildings and the such.

Privacy is behind closed doors and windows...

You may disagree, but google the law and post it for me...if you can find it.


----------



## epp_b (Jun 8, 2010)

> he sidewalk to intercept me.  He demanded to know where i lived, who was  the girl with me, what did I take a picture off.  After I showed him  the picture on the camera and the bush, my ID and walked with him to my  house, he was satisfied and left.


Too bad.  As long as you are in public and doing nothing illegal, you are under no obligation to even listen to the officer.

I would have simply told him the truth (I'm taking some pictures of this nice flower bush) and walked away.



> If a person is on public property, unless there is a local law, the only  items that are not permitted to be photographed are Federal buildings  and the such.
> 
> Privacy is behind closed doors and windows...
> 
> You may disagree, but google the law and post it for me...if you can  find it.


I'm not sure if the US has this same stipulation, but Canada's Privacy Act has a "voyeurism" clause.  You can shoot pretty well anything from public where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.  You can take a picture of a house, but you can't peer into someone's window with a telephoto lens.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 8, 2010)

pbelarge said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > btw, the "you can take pics of whatever you want" isn't EXACTLY correct.
> ...


 
Privacy Law in the USA

There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in places like bathrooms, your own home, etc... That means you can't stand on public property and photograph some one through their windows.


----------



## pbelarge (Jun 8, 2010)

From the ARTICLE posted above.




_"Prosser, in both his article and in the Restatement (Second) of Torts at §§ 652A-652I, classifies four basic kinds of privacy rights:_
_unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another, for example, physical invasion of a person's home (e.g., unwanted entry, looking into windows with binoculars or camera, tapping telephone), searching wallet or purse, repeated and persistent telephone calls, obtaining financial data (e.g., bank balance) without person's consent, etc._
_appropriation of a person's name or likeness; successful assertions of this right commonly involve defendant's use of a person's name or likeness on a product label or in advertising a product or service. A similar concept is the "right of publicity" in Restatement (Third) Unfair Competition §§46-47 (1995). The distinction is that privacy protects against "injury to personal feelings", while the right of publicity protects against unauthorized commercial exploitation of a person's name or face. As a practical matter, celebrities generally sue under the right of publicity, while ordinary citizens sue under privacy. _
_publication of private facts, for example, income tax data, sexual relations, personal letters, family quarrels, medical treatment, photographs of person in his/her home._
_publication that places a person in a false light, which is similar to defamation. A successful defamation action requires that the information be false. In a privacy action the information is generally true, but the information created a false impression about the plaintiff._
_Only the second of these four rights is widely accepted in the USA. In addition to these four pure privacy torts, a victim might recover under other torts, such as intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, or trespass._
_Unreasonable intrusion upon seclusion only applies to secret or surreptitious invasions of privacy. An open and notorious invasion of privacy would be public, not private, and the victim could then chose not to reveal private or confidential information. *For example, recording of telephone conversations is not wrong if* both participants *are notified before speaking that the conversation is, or may be, recorded*. There certainly are offensive events in public, but these are properly classified as assaults, not invasions of privacy._




I am not aware of a written law in general in this country that restricts one from photographing much of anything from public property, except for what I posted earlier, or it is a _local law._

The example the author states above about phone calls being recorded or even taping a conversation is not a National Law.
NYS permits the recording of phone calls and conversations without the party being recorded having notification of the recording.


----------



## Aye-non Oh-non Imus (Jun 8, 2010)

Lots of bravado being spewed.  The OP did the right thing to be UNconfrontational with the police with the little girl in tow.  What kind of example would the opposite have set?

Personally, I probably would've tried to immediately break any tension with the police and made some crack about his comment about liking bushes.  It seems to work more times than not when I've had a situation with them (police, not bushes).  They're doing a job that I won't and are human also (by and large).  Like someone mentioned above, they may be shutterbugs as well.

Likewise, I probably would've gone over to the nosy neighbors and introduced myself, handing them a business card.  Thanked them for being attentative towards the neighborhood and let them know that it's quite possible they will see me again doing something similar.

There was no harm done and at the end of the day, it's nice to be nice.  There is no need to escalate a situation that doesn't warrant it.


----------



## pbelarge (Jun 8, 2010)

Aye-non Oh-non Imus said:


> Lots of bravado being spewed. The OP did the right thing to be UNconfrontational with the police with the little girl in tow. What kind of example would the opposite have set?
> 
> Personally, I probably would've tried to immediately break any tension with the police and made some crack about his comment about liking bushes. It seems to work more times than not when I've had a situation with them (police, not bushes). They're doing a job that I won't and are human also (by and large). Like someone mentioned above, they may be shutterbugs as well.
> 
> ...


 

Are you practicing to run for office??? :mrgreen:


Actually that was well said.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 8, 2010)

Is this better?

Restatement of the Law, Second, Torts,  652

The actual US law. 



> *One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.*




It says one who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise. It doesn't say one who intentionally intrudes when not on public property.

If you want to pay a lawyer, I'm sure they can find a precedent where this has had to do with photographing into some one's house regardless of where they were standing. 

That would be like me standing on the sidewalk, which is generally considered public property and taking photos of everyone in your home and being able to get away with it if there weren't laws like the above one to protect people from that.


----------



## manaheim (Jun 8, 2010)

pbelarge said:


> From the ARTICLE posted above.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Errrr... what?

You can say whatever you like dude, but I have researched this topic extensively and even consulted with two licensed attorneys on the topic.

In synopsis, you can shoot _most _any_thing_ you can see from public property... exceptions for sensitive government installations and such. You can shoot pictures of pretty much any_one_ that is out in the open. You _cannot_ shoot pictures of people who have a reasonable expectation of privacy... regardless of where you happen to be standing. This includes shooting people in a visually obstructed back yard, through windows in their own home (open or closed), etc.

All in all, it's actually pretty simple. There really aren't too many laws on this because there are not too many restrictions, but where there are restrictions they are reasonably clear.

From my own cache of links:

Photographer's Legal Rights 
Court Case on Legality of Sale of Street Photography 
http://www.photosecrets.com/tips.law.html


----------



## Aye-non Oh-non Imus (Jun 8, 2010)

pbelarge said:


> Actually that was well said.


 Except for the part by using UNconfrontational when, in fact, it should have been NONconfrontational.  (and the CAPS were for emphasis only)


----------



## Heck (Jun 8, 2010)

Cop is always right so all you can do is protect your gear and avoid being locked up on a trumped up charge. I was told I could not take a photo of a bridge while I was in a public park. I was also told cameras were banned from that park lol. Now holding 5 grand worth of camera im not about to go all perry mason on this guy. I just said ok and walked away. Sucks but thats the way it is now a days.


----------



## ifi (Jun 8, 2010)

These things take fun out of photography. BTW the bush looks good :thumbup:


----------



## pbelarge (Jun 8, 2010)

manaheim said:


> pbelarge said:
> 
> 
> > From the ARTICLE posted above.
> ...


 

Your first link is an attorny's opinion, not a copy of the written law

Your second link is not relevant to the post


----------



## Heck (Jun 8, 2010)

ifi said:


> These things take fun out of photography. BTW the bush looks good :thumbup:


 
Tell me about it. I tend to think before I shoot and where I shoot now. I got hassled less when I was really doing illegal things.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 8, 2010)

pbelarge said:


> Your first link is an attorny's opinion, not a copy of the written law
> 
> Your second link is not relevant to the post


 
But my links were the law.


----------



## manaheim (Jun 8, 2010)

Ummm ok.

The entire legal system boils down to interpretations of laws. The judiciary branch is specicially chartered with doing exactly that.

An attorney's interpretation of the written law, therefore, holds a SIGNIFICANT amount more water than all us photographers stating what _we_ think may be the case.

The second link is an actual write-up of just such an interpretation... both questioned and defended.

To be more specific... none of my comments are my interpretations of laws. I am not qualified to make such interpretations. All of my statements are based upon research of qualified person's interpretations of the laws.  Case in point, my first link... which is a legal interpretation by an attorney.

So, yeah... they're _very _relevant.


----------



## manaheim (Jun 8, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> pbelarge said:
> 
> 
> > Your first link is an attorny's opinion, not a copy of the written law
> ...


 
An interesting read, btw.  Thanks for posting that.


----------



## manaheim (Jun 8, 2010)

God I'm being sloppy on this thread.  Sorry for the spam.



Heck said:


> Cop is always right so all you can do is protect your gear and avoid being locked up on a trumped up charge. I was told I could not take a photo of a bridge while I was in a public park. I was also told cameras were banned from that park lol. Now holding 5 grand worth of camera im not about to go all perry mason on this guy. I just said ok and walked away. Sucks but thats the way it is now a days.


 
This isn't _actually _correct, but in some ways it is _practically_ correct.

The cop isn't always right.  In fact, FREQUENTLY cops are really not well versed in the rules around photography at all.  I've heard plenty of examples of this and seen a few documented cases.  I don't blame them... it's a bit obscure anyway, and what sometimes seems like "common sense" in this space, isn't.

However, if you puff up your chest at a cop and start asserting yourself, you're gonna get boned.  As I said in my first response to all this, as much as I claim I wouldn't even show them my ID, odds are pretty good that if they had asked me for it I probably would have.

As someone wise on this thread posted- your best weapon here is humor.  Make some sort of disarming funny remark and most people (including cops) will laugh and move about their business, and it won't even get to the point of IDs and such.

That said, the problem with all this is if people do not assert their rights, eventually we will lose them.  This isn't alarmist stuff, it's provably true (but not without getting into all kinds of politics and stuff, which we obviously need to stay well clear of)

Ok, I'm done.  Bye!


----------



## JAFO28 (Jun 8, 2010)

This is funny that I came across this post. My wife who just got home, was out with her mother. She had her camera with her and pulled over on the side of the road when a cop drove by then proceeded to turn around and just see if they were alright. My wife was shooting some flowers on the side of the road. Then the cop asks her about her camera, and tells her he has a d300, so they just start chatting about photography. It's funny how you can get a night and day response depending on the person involved.


----------



## j-dogg (Jun 8, 2010)

At least the bush came out nice.


----------



## skieur (Jun 8, 2010)

Live_free said:


> samal said:
> 
> 
> > manaheim said:
> ...


 
:thumbup:  Legally correct and most appropriate.

skieur


----------



## epp_b (Jun 8, 2010)

Most law enforcement officials are pathetically undertrained.  In Canada, the RCMP training program is six months.  Customs officials are trained for only ten weeks.  This is not enough time for people who have the legal power to kill and otherwise wreak havoc on peoples' lives simply by adding their name to some list.

How respectful (or, more likely, disrespectful) a given law enforcement official is depends entirely on person's character and upbringing.  They are not trained to be courteous, professional or observant.  They are trained to be naively suspicious and xenophobic about everything and to act on it with total disrespect for peoples' rights.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 8, 2010)

manaheim said:


> God I'm being sloppy on this thread.  Sorry for the spam.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A little prospective from the cops stand point.  



> The cop isn't always right.


You are correct, except at the time that the cop is conducting that investigation.  At that particular point in time he is right, even if he is wrong.  You are not going to win the argument as to who is right at that point on the street and in the short term, he/she is the one that will be leaving the jail with out having been arrested, posting a bond or having his finger prints taken.  

The place to decide who was right or wrong is not on the street but with either Professional Standards (we still call it internal affairs) or in a court of law.  That is what due process is all about. If you feel that you were treated in a rude or unprofessional manner call Professional standards.  If you feel your rights were violated call an attorney.  There isn't a city, county, municipality, parish or anything else that doesn't have some sort of obstruct legal process law on the books.  What's obstruct legal process?   There is really no good reason to have that charge used in these kinds of situations.  



> FREQUENTLY cops are really not well versed in the rules around  photography at all.


How can we be versed in something that doesn't exist???  

Show me one mention in the constitution about photography or photographers rights. Ok, show me the photographers "_*r**ules"*_ in the Bill of Rights.  There aren't any.  

Photographers have no more rights than any other person without a camera and no less.  Putting a camera strap around your neck gives you no additional legal protections.  And being on "public property" is not cart-blanc to do what ever you want.  Remember that your rights stop where another persons rights begin.  Everyone has the same protections and the same responsibilities under the laws and under the Constitution of the United States.  

For those that live outside of the United States, you will have to check the laws of the place that you live.


----------



## epp_b (Jun 8, 2010)

> How can we be versed in something that doesn't exist???
> 
> Show me one mention in the constitution about photography or  photographers rights. Ok, show me the photographers "_*r**ules"*_  in the Bill of Rights.  There aren't any.


lrn2freedomofexpression
lrn2freedomofthepress


----------



## table1349 (Jun 8, 2010)

epp_b said:


> > How can we be versed in something that doesn't exist???
> >
> > Show me one mention in the constitution about photography or  photographers rights. Ok, show me the photographers "_*r**ules"*_  in the Bill of Rights.  There aren't any.
> 
> ...



lrn2freedomofthepress has nothing to do with photography.  



> *Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified  12/15/1791.*
> 
> 
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,  or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of  speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to  petition the Government for a redress  of grievances.



This is a freedom granted to *EVERYONE*, not just photographers. 

The ownership of a camera also does not make someone a member of the press.


----------



## skieur (Jun 8, 2010)

epp_b said:


> > How can we be versed in something that doesn't exist???
> >
> > Show me one mention in the constitution about photography or photographers rights. Ok, show me the photographers "_*r**ules"*_ in the Bill of Rights. There aren't any.
> 
> ...


 
Yes, Freedom of Expression and Freedom to Use One's Property...as in photographic equipment.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Jun 8, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> epp_b said:
> 
> 
> > > How can we be versed in something that doesn't exist???
> ...


 
So, photographers are exercising their freedom granted in the american constitution to everyone. What's your point?  A camera may not make someone a member of the press, but that does not in any way limit the constitutional rights of photographers who are not members of the press.

skieur


----------



## table1349 (Jun 8, 2010)

skieur said:


> epp_b said:
> 
> 
> > > How can we be versed in something that doesn't exist???
> ...



Now you are trying to add your take to the constitution.  You have no more rights to use that camera than the next person does to use a flashlight or radio.  That's the point, there are no special rules for photographers.  

Remember, your freedom of expression and freedom to use one's property still stops at another persons freedom.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 8, 2010)

skieur said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > epp_b said:
> ...




The point is, there are NO SPECIAL PHOTOGRAPHERS RIGHTS.  You only have the same rights and the same responsibilities as every other person.


----------



## skieur (Jun 8, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > epp_b said:
> ...


 
Not trying to add my take at all.  That is how the press and for that matter most US judges see it.  As to special rules for photographers, (if we are talking about the same thing), they have developed from case law, application of other laws to photographers, and the procedures that have been instituted by police departments to avoid civil rights violations and law suits.

As for freedom, I find it laughable that some who resent being photographed in a public place by an amateur photographer as a violation of their privacy ignore the multiple times that they have been photographed and videotaped by security cameras.

After 9/11, Americans gave up many of their freedoms in exchange for the "mirage" of security.  I applaud American photographers who are fighting to retain their freedoms.

skieur


----------



## table1349 (Jun 8, 2010)

skieur said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



What case law are you speaking of that provides special rules for photographers?  There are cases brought by photographers that clarified a point of law, but they are not photography specific. They are point specific applicable to all that fall into that particular point of law, not just photographers.    

The procedures you are talking about are not just related to photographers either.  Take a sketch pad to some secure facility site and start making sketches of the site and see if you don't attract the same attention that you would with a camera.  You will probably attract more attention.  A camera is just one form for recording a particular scene or view.  



> As for freedom, I find it laughable that some who resent being  photographed in a public place by an amateur photographer as a violation  of their privacy ignore the multiple times that they have been  photographed and videotaped by security cameras.



I find it laughable too.  Public view is public view.  That is why I find it even more laughable when people complain about security cameras in public places.  

I am no fan of the paparazzi.  I found it very funny a few years ago.  I don't remember the person that did this, but they hired a photographer to play paparazzi with a particularly annoying paparazzi photographer that was following them around.  

The hired photographer followed the paparazzi around photographing them and their home, family, vehicles etc.  The paparazzi got the point when they found that they were not able or at least didn't feel comfortable with acting in their same manner when they were being photographed nor did they like their family and personal life exposed.  Apparently the paparazzi didn't like being paparazzied by another person.


----------



## icbc (Jun 8, 2010)

oh ,my god !
i want to say nothing !
the word is so big that different people has different  character!


----------



## astrostu (Jun 9, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> > FREQUENTLY cops are really not well versed in the rules around  photography at all.
> 
> 
> How can we be versed in something that doesn't exist???
> ...



You seem to be setting up a straw man argument from what manaheim said.  He said "rules," you converted that to "Constitution."  This is like manaheim saying that cops aren't versed in the rules relating to murder, and you saying that there are no such rules because they aren't in the Constitution.

That's why the US legal code is so friggin' long.  There are various statutes that do restrict photographers, and otherwise photographers can do whatever they want (and no, I do not know of them off-hand and wouldn't know exactly where to look, though previous posters to this thread have linked and quoted them).  It's perfectly legal to go around photographing things from public property that that does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.  Laws come in that have restricted it so that you can't photograph things where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy (like through a crack in some blinds).  But asking one to find some place in the Constitution that states photographers are free to take pictures is just kinda a silly request/statement.


----------



## Josh220 (Jun 9, 2010)

samal said:


> On the other hand, should I be happy that we have those people around as next time they could prevent real crime from happening?



Not likely, I have found those annoying people with nothing better to do with their lives are rarely, if ever, around at the right time when something bad is actually happening. When there is a burglar in your house they're trying to see who is playing music too loud, or still making noise at 9PM at night. Ironic, isn't it? 

An old woman approached my girlfriends mom about a party that her sister threw one night while their parents were out of town. She knew about it, so it wasn't one of those parties. The old woman worded it as, "The next time your daughters decide to throw a party, maybe they'll remember to close the blinds." I cut in and told her that no one was forcing her to stand at her window spying on other peoples business and that maybe the next time she didn't like something, then to close her own blinds. 

I honestly hate people like that.


----------



## manaheim (Jun 9, 2010)

astrostu said:


> You seem to be setting up a straw man argument from what manaheim said. He said "rules," you converted that to "Constitution." This is like manaheim saying that cops aren't versed in the rules relating to murder, and you saying that there are no such rules because they aren't in the Constitution.


 
AHA!  Thanks.  I _knew_ something felt wrong about that.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 9, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> What case law are you speaking of that provides special rules for photographers? There are cases brought by photographers that clarified a point of law, but *they are not photography specific.* They are point specific applicable to all that fall into that particular point of law, not just photographers.


 
Why not? Like if a photographer sues a cop for confiscating their equipment and deleting images. Sure it boils down to destruction of property/evidence, but it lays down an official precedent that says a law enforcement officer can't just take a photographer's camera and delete images from their camera because you don't like it and you think it's wrong.

That's directly regarding photography.


----------



## Heck (Jun 9, 2010)

This is what may happen if you think your free to film or take photos in public and test your rights with the police.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYHhBJPTHqo[/ame]


----------



## epp_b (Jun 9, 2010)

Man, that crappy camera work is annoying.


----------



## KenC (Jun 9, 2010)

I think it may be a regional thing because in 30+ years of photographing in NYC and Philly no one ever bothered me about taking pictures anywhere.  Yet when I lived in Chicagoland for about 4 years recently I was stopped several times in different parts of the area (mostly in the burbs) and asked what I was doing and why - people seem to be more suspicious around there.


----------



## Infidel (Jun 9, 2010)

Heck said:


> This is what may happen if you think your free to film or take photos in public and test your rights with the police.



Sounds like this guy was technically correct on several points, but practically speaking, he didn't handle it very well (nor did the police for that matter).

For those who are truly concerned about how to behave in an encounter with the police, you may find the following link helpful; it's the ACLU's "bust card", intended to combat racial profiling, but the basic rights should apply to all of us.

Know Your Rights: What To Do If You?re Stopped By The Police (Bust Card) | American Civil Liberties Union

All in all, a legal debate with an officer during a stop is probably not advisable...you can dig yourself a deeper hole (as the guy in the video did, cracked windshield and all). This is especially true if you think the officer is being unreasonable in the first place; you're unlikely to successfully sway their opinion. As others have mentioned earlier in the thread, the best bet is probably to diffuse the situation as efficiently and quickly as possible. *If you feel your rights were violated, you're better off contacting an attorney from your home, not a jail cell.*


----------



## table1349 (Jun 9, 2010)

manaheim said:


> astrostu said:
> 
> 
> > You seem to be setting up a straw man argument from what manaheim said. He said "rules," you converted that to "Constitution." This is like manaheim saying that cops aren't versed in the rules relating to murder, and you saying that there are no such rules because they aren't in the Constitution.
> ...



Ask any LEO what they enforce.  They do not enforce rules.  They enforce laws.  The constitution is the original set of laws on which this country is founded.  They are not a god given right, but one crafted by man for the good of man as an individual and as a collective society.


----------



## JAFO28 (Jun 9, 2010)

Have to disagree a little with you gryphonslair99. Whats in the constitution is  a lot of god given rights. The constitution just protects those rights from being infringed upon by an overbearing government.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 9, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > What case law are you speaking of that provides special rules for photographers? There are cases brought by photographers that clarified a point of law, but *they are not photography specific.* They are point specific applicable to all that fall into that particular point of law, not just photographers.
> ...




You started getting the point and then fell back into being a photographer, it's not about photography, it is about the 4th Amendment, search and seizure.  That is the point I am trying to make.  There are no special rules, laws or constitutional guarantees granted to photographers.  

Every 4th Amendment issue is judged on it's own merits based on the facts of the incident be it photographs/photographers, computers/users-owners, or left handed 3 wheel widgets/and their owners. Some 4th Amendments situations are painfully obvious and some are not requiring the intercession of the courts to make a determination.  

If you want to avoid hassles and make situations like these easier to deal with and get on with your life or shooting, you need to understand not only all of your rights, but all of your responsibilities.  When evaluating a situation look past the trees and see the forest.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 9, 2010)

JAFO28 said:


> Have to disagree a little with you gryphonslair99. Whats in the constitution is  a lot of god given rights. The constitution just protects those rights from being infringed upon by an overbearing government.



If God gave us these rights then why did and have so many sacrificed their lives to secure, protect, and keep them?  God did not give you one right in the Constitution.  The Constitution was written by men after so many had  sacrificed their lives to secure this land and allow for them to be written by the survivors that then created the country we now live in.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 9, 2010)

KenC said:


> I think it may be a regional thing because in 30+ years of photographing in NYC and Philly no one ever bothered me about taking pictures anywhere.  Yet when I lived in Chicagoland for about 4 years recently I was stopped several times in different parts of the area (mostly in the burbs) and asked what I was doing and why - people seem to be more suspicious around there.



You are correct.  Not only by region but by time frame.  Much of this came about after 9/11.  San Francisco is one local that has a very heightened awareness.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 9, 2010)

Josh220 said:


> samal said:
> 
> 
> > On the other hand, should I be happy that we have those people around as next time they could prevent real crime from happening?
> ...


----------



## table1349 (Jun 9, 2010)

Infidel said:


> Heck said:
> 
> 
> > This is what may happen if you think your free to film or take photos in public and test your rights with the police.
> ...



:thumbup: +1, including most of the ACLU's suggestions.  Some are very much area specific, but most are universal in the U.S.


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Jun 9, 2010)

There is a good reason I'm a misanthrope. And few of my photos include humans.


----------



## skieur (Jun 9, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > gryphonslair99 said:
> ...


 
Your argument is irrelevant.  Sure it is about photography. If the guy in the latest video had not been filming the police there would have been no confrontation. In other incidents, if the guy had not been taking pictures of a building or a refinery there would not have been a confrontation with police.  If guys had not been taking photos in the New York subway, there would not have been confrontations with the police.  When police are telling photographers that they can't take pictures then it is definitely about photography.  When a judge says that the police are wrong, and photographers can take pictures in a public place, then it is also about photography.

Of course, if it is about your rights, the same perspective holds true, it is about your rights to express your creativity through photography and to utilize your camera equipment to do so, covered under the Constitution.
As I said before that is not my take, that is the take of the American press, judges, and lawyers for all sides of the issues.

You seem to be implying that if you don"t want hassles, then you should give up your rights.  That position puts the boot to the American rhetoric that other countries keep hearing about Americans standing up for freedom and the rights of the individual.

So, you seem to be saying that the true rhetoric is that photographers should be setting an example for others by asserting their rights ONLY IF IT IS CONVENIENT and presents no sort of risk

Interesting!

skieur


----------



## Josh220 (Jun 9, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Josh220 said:
> 
> 
> > samal said:
> ...


----------



## table1349 (Jun 9, 2010)

Josh220 said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Josh220 said:
> ...


----------



## Josh220 (Jun 9, 2010)

Wharrgarbl?


----------



## table1349 (Jun 9, 2010)

skieur said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...



Actually I strongly encourage everyone to know and use their rights.  However I also strongly encourage everyone to also accept the 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





responsibility that goes with those rights.  I'm going to do something here that I normally do not do, because like everyone here except for the OP, I wasn't there.  Let's look at what the OP posted and break it down a bit.  



> I just got my Tamron 17-50 at the post office and naturally had to go  out and take some test photos with it.  I was babysitting tonight so I  took my 3 year old daughter with me for a walk down the block
> 
> 2 house from mine, there was some kind of bush that interested me.  So, I  decided to take a picture, while my daughter was playing with something  on the lawn next to me and tried different angles, naturally standing  close to the bush and moving around.


Ok, can someone see a problem with any of this.  I can't.  



> Finally I took a picture and turned around to see *some people across the  street, looking very suspiciously at me.*  I didn't think much about it,  but 2-3 minutes later, a motorcop came over and rode his bike right  over the sidewalk to intercept me.


I am going to speculate here based my years of experience. _Some people across the street, looking very suspiciously at me._  Who probably called in what *they* considered suspicious activity.  The motorcop was probably close and responded because they were close.  Motorcops in most jurisdictions don't ride beats and patrol a particular area, they are usually traffic officers.  When they received the call they got it from a dispatcher.  They knew neither the calling party or the person called in on. What they knew was that a citizen, exercising their right to feel protected, called in what they perceived to be a suspicious character or suspicious activity.



> He demanded to know where i lived,  who was the girl with me, what did I take a picture off.  After I showed  him the picture on the camera and the bush, my ID and walked with him  to my house, he was satisfied and left.


His actions were based upon reasonable suspicion based upon the call that the officer received.  The officer detained the OP and gathered the basic information necessary to either make a determination at that point or to continue the investigations.  The OP obviously provided the information necessary for the officer to make a determination that, contrary to what the calling party(s) believed there was no suspicious activity and went back to what ever they were doing before responding to the call.  



> Those people were very  disappointed and finally walked away as well.


Tough $#!%.  Their disappointment really doesn't matter.  



> that made me think, how boring must be life for some people and how  intrusive and nosy can people be!  On the other hand, should I be happy  that we have those people around as next time they could prevent real  crime from happening?


We all have different perceptions, of what is around us.  The important word in that sentence is perceptions.  If we all as human beings saw the same thing we wouldn't be having this discussion and I would be out of a job. 

While i appreciate the fact that the OP was detained for a bit and inconvenienced for a short period of time.  The OP could have acted in another manner.  But in this situation what purpose would acting differently have accomplished other than to lengthen the detention until the officer had their suspicions satisfied.   

As for calling parties like the probable ones in this situation, yes there are those that can be a pain in the neck (think 3 feet lower ) but are you wiling to take on the vicarious liability of choosing to ignore a call for services like this.  

Whenever there is a situation like this there are three sides of the story, yours, theirs, and the truth.  The truth is usually found somewhere in the middle of the other two.  Again that word perception comes into play.   



> Oh, the bush in question:


Nice picture.

No one thinks twice if an officer responds to a call of a person with a gun in their hand on a busy street.  That gun is a single purpose item.  It is designed to inflict damage, be it human, animal or a target of some kind.  Target practice isn't something that happens legally on public streets.  

Photographers and many others with other items that they carry with them and use are dual purpose items.  That camera can be used to record events, create art, create memories or it can be used to provide intelligence for those with nefarious intentions.  

The probabilities are that in this photo there is at least one person that is or has criminal intent.  Can you pick out that person?

Like I said in a previous post, if you are in a situation like this, or any situation, step back and look at the forest, not just the trees.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 9, 2010)

Josh220 said:


> Wharrgarbl?



 Mike Teavee: There's a big difference between waves  and particles. For one thing...
*Willy Wonka*: [interrupting] MUMBLER!  Seriously, I cannot understand a word you're saying!

Seriously, Johnny Depp did a much better job.


----------



## Fedaykin (Jun 9, 2010)

Heck said:


> This is what may happen if you think your free to film or take photos in public and test your rights with the police.
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYHhBJPTHqo



Sorry but that is not a good example of "testing your rights", the guy went about it all wrong. All he had to say was that they were on public property and he had the right to film them as they were not even inside the building. Instead he increased the tension immediately by asking them for ID right off the bat and blabbering on without actually telling them he had the right to film, etc.


----------



## danieldowns (Jun 9, 2010)

Crazy world we live in. I can only imagine what was going through the complex minds of those watching you. Its funny they waited around to be satisfied with it all.

Daniel Downs Photography & Design-Home


----------



## patrickt (Jun 10, 2010)

TheSolicitor said:


> Cameras are the new guns.
> 
> They make EVERYONE nervous...neighbors, cops, friends, family...it sucks. I hate you had the five-oh called on you, but I'm glad it seemed to work out!
> 
> Good shot, though!


 
It really depends on where you are.


----------



## epatsellis (Jun 10, 2010)

for everyone's enlightenment, and edification, Bert Krages is an attorney who specialises in photographer's rights cases, he has a pdf here: Bert P. Krages Attorney at Law Photographer's Rights Page that you should download, read until you understand it, print it out and carry it with you at all times. It can (and has for me) help you better understand your rights, as well. 

In addition, know the laws in your state, Illinois has a stop and ID law, a few other states do as well. I'd also suggest some research on the term "Terry Stop", for what is considered a detainment and what the requirements are for a legal detainment. Lastly, if you have a family attorney, it would be wise to spend a few $$ now and consult with them as to what your rights in your state are, and how to handle the situation when they are violated.


----------



## skieur (Jun 10, 2010)

From GryphonsLair99

"Nice picture.

No one thinks twice if an officer responds to a call of a person with a gun in their hand on a busy street. That gun is a single purpose item. It is designed to inflict damage, be it human, animal or a target of some kind. Target practice isn't something that happens legally on public streets. 

Photographers and many others with other items that they carry with them and use are dual purpose items. That camera can be used to record events, create art, create memories or it can be used to provide intelligence for those with nefarious intentions. 

The probabilities are that in this photo there is at least one person that is or has criminal intent. Can you pick out that person?

Like I said in a previous post, if you are in a situation like this, or any situation, step back and look at the forest, not just the trees. " end quote



You have been watching too much television. In the real world cameras have NOT been used with nefarious purposes to gather intelligence. In fact at no time were camera for example used to gather intelligence befor the 9/11 incidents or before any other major terrorist incident. ONLY IN TV plots!:lmao:

When you are stepping back to look at the forest, gryphonslair, don"t base your VIEWS on television or movie plots. I have done television work as producer, director, and scriptwriter and can assure you that the plots are FAR removed from reality.

skieur


----------



## epatsellis (Jun 10, 2010)

Yes, but the likelyhood of a "reasonable person" to suspect a terrorist plot, targeting bushes is just above or at zero, as is taking pictures of passing traffic, interesting architecture, etc. The act of suspicion, in and of itself, does not constitute unlawfulness, and that is the key to the "entire stopping to investigate any photographer" issue. 

The reasonable person argument, and by inference reasonable cause to suspect, is key to the entire Terry Stop rulings by the SCOTUS, which is the very basis of any lawful detention scenario. If it fails the reasonable person test, it is, by definition of the SCOTUS, an unlawful detention.


----------



## skieur (Jun 10, 2010)

A police officer can politely ask to see photos but in most jurisdictions the photographer has every right to refuse.

A police officer can ask for ID, but the photographer has a right to say No, or perhaps that he is not carrying ID. Carrying ID is not required by any pedestrian.

A police officer in most locations has NO right to detain a person without arrest and you cannot be arrested for taking photos.

Taking photos cannot be construed as a suspicious activity because there is NO law against doing so, for any reason.

Some state and local laws may contravene federal laws, civil rights or the constitution.  They are not beyond question or appeal.

Sensitive government buildings CAN be photographed, since there in no US law against such action.  Top secret installations MUST be listed in order to validate a NO photography section of the secrets act in the US.  Most government buildings are NOT on the list.

skieur


----------



## Browncoat (Jun 10, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Remember that your rights stop where another persons rights begin.  Everyone has the same protections and the same responsibilities under the laws and under the Constitution of the United States.



The best interpretation of the actual law I have seen yet on these forums concerning these matters.

:thumbup:

I think most of us would quietly go on our way and avoid a confrontation with the Five-O.  Studies have shown that police officers are among the lowest IQ of any profession, so why bother risking a night in the cooler over something so trite?  Their job is to enforce the law, not interpret it.  That's why most of them wear a ridiculous mustache, it's their badge of honor that allows them to remain bullies after high school.

Move along, nothing to see here.  Move along.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 10, 2010)

skieur said:


> From GryphonsLair99
> 
> "Nice picture.
> 
> ...




Well considering that I am a cop and do not watch cop shows, you managed to have that part completely wrong.  

Secondly your guess that cameras have never been used for intelligence gathering comes from deep in some dream world that you are living in.  Not only has still photography been used, video has also already been used.  In this country, in Canada and virtually every western country.  

I just returned from two days of Terror Attack and Suicide Bombing training.  I have seen some of the photos that were taken as well as some of the videos that have been discovered.  You are living in a dream world if you don't think that those that wish to cause harm use any and all methods to accomplish their aims.  

If I have to choose between taking your word for it or the word of the person in charge of the EOD unit that investigated the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building and of a 29 year veteran in EOD and one of the premier Counter Terrorism units in this country you don't even run a close third.


----------



## epatsellis (Jun 10, 2010)

Gryphon, 
With all due respect, do you see the average photographer, or as in my case, a photographer shooting with a large format camera, in public a potential terror threat? 

What, in your opinion, do you consider reasonable suspicion that a crime has, is in the process of, or is about to be committed, as defined in in the SCOTUS decision in Terry v. Ohio?


----------



## manaheim (Jun 10, 2010)

epatsellis said:


> Gryphon,
> With all due respect, do you see the average photographer, or as in my case, a photographer shooting with a large format camera, in public a potential terror threat?
> 
> What, in your opinion, do you consider reasonable suspicion that a crime has, is in the process of, or is about to be committed, as defined in in the SCOTUS decision in Terry v. Ohio?



I've always wondered about that... seems like if you're a terrorist running around with a DSLR and a big lens is an obviously bad idea.  iPhone would work wonderfully.


----------



## Josh220 (Jun 11, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> I just returned from two days of Terror Attack and Suicide Bombing training.  I have seen some of the photos that were taken as well as some of the videos that have been discovered.  You are living in a dream world if you don't think that those that wish to cause harm use any and all methods to accomplish their aims.



And their first target... Bushes in neighborhoods across America!

I find it odd that you refer to yourself as a cop and not an officer. The police in my neck of the woods are mostly egotistical half-witts who do it to get a hard on, but I still refer to them as officers. Perhaps that is just from my time as a CJ major before I realized what type of people were getting in to the field. I have immense respect for those who do it for the right reasons, however those individuals seem to be few and far between lately, and they are only becoming more sparse as time goes on.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 11, 2010)

epatsellis said:


> Gryphon,
> With all due respect, do you see the average photographer, or as in my case, a photographer shooting with a large format camera, in public a potential terror threat?
> 
> What, in your opinion, do you consider reasonable suspicion that a crime has, is in the process of, or is about to be committed, as defined in in the SCOTUS decision in Terry v. Ohio?



Reasonable suspicion is on a case by case basis, in this particular case the reasonable suspicion was in all likely hood the two citizens that called in their complaint.  Like I said are you willing to accept the vicarious liability to ignore such a call from citizens a not look into it.  

With all due respect, do you have a formula to pick out a person in a crowd that is a potential threat?  If you do then please share it, because I can make you a Billionaire, and my cut as you manager will make me a millionaire.  :mrgreen:  We can both retire somewhere where we will never have to worry about the situation coming to us.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 11, 2010)

manaheim said:


> epatsellis said:
> 
> 
> > Gryphon,
> ...



Why.  There are lots of people running around with dslr's these days everywhere.  One thing you have to understand, these people may be fanatical, they may be crazy, but they are not stupid.  They learn quickly how to obtain their desired goal.  That goal is not to kill military or blow up military installations any more.  Not in this part of the world.  

They are looking to kill people, as many as possible.  Where do you find lots of people?  Schools (Beslan Russia), large shopping areas(to many to even try an name in the middle east and asia), how about places like Times Square?  Ever see someone with a DSLR in Times Square.  How about the Capitol Mall in Washington DC, a famous landmark like the Golden Gate Bridge. There are thousands of places out there.  If you had a kid graduate from high school did you take your DSLR to the graduation?  Mass casualties are what they look for these days and if you are not part of their ideology then you are a target.  There are no "innocent civilians" to them.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 11, 2010)

Josh220 said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > I just returned from two days of Terror Attack and Suicide Bombing training.  I have seen some of the photos that were taken as well as some of the videos that have been discovered.  You are living in a dream world if you don't think that those that wish to cause harm use any and all methods to accomplish their aims.
> ...




You don't last in the business for 29 years being a police officer.  Police officers are 9 to 5er's in the law enforcement world.  They are here for a pay check.  They answer the calls they are sent to, and make the reports that they have to.  They usually move on fairly quickly to other pursuits. 

Cops on the other hand, do the job because the believe in the job and care about the society that they are there to try an protect.  The don't just answer calls after the fact.  They are proactive and attempt to prevent incidents from happening when ever possible.  The are dedicated to their profession. The word cop is not a bad word among LEO's.  Look up the history of the word and you will understand why.

Sorry to hear about the sorry state of your neck of the woods.  Maybe it's time to fine a new forest to play in.


----------



## epatsellis (Jun 11, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Reasonable suspicion is on a case by case basis, in this particular case the reasonable suspicion was in all likely hood the two citizens that called in their complaint.  Like I said are you willing to accept the vicarious liability to ignore such a call from citizens a not look into it.



Reasonable enough answer, though concern doesn't neccesarily equal commission of a crime, and has been made clear through numerous challenges, the extent of a search during a Terry Stop is limited to the offficer's well being in lieu of any commisssion or suspicion of a crime. 

Of course we are under no obligation to answer unreasonable questions by the police, as affirmed by Justice White in his consenting opinion on Terry v. Ohio:_Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained  or frisked but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. However, given  the proper circumstances, such as those in this case, it seems to me  the person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent  questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not  obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer  furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to  the need for continued observation." (392 U.S. 1, at 34)_
​It may not be the most prudent thing to do today, given the near police state we live in, but on constitutional grounds, you can. 

In the OP's case, since no crime was being committed, the officer was  clearly in the wrong for asking to see the images, in my opinion. I've  seen it go much further, with an officer demanding that images be  deleted, which is both unreasonable, and unlawful without a court order.  There is a general hysteria amonng LEO's these days regarding  photographers, and unless some common sense starts to rule (as in  constitutional and civil rights being respected and upheld), there's  going to be a flurry of actionable backlash, which I feel will  ultimately work against the intentions of the LE community, as well as  the basic principles of Law Enforcement.

[/QUOTE]With all due respect, do you have a formula to pick out a person in a  crowd that is a potential threat?  If you do then please share it,  because I can make you a Billionaire, and my cut as you manager will  make me a millionaire.  :mrgreen:  We  can both retire somewhere where we will never have to worry about the  situation coming to us.[/QUOTE] 

Perhaps you misunderstood my intentions, so let me be perfectly clear, I was only asking out of curiosity, as many years ago when I received my FL CJ cert. there were very clear legal rules for reasonable suspicion and they seem to have gone the way of the dodo, with articulable reasoning having given way to and officers inarticlable "hunch", gut feeling or simple dislike for an individual. As a result, unlawful detention complaints, lawsuits and awards are at record levels. While I chose not to work in the field, CJ and constitutional law are interests of mine, and I pay attention to such trends.

With regard to your previous posting vis a vis the use of images by terrorists, they used soap too, should we be checking ID's for soap purchases? How about shoes, gasoline, gum? Where does a reasonable society, founded on constitutional guaranteed rights and freedoms draw the line? I don't have the answer, but I do know that in the last 30 years, I have seen more erosion of those rights to be very, very worried. I understand the job of LEO's is difficult, but the minute that those rights are ignored, we have entered a police state, by it's very definition.


----------



## patrickt (Jun 11, 2010)

Any of you who might even remotely follow the advice on this thread from those who say, "Well, if that happened to me I'd just tell that cop...." should really consider printing out the thread so you can show the arresting officers all of the really impressive legal advice that has been posted. Hey, it never hurts to give the police officers a good laugh.


----------



## epatsellis (Jun 11, 2010)

Patrick, 
No, in fact compliance (with documentation and officers badge numbers, etc.) is the best course of action, the court system is where you are more likely to have the law actually enforced, with proper interpretation. LEO's have a difficult job, and they constantly tread a fine line, but there are many, many who have a "thug with a badge" attitude, those you can never reason with, and it's best to have a juge or magistrate hand them their hat based on law, not hunches or indignance. 

I have already posted an informational piece by a lawyer that specializes in photographer's rights, it never hurts to know where to draw the line.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 11, 2010)

epatsellis said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Reasonable suspicion is on a case by case basis, in this particular case the reasonable suspicion was in all likely hood the two citizens that called in their complaint.  Like I said are you willing to accept the vicarious liability to ignore such a call from citizens a not look into it.
> ...





> Perhaps you misunderstood my intentions, so let me be perfectly clear, I was only asking out of curiosity, as many years ago when I received my FL CJ cert. there were very clear legal rules for reasonable suspicion and they seem to have gone the way of the dodo, with articulable reasoning having given way to and officers inarticlable "hunch", gut feeling or simple dislike for an individual. As a result, unlawful detention complaints, lawsuits and awards are at record levels. While I chose not to work in the field, CJ and constitutional law are interests of mine, and I pay attention to such trends.


I appreciate the curiosity.  Actually, the rules weren't all that clear as we apparently thought they were.  The courts have not nor have the ever stepped away from articulable reasonable suspicion.

Think back to what you were taught about car stops and contacts with the operator and passengers in vehicles and compare it to what Arizona v Johnson has now lined out.  Something that the entire Criminal Justice community long held true was flipped upside down.  

What has given away is common sense in this country.  We are by far the most litigious society on the face of the planet. Do some checking and see how many of those questionable detention lawsuits actually found the officers had conducted an unlawful detention.  The number is extremely low.   



> With regard to your previous posting vis a vis the use of images by terrorists, they used soap too, should we be checking ID's for soap purchases? How about shoes, gasoline, gum? Where does a reasonable society, founded on constitutional guaranteed rights and freedoms draw the line? I don't have the answer, but I do know that in the last 30 years, I have seen more erosion of those rights to be very, very worried. I understand the job of LEO's is difficult, but the minute that those rights are ignored, we have entered a police state, by it's very definition.



I don't have that answer, but it is going to be an issue that society will have to deal with when that first school is blown up killing lots of kids, or that mall or whatever ends up being the eventual successful target.  At what point are you going to demand that individuals give up some or at least hinder their individual rights to better protect the larger group and what are you going to be willing to give up to provide that protection.  Those choices are going to be hard made and much argued, depending on whether it was your kid, wife, husband, mother, father etc or not that the explosion decimated.  

One thing that was repeated over and over during the training  that I just attended was that we must Learn from the past and Act for the Future.


----------



## Garbz (Jun 11, 2010)

May I offer a different perspective?

At what point did we become afraid of terrorism? Terrorism had killed a tiny fraction of airline passengers compared to other accidents. The world trade centre deathtoll was 2995. The 2001 deathtoll due to motor vehicle accidents was 42196.

As a cop (and this question goes out to the general public too) do you consider the disproportionate expenditure on anti-terrorism to be justified in the face of so many other potential problems? 2001 was an extreme year to choose the statistic too. In 2002 43005 people died in car accidents, and 2 people died as a result of terrorism on US soil. 

Speaking from an Australian point of view, if even half of the funding for anti-terrorism here would be re-directed to our massive problem of drink driving or driving under influence of drugs a significantly higher portion of people could be saved for the number of tax dollars and police hours spent. Now admittedly police would need to investigate a call from the public, however all around the world I think it's getting easier to create false reports. How come it is I know the number to the terrorist hotline here in Australia but not the number to crime stoppers (police information hotline)? Why is it that when I went to collect my bag at the carousel at the airport I came back to find 4 armed officers examining my backpack, a backpack that had just been through the security checkpoints of 4 other countries?

Are you afraid of me? Because I am beginning to think I may be a terrorist given all the attention I'm getting. I even have a passport stamp from the UAE (spent the night there in a curtsey hotel waiting for a plane about 6 years ago) which no one in the world gave a damn about except the U.S. Customs guard when I drove down from Vancouver a few years ago.


----------



## usayit (Jun 11, 2010)

Fear == Control

That has been proven over and over again... throughout history.

After Fear, comes DISTRACTION.  General public doesn't raise a stink because they are too busy trying to earn enough $$$ for crap they don't need.   Remember, the best thing we all can do for our country (meaning the US citizen) is go shopping.... don't look at the war over there... look at the new flat panel TV OVER HERE...  (and Ignore Foxconn Technology)


----------



## table1349 (Jun 11, 2010)

Garbz said:


> May I offer a different perspective?
> 
> At what point did we become afraid of terrorism? Terrorism had killed a tiny fraction of airline passengers compared to other accidents. The world trade centre deathtoll was 2995. The 2001 deathtoll due to motor vehicle accidents was 42196.
> 
> ...



We became concerned with terrorism when things like the Sydney Hilton bombing occurred when 3 were killed and 11 injured. The Turkish consulate bombing where fortunately the terrorist screwed up the explosives setup and blew himself up. The 2002 Bali Bombing where 202 people were killed, the largest number being 88 Australians. Another 240 were injured. The Australian Embassy bombing that killed 9 and injuring 150 others.  Apparently your government has seen fit to outlaw 19 organizations that they have designated as terrorist.  

In 2001 there were 37,862 fatality accidents meaning that there were 1.1 person killed per accident.  Which you even call them; accidents.  None of the above listed events in your country were accidents.  Sadly it seems your politicians are no more interested in the problems of DUI than in this country.  

Finland and Sweden automatically sentence drunk drivers to one-year jail  sentences including hard labor. In Norway, a drunk driver is jailed for  three weeks with hard labor and loses their license for a year. If they  do it again, they lose their license forever. In South Africa, drinking  and driving results in a ten-year prison sentence or the equivalent of a  $10,000 fine and, in some cases, both. These are countries that take DUI seriously.  El Salvatore take is too seriously in my opinion as a first time offense can mean the firing squad.  

Your figures on 2002 are incorrect on terrorism attacks in the US.  I can think of 12 killed off the top of my head. The 2 at LAX and 10 by the beltway snipers. 

Also since 911 there have been 204 additional deaths of first responders, and an unknown number of other civilians due to the attack and devastation at the world trade center.  Approximately 40% of the 5000 first responders suffer from illness directly related to the incident.  

1 fatality traffic *accident* takes an average of 1.1 lives.  1 INTENTIONAL act of human destruction takes hundreds or thousands of lives.  

One can be reduced by human beings taking more responsibility for their own actions and put down the phone, the cheese burger, turn down the music, quit watching the little tv or DVD, not drink and drive and pay complete attention to the job at hand, that being the operation of a 2000lb vehicle.  

The other can only be reduced by vigilance in attempting to detect those that wish to cause mass casualties to those that they do not consider human or worth having the right to live.   

Frankly I would absolutely love in 5 years to re-visit this thread and be proven wrong.  Unfortunately, I dread the fact that I won't be proven wrong.  
​


----------



## Garbz (Jun 11, 2010)

True but I fail to see how killing 100 Australians in one go 8 years ago is any worse then killing 1400 individual Australians over a period of one year.

Our government is driving the same fear gravy train as every other nation. I'm not saying terrorism isn't a problem, I'm saying the spending is disproportionate.
It's like the lady who was upset in the news that the government wouldn't pony up the $100000+ needed to do a live test of a horse vaccination for the Hendra virus. A virus which may kill a couple of horses in any given year and has killed 4 people ever. Her daughter got ill from what I remember but lived and that sparked the same fear that we currently have against terrorists who may run into our houses and kill us at any moment. That's if the people with cameras don't get us first.

We are a scared society.


----------



## BrianLy (Jun 12, 2010)

That picture looks awesome, but that sucks about what happen though.


----------



## skieur (Jun 14, 2010)

Garbz said:


> True but I fail to see how killing 100 Australians in one go 8 years ago is any worse then killing 1400 individual Australians over a period of one year.
> 
> Our government is driving the same fear gravy train as every other nation. I'm not saying terrorism isn't a problem, I'm saying the spending is disproportionate.
> It's like the lady who was upset in the news that the government wouldn't pony up the $100000+ needed to do a live test of a horse vaccination for the Hendra virus. A virus which may kill a couple of horses in any given year and has killed 4 people ever. Her daughter got ill from what I remember but lived and that sparked the same fear that we currently have against terrorists who may run into our houses and kill us at any moment. That's if the people with cameras don't get us first.
> ...


 
It is NOT only a matter of a disproportionate amount of money being spent on the illusion of security but if we are willing to give up our freedoms to a police state because of the excuse of greater security, then the terrorists have WON. They have changed our society for the worst. They have negated American rhetoric about freedom since America is becoming no longer free. The US is also pushing for total control and monitoring of the Internet without legal restrictions, just like closed societies such as China, Burma, etc.  They can even seize a computer at their border, with minimum justification.

skieur


----------



## Big (Jun 14, 2010)

Live_free said:


> if he was, again he is breaking the law.


What else is new? 
Haven't you seen a cop turn their lights on and make you get out of their way only to just shut their lights off once they pass you at 90? They do what they want and that's why they are A-holes.


----------



## skieur (Jun 14, 2010)

Big said:


> Live_free said:
> 
> 
> > if he was, again he is breaking the law.
> ...


 
Yes, I remember a provincial police officer describing 140 km per hour in a 100 km per hour zone as slightly accelerated.  I suppose it depends on your point of view. 

skieur


----------



## Eco (Jun 14, 2010)

Big said:


> Live_free said:
> 
> 
> > if he was, again he is breaking the law.
> ...



Sometimes (not always) lights and sirens are activated and then the call is canceled for one reason or another. 

 Are you telling me that if your car had lights and a siren you would not abuse them from time to time?:mrgreen:


----------



## epp_b (Jun 14, 2010)

> Haven't you seen a cop turn their lights on and make you get out of  their way only to just shut their lights off once they pass you at 90?


Yes, I have; through a set of traffic lights, no less.


----------



## ghpham (Jun 14, 2010)

Big said:


> Live_free said:
> 
> 
> > if he was, again he is breaking the law.
> ...


 

Yes...cops are A-holes :er:


----------



## UUilliam (Jun 15, 2010)

That is one reason I am scared to take my camera outside, the fact people may accuse me of being pedo (even though i am only 17 anyway.) or perverted or any other sort of thing that could get you into bother...

It is actually a fear.

the second reason is theft, I am scared of my camera being stolen from me so unless i have someone with me (which I rarely do.) I feel vulnerable.


----------



## manaheim (Jun 15, 2010)

Fear is the mind-killer.  Fear is the little death that...


----------



## skieur (Jun 15, 2010)

UUilliam said:


> That is one reason I am scared to take my camera outside, the fact people may accuse me of being pedo (even though i am only 17 anyway.) or perverted or any other sort of thing that could get you into bother...
> 
> It is actually a fear.
> 
> the second reason is theft, I am scared of my camera being stolen from me so unless i have someone with me (which I rarely do.) I feel vulnerable.


 
Take a well-trained dog with you and no thief will come near. I once had an oversized standard Schnauzer that would give any potential thief a heart attack. The tech I supervised, described her as 55 pounds of dynamite who would head for the throat on command. She was actually quite friendly but rather scarey in appearance and attitude and very obedient to her owner.

skieur


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jun 15, 2010)

skieur said:


> I once had an oversized standard Schnauzer that would give any potential thief a heart attack.



The giants are very trainable and used by police and guards in quite a few countries. One thing most people don't think about is that they are scary because you don't see their eyes. If groomed properly, that is. I had a standard once upon a time who scared a lot of people although he was a ***** cat. I now have 2 giants in training for my property/studio (lots of property crimes here in France) and once they're here, I won't worry at all.

But to add oil to the fire, I find it funny to read about this terrorism that we are supposed to be afraid of when so many of the acts are sponsored by our own governments. False flag operation are NOT the dreams of conspiracy theorists. It usually takes years but eventually the truth comes out and it has about a number of supposed terrorist acts. The latest one is the Achille Lauro case which is now supposed to be attributable to the Mossad from documents that have finally surfaced.

Is it true? I have no idea in this case which I have had no time to look into. But I believe 9/11 will someday be proven to be such a false flag op. Too many problems with the story we are told to believe.

Sometimes, governments get caught red handed as was the case when France blew a Greenpeace boat out of the water killing one of their photographers. And because I'm quite cynical about life, I never forget to mention that it actually helped Greenpeace. Nobody was listening to them until that act of "terrorism" but all of a sudden they were on the map.

In most cases though, it takes years to find out the truth. The Reichstag fire comes to mind. Or the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

For some reason I am much more scared of our governments than a handful of terrorists. And for that reason alone I will support anyone fighting back when the authorities try to rule us by fear. And that includes cops bugging photographers.

Garbz is quite correct in asking why we worry about terrorism deaths more than the much more numerous highway deaths. Terrorism deaths pay off politically. Highway deaths, we have been taught to accept as a fact of life.


----------



## skieur (Jun 21, 2010)

Somewhat cynical but not totally "off-the-wall".  Interesting that the G7 and G20 summit in Canada will cost over 1 billion dollars, when the last one in Europe cost around 20 million.

Does the cost of security indicate the "value" we place on our leaders, or simply their "insecurity" due to the fact that many of us have a negative attitude to all of them?

skieur


----------

