p.2 #1 · ACLU Suing Police for Harassing Photographers
Major problem in the UK too. It seems that if you are using a DSLR and a tripod you are obviously a potential terrorist casing a target, whereas if you use your cameraphone you're not - what Homer Simpson would call "reverse logic"!!
p.2 #5 · ACLU Suing Police for Harassing Photographers
The concern expressed by lukeb is legitimate in that security and cops got a little crazy and over reactive. But although they had the right to inquire, one would hope that they do it with courtesy and intelligence and not invoke a lot of nonsense about selling pictures to al-Qaeda.
Some people seem to think the issue is a matter of right and wrong: photographers always right; cops always wrong. It isn't so simple. And, like it or not, intent does at times play a role. In some (maybe most) jurisdictions in the U.S.A., for example, free speech is no longer free speech if it involves conspiracy to commit a crime.
The issue of whether a photographer has the right to take uninvited pictures of someone's naked kid playing on a public beach is dicy and not legally clear. But one cop I recently spoke with suggested that should a parent complain about such a thing, the photographer *could* be committing an arrestable act. It would depend on circumstances. There is unavoidable subjectivity in such matters, and the cop won't know whether an arrest is warranted until he inquires. But some seem to suggest that he should never inquire, no matter what. Or he should only inquire if *we* think it is legitimate, never mind the cop's perceptions.
Case in point: a photographer took pictures of kids riding their bikes at a local recreation centre (on property owned by the city) for his bicycle club's newsletter. A mother saw this and called the cops. The cops had to ask questions of the photographer and discovered the above information (bike club newsletter, &c.). They were unable to convince the mother that the photography was in a public place for legitimate, noncriminal purposes. Who was right? I think it is a grey area, although the photographer had the "right" to take the pictures and the cops were unwilling to prevent him from doing so.
When border police arrested Ahmed Resam as he entered the United States with a trunk full of explosives, it is not clear as he drove off the ferry that he was committing or about to a crime. He was doing nothing suspicious. But when questioned it became evident that he had *intended* to blow up L.A. airport (a thought crime?).
p.2 #7 · ACLU Suing Police for Harassing Photographers
Explosives are illegal and definitely not harmless or innocuous. Cameras aren't in the same league.
I really can't forsee an instance where a cop is going to save the country by questioning a photographer taking pictures in public unless it's ancillary.
To me, that's the thing, and how cops work. The more things that cops can use for an excuse to "interview" a person re suspect, the easier their job is, and the more crimes they can uncover.
Taken to the extreme, Liken in a police state, almost no crimes can be committed because the cops have all the power.
In our society, cops just can't do that. So they use all the hooks and loopholes they can. An example might be a seatbelt law. If they stop you for no seatbelt, they can then look all around, get nosy, ask you questions etc..
After 911, a man with big camera is such a loophole. Thing is, it's one of those BS loopholes.
They shouldn't be allowed to do it.
So I will continue to resist the growing acceptance of being questioned by authority for taking pictures in public, not give in to the fear tactics and mass paranoia that would throw common sense out the window and be grateful for those that watchdognour liberty, like the ACLU.
p.2 #8 · ACLU Suing Police for Harassing Photographers
I think it's safe to say, some policemen applied common sense and some don't. Sure ask questions but playing the game of linking your photos to terrorists is a long shot. Karl's examples regarding naked kids on the street is just as weird.
There isn't anything you can't find on the internet these days. To link photographers taking public landscape photos to terrorists is a perfect example of our "enforcers" abusing the laws and the very people they claim to serve and protect.
Common sense apparently is a very difficult thing to teach these days.
p.2 #9 · ACLU Suing Police for Harassing Photographers
I am not sure we are that far apart, except we seem to disagree on whether a cop even has the right to enquire. I think he does. But I also agree with those who argue that cops and security can quickly get out of control and become inappropriate, as did the cop at the L.A. metro. And I thought the photographer in D.C. who was called on the carpet for photographing a secret, unmarked, and nondescript building was thrust into a Kafkaesque absurdity (Washington Post link, above). I also agree that photography is an unlikely modus operandi for terrorists, certainly not in the conspicuous manner in which many of us carry out our hobby or profession. Cops ought to have some appreciation of this, yet all too often they do not. But the USA is a conspicuous symbol of hatred for its enemies, and cops, mandated to protect the public, reflect this insecurity. Often they over zealous and don't get it right. But sometimes they do, as was the case with Ahmed Resam.
He was questioned before anyone knew he was up to something. Of course cameras are not in the same league as explosives (legal in B.C., probably with a permit, and doubtless in many other places, for construction, demolition projects, &c). My point is that he was questioned without probable cause and--voilą!
I am also mindful that historically there is a great deal more distrust of authority in the States than there is in Canada, but I cannot photograph in a B.C. courtroom, even when it is empty, whereas I can in the States. Go figure. Usually, however, a courteous explanation makes the problem disappear.
p.2 #10 · ACLU Suing Police for Harassing Photographers
To techboy 96:
I was referring to young kids who sometimes play naked under there parents' supervision at a beach near here. In the context of this forum, I asked a cop, what if a stranger were to photograph the kids? How would the police handle it? And if the parent complained, could the photographer be arrested? The cop wasn't sure but said that it would depend on circumstances, context--and how the photographer responded to questioning.
He then told me about a photographer who had photographed kids riding their bikes at the local recreation centre (city owned) for his bicycle club's newsletter. An irate mother reported him to the police, who questioned the man. They concluded he was within his rights, quite harmless, and refused the mother's demand that they arrest him.
All this might be weird, but they are based on real situations.
p.2 #11 · ACLU Suing Police for Harassing Photographers
Excellent post Karl!
The police always have the right to ask questions. However, if you are not doing anything wrong, they don't have the right to deny you the ability to conduct yourself peaceably, in the US. Don't know about Canada.
The police in NY used to give some news photographers and stringers a hard time. Others had free reign.
The police aren't thrilled about people with cameras in California (or any place else). Especially LA (ala Rodney King).
There was the case in Maryland where a citizen was arrested by an of duty cop pulled his gun on a guy for nothing more than videotaping.
p.2 #12 · ACLU Suing Police for Harassing Photographers
Karlchen wrote:
The concern expressed by lukeb is legitimate in that security and cops got a little crazy and over reactive. But although they had the right to inquire, one would hope that they do it with courtesy and intelligence and not invoke a lot of nonsense about selling pictures to al-Qaeda.
I would submit that if a cop has the right to stop me in my tracks and "inquire" as to why I am taking a picture, then I would have the same right to go up to him while he is engaged in his job and ask him to stop what he's doing and answer my questions as to what he is doing and why.
The issue of whether a photographer has the right to take uninvited pictures of someone's naked kid playing on a public beach is dicy and not legally clear. But one cop I recently spoke with suggested that should a parent complain about such a thing, the photographer *could* be committing an arrestable act. It would depend on circumstances. There is unavoidable subjectivity in such matters, and the cop won't know whether an arrest is warranted until he inquires. But some seem to suggest that he should never inquire, no matter what. Or he should only inquire if *we* think it is legitimate, never mind the cop's perceptions....Show more →
Exactly. If I'm in public, chewing gum, or taking a picture , I am committing no crime and the cop should never inquire. Why should he ? To me, taking a picture in the public space is as harmless as chewing gum.
Case in point: a photographer took pictures of kids riding their bikes at a local recreation centre (on property owned by the city) for his bicycle club's newsletter. A mother saw this and called the cops. The cops had to ask questions of the photographer and discovered the above information (bike club newsletter, &c.).
I am going to stop you right there with the words "had to ask questions".
I don't get that. Why did he have to ? Someone else brought that up in a similar thread. The cop should have simply told the lady that no crime is being committed by a person taking pictures in a public space, and been done with it. By that standard I can make a stupid call to the cops every hour on the hour saying "there's a guy outside chewing gum and I don't like it", and they would have to come out and inquire of the person why he was chewing gum ?
p.2 #13 · ACLU Suing Police for Harassing Photographers
To lukeb:
Thanks for the reassuring support. At least the two of us seem to agree. Yes, sometimes cops become irrational and seem to like to throw their weight around. I do find it annoying to be approached but concede their right to ask. What I really resent is the nonsense about terrorism, as if a terrorist would make himself so utterly conspicuous--camera equipment, high-end camera. . . . So I can photograph the Capitol and the White House but not a nondescript "secret" building in D.C.? How absurd!
As for Canada, it is much the same as anywhere else--even East Germany (except there an American was not detained when he photographed a military installation--he was shot dead). That is, public photography is widely accepted, although in B.C. I cannot take pictures inside a law court. But I can photograph the inside of the Supreme Court of Canada (open to the public). I have lived in both Canada and the USA. My impression is that Canada is somewhat less obsessive about these things and more laid back, but there are rogue cops here, too.
p.2 #14 · ACLU Suing Police for Harassing Photographers
A lawyer's view -- while this is NOT legal advice to any of you (state by state laws vary and your facts will always affect the outcome) and for your safety and legal security you should always obey the orders of law enforcement regardless of your point of view (how's that for a disclaimer!?), the general principals are as follows--
1. There is no situation that I can think of where a police officer cannot ask you just about any question that she has on her mind. Being a cop doesn't reduce the rights that you and I would have to ask a question. Your answer can create resonable suspicion or probable cause...
2. With "reasonable suspicion," which is as loaded with specific meaning as it sounds...and begs the question "what is reasonable...?" the police can generally stop someone to investigate. If their suspicion is for something that creates fear of safety they can also generally do a pat down search in addition.
3. Once they establish "probable cause" (same issues), a higher standard, they can arrest someone and they have to be charged with a crime in a short period of time.
4. At the border, standards are very different and even the meaning of "border" (are you "at" the border if you are a mile north of the Rio Grande or south of the Canada?).
p.2 #17 · ACLU Suing Police for Harassing Photographers
zarito1 wrote:
A lawyer's view -- while this is NOT legal advice to any of you (state by state laws vary and your facts will always affect the outcome) and for your safety and legal security you should always obey the orders of law enforcement regardless of your point of view (how's that for a disclaimer!?), the general principals are as follows--
1. There is no situation that I can think of where a police officer cannot ask you just about any question that she has on her mind. Being a cop doesn't reduce the rights that you and I would have to ask a question. Your answer can create resonable suspicion or probable cause...
2. With "reasonable suspicion," which is as loaded with specific meaning as it sounds...and begs the question "what is reasonable...?" the police can generally stop someone to investigate. If their suspicion is for something that creates fear of safety they can also generally do a pat down search in addition.
3. Once they establish "probable cause" (same issues), a higher standard, they can arrest someone and they have to be charged with a crime in a short period of time.
4. At the border, standards are very different and even the meaning of "border" (are you "at" the border if you are a mile north of the Rio Grande or south of the Canada?)....Show more →
All good points and afaik are true, but ignoring the red herring naked toddler and pedophile scenario where does the initial suspicion of a photographer come from?
p.2 #19 · ACLU Suing Police for Harassing Photographers
To zarito1:
In the Criminal Code (of Canada) under the heading of "Common Nuisance" is an offence thusly described:
For the purposes of this section, every one commits a common nuisance who does an unlawful act or fails to discharge a legal duty and thereby
(a) endangers the lives, safety, health, property or comfort of the public; or
(b) obstructs the public in the exercise or enjoyment of any right that is common to all the subjects of Her Majesty in Canada.
When I asked a local policeman if any act with a camera could be construed as an offence, he referenced this section. He said the law was imprecise but that intrusive or otherwise annoying photography that invaded someone's private space might qualify as an offence under this statute. Of course interpretations will vary.
Are you aware of anything similar in the United States that might pertain to photography?
