ACLU sues LA sheriff over photographer harassment

I walk through Union Station at least once a month with cameras and a camera bag and have never been asked why or what I'm doing...
I took a photo of Metro Police busting two guys outside of a Metro Station across the street from Pershing Square...Later, I delivered a print to the station where the officer worked...he emailed me Thanking me for the shot...
Not all police are like this guy in the video...this guy is either having a bad day or is a power junkie...
What happened to "Innocent until Proven Guilty..."
If, the photographer had replied..."I'm taking pictures of "That" because I like the way it looks...it really catches my eye and it will look real nice when I print it..."
Would that have been enough for this cop or would he have just gone on about being a terrorist...the cop implied he did something wrong by maybe taking pictures of the thickness of the walls or of the tracks BUT also says he never saw him do this...
This cop was in the wrong and I hope he gets his...Kharma...

I gotta take a nap now...get my heart rate back down...
 
First off...He was wrong...Photography is allowed in Metro Stations...once confronted with the truth he headed to the Patriot Act which does not over ride the 2nd Amendment...
It's the Policeman's job to KNOW his job...he enforces the Law therefore he should know it and it sounds to me that he does not...I'd bet good money he's done this before and has been told that Photography is allowed...his job would be to find out what the policy is so he would be prepared for the next time...either he knows the truth and is just being a Bully or he's not doing his job...Retrain him or get rid of him...

Here is the MTA's Policy on Non-Commercial Photography...
 
Last edited:
NickTrop said:
Thank god for the ACLU.
Click to expand...

There would be no need for the ACLU if people had the sense to learn and understand their rights, and if law enforcement and others learned their limitations. Unfortunately, few people bother. What can you expect from a country in which many high school graduates can't even find their country on a world map?

One of the great problems with living in a free society is that freedom requires a great deal of personal responsibility. Owning a gun is a right, and guns are extremely dangerous, a great deal of responsibility is required to possess a gun.

The freedom of speech is an even greater right, yet it is often abused. Speech is too often used to misinform or divide, rather than to inform or inspire. Words kill more people than guns; say the wrong thing to the wrong person, and the worst can happen.

Driving a car requires great responsibility, yet more than 40,000 Americans are killed in traffic accidents each year.

The ACLU has it's good and bad points, but if most Americans had a clue about their own laws and government, and how it works, the ACLU would be irrelevant. But, in a land where only 15% of registered voters bother to go to the polls, and where more than half the people can't name their local congressmen or state senators, the ACLU is necessary.
 
I actually got kicked out of somewhere by the cops for the first time for photographing people. Some people particularly colorful people that I photographed got mad and told the cops I was photographing kids. That was actually true, since I was photographing all sorts of people doing all sorts of things at a very crowded fair. However, the impression I got was that they made it sound more sinister than that.

He was pretty stand offish at first but was nice eventually and said it was "for my own safety" because a lot of rough folks were showing up and starting to drink and get rowdy. Actually, now that I think about it he said that I could stay if I stopped photographing and could come back tomorrow and photograph people if I wanted to (I chose not too since I had spent $10 to get in already and expected that night to be the most active and interesting for photographing.) He was trying to be nice so it seemed silly to argue (save that for people who aren't trying to be kind.) I think like most people he was under the impression that people would get angry and try to fight me which I can understand since I thought the same thing before I actually picked up a camera and started photographing strangers.

I definitely felt a little bit picked on especially since at first he was basically accusing me of being a pedophile but I try to remind myself to not take too much offense or take it too personally. I think law enforcement deserves appreciation for living in some kind of weird world full of suspicion, mistrust, violence, and knee jerk aggressive reactions so that the rest of us don't have to. It's a really weird kind of interaction though since in some ways we're from different planets ;)

It's nice to hear about the ACLU defending people in these kinds of cases but I still feel like we're kind of on our own most of the time. A lot of our institutions including law enforcement are pretty well educated in how to disenfranchise people. It's nice to hear about an instance where they might not entirely get away with it but I think as many people have experienced (including these photographers) legal precedent has little effect on these kinds of interactions with law enforcement :(
 
Frontman said:
There would be no need for the ACLU if people had the sense to learn and understand their rights, and if law enforcement and others learned their limitations. Unfortunately, few people bother. What can you expect from a country in which many high school graduates can't even find their country on a world map?

One of the great problems with living in a free society is that freedom requires a great deal of personal responsibility. Owning a gun is a right, and guns are extremely dangerous, a great deal of responsibility is required to possess a gun.

The freedom of speech is an even greater right, yet it is often abused. Speech is too often used to misinform or divide, rather than to inform or inspire. Words kill more people than guns; say the wrong thing to the wrong person, and the worst can happen.

