# Photographing a public place and asked to stop



## tecboy (Jul 6, 2013)

One day, I was in downtown photographing a nice Adobe buildings and a nice fountain sculpture right in front of it.  A security personal approached me asked me to stop shooting, and he jotted my name down.  Where can I shoot pictures with my dslr in these days?  There are some popular landmarks in my area require permits, and these are not cheap.  Had anyone experienced this?


----------



## Tailgunner (Jul 6, 2013)

tecboy said:


> One day, I was in downtown photographing a nice Adobe buildings and a nice fountain sculpture right in front of it.  A security personal approached me asked me to stop shooting, and he jotted my name down.  Where can I shoot pictures with my dslr in these days?  There are some popular landmarks in my area require permits, and these are not cheap.  Had anyone experienced this?



Hum...it's a California thing? 

I shoot all over Texas and never heard of such a thing.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 6, 2013)

Some places have found that charging people to exercise their Constitutional rights is a money-maker.

If you're on public property, I doubt a private security guard has the legal authority to stop you unless they're hired by the AHJ that issues the permits.


----------



## TATTRAT (Jul 6, 2013)

Only once have I been asked to stop, it was at the Capitol Building in D.C., I went to bust out my tripod for some late sunset long exposures and dudes came out of the woodwork. Apparently, to use a tripod, you need a press pass, as I was informed. . . and pretty easy to get.

Hell, you can walk right up to the F.B.I. building and shoot to your hearts content, hell, most ALL federal buildings in D.C. you can shoot with no issues. Cali must be a little wonky in that department. Strange, and seems well, kinda stupid, to be honest.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 6, 2013)

TATTRAT said:


> ........... Apparently, to use a tripod, you need a press pass, ...........



Many places consider a tripod a public health hazard... they don't want people tripping over the extended legs.  Some places ban 'em outright, permit or no.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 6, 2013)

You were downtown... what was the adobe building? was it public or private property? That would probably make a difference on what's allowed.


----------



## TATTRAT (Jul 6, 2013)

480sparky said:


> TATTRAT said:
> 
> 
> > ........... Apparently, to use a tripod, you need a press pass, ...........
> ...




Yeah, the Smithsonians are like that.


----------



## Tailgunner (Jul 7, 2013)

480sparky said:


> TATTRAT said:
> 
> 
> > ........... Apparently, to use a tripod, you need a press pass, ...........
> ...



That's seems to be the rule concerning tripods but how about monopods?


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 7, 2013)

Tailgunner said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > TATTRAT said:
> ...



I've walked right past the ticket-takers in places that prohibit tripods with my monopod, even though it has three 'legs' at the bottom.  If they wanna ask me, I'll just tell 'em it's a walking stick.


----------



## Tony S (Jul 7, 2013)

The private security guard was probably blowing smoke up "yer hiney" without any legal authority.  If you were on public property you are good to go with only a few exceptions that relate to national security.  I doubt an adobe building falls into that category.  Shoot, if you were on public property you don't even have to give the police your information let alone a private guard.  Lots of stuff about that all over the internet showing people exercising their rights, might be easier to show ID and answer ??'s, but you really don't have to unless they have reason to suspect you are committing a crime.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 7, 2013)

There is a meeting inside adobe building I come regularly.  I don't know is this public or private property.  The security guy told me this building is to keep privacy.  He thought I'm an architect that I might copy the building design.

The Satanna Row is a popular outdoor mall, and I need to pay a permit to shoot my DSLR.

The beach boardwalk nearby lets me use my DSLR, but tripod is prohibited.  When I drive north to San Francisco, the Yerba buena gardens lets me use my DSLR, but to use tripod I have to pay the permit.

In nearby mall, one lady shoot her p&s camera with her kids, and a security guard told her to stop and get her name.


----------



## weepete (Jul 7, 2013)

Usually all they can do is ask you to stop taking photos or ask you to leave (and if they ask you to leave you need to go) if you are on private property which the public has access to. If you are on public property they can ask you to stop (like any person can ask another anything) but you don't have to as you are perfectly within your rights. Lots of securtiy guards and building managers seem to see photographers as a threat and some think you need permission to take photographs, even when you don't.

Of course there are exceptions so you'd need to check your local byelaws.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 7, 2013)




----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 7, 2013)

Tony S said:


> The private security guard was probably blowing smoke up "yer hiney" without any legal authority.  If you were on public property you are good to go with only a few exceptions that relate to national security.  I doubt an adobe building falls into that category.  Shoot, if you were on public property you don't even have to give the police your information let alone a private guard.  Lots of stuff about that all over the internet showing people exercising their rights, might be easier to show ID and answer ??'s, but you really don't have to unless they have reason to suspect you are committing a crime.



I agree with most of what's on this thread.. but a word of caution here .. if the police want your name and or identification, you DO in fact have to give it.

A police officer needs to have reasonable suspicion to do so, however they do not have to state what that suspicion is at the time of contact.

This is often misunderstood and gets people in trouble.

Not sure where that's coming from but if a police officer asks for it and you tell them you don't have to show them your ID or give your name, they can and most likely will detain you until they have it.

If the system allowed anyone to simply tell a cop "No" regarding identification, we'd never catch anyone that should be caught .. lol

I've had people refuse to produce ID or name, I detained them until I could find out who they were... and in nearly 10 years I've never had a judge NOT back that decision.

A security guard? Well they can make a citizens arrest given the right circumstances .. but you're not required to show them an ID.. you can just leave.

Not the case with a cop.


----------



## SCraig (Jul 7, 2013)

The key part is what is PUBLIC property and what is PRIVATE property.  Roads, sidewalks, parks (although some require a permit for commercial photography), anything that is distinctly PUBLIC property is usually safe.  You do NOT have the right to violate the rules of PRIVATE property nor do you have the right to violate the privacy of a person when they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

In general, as long as both you and the subject are on public property, and not where the subject would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, there is not much anyone can do about it.  You may run into some overly-zealous security guards or police officers that tell you that you can't, but in most cases you can.  The exceptions would be areas of high security such as prisons, the White House, and other places like that.

If you are on private property then you are subject to the rules imposed by the property owner.  If they say "No Photography" then they have the right to enforce that rule.  You can argue all you want but they own the property and they make the rules.  As long as you are on their property you will abide by their rules.

If you are on public property and the subject is on private property the rules tend to blur.  I've heard many instances of security guards from a building forcing people on a public sidewalk to stop photographing the building.  Whether they have the right to do that I do not know, I am not an attorney.  The building is on private property however it is positioned where it would not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Keep one thing in mind though:  As long as you are on PUBLIC property NOBODY has the right to confiscate your camera or media.  Not the police or a security guard or anyone else.


----------



## shefjr (Jul 7, 2013)

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers

This is I think a good piece of information.

Here an interesting video of a time lapse and also followed up by a news story that covers the whole incident. 
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nTGOruFwjHk


----------



## SCraig (Jul 7, 2013)

ShooterJ said:


> I agree with most of what's on this thread.. but a word of caution here .. if the police want your name and or identification, you DO in fact have to give it.
> 
> A police officer needs to have reasonable suspicion to do so, however they do not have to state what that suspicion is at the time of contact.
> 
> This is often misunderstood and gets people in trouble.



Very true.  You are always expected to cooperate with a police officer, however it is important to know your rights as well.  I have a carry permit and frequently have a gun with me.  The last time I got stopped for speeding the first thing I told the officer was that I have a carry permit and my firearm was in a holster on my right hip.  Better to let him know than let him find it himself.  He just smiled and said that as long as I didn't shoot him with it we wouldn't have any problems.


----------



## weepete (Jul 7, 2013)

I don't think the rules are all that blurred. A building does not have a right of privacy, people do. So if the subject can be seen from a public place by anyone else walking down the street for example there is no reasonable expectation of privacy even if they are on private property.


----------



## shefjr (Jul 7, 2013)

SCraig said:


> The last time I got stopped for speeding the first thing I told the officer was that I have a carry permit and my firearm was in a holster on my right hip.



I always just scream out my truck window, "I'VE GOT A GUN!!!!" Lol! 
I kid of course and am thankful I have also never had an issue with law enforcement while carrying.


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 7, 2013)

SCraig said:


> ShooterJ said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with most of what's on this thread.. but a word of caution here .. if the police want your name and or identification, you DO in fact have to give it.
> ...



That is AWESOME.  You have no idea how much a simple courtesy like that is appreciated.. we never know what we're walking up on in a stop.

And yes, people should know their rights. I just try to discourage people from resisting or fighting the police... sometimes the cops are wrong, but people need to stay calm and deal with that the right way... challenging the officer there on the street isn't it.


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 7, 2013)

I've had people tell me they were carrying.. my response is usually ..

"Well you don't show me yours, and I won't show you mine."  Lol


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 7, 2013)

I do think way too many security guards and cops overreact when it comes to people taking photographs.  I'm pretty laid back about it personally .. the only time I'd stop them is if they were trespassing, taking photos of restricted property or interfering with my job.

I had a couple once ask if they could take pictures of me and my cruiser.. I just shrugged and said sure. It doesn't bother me. 

Some cops freak out about it though.  Maybe they're just camera shy. lol


----------



## SCraig (Jul 7, 2013)

ShooterJ said:


> That is AWESOME.  You have no idea how much a simple courtesy like that is appreciated.. we never know what we're walking up on in a stop.
> 
> And yes, people should know their rights. I just try to discourage people from resisting or fighting the police... sometimes the cops are wrong, but people need to stay calm and deal with that the right way... challenging the officer there on the street isn't it.


Yeah, actually I do know what it means.  My dad was a colonel in the Tennessee Highway Patrol, I've had a lot of training from former police and military officers, and I shot USPSA and IDPA for years with police and military guys.

I would not do your job for anything.  Walking up to a car at night, not knowing what to expect, is not something I would want to do.  I don't get stopped often but when I do I make it as simple as possible for the police officer if for no other reason than I don't want to startle him into doing something we'll both regret.  For all I know it's his first day on the job and I don't him nervous with his hand on his firearm.


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 7, 2013)

Awesome.. it's nice to run into people who appreciate the reality of it.  Traffic stops are dangerous as hell and I always like getting hold of people who make it easier.

EDIT: I got shot at overseas when I was in the Army .. it's not much fun. I've been fortunate as a police officer, but I still think about the experience every time I stop someone.


----------



## SCraig (Jul 7, 2013)

ShooterJ said:


> Awesome.. it's nice to run into people who appreciate the reality of it.  Traffic stops are dangerous as hell and I always like getting hold of people who make it easier.
> 
> EDIT: I got shot at overseas when I was in the Army .. it's not much fun. I've been fortunate as a police officer, but I still think about the experience every time I stop someone.


I didn't know my dad well, my parents were divorced when I was very young, but we did meet up a few times as I grew up.  He was THP during the bad old days around here.  Bootlegging whiskey was a way of life for many and he had some tales to tell.  He was also the regional photographer for the THP and got to take all the gory photos of accident scenes.

Anyway, he did manage to get me to put myself in the place of the police officer who is approaching a car.  All he wants to do is to finish his shift and go home to his family, and to do that protecting himself is priority #1.  I make that as simple as possible until the tension levels decrease a little bit, and I seldom have any problems.  If it's night I turn the interior lights on, I keep my hands in plain sight, and I treat the officer with respect.  I don't want their job, but I'm glad someone is doing it.


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 7, 2013)

That's pretty cool about your dad.. that is, about him being their go to photographer.  And I don't blame you, regarding the job.. it's nasty work sometimes .. in fact, I'm resigning from it soon.

I've had enough.. almost 14 years between military and law enforcement .. I'm ready to go enjoy a few things and leave the awful stuff behind me.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 7, 2013)

With the security guard... if you were on their property, he could tell you to leave. I can't believe you gave him your name, though. lol He's got zero right to be collecting your information. I'd have told him no and if he insisted I'd have suggested he call the police if he had a problem with it. I've done it numerous times. Only one guy ever did it and the cop was clearly annoyed over the situation and asked me if I wouldn't mind just leaving to make his life easier. I did.  (I had all the pictures I needed by the time he got there anyway and was more hanging around just to see what happened.) 

Mind you... all those times I was on PUBLIC property... if you were on private property, they have a lot more rights to kick you and make the rules and such.


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 7, 2013)

480sparky said:


> Tailgunner said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



There may be no issue with you having a tripod, just using it. I've seen several instances of that...


----------



## kathyt (Jul 7, 2013)

That "security guard" would never have got my name in the first place. I have heard of the Capitol building, but other then that I would be skeptical. Everyone has a camera on their phone, so it would be hard to police everyone.


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 7, 2013)

tecboy said:


> There is a meeting inside adobe building I come regularly. I don't know is this public or private property. The security guy told me this building is to keep privacy. He thought I'm an architect that I might copy the building design.
> 
> The Satanna Row is a popular outdoor mall, and I need to pay a permit to shoot my DSLR.
> 
> ...



If you're shooting in a mall, that's private property. They have every right to demand that you stop photographing their property, and to ask you to leave. If you don't leave, you're in violation of the law.

You can take all the photos you want of the mall and its buildings from a public thoroughfare. They're still going to tell you to stop, but you don't have to. If you're shooting while on their property, though, you have to do as they wish.

Don't fall into the trap of believing that you can do what you want, where you want and when you want because you know your "rights". And, for the love of God, don't be one of these geniuses who print out some list of rights you found on the internet so you can push it into the face of a cop of security guard. That will only end poorly for you. 

You're not the only one with rights, and yours don't supersede someone else's. Believing they do will not serve you well...


----------



## Tailgunner (Jul 7, 2013)

So what is tis adobe place anyhow, is Adobe the name of a company or material used on an actual building? You got any pictures or address?


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 7, 2013)

ShooterJ said:


> I do think way too many security guards and cops overreact when it comes to people taking photographs. I'm pretty laid back about it personally .. the only time I'd stop them is if they were trespassing, taking photos of restricted property or interfering with my job.
> 
> I had a couple once ask if they could take pictures of me and my cruiser.. I just shrugged and said sure. It doesn't bother me.
> 
> Some cops freak out about it though. Maybe they're just camera shy. lol



I had a female cop in Portland get all bent out of shape because I took a photo of her texting on her cell phone while she was uniform. I don't know if there's some rule against that, but her reaction suggested there might be.

I told her not to worry, that I wouldn't show it to anyone, since I felt the pink iPhone cover clashed harshly with the deep blue color of her uniform.

She then let up, smiled, and told me and my buddy to have a nice evening...


----------



## kathyt (Jul 7, 2013)

Oh and I also act like I can't hear or speak any english. That usually works pretty well too.


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 7, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> ShooterJ said:
> 
> 
> > I do think way too many security guards and cops overreact when it comes to people taking photographs. I'm pretty laid back about it personally .. the only time I'd stop them is if they were trespassing, taking photos of restricted property or interfering with my job.
> ...



Lol.. nice. That's a good stance to take though.

People need to understand that a cop has a tense job and dealing with people can be dangerous for them. Being respectful and lightening the tension can go a long way.  

When I deal with people, their reaction to me tells me something.  If they're confrontational or nervous, what effect is that going to have on me? If they're friendly and easy going .. odds are I will be too.

Something for people to keep in mind when dealing with law enforcement.  The officer doesn't know you.. it's the nature of their job to regard you as potentially dangerous.

Don't encourage that by being a confrontational douche.


----------



## Indofred (Jul 7, 2013)

This sounds like a 'jobsworth' security guard and, unless you're on private property they're hired to patrol, they have no authority at all so, if polite doesn't work, the finger should.
I've read of horror stories where legitimate photographers have been arrested for doing nothing more than playing with their cameras.

I'm a Photographer, Not a Terrorist! - UK photographers protest against increasing police harassment, Trafalgar Square, 23rd January 2010


----------



## skieur (Jul 7, 2013)

tecboy said:


> There is a meeting inside adobe building I come regularly. I don't know is this public or private property. The security guy told me this building is to keep privacy. He thought I'm an architect that I might copy the building design.
> 
> The Satanna Row is a popular outdoor mall, and I need to pay a permit to shoot my DSLR.
> 
> ...



You don't even need to give your name to the police in the US or Canada, so why would you give it to a security guard?


----------



## tecboy (Jul 7, 2013)

skieur said:


> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> > There is a meeting inside adobe building I come regularly. I don't know is this public or private property. The security guy told me this building is to keep privacy. He thought I'm an architect that I might copy the building design.
> ...



He asked nicely for my name.  I just wanted to avoid any further problem.  Beside I came there for a meeting and not worth it to have trouble before the meeting starts.


----------



## skieur (Jul 7, 2013)

tecboy said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > tecboy said:
> ...



The problem is how that information will be used. Will it be entered into a database with the implication that you are a person with a "background" of suspicious activity? Will this make your next encounter more difficult?  One person in Canada filed a lawsuit against the police forcing them to take out any information from their database on his confrontation with police.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 7, 2013)

skieur said:


> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



I could lie about my name, and he doesn't know that.  There is nothing harmful about that.  If they don't want me to shoot their building than I have to respect that.  I don't want everyone in the meeting knows what happened.  That doesn't solve anything.


----------



## skieur (Jul 7, 2013)

tecboy said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > tecboy said:
> ...



Sure and the officer could lay a nuisance charge of "obstructing police" because you did not tell the truth.  The civil liberties groups in the US advise BE polite, BE respectful, BUT retain your rights.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 7, 2013)

skieur said:


> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



I believe they were talking about a security guard not a cop. Its not illegal to lie to security guards unless you defraud them in doing so which wouldn't be the case here


----------



## tecboy (Jul 7, 2013)

I have never had a conflict with the police.  The security guard was doing his job, and he has authority.  What you want me to do? Confront him, show him my rights?  I'm not going to win.  Being inside or near at Adobe building is a privilege, and I don't want it taken away just because I shoot a camera at the building.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 7, 2013)

tecboy said:


> I have never had a conflict with the police.  The security guard was doing his job, and he has authority.  What you want me to do? Confront him, show him my rights?  I'm not going to win.  Being inside or near at Adobe building is a privilege, and I don't want it taken away just because I shoot a camera at the building.



Just because someone wears a security guard uniform does not mean he has any authority. Many Rent-A-Cops are over-zealous and under-trained.


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 7, 2013)

480sparky said:


> Just because someone wears a security guard uniform does not mean he has any authority. Many Rent-A-Cops are over-zealous and under-trained.



And, conversely, it would be ill-advised to believe that all security guards fall into that category.

The reality is that someone working as a security guard _does _have _some _level of authority. The question to that is how much, and where. I've seen idiots face off with mall security guards and they end up getting detained until the police arrive, whereupon they're arrested and transported to the local lock-up.

All because they believed that security guards had no authority...


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 7, 2013)

skieur said:


> One person in Canada filed a lawsuit against the police forcing them to take out any information from their database on his confrontation with police.



So what?

Idiotic, ridiculous lawsuits get filed every day.

I'm of the mindset that, if you lock horns with the police, you're on a fool's errand, and deserving of all the bad things which will befall you...


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 7, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Just because someone wears a security guard uniform does not mean he has any authority. Many Rent-A-Cops are over-zealous and under-trained.
> ...



 I never stated security guards have NO authority.  I merely stated that most _EXCEED_ their authority, due mostly to lack of proper training.


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 8, 2013)

480sparky said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



If you could point out where you say "most exceed their authority" in the post I quoted, that'd be swell.

A security guard can demand your memory card from you, and he's exceeded no authority whatsoever. If you give it to him, it's not his fault, it's yours. He can ask or demand anything he wants. Only if he coerces or forces you is he exceeding authority.

Also, what constitutes "proper training", and are you personally in a position to know what constitutes "proper training"?

As far as I know, security companies need to be bonded if they expected to be contracted. They can't be bonded without providing "proper training" to their employees. I think it's more likely that what you see as improper training is that training which compels security from allowing you to do what you want, simply because you've offered no examples to support your contention...


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 8, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...



Well, perhaps you could provide me with legal rulings, laws, ordinances, court decisions, etc. that give Rent-A-Cops the legal authority to demand my memory cards.

Many security guards simply fill out an app and are hired and put to work.


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 8, 2013)

480sparky said:


> Well, perhaps you could provide me with legal rulings, laws, ordinances, court decisions, etc. that give Rent-A-Cops the legal authority to demand my memory cards.



I never said they have the legal authority to do that. I said if they do it, they've exceeded no legal authority, simply because there's none there, with respect to you being required to hand the cards over, to begin with. They can demand that you hop up and down in a diaper while reciting the Gettysburg Address, and they'll be exceeding no legal authority. As with your memory cards, you don't have to do it.



> Many security guards simply fill out an app and are hired and put to work.



Please provide examples of this. Please provide examples of any reputable security company putting people to work with no background check and no training.

You've said that many have no training. I'm simply asking you to support that assertion, and you seem remarkably ill-prepared to do so...


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 8, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Please provide examples of this. Please provide examples of any reputable security company putting people to work with no background check and no training.
> 
> You've said that many have no training. I'm simply asking you to support that assertion, and you seem remarkably ill-prepared to do so...



Dan VanDeventer.  Friend of mine, hired as a security guard.  Filled out app, got hired, went to work the next day.

I'd have him contact you, but he passed away 3 years ago.  Sorry... them's the facts.

Toby Morrison.  Classmate, hired as a security guard.  Filled out app, got hired, went to work the next day.  Last I heard from him, he was working as a guard at the State facility in Ft. Madison, Ia., but that was years ago.

Now, do you want a comprehensive list of EVERYONE who was ever hired in the same fashion, whether I know them or not?  I guess if you cannot accept first-hand experiences, then I guess there's no pleasing you.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 8, 2013)

I got hired as a security guard. Went through training, and a background check. 

I recently quit said position.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Jul 8, 2013)

ShooterJ said:


> if the police want your name and or identification, you DO in fact have to give it.



ABSOLUTELY NOT THE CASE.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 8, 2013)

Hey guys, I started this thread and asked you guys "Have you experienced someone asked you to stop photographs in popular places?"  I didn't ask for debate about police and security issues.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 8, 2013)

All this increased security is in the wrong place. I've not had much trouble, sometimes the cops keep an eye on me when I'm out shooting, which is within their right - i'd rather them that then take up time questioning me, which is also within their right to an extent. People get it into their heads that the cops can't even ask what you're taking pictures of without first obtaining a warrant, but a cop can -and should - investigate anything. And if you're distracting a cop from doing his or her job by shoving your penis extending telephoto in their face, yeah, you're going to get one warning before geting a citation for interference, and if you sit there and fight while he or she is doing her job, bashing in the heads of hippys or what not, then you're going to get arrested. 

A good photographer will got the shot without interfering, that is the definition of a good photojournalist, not saying misbehaving cops have never attacked the press - just ask any photojournalist in Chicago durring the 1968 democratic national convention.

But really, it's misplaced. If I were a perverted terrorizing thief, why would I use something as conspicuous as a DSLR?


----------



## KenC (Jul 8, 2013)

tecboy said:


> Hey guys, I started this thread and asked you guys "Have you experienced someone asked you to stop photographs in popular places?"  I didn't ask for debate about police and security issues.



No one ever gets what they expected here.

I've been bothered occasionally, mostly when I lived for a little while in the Chicago area - never figured out why it should be so different there.  If you're on private property, best to leave immediately.  If you're on public property, you can pretty much do what you want, within limits others have stated, but still best to be non-confrontational about it.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 8, 2013)

jwbryson1 said:


> ShooterJ said:
> 
> 
> > if the police want your name and or identification, you DO in fact have to give it.
> ...


Uh yes it is, in many states, to varying degrees.  There is no federal stop and identify law, but there may be a state one in one's local area
Stop and identify statutes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In several states, you can actually be criminally charged for not providing said information truthfully when requested.  In other states, not identifying yourself can be grouds for a lawful arrest, etc.



> Hey guys, I started this thread and asked you guys "Have you experienced  someone asked you to stop photographs in popular places?"  I didn't ask  for debate about police and security issues.


It's kind of a boring thread to just have a list of people going "yes" "yes" "no" "yup" "no" "nope"  Obviously we are also going to debate it.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 8, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> jwbryson1 said:
> 
> 
> > ShooterJ said:
> ...



I have no idea where this myth comes from. And besides, by the time a police officer is asking for your identity, you're probably being detained anyway.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Jul 8, 2013)

unpopular said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > jwbryson1 said:
> ...



Exactly.  I love when pedestrians tell me the law...and then link to Wikipedia.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 8, 2013)

My rule with dealing with the cops is that if it's there's nothing preventing them from asking me questions. There's nothing wrong with a cop asking what I'm doing or what I'm taking photos of, no more than some guy walking his dog at the park - and that happens more frequently than being approached by the cops.

If the cops ask things that I wouldn't be comfortable with a normal person asking, like if they can see my photos or dig through my camera bag, or where I live I can (in my state) say 'no', and once I'm detained the relationship goes from a person who happens to be a cop asking me questions, to a detainee being questioned by the cops and the rules change entirely.

But there's no reason to get all hostile just because a cop starts asking you a few questions.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 8, 2013)

jwbryson1 said:


> ShooterJ said:
> 
> 
> > if the police want your name and or identification, you DO in fact have to give it.
> ...


Dude, this is just flat out wrong.  I linked to a wikipedia article yes, but if you'd spent more than 3 seconds looking at it, you'd see that it is full of links to official state government statutes for the relevant laws.  Arizona for example, from azleg.gov:



> 13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name                   when lawfully detained; classification
> 
> A.  It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to  answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of  a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that  the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained  under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to  answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.
> 
> B.  A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.



So yes, in Arizona, when detained (you didn't say anything about whether you were talking about detained situations or not), you are required to answer the officer with your true identity when asked, or you can be charged with a class 2 misdemeanor.  Saying nothing at all is not a legal option.

Thus, your comment that it is "ABSOLUTELY NOT THE CASE" is wrong, and if somebody followed your advice blindly, they could incur a class 2 misdemeanor on themselves as a result.

In Ohio, it's even more strict:



> *2921.29     Failure to disclose personal information*
> 
> 
> (A)  No person  who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person's name, address,  or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably  suspects either of the following:
> ...



You can in Ohio be charged with a 4th degree misdemeanor for not giving your name or address even if you are not a suspect, but may simply have been a *witness *of some felony.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 8, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Dude, this is just flat out wrong.  It's not a "myth."
> .



No. I am agreeing with you Gav. It's a myth that you don't have to provide any ID when the cops ask, in my state you don't - but by the time you are being asked for ID, you're usually detained anyway, at which point you typically are required to anyway.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 8, 2013)

unpopular said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > Dude, this is just flat out wrong.  It's not a "myth."
> ...



Ah okay, sorry.  Thanks for clearing that up. Edited other post accordingly.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 8, 2013)

By the time cops are talking to you about something you did or are doing, chances are you're being detained. Cops aren't likely going to just go around getting random IDs from pedestrians minding their own business, even in states where they can - aside from situations where random security checkpoints are called for, naturally.

One of the first things you should ask a police officer if you are feeling uncomfortable is if you are detained. If you are, hand over your ID and stfu ... or if you're not the criminal or constitutional advocate type, don't. But don't get all huffy.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jul 8, 2013)

ShooterJ said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > ShooterJ said:
> ...



It is absolutely amazing that this even has to be mentioned.  However,  I see enough (thank goodness mostly on the news) to know that not everyone knows or more than likely,  some people are just asking for it!

I may be crazy but my father, a former police officer, taught me this I believe at birth.  Or maybe it was my mother, or aunt, or grandmother, or cousin, or uncle..............EVERYONE KNEW THE DEAL!

In fact, when I get home this evening I will tell my 14 year old son again and make him repeat back to me all the reasons why....10 times in a row......each day until August 1st, 2013.   Then, we will start all over again.  ((((And That's The Truth))))


----------



## jwbryson1 (Jul 8, 2013)

In order to be required by law to produce a valid ID, the police must have a reasonable suspicion that you have committed, or are about to commit, a crime.  A cop that walks up to you on the street and asks you to produce identification can go pound sand and you are not required to speak to them and certainly not required to provide any sort of identification.  AKA Terry Stop.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Jul 8, 2013)




----------



## deeky (Jul 8, 2013)

There's a trending video on Youtube right now of a kid that decided to get constitutional at a DUI checkpoint.  He had his window down 3 inches and the cop asked him to roll it down further.  He even admits that because he didn't want to roll it down, he ended getting taken out, drug dog search (including on the hood) with a positive hit and subsequent search which found nothing.  He was sent on his way much later, but it was all because 'he knew his rights!!!'

How about a little common sense and decency?  98 times out of a hundred it's easy - DON'T BE A DOUCHE.  They may not have the express right, but who cares if you don't have anything to hide.  As soon as you appear to be hiding something, it would give me reasonable suspicion if I were a cop too.  

I've been approached by a security guard before.  Without being asked, I told him exactly who I was (hobby photographer), what I was doing (architectural shots), and offered to show him the pics on my camera.  He very politely declined and let me go about taking pictures of the federal court house while he went to chase off some horrible skateboarding kids.  

Another time I came over a hill to find a trooper getting my speed at a minimum of 10 mph over.  I knew he had me, so as soon as I saw him pulling out of the median I pulled over to the shoulder and waited for him.  We had a very nice conversation and I got a pass on the speeding.  Due to a paperwork error my license was expired by 6 months.  Got a ticket for that (later dismissed), but he made it indirectly clear I was free to go on my way.  No need to park and call for a ride, he just wasn't going to be a free pass if I got pulled over again.

My secret?  Let me state it again.  DON'T BE A DOUCHE.  You may not HAVE to, but it may just be easier, unless you have something to hide.  Then you deserve to be detained.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 8, 2013)

> In order to be required by law to produce a valid ID, the police must have a reasonable suspicion that you have committed, or are about to commit, a crime. A cop that walks up to you on the street and asks you to produce identification can go pound sand and you are not required to speak to them and certainly not required to provide any sort of identification. AKA Terry Stop.


Yeah, still wrong, depending on state.  I even provided a direct quote of Ohio law that proved what you say here to be false.  In that state, for example, you are legally required to provide accurate identification even if you are NOT suspected of any crime (past or future), but only suspected of having WITNESSED a felony.

If you are suspected of being a witness only, and don't say anything at all, you can be charged and convicted of a misdemeanor.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 8, 2013)

jwbryson1 said:


> In order to be required by law to produce a valid ID, the police must have a reasonable suspicion that you have committed, or are about to commit, a crime



That's seriously hardly anything at all. The police have a lot of leeway here. I don't normally side with the cops, but in order to do their jobs they kind of have to have the ability to question people that are merely acting suspiciously. You don't have to answer any questions, but in nearly all circumstances you do have to provide identity when detained. 

This is why demonstrators don't bring your ID card.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 8, 2013)

I'm no cop, nor am I a lawyer, but I imagine the cop can just say "He was acting peculiar, so I asked him for his ID."  

Good luck fighting that off in court.

Nor am I a judge, but I'd bet most judges would be pretty inclined to back that up unless it was BLATANTLY out of line.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 8, 2013)

deeky said:


> There's a trending video on Youtube right now of a kid that decided to get constitutional at a DUI checkpoint. He had his window down 3 inches and the cop asked him to roll it down further...


Unfortunately an all too typical reaction by officials; "What?  A member of the public who knows and chooses to exercise his legal rights?  Well... we'll just show him who's boss!"


----------



## unpopular (Jul 8, 2013)

manaheim said:


> I'm no cop, nor am I a lawyer, but I imagine the cop can just say "He was acting peculiar, so I asked him for his ID."



What would you bring to court? What would the issue be? The cop asked nosey questions which made you feel uncomfortable? THATS THE COPS JOB!

Unless you're brought in, what would bring you to court?


----------



## tirediron (Jul 8, 2013)

unpopular said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > I'm no cop, nor am I a lawyer, but I imagine the cop can just say "He was acting peculiar, so I asked him for his ID."
> ...


Ehhh... strictly speaking, I believe the job of the police is to enforce the law, not to ask nosey questions nor make the public feel uncomfortable, in fact I would think that would be rather counter-productive.


----------



## Tailgunner (Jul 8, 2013)

There are three types of encounters a police officer has with individuals, Casual, Detain, and Arrest. Obviously, an Officer is going to and legally able to try and ascertain and individual who is being Detained or Arrested. Casual encounters (that doesn't sound right lol ) and identifying comes down to whether or not a State has "Stop and Identify" laws. 

25 of the 50 States have "Stop and Identify" laws, California not one. 

Stop and identify statutes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


FYI: Police Officers are not going to inform you of your rights...to a degree. If say, the State in question does not have a "Stop and Identify" law in place, a Police Officer may still ask for identification during a Casual encounter knowing you're not obligated by law to answer but s/he is not likely to inform you that you don't have to comply (unless being detained or arrested). Thus, most people comply believing it's the law.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 8, 2013)

tirediron said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > manaheim said:
> ...



A cops job is to enforce the law to promote public safety. A big part of that is to investigate suspicious activities before laws are broken and public safety is at risk, sometimes that might come across as nosey, especially if the cop's interpretation about a situation is incorrect and the behavior turns out not to be suspicious at all.

If someone were taking photos of houses in your neighborhood, going into alleys taking snaps of backyards - don't you think you'd want the cops to start asking some questions? Certainly we all have the right to take photos of houses, but also the behavior is suspicious.

The police need to be able to ask questions and investigate legal activities that look suspicious, and as part of that investigation knowing who you are and if you are a registered sex offender.


----------



## Tailgunner (Jul 8, 2013)

unpopular said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...



Police Officers enforce the law, not make or break the law. The location in question is California which does not have "Stop and Identify" laws. So unless the OP is being Detained or Arrested, an officer, nor a Security Gaurd for that fact can't ask for their ID.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 8, 2013)

^^^ this discussion about identification has nothing to do with the OP. Naturally a security guard has no right to demand ID under any circumstance.

OTOH, 'detainment' isn't some kind of status - it is any time that the person has a reasonable expectation that they cannot leave. A cop has the _right_ to detain you under pretty broad circumstances - a 'reasonable suspicion' isn't even probable cause, and this is why it's important to ask if you are being detained - that way there is no question about what a 'reasonable person' might expect.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 8, 2013)

Tailgunner said:


> Police Officers enforce the law, not make or break the law. The location in question is California which does not have "Stop and Identify" laws. So unless the OP is being Detained or Arrested, an officer, nor a Security Gaurd for that fact can't ask for their ID.


There is not a state law afaik, but I believe there could still be *local *municipal stop and identify laws for individual towns in California, which might still require you to answer, and could potentially prosecute you if you did not.  I am not aware of any such local laws, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, and unless you explicitly check beforehand for every single town you hang out in, you still cannot fully guarantee yourself to not be convicted of a crime for not providing verbal identification when asked during a Terry stop.

If not identifying yourself by matter of principle is something you intend to make a habit of, even if detained, you should probably consult local attorneys if you want to be sure. Because this is a mixture just asking for all kinds of messiness: no state comment at all, no federal law, but yet judicial federal permission to stop and (probably) permission to vocally request ID. Could get super messy and you're treading on really thin ice.


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 9, 2013)

480sparky said:


> Dan VanDeventer. Friend of mine, hired as a security guard. Filled out app, got hired, went to work the next day.



Dan Harrison. Friend of mine. Applied as a security guard at a mall in New York. Filled out the application, took a urinalysis, underwent a background check and a psychological examination. He was able to start work a when all results were obtained.

See, I can do it, too...



> Now, do you want a comprehensive list of EVERYONE who was ever hired in the same fashion, whether I know them or not? I guess if you cannot accept first-hand experiences, then I guess there's no pleasing you.



If you can't provide an example refarding a reputable security company hiring people _today _(not "years ago" like in ol' Toby's case), it's okay to admit that you're ill-prepared to do that. If you can, I would be interested in reading about it. Because, honestly, we've become far too litigious for security companies to simply hire people on the basis of just an application.

Trotting out ol' Toby is hardly convincing...


----------



## tirediron (Jul 9, 2013)

I think one turn around this particular road is enough.


----------

