Scrambler
Well-known
It would be a pity to have this response in a liberal democracy.
FWIW, Australian Police of my experience have been polite and helpful. Working as I have for many years in treatment of drug addicts, we have been keen to have the Police stay away from our treatment centres - it discourages addicts from getting help which is the opposite of what the Police would want. I have had to (politely) remind Police officers of this on occasion, and I have never had a poor response.
And yes, for the War on Drugs mentality - Australian Policing fits into a broader approach which aims to reduce supply, reduce demand and reduce harm (e.g. HIV). There is no "War" here, and it has worked a lot better then the USA approach.
I have known Police that worked undercover (many years ago attended a wedding where photography was not allowed) and I have nothing but respect for the risks involved. At least in Australia, Police having that type of role do not ever wear uniform.
BillBingham2
Registered User
Tim,
Would like to suggest you check the laws in Chicago before you travel there with a camera. Might be legal in the state of Illinois, but Chicago Cops with a night stick seem to trump everyone at any time.
B2
Darshan
Well-known
This is pretty much true in almost all walks of life.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Bill,
That's why I carry my Chicago Police Department Press Credentials. They do a pretty good job of respecting those, especially since they are the ones who issued them. (I shoot for a number of Chicago news organizations).
As nice as these credentials are, they pale compared to the New York City press credentials I used to have when I lived and worked there. You could go literally anywhere with those and no one said a word. It was amazing. Extremely hard to get, and you had to jump through all sorts of hoops and kiss all sorts of backsides, but once you had them, you could go anywhere, anytime.
Best,
-Tim
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Bill,
Excellent article, thanks for sharing it. A man who has lived an incredible life, and was part of many important photo moments.
Best,
-Tim
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Yes it was looking that way for a while. Sue and I are only 5 or 6 miles from "ground zero" (Ferguson). Now that Governor Nixon has relieved the Ferguson police of their responsibilities, and put the the state Highway patrol in charge, things are looking calmer already. Never a problem with police & photography in our part of town (U. City, Clayton, St. Louis City).
Bill Pierce
Well-known
I remember the first time I covered the WhiteHouse. I didn't have the credentials issued to the regulars and had to be checked by the Secret Service. The agent took one look at my NY Police (Press) pass and called out in a loud voice, "Hey, we've got a real photographer."
willie_901
Veteran
I was hassled twice by the police.
The first time I was sitting in a light-rail car taking photographs with my lens pressed up against the window. The train was stopped at a station. An officer came in the train and too me to exit the car. They told me photography was prohibited. I asked them if there was an emergency. They said no, but you can't take photos of the platform (people, benches, shelters, light poles, art work). It turns out I wrote the Transit system's PR Director before about photographing on their property. They sent me an email stating what was allowed (anything but infrastructure) unless there was an emergency ands a permit and proof of insurance was required for lights/tripods.
I showed the PR Director's email to the officer. They said policy had changed. They told me to stay put and walked away to talk over there radio. They returned and said photography was no longer allowed.
When I reached my destination I checked their web site and the policy had not changed. A few days later I asked another officer if the policy changed... it hadn't. I continued to photograph from the train in the months aheaed.until the project was completed.
The second time was in a medical/university complex where I worked part time. Occasionally researchers' latex gloves be scattered on the sidewalk after they fell their lab coats as they walked from one building to another. I photographed these whenever I saw them. One evening their were several gloves scattered in the curb of a city street (not private property) and I started to photograph them. An officer approached me, told me to stop and said photography was prohibited on the medical center property. I politely told him I was on public property and so were the gloves. I told him I would not stop. I took one more shot and walked away. He didn't talk to me further but I heard him making a radio call. I walked a few blocks to the train station and rode home.
The first time I was sitting in a light-rail car taking photographs with my lens pressed up against the window. The train was stopped at a station. An officer came in the train and too me to exit the car. They told me photography was prohibited. I asked them if there was an emergency. They said no, but you can't take photos of the platform (people, benches, shelters, light poles, art work). It turns out I wrote the Transit system's PR Director before about photographing on their property. They sent me an email stating what was allowed (anything but infrastructure) unless there was an emergency ands a permit and proof of insurance was required for lights/tripods.
I showed the PR Director's email to the officer. They said policy had changed. They told me to stay put and walked away to talk over there radio. They returned and said photography was no longer allowed.
When I reached my destination I checked their web site and the policy had not changed. A few days later I asked another officer if the policy changed... it hadn't. I continued to photograph from the train in the months aheaed.until the project was completed.
The second time was in a medical/university complex where I worked part time. Occasionally researchers' latex gloves be scattered on the sidewalk after they fell their lab coats as they walked from one building to another. I photographed these whenever I saw them. One evening their were several gloves scattered in the curb of a city street (not private property) and I started to photograph them. An officer approached me, told me to stop and said photography was prohibited on the medical center property. I politely told him I was on public property and so were the gloves. I told him I would not stop. I took one more shot and walked away. He didn't talk to me further but I heard him making a radio call. I walked a few blocks to the train station and rode home.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
After 9/11, across the United States, taking photographs of and in train stations, subways, etc. became illegal. Probably had something to do with wanting to stop terrorists from surveying targets. It was strictly enforced for a number of years, but they are slacking off on it some now.
Best,
-Tim
Best,
-Tim
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I was told by an Amtrak conductor that photography was not permitted on the train some 5-6 years ago. I told him that I believed he was in error but would comply with his request. However I did need his full name and employee ID information to include in my letter to Amtrak requesting refund of my ticket price. I pointed out that my sole reason for riding the train was to photograph, not to go somewhere. My ticket showed I was traveling 1 1/2 hours in one direction then changing to a train returning to my original departure point.
I sat with the conductor while he spent 45 minutes leafing through regulations then on the phone with his supervisors. I told him that I had nothing else to do since I could not photograph. Finally, he admitted his error, apologized, and told me that I was free to photograph.
Sparrow
Veteran
... I thought you had a constitution, or an amendment or something over there that stopped the state doing that sort of thing
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Hey Stewart, as you might remember, that whole "constitution" thing got tossed out the window after 9/11, and all kinds of unconstitutional and draconian measures were put into place to keep us "safer". Folks went along with it because they were freaked out. Over time, many of those measures have been walked back.
Funny how willing people are to give up their rights when they think their lives are in danger.
Best,
-Tim
Funny how willing people are to give up their rights when they think their lives are in danger.
Best,
-Tim
Bob Michaels
nobody special
We do but police officers, being people, will always have an occasional one who becomes overzealous.
Then we citizens are faced with the dilemma of our rights without becoming overzealous ourselves.
And there is always that old "you may beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride" line. You don't really win when the police says "you were right. Sorry you had to spend the night in jail but you are free to go now"
jszokoli
Well-known
While you may see signs saying photograph prohibited or the like that does not necessarily mean that there is a law or even rule to back that up. As Bob points out that if these 'rules' are respectfuly questioned they may evaporate.
We must be careful and understand that it's our actions that can make these edicts fact.
Be careful you may be throwing your constitutional rights out the window...
Joe
We must be careful and understand that it's our actions that can make these edicts fact.
Be careful you may be throwing your constitutional rights out the window...
Joe
Sparrow
Veteran
... don't you have guns to stop them doing that sort of thing?
hendriphile
Well-known
Nothing new. After the Reichstag Fire in 1933, the German government suspended the civil liberties of its citizens.
Addy101
Well-known
No problem, I guess we agree
goamules
Well-known
And Hitler took their guns away. Great Britain and Australia didn't follow that move until recently.
And it's amazing how much speech is illegal....everywhere but in America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_Kingdom
goamules
Well-known
Yes, we have the First Amendment to the Constitution (1791) which allows free speech. We can't suppose photography is some kind of "free speech" though. The government decided no cameras were allowed at Los Alamos during the Manhattan project, for a good reason. They decided during the 911 attacks, when terrorists were placing bombs in parking garages (New York, Oklahoma), subways (London) and other current targets to ban them too. So what? You think your individual desire to take a photo of the nuclear power plant somehow overrides the attempt to protect the community? I'm not that arrogant.
Back to the OP. Of course you can photograph police. So what? Is the goal to intimidate them, suggesting they're always about to do something wrong? They're doing a job. In MO, a thug was walking down the middle of the street. The cop told him to get on the sidewalk. The thug, hyped up from just robbing a store, decided the cop was about to arrest him. He decided he had nothing to lose, and was "sick of these aggressive cops in my face" (sound familiar to your attitude, Police photo journalists?), and grabbed for the cops gun. The cop, reacting to his training, and about to become another Cop Shot By His Own Gun, defended himself. The thug, shot and realizing he lost his bid to grab the gun, runs away, hand in the air "don't shoot again!" Then collapses, dead.
The media and community turns the above story into "Unarmed (Implying innocent and defenseless - but he just assaulted 2 people robbing the store - so was violent), Youth (Implying a poor boy playing with his puppy - why is anyone under 20 a youth?) Killed by Cop (Implying cops are roaming the streets, shooting up birthday parties and men walking home from their jobs). The "witnesses" say he was shot standing there with his hands up." Bull. The community, always ready to blame their problems on others, finds another opportunity to loot and burn.
Why are you worried about taking pictures of cops? Take pictures of the thugs, and shame them into changing their lives.
Back to the OP. Of course you can photograph police. So what? Is the goal to intimidate them, suggesting they're always about to do something wrong? They're doing a job. In MO, a thug was walking down the middle of the street. The cop told him to get on the sidewalk. The thug, hyped up from just robbing a store, decided the cop was about to arrest him. He decided he had nothing to lose, and was "sick of these aggressive cops in my face" (sound familiar to your attitude, Police photo journalists?), and grabbed for the cops gun. The cop, reacting to his training, and about to become another Cop Shot By His Own Gun, defended himself. The thug, shot and realizing he lost his bid to grab the gun, runs away, hand in the air "don't shoot again!" Then collapses, dead.
The media and community turns the above story into "Unarmed (Implying innocent and defenseless - but he just assaulted 2 people robbing the store - so was violent), Youth (Implying a poor boy playing with his puppy - why is anyone under 20 a youth?) Killed by Cop (Implying cops are roaming the streets, shooting up birthday parties and men walking home from their jobs). The "witnesses" say he was shot standing there with his hands up." Bull. The community, always ready to blame their problems on others, finds another opportunity to loot and burn.
Why are you worried about taking pictures of cops? Take pictures of the thugs, and shame them into changing their lives.
gdi
Veteran
I seriously doubt that is true. Police, Sheriffs, and Security Guards my believe that and tell you it is fact, but don't believe or perpetuate it until you can point to the specific Federal statute.