Driving a car requires great responsibility, yet more than 40,000 Americans are killed in traffic accidents each year.

The ACLU has it's good and bad points, but if most Americans had a clue about their own laws and government, and how it works, the ACLU would be irrelevant. But, in a land where only 15% of registered voters bother to go to the polls, and where more than half the people can't name their local congressmen or state senators, the ACLU is necessary.
Click to expand...

Disagree. Even if you know your rights, you still need representation of they're being violated. Also, they fight overzealous legislators who encroach on "civil liberties", which as nothing to do with individual knowlege of the law. That the ACLU is even a controversial entity in this nation is chilling in and of itself, as is the sad necessity of their existance.
 
Frontman said:
....if most Americans had a clue about their own laws and government, and how it works, the ACLU would be irrelevant. But, in a land where only 15% of registered voters bother to go to the polls, and where more than half the people can't name their local congressmen or state senators, the ACLU is necessary.
Click to expand...

I think even if the officer knew the law and its limitations, it would not have changed his behavior. His zealotry is based on his interpretation of "suspicious" activity and his sense of duty in sniffing that out. And anybody who does not think like he does is suspicious. Therefore if the photographer was not taking a typical tourist snapshot, the officer automatically thinks he is suspicious because the officer does not understand that level of photography. Anybody who can find photographic interest in a mundane metro site is automatically suspicious because that person is not behaving as the officer would.

The officer may know the law, but his "calling" is beyond that....wrapped in the cloak of public safety
 
A short while back I was testing some available shots at the local mall, nothing exciting, I just like the bright sunshine showing through the overhead frosted panels along with the subtle shadows, when the security approached me stating that no picture taking was allowed in the mall. I asked him, "if no photography is allowed, where are the signs stating that?" He answered, "I'm telling you right now, no photography is allowed!" I wonder what they do at Christmas or Easter time when folks have their children with them and they take hundreds of pictures? I showed the security guard the pictures I took on my digital and then erased them in his presence. He didn't say that I should, but I wanted him to see that I wasn't casing the joint because I part of El Caida or some other terrorist organization. I realize that we live in a bad time but if photography is prohibited then signs should be posted everywhere to that effect.

I've heard others share their encounters with British Bobbies, but I've never had that problem. I've often taken pictures of motorcycle cops, palace guards, and a cute female Bobby on her horse. I asked her if I was allowed, and she replied, "Of course it's allowed!" Three cheers for the Brits!
 
Harlee...A shopping mall is Private Property even though the public is allowed in there...they normally don't post "No Photography" signs...
Next time talk with the Mall Management to see if they will allow/permit you to shoot in there...Get their Blessing first...
 
I think it would be better if he knew what he was doing clearly and also try to settle it in a more socialable manner. I'm not sure how the law works up there, but where I live, no one gives a bother.
 
Yeah malls are private property. Also @harley there is a difference to the officers in taking photos off a mall, or taking a photo of your friends etc. in a mall. They turn a blind eye to the latter usually.
 
Public property: you can take, private not. So this time the ACLU is right. Now LA county has some weird rules like in Agora (and another crazy place) or someplace up there, you can't take a photo of a car dealer. But the guy should have said OK and gone back 15 seconds later and taken out his cell phone.
 
[Counter-Strike round ending]Terrorists Win.[/Counter-Strike round ending]

Pretty pathetic that this is what the US has been reduced to. Not that it could really be any other way... I think it's good that the cop stopped and asked a few questions, but I think it's pretty ludicrous to allege directly to the person that he/she is later going to sell film pictures for the purposes of a terrorist attack. (Hi Big Brother if you're reading this.)

I suppose you could argue either way -- film is better because it's non-electronic and as we have a monopoly on internet-based recon/investigation, it could be advantageous for the bad guys to use non-electronically-surveillable (if that's a word) means of collecting intel.

Of course, walking around with a film SLR isn't exactly discreet, particularly in the age of EVERYONE AND THEIR GRANDMOTHERS having cell phone cameras.

The sheriff guy seemed reasonably polite, though (at least until threatening the guy with submitting his name to the Fed's "Hit List"), and fairly professional about it. I can imagine it being a really tough situation for law enforcement, and unfortunately, as a fair number of them don't have the cognitive resources to compete in presumptive/logical battle with a well-informed photographer/citizen, that leads to frustration, and as we all know, frustration leads to interesting YouTube videos.

I do think that the photographer wasn't particularly forthcoming at the beginning. I probably would've just laughed and given my info to the officer and told him that in the event that there's some massive terrorist attack whose epicenter is that subway station, he's welcome to come find me and arrest me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom