Long Beach Police Chief says cops can detain photographers

The concern with photography "with no apparent esthetic value" is actually exactly how the DHS (Homeland Security) phrases their guidelines on SAR (suspicious activity reporting). This is nothing unique to Long Beach, but this is national policy. To me it seems like the officer was actually (mostly) doing his job since it states in the footnote that he let the photographer continue shooting afterward.
I think the problem is really with the phrasing of the policy, and the vague instructions it gives to officers as well as the general public. Yes, you could also report anyone you don't like.
I don't have enough fingers to count the number of times that I have been approached usually by security personnel, but also on a few occasions by police.
I really don't have an issue with them asking what I am doing. I think it is fair for them to want to assess that I am not potentially suspicious. However I have in my experience not yet encountered a situation in which the person walked away and let me continue what I was doing, once they had determined that I was ok. For me the real nuisance having to listen to the same lies about "since 9/11, bla bla bla...it is forbidden...bla bla bla", it is getting so boring by now.
 
Whatever. If you're incapable of respectfully talking your way out of a situation where you are approached by an officer for taking a photo, then maybe you deserve to be locked up.
 
Last edited:
filmfan said:
Whatever. If you incapable of respectfully talking your way out of a situation where you are approached by an officer for taking a photo, then maybe you deserve to be locked up.
Click to expand...

I might be inclined to agree, but I can understand that some people might respond badly to an officer saying something like:
"If you don't stop filming, I will confiscate your camera" (in Times Square after an officer walked through my shot).
or in London:
"Go away and don't come back!" (after I explained that I was a student doing my project).

The day that police start approaching people politely, they will find their jobs suddenly will become much easier.
 
For the past two years, I have had both the educational and financial privilege of being the only photographer to cover what is now regarded as the "Ted" of National Security meetings. I have to pass rigorous background checks to even be able to set foot in the place, all cameras and gear registered by serial number and sniffed daily for an entire week.

One of the best parts about being the photographer at this event is the access I have to the very people who set these policies in place. For example, I am now good friends with the chief of police of the transportation department of the largest city in the U.S., a near relative of this person attending one of the best photo schools in the country.

So I am setting the stage for what I am about to say with the above preface. When newspapers sensationalize headlines and in turn, hoards of amateur photographers ( sorry, pros simply know better ) react in the way that they do, well, it simply does not in any way change the fact that these people have a job to do and in return, are not doing them selves any favors.

I was approached in Times Square in almost this very same fashion while working on assignment. The officer wanted to even look through the camera to see what I was taking a photo of, I happily and proudly obliged and presented my assignment letter. He then said sorry to have bothered me.

I told him no problem, I would actually be concerned if he did not ask me what I was doing. I have NEVER had any of the problems other people have had. I figure that is because I understand that both the world and the world of photography has changed and is going to keep going through massive changes.

These changes and the even more disturbing ones to follow are and will be permanent....there is no going back, so stop blaming law enforcement officials all the time when in reality, they are like me, just doing their job, and like many of you, do photography as a hobby too.

By the way, I signed on here just now to post a link to this article before finding it here.....I was given the link via a friend of mine who is an utterly passionate amateur photographer.....he is also a local sheriffs deputy.

Wake up folks, this is not 1776, it is 2011, 10 years after the first major terrorist attack on U.S. soil, use common sense...
 
Geez, once again, I can feel some animosity brooding...why is this?

Personally, having worked in and with law enforcement, having been through law school and... through personal observation (never had a real problem with law enforcement), I have a healthy distrust for those in power, not only law enforcement. As I said, I appreciate them.

Yes, I have worked a lot of my life in government as well, so after 40 years, I have a good idea what goes on every day. As in all walks of life, there is that familiar distribution curve with good, bad and all in-between.

It's those on the wrong side of the bell curve that worry me and they are out there as in all professions. A certain amount of distrust is always healthy IMO.;)

As a side note, I love and respect my wife's doctors and healthcare providers. But, at least 7 times this past 18 months, I have had to stop them from administering certain medications or doing certain procedures because, as they agreed later, those would have killed her. So, distrust of even the noble medical field is a healthy state of mind.:angel:
 
Dave I agree that a healthy level of mistrust and scrutiny of our policy makers, law enforcement and other public servants is ok, but when ever a topic like this arises, I don't see much insight going on, just a lot of knee jerk rhetoric that does not exactly set the stage for a solution for either side.

I have to work in and around these people, some are truly nice, well meaning and use humility and common sense in performing their daily tasks. And some, well, they are jerks who we all know do not belong in a uniform.

Bottom line is that photo anarchists are not brining solutions to the table and from what I gather from the people in mid to high level government that I get to talk to, we all might suffer even more as artists and professionals as this goes on.
 
Last edited:
rover said:
As my father is a retired police officer I guess I am always amazed at the ambivolence of people to talk to an officer if approached. If you do, you may find out that they are not much different than you.
Click to expand...

Police officers have immense power to ruin your day, and a disturbingly large number of police officers and are willing to use that power in arbitrary and capricious ways. Not a majority, but a significant enough minority that it is almost never a good idea to give a police officer any leverage that might be used against you.

A useful rule of thumb: unless you have access to legal counsel, it's a poor idea to provide an officer with information that you are not legally or morally obligated to provide. What constitutes moral obligation is between you and your conscience. This does not mean that one should act like an ass – courtesy is a virtue. But don't confuse courtesy with foolishness!

Two PDFs that are worth having in your wallet and in your camera bag (both are US-specific):

The Photographer's Right | ACLU Bust Card
 
Last edited:
filmfan said:
Whatever. If you're incapable of respectfully talking your way out of a situation where you are approached by an officer for taking a photo, then maybe you deserve to be locked up.
Click to expand...

Most of the time, that's true. In my case, it's always been true. But your perspective does not take into account that the reality that police officers are (1) human, with all the failings that implies, and (2) have more power than you do and can really mess up your day, your week, or worse.

Civil rights are a use-em-or-lose-'em proposition. Ask anyone who lived in, say, Hungary in the 1950s.
 
rpsawin said:
Yep! And I think the poor headline will encourage a few wing nuts to travel to LB to challange the "policy". That cannot help. Leave it alone and let it die.
Click to expand...

There is no policy. That is the point of the article: the LBPD is operating lawlessly, making it up as they go and operating under preposterously broad and ambiguous rules that are formulated so that photography is considered a suspect activity by default.

Again:

Among the non-criminal behaviors "which shall be reported on a SAR" are the usage of binoculars and cameras (presumably when observing a building, although this is not specified), asking about an establishment's hours of operation, taking pictures or video footage "with no apparent esthetic value," and taking notes.

...McDonnell says that while there is no police training specific to determining whether a photographer's subject has "apparent esthetic value," officers make such judgments "based on their overall training and experience" and will generally approach photographers not engaging in "regular tourist behavior."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I go there all the time, and now the bully state is going to be my Long Beach, CA critic. I'm worried as most of my shots have 'no apparent esthetic value.'
 
KM-25 said:
I was approached in Times Square in almost this very same fashion while working on assignment. The officer wanted to even look through the camera to see what I was taking a photo of, I happily and proudly obliged and presented my assignment letter. He then said sorry to have bothered me.

I told him no problem, I would actually be concerned if he did not ask me what I was doing. I have NEVER had any of the problems other people have had. I figure that is because I understand that both the world and the world of photography has changed and is going to keep going through massive changes.
Click to expand...

My guess is that if you hadn't had an assignment letter, the officer would not have said sorry. None of the tourists in Time Square need assignment letters to photograph there. Again, I totally understand why they may approach a photographer, and I also oblige, but in my experience they act like you are a nuisance, and it is easier for them to 'make you go away'. It is officers doing their job sloppily that I object to.
 
What do you HAVE to tell a cop, anyway?

Name of course, and then what?

You have to tell them where you live?

etc.
 
And the judge said:

"Son, sorry your photos suck ... two years hard labour!"

:D
 
I think the incident was relatively minor and a good case of an officer perhaps barking up the wrong tree but ultimately not taking it very far. There are far worse incidents out there.
 
KM-25 said:
Wake up folks, this is not 1776, it is 2011, 10 years after the first major terrorist attack on U.S. soil, use common sense...
Click to expand...

I don't recall giving you the authority to bargain away my constitutional rights. You might be pals with Homeland Security officials, and proud to let the authorities peak through your camera, but I am disinclined to have my rights violated in this way.

Your "cooperation" makes it easier for the authorities to come down hard on those who have the guts to stand up for themselves and their human rights.

Please rethink your attitude on this. You are allowing friendly personal relationships, developed as an essential part of your professional work, to cloud your judgement. Sort of like the undercover cop who starts liking the thugs he hangs out with.

Not that I would EVER compare our fine homeland security forces to thugs!

Randy
 
well, everyone's a critic ... why not cops? they probably hang out on the streets and see more interesting stuff than most "street photographers"

I look forward to LB being a safer place.
 
uhoh7 said:
What do you HAVE to tell a cop, anyway?

Name of course, and then what?

You have to tell them where you live?

etc.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think so. You are not obliged to tell them anything. Sample civil reply:

Policewoman: "Excuse me, sir, we've had a complaint from McDonalds [waves towards burger joint] that you way have been taking pictures."

Me, smiling: "Tough. That's no concern of theirs."

Policewoman: "Quite so, sir. But would you mind telling me why you were taking pictures, as a personal favour?"

Me, still smiling (smiles disarm people a lot): "Certainly, officer. I write for the photographic press, and I have these new lenses to test... [I show her the lenses, and explain] . . . I am only explaining all this because you have been entirely civil and correct, and I would be grateful if you could possibly point out to the people in McDonalds, again as a personal favour, that it is no concern of theirs if people take photographs on the street." That made her smile too. After which I ostentatiously took a few pics of McDo's, which I hadn't even realized was there, so that if they complained to her again, she would pretty much have to explain this to them.

The joke is that five or ten minutes earlier, I'd been photographing a police PR wagon (one of those walk-in buses with information about the police inside) and had fallen into conversation with the copper inside, so he knew full well what I was doing. He'd had no problem with my photographing police property!

Cops are one thing. Security guards are often worse (though on the two or three occasions I've spoken to them, they've been civil too). But MCDO?

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom