Was this cop full of [EXPLETIVE]?

Maddening. At his next stop did he ask the purse-snatcher to provide the statute number for him so he could fill out his paperwork?
 
Sjixxxy said:
So recently I had a cop stop me while I was out in photographing out in public. During his questioning, he attempted to tell me that I wasn't allowed to take pictures in public or of people. I told him that everything I've ever been informed by told me the opposite. He asked me where I got that info, and I cited The Photographer's Rights, as well as various news stories on the subject of police harassing photographers.

His response was that I can't rely on something that a lawyer wrote about the laws, and that I need to provide him exact statute numbers.

So here is my question since I don't know all the ins-and-outs of law. Would such a statute number even exist? In my head, I find it hard to believe that every conceivable "it is okay to do <whatever> in public" situation has a number assigned to it.
Click to expand...

I take a lot of pictures of people (strangers) in public and have been harassed by police several times.

Certainly people are right to say that in the USA you have a right to photograph people in public places. I live in the Boston area and know of no local law to the contrary, and, moreover, I doubt that such a law would be constitutional.

This is an unfortunate demonstration of the practical power in the hands of ordinary individual police officers, some of whom are not well informed. I think what will happen at some point is that there will be a test case that will get police in trouble and get things clarified in their minds.

Meanwhile, I agree with others who point out you should not give the cop a pretext for arresting you on some other charge. (Disturbing the peace, etc.) A problem we all have, with onlookers and other civilians around, is that many of them also believe you do not have a right to photograph them without their permission. So you should not count on a sympathetic crowd for whatever purpose. I do believe public photography is constitutionally protected (by the US constitution), although I am not sure it has been tested. If not for the constitutional protection I strongly suspect that localities would pass laws restricting it.

Tom
 
For anyone interested, I just published a more verbose account of the incident on my blog. You can read it here.

I mostly did what wgerrard said and remained polite through the whole thing. Worked out well enough for me.
 
JFH said:
I think you should have immediately put the shoe on the other foot and asked him exactly which statute you were supposedly violating. HE's the one asserting that there's some kind of law to prohibit what you're doing. He's supposedly enforcing it, so he ought to know what it is and what it says..

Otherwise, you've just got a case of an overzealous cop who thinks that he "is" the law instead of just someone who "enforces" it. You're not the one who has to "prove" anything, the cop is...
Click to expand...



One of the major problems with law enforcement IMO is so many of these 'public servants' actually think they are the law!

I try to have a generous attitude towards these people because it's not a pleasant job a lot of the time ... but this guy was obviously an idiot!
 
Sjixxxy said:
So recently I had a cop stop me while I was out in photographing out in public. During his questioning, he attempted to tell me that I wasn't allowed to take pictures in public or of people. I told him that everything I've ever been informed by told me the opposite. He asked me where I got that info, and I cited The Photographer's Rights, as well as various news stories on the subject of police harassing photographers.

His response was that I can't rely on something that a lawyer wrote about the laws, and that I need to provide him exact statute numbers.

So here is my question since I don't know all the ins-and-outs of law. Would such a statute number even exist? In my head, I find it hard to believe that every conceivable "it is okay to do <whatever> in public" situation has a number assigned to it.
Click to expand...

I take a lot of pictures of people (strangers) in public and have been harassed by police several times.

Certainly people are right to say that in the USA you have a right to photograph people in public places. I live in the Boston area and know of no local law to the contrary, and, moreover, I doubt that such a law would be constitutional.

This is an unfortunate demonstration of the practical power in the hands of ordinary individual police officers, some of whom are not well informed. I think what will happen at some point is that there will be a test case that will get police in trouble and get things clarified in their minds.

Meanwhile, I agree with others who point out you should not give the cop a pretext for arresting you on some other charge. (Disturbing the peace, etc.) A problem we all have, with onlookers and other civilians around, is that many of them also believe you do not have a right to photograph them without their permission. So you should not count on a sympathetic crowd for whatever purpose. I do believe public photography is constitutionally protected (by the US constitution), although I am not sure it has been tested. If not for the constitutional protection I strongly suspect that localities would pass laws restricting it.

Tom
 
Mephiloco said:
If it were me, I would've asked him, since he seemed to thing he was so right, what statute exactly you were violating, and for him to cite it. You could also be inclined to say you trust constitutional law to a lawyer more than a police officer, but I wouldn't.
Click to expand...

"Local Ordinance 3478, Section 42, Paragraph 34."

I just made that up, of course, and so could a cop. How many of us are so well versed about the laws in the city we happen to be in that we would know one way or the other?

Asking for the statute to be cited is really a clever way of asking the cop to think about what he's about to do. If he was threatening to arrest you for speeding and reckless operation, his ability or inability to cite a specific statute wouldn't do you much good.

The constitutional law angle wouldn't come into play until you had managed to levitate the issue to an appellate court qualified to rule on the constitutionality of that statute as applied in your case. All on your dime. Arguing that a local law is unconstitutional in that municipality's court won't work.
 
Last edited:
I suggest all of you read Robinson v. Fetterman, Smith v. City of Cumming, and Jean v. Mass. State Police if you take photos of people in public places, including police officers. The Defendants in these cases got a hard lesson in Constitutional Law.
 
I agree that people need and maintain a certain psychological distance - especially in cities where people are essentially anonymous.

Which is why I tend to shoot people (a) respectfully and (b) with an SLR and a longer lens. I have had other so called street photographers say to me that unless I use a rangefinder and a wide lens - that I stick into peoples faces I am a wuss and not doing it right.

Yeh! Right!

By respectfully I mean I do not try to catch them in compromising situations or with their finger up their nose or whatever. Further in using a longer lens I do not mean standing off at a distance half way to the moon - just respecting their private space (and providing enough distance to give me a head start :^) )

Understand human psychology and you will go a lot further than you will by asserting your rights most times although you may need to do that sometimes too.

To date the only people I have really had take an exception has been a rent a cop in a private mall - where I decided not to push the issue because of the legally ambiguous situation; a crazy homeless guy (who I was not photographing - he did not like me photographing other people) and a weird aging hippy busker complete with dredlocks and a violin who did not want to be photographed. (One would have though that if you were busking you were holding out to be paid attention to - but I have learned that buskers with violins tend to be exceptions - and sourpusses to boot. Presumably their inability to get a job for the New York Philharmonic depresses them.)

So far no trouble with sane people and real authorities. In fact I have made a point of using my camera in my favorite shooting haunt - a public mall, dead in front of police and security guards and gotten no reactions.

PS love the video by the law professor. Unfortunately as I understand it the law in Aust is more ambiguous - you can be charged with failing to answer a question in some circumstances at least but I suspect the correct response here may be not to refuse to answer questions but to insist on having legal representation whilst doing so. Great video though. Loved it.

As regards photography the legal situation is generally the same here - you can do whatever you damn well please so long as its not prohibited by law. The above mentioned crazy homeless person cited some non existent security law as to why I should not take photos and while he got a mouthful of abuse for his troubles the sad truth is that some local government authorities (in Aust this is the lowest form of government and they generally do things like providing dog catchers and providing street sweeping services but have aspirations far beyond this) have passed local ordinances prohibiting photos in some scenic locals. Australia's famous Bondi beach is one such place - mainly because a few creeps with mobile phone have photographed women engaged in topless bathing. I should have thought the correct response to this was obvious but not so to those brain surgeons in power in local government.
 
Last edited:
Vertigo2020 said:
The Constitutional Right to travel to other states of the Union is clearly established in law. Those that tolerate the kinds of abuses you describe do so by choice. Maybe you should consider a move to Montana where a woman has a right to brandish a loaded firearm and threaten to kill an aggressor if she believes she's in danger.
Click to expand...

Unless one trusts in the infallibility of women, that's a good reason to avoid Montana.
 
Here in Florida we also have the right to shoot if we feel that our life is in danger. You don't have to be a woman to excersize this right.
 
Where are these johnny-law types when the papparazzi are stalking celebrities? Take a picture of a cop, when he objects tell him "hey I thought you are someone famous! Aren't you in the movie they are shooting?"
 
well, one thing i have learned from this discussion, is that street photographers are creepy.

some of you have not a clue...
 
Sjixxxy said:
So recently I had a cop stop me while I was out in photographing out in public. During his questioning, he attempted to tell me that I wasn't allowed to take pictures in public or of people. I told him that everything I've ever been informed by told me the opposite. He asked me where I got that info, and I cited The Photographer's Rights, as well as various news stories on the subject of police harassing photographers.

His response was that I can't rely on something that a lawyer wrote about the laws, and that I need to provide him exact statute numbers.

So here is my question since I don't know all the ins-and-outs of law. Would such a statute number even exist? In my head, I find it hard to believe that every conceivable "it is okay to do <whatever> in public" situation has a number assigned to it.
Click to expand...

I had exactly that discussion with Bert Krages, Esq. author of "Legal Handbook for Photographers" as I wanted legal citations. He understood my need for more legal authority that "I read it in a book I bought on the internet". The particular incident was our local Police Chief supporting an officer who "asked" me not to photograph people at our local fair because some unknown person had complained. I felt a personal and moral obligation to resolve the issue when the Chief stated that "I did not have the right to photograph people without first obtaining their consent".

Now I must interject here that I work diligently not to photograph those who object in any manner. However a blanket direction from law enforcement not to photograph people is something I believe must be resolved. This was subsequently resolved in my favor.

Bert Krages explained to me that the basic right to photograph people without their consent is so generally acknowledged in constitutional law that it has never been litigated. All of the court cases relate to unusual or extreme situations that stretch the interpretation of the law. I felt the need for a legal citation and ended up using Cape Publications v. Bridges, 423 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), rev. denied, 431 So. 2d 988 (Fla.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 893 (1983) as this was in our local appellate district and (important only to me) I actually knew the photographer involved.

Bert Krages did say that if there was a third edition of "Legal Handbook for Photographers" that he would attempt to address this basic right in legal citiations.
 
CLE-RF said:
Must have been a cop that got trained using the new police state course :p
Click to expand...

All too often these days. Even worse is when they try to confiscate the film or even the camera itself with the threat of an "Obstructing Justice" charge. :bang:

I'm curious though, is it actually the training or is there some developing tendency of USA police officers to infringe upon our basic freedoms? Let me say that I do believe most generalizations are false (from a great quote), but I have had my fair share of ridiculously uncalled for encounters with the police, having not harassed anyone or gotten in the way to the point of "Obstructing Justice".

This video is most certainly worth a watch...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/crime/detail?entry_id=48696
 
Last edited:
back alley said:
well, one thing i have learned from this discussion, is that street photographers are creepy.

some of you have not a clue...
Click to expand...

Joe: I cannot completely respond to your comment "street photographers are creepy" without being banned from this forum. That is a decision I would only make after some cooling off period.

Please understand that I do consider it a personal insult.
 
bob, it wasn't my comment. i was repeating what i had read in this thread.

someone else said and some others seemed to agree that street photographers were creepy.
being mostly a street shooter i take personal offence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom