# Legalities of photographers



## foned (May 27, 2008)

I read around a bit, and didn't find anything that fit quite what happened to me. So, not only is this photographers rights, but citizens rights in general.


So, last week, me and some friends headed from california, to denver, CO, we went to the red rocks amphitheater to see a show. While outside, we were drinking, the cops were sorta cool, they werent worried about the drinking so much as they were about the glass bottles (they ended up pouring out a 60 dollar bottle of cognac, off topic though) anyway, during the process of them padding us down for weapons, then taking our ID's to check for legal age, i had my camera around my neck. I figured, this is a perfect opportunity to document some of our trip, get some pictures to go with our lame story of being ticketed by some local cops. (some were undercover cops, this might be important later) so, i figured, why not take some pictures right? I don't grab my camera, i just push the button, take two shots. just before i do that though, I over hear the supervisor telling one of the undercovers "that guy is taking pictures" in a pretty angry tone, i take the pictures anyway, and then stop touching my camera at all. then he walks over, and, pretty pissed i might add, says 'YOU NEED TO STOP TAKING PICTURES, BECAUSE OF YOU EVERYONES GETTING TICKETED NOW.' I try to reason with him, tell him i meant no disrespect, i was just attempting to document a road trip. It seemed to work. Anyway, he successfully made me feel like a peice of **** for getting my friends ticketed. So i was pretty nice, i told him i would delete the pictures, and i was sorry for taking them. He didn't really respond. My friend however, was by one of the deputies, and over heard the supervisor tell him 'if he doesn't delete those pictures, we'll confiscate the camera' at some point he also told me that i was 'interfering with a police investigation' (mind you, i wasn't even being talked to, i was just standing there bored taking pictures, not obvious about it either, just a push of a button) I asked one of the cops if i had a constitutional right to take pictures of them, and of course, cops don't know the constitution so he was no help. 

Anyway, one of the nicer cops asked me to delete the pictures, and i obliged, to avoid further trouble for my friends (had it been just me, we wouldve found out how far i could take it.) 

so... i mean, theres not much else, they were undercover, there was no flash, no real sound, im suprised the guy even noticed. aside from the big camera around my neck being a dead give away. 

my question is basically, am i allowed to take the pictures? are they allowed to confiscate my camera? is it interfering? can you take pictures of undercover cops? do i have to delete them? you get the point. thanks! ;]


----------



## usayit (May 27, 2008)

Just another story of over zealous police.... it sucks...  Assuming you were on public property, they have no right to confiscate or make you delete those photos.   They can (and they know it) make it really inconvenient or uncomfortable for you.  Been there and done that... I feel like Crap afterwards..  Guilt because I played into their game... Anger because I know there is little I can do.  Sometimes, I wish I was a board certified lawyer just to have the satisfaction of fighting them in front of the judge.  Or perhaps a major news organization backing me when/if I get into trouble.


On the streets, it's not a matter of who is wrong or right... it is a matter of how far you are willing to take it.  For the police, its just another day on the job.  For you, its a good way to ruin a day trip.  Most police officers know that a simple threat (no matter how baseless) works in their favor 99% of the time.


----------



## skieur (May 27, 2008)

usayit said:


> Just another story of over zealous police.... it sucks... Assuming you were on public property, they have no right to confiscate or make you delete those photos. They can (and they know it) make it really inconvenient or uncomfortable for you. Been there and done that... I feel like Crap afterwards.. Guilt because I played into their game... Anger because I know there is little I can do. Sometimes, I wish I was a board certified lawyer just to have the satisfaction of fighting them in front of the judge. Or perhaps a major news organization backing me when/if I get into trouble.
> 
> 
> On the streets, it's not a matter of who is wrong or right... it is a matter of how far you are willing to take it. For the police, its just another day on the job. For you, its a good way to ruin a day trip. Most police officers know that a simple threat (no matter how baseless) works in their favor 99% of the time.


 
Public property has absolutely nothing to do with it.  You have the right to take photos almost anywhere with the exception of top secret installations, and police need a warrant to touch your camera or equipment.  Your photos belong to you and you can also not be forced legally to erase them.

skieur


----------



## abraxas (May 27, 2008)

You had the opportunity to stand up for your rights and you didn't. Maybe next time?


----------



## craig (May 27, 2008)

Often we speak of rights and photographers and the police. On one hand our rights are being taken away by being asked to delete photos. Our rights are even more trampled on when shooting "sensitive" subjects in this case a potential crime scene. Point is as photographers we have a responsibility as well. We have to be sensitive and respect the position of the police when being confronted. That means not shooting pictures while being interrogated. That means being respectful of their position. When you are being interrogated you have the right to remain silent and you have the right to a lawyer. That is it and they are not kidding. If I was the cop in question I would smashed your camera into little bits to prove my point. In the future do not disrespect the police while you have a camera in your hand. Your actions make all photographers look bad.

)'(


----------



## Stillsky (May 27, 2008)

craig said:


> Often we speak of rights and photographers and the police. On one hand our rights are being taken away by being asked to delete photos. Our rights are even more trampled on when shooting "sensitive" subjects in this case a potential crime scene. Point is as photographers we have a responsibility as well. We have to be sensitive and respect the position of the police when being confronted. That means not shooting pictures while being interrogated. That means being respectful of their position. When you are being interrogated you have the right to remain silent and you have the right to a lawyer. That is it and they are not kidding. If I was the cop in question I would smashed your camera into little bits to prove my point. In the future do not disrespect the police while you have a camera in your hand. Your actions make all photographers look bad.


 
I think a photographer who surrenders his rights in the face of cop who's using position to be a bully is the photographer that makes all photographers look bad.


----------



## astrostu (May 27, 2008)

If it didn't mean too much to you, just humorous documentation of your trip, then I'd say you probably did the right thing to delete the photos - and by "right" I mean "easy."  If you had time to kill, were local (you said you were driving from CA to CO), and weren't inconveniencing your friends, then by all means I'd say fight it since legally they have no right to stop you or make you delete the photos or confiscate any equipment of your camera equipment.


----------



## GeorgiaOwl (May 27, 2008)

I'd like to hear the cops side of it.


----------



## usayit (May 27, 2008)

skieur said:


> Public property has absolutely nothing to do with it.  You have the right to take photos almost anywhere with the exception of top secret installations, and police need a warrant to touch your camera or equipment.  Your photos belong to you and you can also not be forced legally to erase them.



That's just not true.... 

Photography can be considered not acceptable or not allowed on private property.

but

They can never take your equipment, media, or rolls from you regardless.


----------



## craig (May 27, 2008)

Stillsky said:


> I think a photographer who surrenders his rights in the face of cop who's using position to be a bully is the photographer that makes all photographers look bad.



That concept may work when you are shooting genocide in Darfur, but it does not work when you are being pulled over for suspected public intoxication. As much as I dislike the police and government in general I realize that they are in a tough position. I respect that. Of all the times that I have been harassed I can honestly say that if they asked me to delete a photo or expose my film I would not have been that disappointed. Certainly that is not the point, but think about it. Why give these guys a hard time if you have less then amazing images. Now if you feel that your shots are worth arguing over by all means go for it. Chances are you will end up with egg on your face. Pop was not kidding when he said choose your battles.

)'(


----------



## Stillsky (May 27, 2008)

craig said:


> That concept may work when you are shooting genocide in Darfur, but it does not work when you are being pulled over for suspected public intoxication. As much as I dislike the police and government in general I realize that they are in a tough position. I respect that. Of all the times that I have been harassed I can honestly say that if they asked me to delete a photo or expose my film I would not have been that disappointed. Certainly that is not the point, but think about it. *Why give these guys a hard time if you have less then amazing images.* Now if you feel that your shots are worth arguing over by all means go for it. Chances are you will end up with egg on your face. Pop was not kidding when he said choose your battles.
> 
> )'(


 
Because it's really not about the images at that point.


----------



## craig (May 27, 2008)

Then what's it about? Your so called rights? These poor saps (the police) face death every time they stop or pull someone over. Are you telling me you are going to disrespect that because you as a photographer and or human being have rights? Write to your congressman or got to protests. Do not give cops a hard time when they are trying to do their job.

I should also mention that I am a photographer. It is only about the images.

)'(


----------



## Stillsky (May 27, 2008)

It absolutely is about my rights. Just because they're cops and face death in certain situations doesn't give them the right to bully anyone, especially when they are in the wrong. I'm not disrespectful to them, but I'm not going to roll over and surrender my rights as a citizen out of pity for the job they chose to do.


----------



## passerby (May 27, 2008)

abraxas said:


> You had the opportunity to stand up for your rights and you didn't. Maybe next time?


 
You need lawyer to do that and believe me you not going to like it. I have been few times in there and one case can run for quite sometime. This thingy drags on I tell you. If you don't have money to pay the lawyer just give the camera to them or delete the photos as requested.


----------



## craig (May 27, 2008)

Stillsky said:


> It absolutely is about my rights. Just because they're cops and face death in certain situations doesn't give them the right to bully anyone, especially when they are in the wrong. I'm not disrespectful to them, but I'm not going to roll over and surrender my rights as a citizen out of pity for the job they chose to do.



At this point we are just going around in circles. I understand what you are saying, but I do not agree with it. I am psyched that we have stated our viewpoints. 

Love & Bass


----------



## foned (May 28, 2008)

It had nothing to do with disrespecting the cops, we were all being very respectful. as far as asking for the cops opinion, im not some asshole teenager being a dick to the cops. all of us were incredibly cool. we were drinking before a show because the booze they sell in there is 7 dollars a cup, and i personally, as well as my friends have issues with high priced beer. 

anyway, that is a pretty bull**** argument, first off, they chose their profession, they are to uphold the law, to say that they face death every time they get out of their car is a bit excessive, especially for colorado. regardless, they chose the job, they should do it professionally. I was simply asking the legality, not your opinion. but since you decide to give away your rights, i will choose to excersize mine to the fullest. the cop was a dick. most of them were cool, but he was simply being a bully, because he knew he could. he faced no danger in that situation what so ever. if your not going to defend the liberties our founding fathers were so adament about protecting, then i will step up and do it (when my friends wont be the ones paying the price.) 

to say i was being 'interrogated' would be a bit of a stretch. as i clearly pointed out had you chose to pay attention to the entire post, i was standing there bored. waiting for my ID back. I wasn't even one of the people that was ticketed. As far as they knew i wasnt drinking. I was honest and told them i had, and gladly handed over my ID and let them pat me down. I even asked one of the cops later if i could get his picture, to which he declined, and i said 'its cool'. 

Not to mention, to bring up the quality of the pictures, i find that to be irrelevant. to me they were cool, and thats all that mattered. they wouldve gone nice with the rest of the road trip pictures. 

Had i been the only one that couldve been in trouble, the pictures would still exist.


----------



## foned (May 28, 2008)

not to mention, we were in a public park, at red rock, where photos are, for the most part encouraged i would assume, so as far as private property, i dont think that would come into the legality at all. They allow drinking in the park, they allow it in the amphitheater, it has to be under 3.2% though, and apparently (not mentioned in the flyers, or website) not in glass. which is why we were ticketed, not for 'suspected public intoxication'.


----------



## Senor Hound (May 28, 2008)

Dude, This has "Patriot Act" written all over it...

I know I'll get flamed for this, but I don't think its okay law-wise to photograph undercover police officers.  I'm pretty sure they can see that as an obstruction of justice since they could say you were trying to blow their cover or something.

I know its now illegal to take photos of certain structures like certain Dams and Bridges and buildings. Its not very strongly enforced, but for example, I work about 2 miles away from a huge reservoir dam, and if the park rangers see you taking too many photos of it, they'll tell you to stop (and they can).

Anyway, I'm not saying its right, but I think they might have had the right.


----------



## skieur (May 28, 2008)

usayit said:


> That's just not true....
> 
> Photography can be considered not acceptable or not allowed on private property.
> 
> ...


 
Photography may be "not allowed" by the owner of private property, but that in NO WAY makes it illegal.

skieur


----------



## skieur (May 28, 2008)

Senor Hound said:


> Dude, This has "Patriot Act" written all over it...
> 
> I know I'll get flamed for this, but I don't think its okay law-wise to photograph undercover police officers. I'm pretty sure they can see that as an obstruction of justice since they could say you were trying to blow their cover or something.
> 
> ...


 
IT IS LEGAL TO TAKE PHOTOS ANYWHERE with the possible exception of secret military installations, courts, or areas such as washrooms, change rooms, etc.

skieur


----------



## usayit (May 28, 2008)

skieur said:


> Photography may be "not allowed" by the owner of private property, but that in NO WAY makes it illegal.
> 
> skieur



skieur... where did I ever post it was illegal?


----------



## skieur (May 28, 2008)

"Assuming you were on public property, they have no right to confiscate or make you delete those photos. " *from USAYIT*

To put it differently, whether you are on public property or not, they have NO right to confiscate or make you delete those photos....so as I said public property has nothing to do with it.

A warrant or an arrest would be necessary to even take your camera equipment into custody and that could only be done if taking photos was illegal.

Are you following the logic?

skieur


----------



## usayit (May 28, 2008)

skieur said:


> Are you following the logic?



Sorry I'm not... simply put, I didn't say it was illegal. 


...

I am a bit disappointed those that found the OP not standing up for his rights is something to hold against him/her.   We don't know the details of the situation... the only person(s) that can really make that decision are those directly involved.  If they did not feel comfortable standing up to the police officer, then let it be.....  Taking an isolated incident, making it unpleasant for the police officer, and unpleasant for you is not the way to have laws changed.  If anything the sympathy is with the officer trying to keep peace (as someone already mentioned in their post).  You can file a complaint with the department which is the proper and smart course of action.  (I urge that you do regardless).  If the OP still feels like more should be done, start writing letters.... 

Often the smartest thing to do is to explain your rights to the officer and walk away (assuming you have not been placed under arrest)... don't push it.

Have any of you actually went through the whole process to the end?   I have.. it was not pleasant... (I was young and stupid too)  I won't do it again unless you guys are willing to fly down, protest on my behalf, and put up $$$'s for a good defense.  You guys forget... Police don't care about wrong or right while on the street.   They simply charge you with the "catch-all" called Disorderly Conduct or whatever they can conjure up.  Either way, they have no problems wasting your time at the police station.


Assuming local laws don't have anything against public swearing or cursing, you are well within your right to curse out a police officer.  I dare anyone of you to try it....


----------



## Senor Hound (May 28, 2008)

skieur said:


> IT IS LEGAL TO TAKE PHOTOS ANYWHERE with the possible exception of secret military installations, courts, or areas such as washrooms, change rooms, etc.
> 
> skieur



I have a problem with this.  As I said before, I live near a gigantic concrete dam (its called Bull Shoals Dam if you want to look it up), and they don't allow photography of it.  They know tourists take photos from afar, and they're okay with that, but if you get too close, they won't allow you to take photos, and if you take an inside tour, you're not allowed to have ANYTHING in your possession other than an ID, or else it will be taken away.

And it may be legal to take photos anywhere, but maybe not necessarily of anything.  I still think they could try and nail you with obstruction of justice if you tried to fight them.  Since the Patriot Act, they can do a lot of stuff they shouldn't be able to (and the courts let them get away with it).

I'm not saying I'm a fan of this sort of restrictions (I'm actually quite opposed), but I seriously think there may be more to this being an undercover operation.

EDITED TO ADD:  Check out this link.  It seems that whether its legal or not, you're gonna be in for a battle.  And none of the stories I could find entailed what they could have said was blowing an undercover agent's cover.

http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html


----------



## astrostu (May 29, 2008)

skieur said:


> IT IS LEGAL TO TAKE PHOTOS ANYWHERE with the possible exception of secret military installations, courts, or areas such as washrooms, change rooms, etc.
> 
> skieur



Yeah, I agree with Senor Hound ... I think you're wrong on this (based upon what I've read on the myriad of other similar posts on this topic).  It is legal to take photos anywhere that's public property or publicly viewable.  But any government or private property owner can take away that right.  Go into pretty much any US government installation and you cannot take photos.  In fact, you aren't even allowed to have camera phones (one reason I don't have a camera phone).  Go into a store and the manager/owner does have the right to tell you you cannot take photos on their property.  They can't confiscate your equipment nor make you delete the photos, but they can ban you from taking photos and they can ban you from the premises.

Granted, this has nothing to do with the original post, really, but I think it bears mentioning.




Senor Hound said:


> Check out this link.  It seems that whether its legal or not, you're gonna be in for a battle.  And none of the stories I could find entailed what they could have said was blowing an undercover agent's cover.
> 
> http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html



Ya know, I hate to say it, but I almost hope this happens to me at some point.  I'd love to sue the police for 1st and 4th Amendment violations in a case such as this.


----------



## tirediron (May 29, 2008)

skieur said:


> IT IS LEGAL TO TAKE PHOTOS ANYWHERE with the possible exception of secret military installations, courts, or areas such as washrooms, change rooms, etc.
> 
> skieur


 
I too have issues with this.  Granted Canadian law isn't identical to US law, but it is fairly close, and I suspect that many of the same things apply.  There are a hole list of things of which you can not take photographs.  As has been mentioned, a store owner or property has the right to deny you access and or prevent ('though not physically) from taking pictures.  Photographs of copyrighted work, original art, etc can be violations (ergo, not allowed)  photographs where an individual (and this may be where the OPs police had an issue) is obviously the main subject of the photograph may be illegal depending on the news-worthniess of the situation.  The US Patriot act also brings up another list, including, if I'm not mistaken most federal buildings.  

My opinion is that with respect to the original post, both sides acted inappropriately.  The OP (IMO) chose a less than opportune time and subject to photograph, and the police for their (I suspect uneforceable) strong-arm tactics.

Did the OP do the right thing?  I suspect he did the prudent thing.  Why cause more irritation in an already unpleasant situation simply for "your rights".  As far as rights go, if you think you're hard done by, try visiting some other parts of the world!


----------



## Crosby (May 29, 2008)

craig said:


> Often we speak of rights and photographers and the police. On one hand our rights are being taken away by being asked to delete photos. Our rights are even more trampled on when shooting "sensitive" subjects in this case a potential crime scene. Point is as photographers we have a responsibility as well. We have to be sensitive and respect the position of the police when being confronted. That means not shooting pictures while being interrogated. That means being respectful of their position. *When you are being interrogated you have the right to remain silent and you have the right to a lawyer.* *That is it and they are not kidding.* If I was the cop in question *I would smashed your camera into little bits to prove my point*. In the future do not disrespect the police while you have a camera in your hand. Your actions make all photographers look bad.
> 
> )'(


 
I haven't read the whole thread yet, couldn't get past this one...

I am always respectful to police officers. 
I appreciate cops for what they do even when they can be major pains.

Sure, cops that I know are regular people and if they can bully you into doing what they want, they will... they are trained to do that, kind of like a drill instructor at boot camp. 

But, they cannot smash your camera, they cannot make you delete files from your camera! They can give you a ticket when normally they wouldn't. 

You could fire that camera away and say it is for the judge to see when you go to court, you have the right to build a case. Police cars have cameras in them, why can't you? Cops don't want you to take pictures because the law is bent on law books, and if a picture shows something that even suggests they did something wrong, you could get off the hook and they could get in trouble.

I like cops, they are regular people that deal with bad people (usually). They do not have to be disrespectful to the citizens, sure, if you are being violent or threatening, then no holds barred... but traffic and minor mistomeanors(sp?), they should be as respectful as they want me to be respectful to them, and I don't mind telling them that.

Bottom line: I'd have done the same in that situation, yeah it sucks. I'm sure, hindsight being 20/20, you could have done some other things like, go to the chief the next day or call a lawyer, or be thrown in jail, but we all have battles to fight and which one says alot...


----------



## craig (May 29, 2008)

Read the whole thread it is a doosy. I think it is cute that everyone has battles to fight. Go for it if you like. I am just stating my opinion.

Love & Bass


----------



## Senor Hound (May 29, 2008)

craig said:


> Read the whole thread it is a doosy. I think it is cute that everyone has battles to fight. Go for it if you like. I am just stating my opinion.
> 
> Love & Bass



Out of curiosity, how would you handle this situation?  And some may find it patronizing to refer to their battles as, "cute."  But I have a feeling you know that.


----------



## skieur (May 29, 2008)

Senor Hound said:


> I have a problem with this. As I said before, I live near a gigantic concrete dam (its called Bull Shoals Dam if you want to look it up), and they don't allow photography of it. They know tourists take photos from afar, and they're okay with that, but if you get too close, they won't allow you to take photos, and if you take an inside tour, you're not allowed to have ANYTHING in your possession other than an ID, or else it will be taken away.
> 
> And it may be legal to take photos anywhere, but maybe not necessarily of anything. I still think they could try and nail you with obstruction of justice if you tried to fight them. Since the Patriot Act, they can do a lot of stuff they shouldn't be able to (and the courts let them get away with it).
> 
> ...


 
American Constitution ..photography is covered under freedom of expression. Journalistic rights cover photography as well. Dams and other structures cannot be copyrighted under the Millenium Act, unless they are habitable and even then there is a photographic exemption in the law. There is absolutely nothing in the Patriot Act or any security legislation that forbids photography of infrastructure such as dams, bridges, trains, water related buildings etc. either. YOU CAN LEGALLY TAKE A PHOTO OF ALMOST ANYTHING with as I said before exemptions such as top secret military installations or documents.

As to security procedures, they are not legal. Taking anything away from someone without a warrant is simply AGAINST THE LAW.

You guys should actually READ the laws.

skieur


----------



## skieur (May 29, 2008)

tirediron said:


> I too have issues with this. Granted Canadian law isn't identical to US law, but it is fairly close, and I suspect that many of the same things apply. There are a hole list of things of which you can not take photographs. As has been mentioned, a store owner or property has the right to deny you access and or prevent ('though not physically) from taking pictures. Photographs of copyrighted work, original art, etc can be violations (ergo, not allowed) photographs where an individual (and this may be where the OPs police had an issue) is obviously the main subject of the photograph may be illegal depending on the news-worthniess of the situation. The US Patriot act also brings up another list, including, if I'm not mistaken most federal buildings.
> 
> My opinion is that with respect to the original post, both sides acted inappropriately. The OP (IMO) chose a less than opportune time and subject to photograph, and the police for their (I suspect uneforceable) strong-arm tactics.
> 
> Did the OP do the right thing? I suspect he did the prudent thing. Why cause more irritation in an already unpleasant situation simply for "your rights". As far as rights go, if you think you're hard done by, try visiting some other parts of the world!


 
You are wrong in most things here as well, including Copyright Law Canadian and American, The Patriot Act, and other related legislation.
READ THE LAWS.

skieur


----------



## Village Idiot (May 29, 2008)

skieur said:


> American Constitution ..photography is covered under freedom of expression. Journalistic rights cover photography as well. Dams and other structures cannot be copyrighted under the Millenium Act, unless they are habitable and even then there is a photographic exemption in the law. There is absolutely nothing in the Patriot Act or any security legislation that forbids photography of infrastructure such as dams, bridges, trains, water related buildings etc. either. YOU CAN LEGALLY TAKE A PHOTO OF ALMOST ANYTHING with as I said before exemptions such as top secret military installations or documents.
> 
> As to security procedures, they are not legal. Taking anything away from someone without a warrant is simply AGAINST THE LAW.
> 
> ...


 
You're absolutely right. It's legal to photograph almost everything, regardless of whether it's public or private property. It is however illegal to continue photographing things when you're on private property after the owner or an appointed person asks you to stop. This is why if the mall security guard asks you to stop taking pictures in the mall because it's against their policy and you keep taking pictures, you can be asked to leave and then arrested for trespassing if you decide to continue disobeying the request of the security guard.

No one is allowed to confiscated camera and/or film in the USA without a warrant. That is indeed true. If a cop arrests you because you didn't delete a picture you took of him or didn't hand over your camera when asked, he's violating your rights and is doing something illegal. If a cop decides to arrest you because you took a picture of him based on the fact you're intoxicated and in public, then that's illegal. He's not touch your camera and not requesting that you delete the images, he's arresting you because you're drunk and breaking a law that says you can't be drunk in public.

Ed. And another one for you, it's legal to photograph private property as long as you're on public property. There was an issue where one guy was asked to stop photographing the exterior of some pro sports team's stadium because the security said the likeness was copyrighted. He stopped.

Those were some smart security guards. They knew what to say to coerce this guy into thinking he was doing something illegal when he wasn't.

What should be illegal is that when cops lie to you about your rights and the laws when they're harrassing you about being arrested. Not all cops are bad, but some are. Trust me, I know at least one.


----------



## usayit (May 29, 2008)

Skieur, You can quote legals all you want.. but what happens on the street is totally different from what happens in a court room.  *Right and wrong is not determined by the police officer.*  Folks... pick and choose your battles.  If it is important enough such as an officer damaging equipment (or god forbid laying a hand on you), then FIGHT it.  If all you were doing was taking a few shots of a crime scene or some commotion, simply state your intentions and walk away.  Major news and media organizations with their staff of legal attorneys as well as the public eye have a lot more clout than us amateurs.  As I said, I'll go through that experience again if ALL of you fly in, protest, and hire me a legal time to fight for my right.  

It is not illegal to be a rude person but being rude to an officer will be a waste of time.  They will take you in for disorderly conduct.  It is not illegal to deny a request to search your belongings.  The officer will just end up keeping you there (or at the station) until a judge can be reached.  The list goes on and on.....  The idea is just to inconvenience you with an unpleasant experience.  There are a lot of "rights" (privileges) bestowed on citizens that are worked around or trampled on each and every day; The right to free speech is trampled on enough to be a worn welcome rug on my front door step.


From the point of view of the officer, he's probably worried about someone causing some real bodily harm to himself and/or his partners.  After being in the thick of crap day in and day out, you are going to give him trouble regarding a freakin picture?  As much as I hate (I distrust cops like high school bullies), I can (kinda) understand that they are humans too.  Their gut reaction just might be inappropriate/illegal.  


Seriously Skieur, I challenge you to come to NYC, call a cop a filthy pig, and keep swearing at him/her.  I'll enjoy watching you get hauled away while you quote the American Constitution.


On another note,, I just spent yesterday (as prior) taking pictures of NYC.  Most NYC cops are pretty cool about taking photos.... they are used to it.  I even took one of a cop at times square (walked right up to him) and he broke his stern look just for a second to reward me with a smile.  hehehe


----------



## skieur (May 29, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> Ed. And another one for you, it's legal to photograph private property as long as you're on public property. There was an issue where one guy was asked to stop photographing the exterior of some pro sports team's stadium because the security said the likeness was copyrighted. He stopped..


 
Related to photographing private property from private property.  It is NOT illegal.  You must leave, private property if asked to, and if you don't you are trespassing but taking photos is not illegal and the photos are still your property.

Further the likeness of anything CANNOT be copyrighted.  In the law, you can only copyright something that is in a "substantial form" as in concrete and specific.  Stadiums are not copyrightable either by the way and building copyrights are subject to a photographic exemption that is present in the law.

skieur


----------



## JerryPH (May 29, 2008)

I see both sides.  I see someone taking pics while a police action was being performed and some rights were trampled on.  I see police telling young men in a public place (side of the road?) drinking a lot of booze where they could have made better choices.

I think that I tend to side with the cops more this time than our young gentlemen.  If you need to be drinking, don't be doing it in places that put you in the situation of having the police need to tell you to empty the bottles on the ground.

If you were not taking pics of police in action against your situation, then you would have had a firmer legal ground to stand on and could push.  As it was, it was shakey as heck and they were well within their rights to not only ticket you, but pull you in for breatherlizer tests, the rubber glove and any and all kinds of nice things that would not look attractive on your records or feel good to your body.

Also, since that Rodney King story (and many others like it), the police are just so paranoid.  In many cases, they SHOULD be paranoid... in other cases, it hampers their safety and livelyhood.

The police, right or wrong, are the good guys.  Let's not make their job any harder.


Life did not change since you lost a few pics.  I call no big deal.  Live, learn and move on.


----------



## skieur (May 29, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> I see both sides. I see someone taking pics while a police action was being performed and some rights were trampled on. I see police telling young men in a public place (side of the road?) drinking a lot of booze where they could have made better choices.
> 
> I think that I tend to side with the cops more this time than our young gentlemen. If you need to be drinking, don't be doing it in places that put you in the situation of having the police need to tell you to empty the bottles on the ground.
> 
> ...


 
As the saying goes, it is a slippery slope when you start giving up your rights out of convenience or intimidation.

USE THEM OR LOSE THEM.

skieur


----------



## Village Idiot (May 29, 2008)

skieur said:


> Related to photographing private property from private property. It is NOT illegal. You must leave, private property if asked to, and if you don't you are trespassing but taking photos is not illegal and the photos are still your property.
> 
> Further the likeness of anything CANNOT be copyrighted. In the law, you can only copyright something that is in a "substantial form" as in concrete and specific. Stadiums are not copyrightable either by the way and building copyrights are subject to a photographic exemption that is present in the law.
> 
> skieur


 
Hey, thanks for paraphrasing my post.


----------



## notelliot (May 29, 2008)

there is only one question i will ask a curious police officer. that is: "am i under arrest, or being detained?" the answer is always no, which brings the next move into play - simply walk away. 

i don't understand why people are so afraid of cops. maybe cause i'm canadian. but they're just people too, and they just as nervous (usually) as you are. if they threaten me, i threaten back (with well chosen words). 

and finally, i feel like this rights thing is getting out of hand. it's almost as if people hunt for a suspicious act to commit, and complain about being questioned for it. people are just itching to fight for their rights. your rights aren't taken, you give them away.

/rant


----------



## skieur (May 29, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> Hey, thanks for paraphrasing my post.


 
Hey, I actually did NO such thing.  Read your own post more carefully.

skieur


----------



## Village Idiot (May 29, 2008)

skieur said:


> Hey, I actually did NO such thing. Read your own post more carefully.
> 
> skieur


 
It seems you're more about arguing than anything else.



skieur said:


> Related to photographing private property from private property. It is NOT illegal. You must leave, private property if asked to, and if you don't you are trespassing but taking photos is not illegal and the photos are still your property.


 


Village Idiot said:


> You're absolutely right. It's legal to photograph almost everything, regardless of whether it's public or private property. It is however illegal to continue photographing things when you're on private property after the owner or an appointed person asks you to stop. This is why if the mall security guard asks you to stop taking pictures in the mall because it's against their policy and you keep taking pictures, you can be asked to leave and then arrested for trespassing if you decide to continue disobeying the request of the security guard.


 
It is illegal to keep taking photos after you're asked not to and asked to leave, because at that point, you're trespassing which is illegal. I never said it was illegal to photograph private property from private property.



skieur said:


> Further the likeness of anything CANNOT be copyrighted. In the law, you can only copyright something that is in a "substantial form" as in concrete and specific. Stadiums are not copyrightable either by the way and building copyrights are subject to a photographic exemption that is present in the law.
> 
> skieur


 


Village Idiot said:


> Ed. And another one for you, it's legal to photograph private property as long as you're on public property. There was an issue where one guy was asked to stop photographing the exterior of some pro sports team's stadium because the security said the likeness was copyrighted. He stopped.
> 
> Those were some smart security guards. They knew what to say to coerce this guy into thinking he was doing something illegal when he wasn't.


 
If you would bother to read the above, I never said that what the photographer was doing was illegal and that the building was copyrighted, I posted that the security guards told him that, and 



Village Idiot said:


> They knew what to say to coerce this guy into thinking he was doing something illegal when he wasn't.


----------



## Mystwalker (May 29, 2008)

usayit said:


> Have any of you actually went through the whole process to the end? I have.. it was not pleasant... (I was young and stupid too) I won't do it again unless you guys are willing to fly down, protest on my behalf, and put up $$$'s for a good defense. You guys forget... Police don't care about wrong or right while on the street. They simply charge you with the "catch-all" called Disorderly Conduct or whatever they can conjure up. Either way, they have no problems wasting your time at the police station.


 
BINGO!!

OP did the right thing.  No reason to sit in jail while on vacation.

Even if this were a local issue - take down officer's badge number and file a complaint with the department.  Follow up after couple weeks for result.

Unless you enjoy cooling your heels in jail, confronting an officer is not the smartest thing, regardless of your rights (or lack of rights).  Take up the fight with his boss and bosses up the chain - I'm sure there are plenty of "Amendment watchdogs" willing to help you.

Do not know if you took picture of undercover cop - if you did, that was irresponsible.  He wasn't very good if you can tell he was undercover.


----------



## skieur (May 29, 2008)

And another one for you, it's legal to photograph private property as long as you're on public property. *from Village Idiot*.

Here is where we part company and I was not paraphrasing you.  Quite the contrary. You don't need to be on public property.

skieur


----------



## abraxas (May 29, 2008)

passerby said:


> You need lawyer to do that and believe me you not going to like it. I have been few times in there and one case can run for quite sometime. This thingy drags on I tell you. If you don't have money to pay the lawyer just give the camera to them or delete the photos as requested.



I'm aware of that and have been through several similar situations. I've learned not to **** around in the first place.  Still, the OP had an opportunity to stand up for thier rights and didn't. The op was pwned.


----------



## husky_mom (May 29, 2008)

I´ll admit not readign the whole thread but here´s one thing happend to me...

this was when I was around 8 yrs old.. so I had a very very old film 35mm.... and as usual I always had been taking pic of horses, ducks, dogs, etc, any animal that went in front of me.... sooo we were going on vacation and I had been shooting some flamingos and peacocks at the hotel... nothing serious just goofing around... and while going back home I had the "bright" idea to shoot a cop (with the camera ) and let´s say I opened pandora´s box... LOL...

it was quite a spectacle... he was screaming to me (8 yrs old) to give the camera... my dad interfered and told him to chill out I was just a kid, sure I might have done wrong but I was a kid... and then he threatened my dad by putting him in jail if he didn´t cooperate....

so we finally managed to get the camera back but he kept the film...

so i learned my lesson... NEVER ever take a pic of a cop....LOL...besides my _other_ animals were more pretty


----------



## Village Idiot (May 29, 2008)

skieur said:


> And another one for you, it's legal to photograph private property as long as you're on public property. *from Village Idiot*.
> 
> Here is where we part company and I was not paraphrasing you. Quite the contrary. You don't need to be on public property.
> 
> skieur


 
No, but I didn't say it was illegal to photograph private property from private property. I just mentioned it was legal to shoot private property from public property, which many security guards try and tell people is not legal.

Don't be an asshat.


----------



## JerryPH (May 29, 2008)

VI and Skeiur... one in Canada, one in the USA.

How can both of you argue law and not cede the point that possibly one or both are wrong as easily aas it is possible that you are both right... lol

You are not even in the same countries, and the chances that the laws in both are identical is slim.

Shake hands, and agree to disagree.
(I was going to say kiss and make up, but that kinda freaked me out...LOL!)


----------



## Village Idiot (May 29, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> VI and Skeiur... one in Canada, one in the USA.
> 
> How can both of you argue law and not cede the point that possibly one or both are wrong as easily aas it is possible that you are both right... lol
> 
> ...


 
But I'm essentially agreeing with what he has to say and he's arguing that I'm wrong for agreeing with him. I think some one's arguing just for the sake of it.

Hey Skeiur, the sky's blue.


----------



## skieur (May 29, 2008)

When, things get silly, it is time to drop it.

skieur


----------



## dpolston (May 29, 2008)

I just thought I'd pop in by asking too (like another poster) what the cops side of the story was. But... that's something else.

I take shots of police all the time and frankly I have never ever had a problem. Some of them have asked not to be photographer and I simply say "Okay." and move on. Although, I will honor the police more than I probably would a rent-a-cop but that's simply based on the situation and franlky the attitude of the "security guard".

But (the real reason for the words I type here), could anyone recommend a book or web address where the legal issues are addressed and explained with something other than hearsay? This thread is pumping out a lot of contradictory facts. I think it would be helpful to "the class" if someone has a book or link.

David


----------



## dpolston (May 29, 2008)

I thought I'd throw a couple out there Here's one and now another.


----------



## Village Idiot (May 29, 2008)

I can look it up. There's a lawyer that specializes in photography issues. She has a website and a book.


----------



## table1349 (May 29, 2008)

I was going to stay out of this one, but it seems to have taken a left turn at *Albuquerque.  *Let me try and make a little sense of this from a law enforcement perspective.  At least from the way your description makes it sound.



> foned;1255259]I read around a bit, and didn't find anything that fit quite what happened to me. So, not only is this photographers rights, but citizens rights in general.
> 
> 
> So, last week, me and some friends headed from california, to denver, CO, we went to the red rocks amphitheater to see a show. While outside, we were drinking, the cops were sorta cool, they werent worried about the drinking so much as they were about the glass bottles (they ended up pouring out a 60 dollar bottle of cognac, off topic though) anyway, during the process of them padding us down for weapons, then taking our ID's to check for legal age, i had my camera around my neck.


Consumption of alcohol in public.   Detained for that violation.  A misdemeanor, the officer has the discretion to charge or not.  The important thing here is the fact that you were *detained*.  You were not free to leave, you were in custody.  You didn't have the right to step away for ice cream, make a phone call, shoot pool or anything else that the officers did not permit.  You were the subjects of a criminal investigation at that point in time.  



> I figured, this is a perfect opportunity to document some of our trip, get some pictures to go with our lame story of being ticketed by some local cops. (some were undercover cops, this might be important later) so, i figured, why not take some pictures right? I don't grab my camera, i just push the button, take two shots. just before i do that though, I over hear the supervisor telling one of the undercovers "that guy is taking pictures" in a pretty angry tone, i take the pictures anyway, and then stop touching my camera at all. then he walks over, and, pretty pissed i might add, says 'YOU NEED TO STOP TAKING PICTURES, BECAUSE OF YOU EVERYONES GETTING TICKETED NOW.' I try to reason with him, tell him i meant no disrespect, i was just attempting to document a road trip. It seemed to work. Anyway, he successfully made me feel like a peice of **** for getting my friends ticketed.


When ever you are *detained* by law enforcement there are some basic things that you need to understand and do.  

1. Answer their questions about your identity and provide ID if you have it.  This can be a very important one.  If you can not positively identify yourself to the officers in a detention situation you can be booked into jail if they decide to charge you.  John Doe warrants are a thing of the 1800's not now.  This included a simple traffic violation. If we the officers are not satisfied knowing your true identity, they have that right.  

2.  If they are detaining you, *and* you are a suspect of some form of illegal activity they must read you Miranda to question you about the suspected illegal activities.  You may choose to answer or not answer these questions.  It is your right.  The officers *DO NOT* have to read you Miranda if they arrest you.  Only if they are questioning you as a suspect and you are not free to leave.  The fine line in this is when did you become a suspect in the officers mind? Lots of suppression hearings revolve around this very issue.  

3.  Stand there or sit there, or on those occasions where you have already acted the fool, lay there quietly and talk to the officers as you see fit (refer to #1 & 2 above) until they have finished their investigation.  You would be wise to not make comments about their race, gender, job, intelligence, mother, father or other despariging remarks.  Especially when alcohol is involved.  It usually just goes to prove their point in court.  (On a side note, If by chance you are laying there the issue of going to jail has probably already been decided.)

4.  If the officers tell you that you are free to leave, do the smart thing and leave.  Now is your chance.  The words "_free to leave_" mean that you are no longer *detained, ie. in custody*.   

Far too often I have dealt with someone that took that as their opportunity to again act the fool and they find themselves no longer free to leave.  Especially if you are standing there waiving your arms and telling me loudly how I should be fighting real crime and the bag of crack cocaine in your pants pocket falls to the ground.  OOP's Game On Again. Yes it really happened and I loved that guy, it was one of the best trials I have had in a long time.  The jury wanted to convict him not just for possession of cocaine but for one count of Aggravated Stupidity.



> So i was pretty nice, i told him i would delete the pictures, and i was sorry for taking them. He didn't really respond. My friend however, was by one of the deputies, and over heard the supervisor tell him 'if he doesn't delete those pictures, we'll confiscate the camera' at some point he also told me that i was 'interfering with a police investigation' (mind you, i wasn't even being talked to, i was just standing there bored taking pictures, not obvious about it either, just a push of a button) I asked one of the cops if i had a constitutional right to take pictures of them, and of course, cops don't know the constitution so he was no help.


This one gets sticky because neither you nor I can say what exactly was going on. Not just in regards to the situation that you and your friends were in, but the total situation.  You may well have been interfering with a police investigation.  Not one you and your friends, but something else that you unknowingly stumbled into.  My belief is that you do not know if there was more to this or not and without being there neither do I. If there was another investigation going on would that give them the right to confiscate your camera.  YES if the circumstances were right. It might contain evidence.  Would it give them the right to delete your photos. NO.  Would they have to eventually return your camera and photos to you. YES.  Could they look at the photos on your camera, YES With a Search Warrant.   Besides, it's not our job to explain your constitutional rights to you, unless the courts have said we must, such as Miranda. 



> Anyway, one of the nicer cops asked me to delete the pictures, and i obliged, to avoid further trouble for my friends (had it been just me, we wouldve found out how far i could take it.)


As they always say, it never hurts to ask. 



> so... i mean, theres not much else, they were undercover, there was no flash, no real sound, im suprised the guy even noticed. aside from the big camera around my neck being a dead give away.


You would be surprised how much most cops do notice.  That's what we are trained to do.   That is why most people don't even remember in court what day it was they got stopped and given that speeding ticket and the cop can tell you not only the day of the week, the weather conditions at the time, the light level, road conditions, year, make, model of your vehicle, etc.  



> my question is basically, am i allowed to take the pictures? are they allowed to confiscate my camera? is it interfering? can you take pictures of undercover cops? do i have to delete them? you get the point. thanks!


All of these questions are situational.  Maybe this gives you a better idea of the situation at the time from the other side of the fence.


----------



## Senor Hound (May 29, 2008)

So if a police officer confiscated a camera because he had reason to believe it had evidence on it, would he need a warrant to take it?  If not, what's the difference between taking the camera and looking at the photos on it?  Probable cause always confuses me.

Lastly if a police officer can only take your camera if it is considered evidence, would it be an obstruction of justice if he were to delete a photo off of it?

BTW, I think it should be part of your duty as a police officer to protect us and serve us by letting us know our rights, whether you have to or not.  Not to be rude, but there is a very negative attitude towards police officers, and a lot of it stems for the feeling they AREN'T on our side, even when we are abiding by the law.  I know lawyers are the only ones allowed to give advice, but if a police officer were to let us know certain things when we get pulled over or whatever, maybe we wouldn't look at them so negatively.


----------



## Crosby (May 30, 2008)

dpolston said:


> I thought I'd throw a couple out there Here's one and now another.


 
Good post... finally!


----------



## Crosby (May 30, 2008)

Senor Hound said:


> So if a police officer confiscated a camera because he had reason to believe it had evidence on it, would he need a warrant to take it? If not, what's the difference between taking the camera and looking at the photos on it? Probable cause always confuses me.
> 
> *Yes, he would need a warrant to take it from you if he didn't arrest you for some crime...*
> 
> ...


 
*Problem is, they aren't lawyers either, they are regular people... they don't always know the laws, since law is sometimes subjective, hence, arguing a case in court.*


----------



## abraxas (May 30, 2008)

gryphonslair99 said:


> I was going to stay out of this one, but it seems to ...
> 
> ... from the other side of the fence.





Very cool post. Thanks!

I retract my earlier response with the exception of don't **** with the cops in the first place.


----------



## Village Idiot (May 30, 2008)

Crosby said:


> *Problem is, they aren't lawyers either, they are regular people... they don't always know the laws, since law is sometimes subjective, hence, arguing a case in court.*


 
But it's their job to know the laws. They can't just go making them up. If a cop thinks that if you're talking on the phone in your car, he can arrest you, even when it's not illegal, it's the same as him confiscating your camera without a warrant. They could start arresting people for having their shoes on the wrong feet. It'll get sorted out in court.

And I don't know if it's a state by state thing or a national thing, but you're not required to show ID. If an officer asks you for your information, you have to give it to him, but you're not required to hand him ID. A guy got arrested in Ohio for refusing to give a cop his License (he wasn't driving), even though he told him his name and the rest of his info. The judge ruled that he was unlawfully arrested by the cop and that you're not required to show ID.


----------



## Stillsky (May 30, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> But it's their job to know the laws. They can't just go making them up.



I can't begin to count how many times I've been stopped and ticketed by cops on my bike for riding it in the street as opposed to the sidewalk.


----------



## table1349 (May 30, 2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Senor Hound* 

 
_So if a police officer confiscated a camera because he had reason to believe it had evidence on it, would he need a warrant to take it? If not, what's the difference between taking the camera and looking at the photos on it? Probable cause always confuses me._

_*Yes, he would need a warrant to take it from you if he didn't arrest you for some crime...* _

_*Actually in this situation, no a warrant is not needed. This falls under one of the exceptions to the 4th ammendment, that being the Plain View Doctrine. The camera and it's use was in plain view of the officers. That use could provide the probable cause to believe that it is evidence. It is subject to seizure Without a warrant as this was a location open to the public. *_

_Lastly if a police officer can only take your camera if it is considered evidence, would it be an obstruction of justice if he were to delete a photo off of it?_

_*Yes, the pictures are yours and if the pictures are evidence, then they could be helpful evidence to you or against you, but either way, he can't erase them.*_

*Well he or she can. And they could be criminally prosecuted if they do so. The right to seize evidence does not give the seizing agency the right to do anything to it other than store it in it's original condition. Generaly to go beyond that scope you need 1 of 2 things to be present. A warrant, say to develop that film, (the old days) or 2 the item must be obvious contraband. I have no obligation, after a case is done, to return you, your contraband, ie. illegal drugs, explosives etc. Legal property however is a different story. And in this country the ownership and use of cameras is legal. *

*The only way to deny the owner their photographs would be to show that they are either illegal by nature, child porn etc. or that they are a threat to national security. I have dealt with the first, the second I hope I never do. That makes for to many Fed's hanging around. *


_BTW, I think it should be part of your duty as a police officer to protect us and serve us by letting us know our rights, whether you have to or not. Not to be rude, but there is a very negative attitude towards police officers, and a lot of it stems for the feeling they AREN'T on our side, even when we are abiding by the law. I know lawyers are the only ones allowed to give advice, but if a police officer were to let us know certain things when we get pulled over or whatever, maybe we wouldn't look at them so negatively._

_*Ok I will concede this point to you in part as my explination was a bit lacking on that point. At the time that you are a suspect, being detained, in the midst of an investigation, No it is not my job to advise you of your constitutional right, unless there is a statutory obligation to do so. That's just common investigative technique. *_

_*I do however teach for my department on several issues, one of them being the issue of Seach and Seizure to highschools, civic groups, neighborhood associations etc. *_

_*Yes, there is a place for us to educatate on the law and consitutional rights. Most of the highschool students I have talked to were shocked to have a police officer tell them that if we ask to search their car, house etc. that they had the right to say no. They weren't surprised that they had the right, but that the COP was telling them this. *_

_*I do always go on to explain to them that when I instruct the recruit class I advise the officers that permission is never a bad thing to seek. Even if you have one of the exceptions to the 4th amendment to rely on, ask first. If they decline to give permission, then, IF one of the exceptions applies you may fall back on that and conduct your search. *_

_*The reason that I teach that and practice that is to save me court time. If you are under arrest and I ask you for permission to search your pockets and you give it, if I find some kind of contraband such as drugs, you are going to save me a one court hearing. *_

_*If you are under arrest, I have the right to search you and the immediate area that you are in incidenet to arrest with out your permission. *_

_*By asking and getting permission, when your lawyer wants a supression hearing on the evidence found in that search, and it becomes clear that it was with permission the hearing is over. You allowed it, nothing else to argue. *_

_*Otherwise we will have a hearing. In this case the outcome is not in doubt, but it is the way the legal system goes. *_

_*That is not meant to mean that all supression hearings are a waste of time. They are not. It is just that Search Incident to Arrest has been a long and well versed issue in the courts and the rulings are pretty clear. Other exceptions to the 4th amendment are not so clear cut. *_

*Problem is, they aren't lawyers either, they are regular people... they don't always know the laws, since law is sometimes subjective, hence, arguing a case in court.*
__________________
_*You are correct. And now I am going to tick off some of the lawyers in the group. The lawyers often don't know the law either. Often they know less about the law than the cops. The thing is, it is not all about the law, it is also about the courts and court procedure. This includes the judges and their likes, dislikes and biases. Yes biases. We all have them. It is those beliefs and biases that cause cases to be heard in court. It is where case law comes from. *_

*One thing lawyers are very good at is knowing the court and court procedure. Cops are less versed in this area as we do not have direct access to the process. We are a player brought in by one side or the other. Usually the prosecution. *

*The thing here is to keep in mind that we have a much better understanding of CRIMINAL LAW than most people. But the law is always subject to interpertation. The only one, in this country at least, that is always right on the interpertation of the law is the Supreeme Court. Everybody else is only right if they say so. *

*Sorry that this is so long. *​


----------



## usayit (May 30, 2008)

So pretty much in any situation that involves the attention of a police officer, the laws allow for almost complete control of the situation by

- detaining an individual. (probable cause)
- searching (anything in plain view or with a warrant)
- take possession of an item (stored in original condition)
- not advise on constitutional right.

The whole process is geared towards giving the officer the (upper hand) leverage to safely investigate.  yes... this is probably necessary but also double edged sword.  The same latitude given to the officer is often seen by the public as an aggressive trampling of personal rights as well as tools for an overzealous police officer.  As you said... there are lawyers that don't know the laws.  It is not surprising that there are officers that are equally lacking.  Here in New Jersey (as well as New York) the police are in a constant PR nightmare.  The incidents that involve over zealous police officers or just blatant corruption seems to be a common occurrence.  Personally, I have always had the upmost respect and trust for police officers throughout my entire life until I moved from Texas to New Jersey.  It is only the past 10 years living in New Jersey did feelings of distrust for the uniform developed.   i will repeat what I said.... I said DISTRUST as you would with approaching strangers.  I will always give the benefit of doubt as well as RESPECT the men and women in uniform.  Call me paranoid but "respectfully distrust" has always kept me out of trouble.  I must admit... I'm a product of my environment.  

 Case in point (regarding Law enforcement PR), the recent Bell shooting.  Regardless if the shooting was justified or not, the public sees only one thing:  50 rounds of police shots into a vehicle of unarmed suspects.  This is just one of several Police PR nightmares that occur here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/nyregion/26BELL.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

As I mentioned to Skieur, what happens on the street is completely different from what happens in a courtroom.  Cooperate with the police (within reason) and take your grievances through the proper channels afterwards.  Arguing your rights with the police gets you no where very quickly.  Anyone who holds that against someone is just ignorant and has never been in that situation.  Laws have NEVER been changed while standing on the street... only in court.

Gryphonslair, I appreciate your honest and informative response.   You have validated much of what I kinda already knew.   The way I see it :

- detaining an individual. (probable cause)
	* Ask the details if and why being detained.  Walk away if not.  
- searching (anything in plain view or with a warrant)
	* I'd give permission assuming not inappropriate or nothing to hide.
- take possession of an item (stored in original condition)
	* Ask why.  Allow them to take possession but explicitly state that it should be returned in original condition.
- not advise on constitutional right.
	* i've got a lawyer on speed dial


----------



## Senor Hound (May 30, 2008)

gryphonslair, your post is depressing...  It makes me wanna move someplace where the law enforcement works for the people, keeping us safe and not against the everyday citizen.  I still get a feeling that the police officers of America have a, "its us against them" policy, and most, if not all, are rudely skeptical of EVERYONE they meet (which is very off-putting).  You can be suspicious without being rude, but this seems to be a concept most law officers I've personally met (even my own uncle) do not understand.  But I will not speak of you that way, cause that is not fair to put words and thoughts into others mouths and minds.  And obviously you are a different style of person, cause most would not have bothered to write such a detailed response to me (thank you).

Maybe European police agencies are a little more friendly and whatnot...


----------



## JerryPH (May 31, 2008)

Stillsky said:


> I can't begin to count how many times I've been stopped and ticketed by cops on my bike for riding it in the street as opposed to the sidewalk.


 
Perfect example... in Montreal, a bicyclist is considered under and mandated to follow the SAME laws as a motorcycle or car.  That means that driving on the sidewalk is illegal and ticketable.  Sidewalks are the exclusive venue of pedestrians.

Different laws for different countries, counties or even town to town.

Check locally yourself BEFORE doing anything you are not sure about and need to clarify.


----------



## table1349 (May 31, 2008)

Senor Hound said:


> gryphonslair, your post is depressing...  It makes me wanna move someplace where the law enforcement works for the people, keeping us safe and not against the everyday citizen.  I still get a feeling that the police officers of America have a, "its us against them" policy, and most, if not all, are rudely skeptical of EVERYONE they meet (which is very off-putting).  You can be suspicious without being rude, but this seems to be a concept most law officers I've personally met (even my own uncle) do not understand.  But I will not speak of you that way, cause that is not fair to put words and thoughts into others mouths and minds.  And obviously you are a different style of person, cause most would not have bothered to write such a detailed response to me (thank you).
> 
> Maybe European police agencies are a little more friendly and whatnot...



While I understand what you are saying, the best explanation I can provide is with a little game.  Below will be photographs of 8 people.  Pick which ones you think are dangerous and which are not.  Don't study them, instant decision.  The same way an officer must do.  You have a maximum of 2 seconds a photo to decide.  Your life, a fellow officers life or the life of a citizen may hang in the balance.  Or it all may be just a false call.  Don't look at the photo title, just the photo and make a snap decision. Give it a try and see how you fare.  

1. 






2.





3.





4.





5.





6.






All done.  Think you know the good guys from the bad guys here?  If you took the test as instructed you might have a sense of what every call, every cars stop, and every contact with unknown individuals is like. 

Having lived in Germany and having a British Bobby ride with me for a shift a few years ago, I understand what you are saying about a more relaxed attitude.  I will give you an observation made near the end of my shift that the Bobby made about the differences in police work.  Keep in mind that my beat at the time encompassed one of the roughest areas in the city where I work as well as some very nice areas.  

He found that he preferred his form of law enforcement because it was more relaxed and friendly in general. (Maybe it was the shooting I had to work and he got to see.  It was his first in 9 years of law enforcement)  

He also told me it could be that way because their citizens had fewer freedoms than ours did.  They had less concerns in general than law enforcement does in the US.  If they get a call that appears to involve something like a handgun they do not respond in the same way we do.  They would not enter into the "Lions Den" as he put it.  They would wait for one of the special squads who's members are trained to use firearms. They would just surround the area and try and keep the incident contained until one of the firearm squads arrived.  That was slowly being replaced in places like London because of the change in crime that was beginning to occur.

The sad fact is, if you give me some of your freedoms then I will give you a smile the next time I show up to your disturbance, rape, robbery, stabbing, shooting, etc. etc. etc.  If there are certain things that I do not have to worry as much about, and the citizenry are of a different mindset then mine can change as well.  I know it is a line from a movie, but Sean Connery summed it up perfectly in "The Untouchables."  "_The number one rule of law enforcement is to go home at the end of your shift."  _Personally, I'm not sure I am ready to give up those freedoms.  


Ok, think you go the good guys picked out from the bad guys? 

1  *Sam Berkowitz* - Son of Sam

2. *Karla Homolka* A Female Serial       Killer lying on he bunk in Joilette prison - Still wanted by the Canadian authorities for crimes there. Probably never going to get her as she will probably never get out of prison in the US.

3. *Fred and Rose West - *Husband and wife serial killer team.  Responsible for at least 12 deaths. You know what they say, "The family that kills together has thrills together." 

4. *Ted Bundy* - That one was the gimmie.  Looks pretty nice there huh?

5.  *Caril Fugate* and *Charlie Starkweathe*r. Dear Caril Fugate, at 14 she and her 17 year old boyfriend Charlie Starkweather went on a killing spree in the Midwest. Killed 10 people.  She was *14* at the time.  Chuck got fried and Caril served a long sentence.  Got out, got married and disappeared into obscurity. 

6.  *Bonnie Parker*- Of Boonie and Clyde fame.  Enough said. Wonder if she handled the Ukelele[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica] as well as she did a gun?

Yep every one of them was a killer.  You probably figured that much from the beginning.  But seriously look at the photos.  If you saw any one of those faces on the street would your first though have been murderer?  

Please keep in mind, I am not condoning rudeness, not even by officers.  But what some believe is rudeness is in fact just officers doing one thing and one thing only.  That would be focusing their entire attention to the situation.  A situation that you hardly ever know what it is at first.  That is to keep them and others alive. 

Look at it from the other side.  When was the last time you invited your beat officer to dinner at your house?  Cops have to eat too you know, even when they are working.  Granted, due to our nature on the job they probably would not accept, at least not until they got to know you, but the point is, why haven't you done it?  

I would challange you with this, next time you see your local beat officer, not engaged in some form of investigation, but on routine patrol.  Wave to them with a smile on your face.  If they can stop, talk to them for a minute. Like you would any other person.  Once they get past the surprise, you might find that when they are not having to focus their entire attention on the situation at hand they can be quite different.  

Keep in mind, *in every walk* of life there are Butt Heads, Dumb S%!&$, and A## Holes.  Even in law enforcement.  Even in photography.   Sometimes you are just destined to end up with one of them for a short period of time.  Life goes on. 
[/FONT]


----------



## Senor Hound (Jun 1, 2008)

I get what you're saying, Gryphon.  And although I don't necessarily think its right, I'll concede.

And I have chit-chatted with police officers, many times.  I live in a small town, and this is very easy to do.  But when they put on their uniform, they walk around like they're better than me, and when you try and talk to them while they're on duty, they stare through you like they don't know who you are.  And they act like you're wasting their time, even though they aren't going anywhere (I worked at a gas station, and they'd sit in there and drink coffee).

And it does frustrate me that I can get pulled over by a cop for doing three miles over the speed limit (58 in a 55, but I will admit I only got an unofficial warning), yet the people who live beside me (about 1/4 of a mile away, I live in the woods) have a meth lab that never gets busted.  And I know about seven people who have reported a very strange smell, and cars going in and out at all hours of the night, yet not even an investigation into it after a year.  I know its not your fault.  I don't even think its most police officers' fault, but there is a funky system going on, and about 5% of you officers out there ruin the police's image for the rest of you.

Some people I know say you police are afraid to do the real work needed like fighting real criminals, and instead try and boost revenue by pulling average joes over.  But that's mean and untrue.  I know you guys do put your neck on the line every time you pull someone over.  It's all just so frustrating to us civilians who need you.  We want to trust you so bad, we want to think you're heroes (like we think firefighters and paramedics are), but we just CAN'T when we're secretly afraid of your power and how you might abuse us with it.


----------



## patrickt (Jun 1, 2008)

The threads on legalities are common enough that some have tried, without a great deal of success, to write handy pamphlets. It's like writing a pamphelt on the rights of birdwatchers, joggers, or any other activity.

They frequently use phrases like "public property" or "public right-of-way" and suggest that you're free to take any photos you want on public property or on a public right-of-way. Unfortunately, that's simply not true. If you doubt this, take you camera to a courtroom and start snapping pictures. If you get to keep your camera you can snap pictures of the jail. Both are, by some definitions, public property. Or, the Rolling Stones are performing at a stadium owned by the state. Public property. Can rules restricting photography be put in place and enforced? Yes, they can.

Please keep in mind that for every attorney who says something is perfectly legal, you can find another attorney who says it isn't. That's what keeps attorneys in business. Now, if the answer were clear, and would fit in a pamphlet, you wouldn't even need a trial. But sometimes a hapless photographer gets to be a test case and a jury of parents and grandparents gets to decide if his photos of kids on the school playground were legal.

Keep in mind that a police officers job isn't about the law. It's about problems and the law is a tool for solving a problem. If there is no problem the law isn't needed. If you're standing on a sidewalk taking photos and there's no problem you will probably not meet a police officer. If there is a problem, you will possibly meet a police officer.

I've been contacted once by the police when I was taking photos. I was in an alley taking a picture of a fire escape. A police officer wanted to know why I was in an alley at 3 a.m. shooting a picture of something as boring as a fire escape. I explained what I was doing and why I was doing it at three in the morning. I gave him my drivers license and he wrote down the information. I understood why he stopped and I assumed that if one of the businesses on the alley got burgled I would probably be meeting some more police officers.

Generally speaking, police officers meet enough strange people that photographers don't surprise them. They also meet enough burglars, perverts, and assorted miscreants that holding a camera does not confer any special protection.

Also wait when you hear stories on the forums for "the rest of the story."

Senor Hound: I understand what you're saying about police officers being different off-duty and on-duty. When my children were young they called one our best friend, "Gerri." They were confused when they got in school and had to call her "Ms. Irvine." Isn't she Gerri any more? There were people who I could joke with either off-duty or on-duty when we were alone but not in front of other people. A man I had arrested frequently bought the house next door to my home. I saw him in the yard when he was moving in and waved and said, "Hi, Tom." "Hi, Mr. Kelly." I waved him over and said, "When we're neighbors my name is Pat. If you're with your friends I'm Mr. Kelly." He laughed and understood perfectly well.


----------



## KD5NRH (Jun 1, 2008)

Senor Hound said:


> yet the people who live beside me (about 1/4 of a mile away, I live in the woods) have a meth lab that never gets busted.  And I know about seven people who have reported a very strange smell, and cars going in and out at all hours of the night, yet not even an investigation into it after a year.



Investigations like that are a real pain for the departments; they have to gather information without tipping off the suspects, and they have to do the rest of their patrolling as well, so they tend to do it a little at a time and as covertly as possible.  If you have a long lens and a clear line of sight to the place, you could try finding an approachable officer and offering him some time/date stamped photos of activity there, preferably with license plates.  Odds are they know enough of your local methheads that once they can document two or three of them showing up for 10 minutes at strange hours and bringing chemicals or leaving with small packages, they can move to a more agressive phase of investigation.

It should go without saying that you should also be discreet in photographing anything over there, since they've got a lot to lose if you get them busted.  Standing out in the open with a 1300mm lens pointed at them could provoke violence...or it might just provoke some activity that you could photograph to bring immediate action from the cops.


----------



## IllegalDamage (Jul 9, 2008)

dpolston said:


> I thought I'd throw a couple out there Here's one and now another.



I had to point this out in the USA Today article (which is quite good btw):

You also can find yourself in civil court if you publish a shot that places a person in a false light. That might be more of an issue with the caption than with the photo; running a shot of the mayor and his daughter labeled "Mayor meets with porn star" could land you in hot water. (Assuming his daughter isn't a porn star.)

That's hilarious XD


----------



## THORHAMMER (Jul 9, 2008)

The real question here is what were undercover police officers doing 

at a Britney spears concert buying pink heels with her signature on them. 

If you hadn't caught that on film, you'd not be bothered....


----------



## Mike A. (Jul 9, 2008)

Just was arrested for taking a photo on public street 5 houses from my own home!! 7-9-08  12:45 pm. USA
I'm fighting this one!! ARRRRRRRRRRR!!!
The Postal person complained about it.
They want me to pay $235.00. They call it Disorderly Conduct!
Just walking and taking a picture. Kind of disorderly to me??
I hope this sounds all right..........just had a stroke and I'm starting all over again! ........read.....write.....camera....building....

mike a.
And I,m the NOOB here.


----------



## Senor Hound (Jul 10, 2008)

Mike A. said:


> Just was arrested for taking a photo on public street 5 houses from my own home!! 7-9-08  12:45 pm. USA
> I'm fighting this one!! ARRRRRRRRRRR!!!
> The Postal person complained about it.
> They want me to pay $235.00. They call it Disorderly Conduct!
> ...



Hello, Mike a., the NOOB. 

Sorry to hear about your medical conditions.  You are a brave man for learning everything over again, as many people just give up.  And your writing is very good, I would not have known you had a problem writing if you wouldn't have said anything.

I suggest you fight it, also.  This seems very wrong to me.  Talk to a lawyer about your options, and hopefully, he'll think this case is baloney, like I do.

I also think this deserves its own thread.  This is a big deal, and its certainly something people should know about.


----------



## usayit (Jul 10, 2008)

Mike A.,

Please do fight it.  "Disorderly Conduct" is often a catch all used by police to gain control of a situation.  It is usually dropped in court assuming no other violations were broken in process.  

Good luck on your journey to recovery....


----------



## VADER1775 (Jul 10, 2008)

Stillsky said:


> It absolutely is about my rights. Just because they're cops and face death in certain situations doesn't give them the right to bully anyone, especially when they are in the wrong. I'm not disrespectful to them, but I'm not going to roll over and surrender my rights as a citizen out of pity for the job they chose to do.



The job THEY chose to do is protect people like YOU who can't seem to protect themselves.  Remember that police are not bullies, they are heros and you should thank your lucky stars every time you go to sleep safely in your own bed, only because there are police on your street willing to risk their lives so you can.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Jul 10, 2008)

Just tell them you can both go to the PD front office and have them copied by the watch commander, you go away with your copy and they have theirs, then everyones happy. And the WC gets to see what the officer doesnt want him to see, actually you should DEMAND that...


----------

