colt45
Member
Too avoid hassles I carry an abreviated copy of the statutes that I have laminated this seems to satisfy most people. Also I don't stick my camera in peoples faces. I try to be discrete and polite when questioned thereby avoiding trouble (most of the time). Even though people do not have the right not to be photographed I don't think that anything is gained by antagonising people . After all this is my hobby it is not worth getting arrested or beaten up over. Just my opinion.
Robert
Robert
R
rpsawin
Guest
I think the cop got it way wrong...he has to provide you with exact statute/code sites.
Bob
Bob
pakeha
Well-known
anyone had this experience in say, oh i dunno, cuba? venezuela? uzbekistan. I jest but am relating this to my own experience in the FSU during mid eighties. Creepy guy with big nikon and long lens wandering around the streets of moscow, east berlin etc ,solo. Not once was i ever approached by anyone in uniform questioning my right to take photos, there is some irony here but i don`t think i would try it in Nth Korea, Peshawar or perhaps Florida.
AgentX
Well-known
The Constitution sets the larger framework by (in part) enumerating specific natural rights the Government won't infringe on, and then laws are made within that framework. But we digress on minutiae...
The COP is the one who needs to know statutes before he takes action against you.
And in this case, there might be a statute limiting certain instances of photography (I doubt it, but it's possible), but you don't need a law authorizing you to take photos. He, on the other hand, needs to know that there is in fact a law against you taking photos if he wants to arrest you.
Mind you, no such statute has to exist for him to start talking to you or perform an investigative detention, (ie, stopping your movement to question you.)
Last edited:
Al Kaplan
Veteran
I've never had a problem with cops in South Florida but I was legally photographing some people outside a polling place, the North Miami Public Library, last election when some campaign worker decided that I didn't have the right to take her picture and attacked me. It's in the hands of the state attorney's office now. A couple of their investigators came by my house for about an hour asking all kinds of questions, and I heard that there's also a federal investigation about "intimidating voters".
I got a neat photo of her fist coming right at my face! The investigators loved it.
I got a neat photo of her fist coming right at my face! The investigators loved it.
Tom Diaz
Well-known
Yes, in Cuba in 1997 I was told not to photograph some things. However, I agree with your implication that I expect more of the USA.
Tom
AgentX
Well-known
"Right to privacy" is between a government and a citizen, not between a photographer and a subject.
Tom Diaz
Well-known
Har! I was having roughly the same thought.
I guess I should add that not only will "civilians" not go to bat for you as a street photographer, but you cannot necessarily count on other photographers.
Anyway, although I understand that people may not like having their pictures taken, one has to delve a little deeper. Are they kissing their loved ones, or picking their noses, ... in public? Which is how I got them. What is their complaint exactly, that I have violated their privacy? They may not "like" having their pictures taken, but they're in a public place. I am no Cartier-Bresson, but would he be able to function in modern Paris? Wouldn't the world be a poorer place if he were trying to shoot things today and getting hassled all the time?
But really, we digress. This was not directly about how people feel. It's about some cop who decides to start making up the law as he goes along. That is something we should all deplore.
Tom
Vertigo2020
Member
I read Ken's resolution review on the M9, D300, and 5D and decided I was better off here.
...and, if your referring to a Terry Stop, it must be predicated on the officers reasonable suspicion you have committed, or about to commit and crime. Absent reasonable suspicion any questions posed to you by LE are considered to be consensual, in which case you are free to not answer and walk away. Ask if you are free to go. If you are detained under Terry, give your name if required under state law. Furthermore, some states do not have stop and identify statutes permitting such action by LE. In which case you are under no obligation to answer any questions posed to you by LE. The exception being those states that do allow stop and identify that compel disclosure of your name; e.g. Hiibel. In re: Hiibel the Supremes stopped short of ruling on establishing dicta that would support respective state S&I statutes that require anything more than your name. A good starter on the erosion your 5th Amendment right can be found here: http://www.fed-soc.org/doclib/20080313_CrimKlein.pdf
This has become a complicated area of law since Hiibel and will likely be back before the SC as more civil rights violations occur in the wake of 9/11.
Last edited:
mike kim
Established
Every time I photographed policemen in Argentina they smiled, posed and then asked which newspaper the photo was going to be in. Same with everyone else. I've only encountered trouble with people concerned about having their photo taken in the US. I haven't seen the same paranoia in any other country I've been in.
AgentX
Well-known
Absolutely. However, to reiterate, just coming up and asking questions requires no level of suspicion.
Reasonable suspicion to perform a stop is a fairly low standard of proof. And an officer doesn't have to articulate his reasonable suspicion to the subject. He might have to articulate it later to his boss or a judge, but that's his problem.
bmattock
Veteran
When I have been asked questions by the people who have objected to being photographed by me (or who merely thought I was taking their photo), the question most often asked is "What are you going to do with it?" I have always thought that was a very strange question. What difference does it make what I do with it? I'm going to put it on my altar to Satan, how's that? Are you harmed by that?
Vertigo2020
Member
Depends on the respective S&I statute. I happen to live in a state that requires the LEO to promptly disclose the reason for the particularized suspicion/stop unless emergency circumstances exist or the officer has reasonable cause to fear for the officer's own safety or for the public's safety.
There are 24 states with S&I statutes, read (rhetorically) the one you live in for clarification.
pakeha
Well-known
`I'd like to see a soldier give me a hard time. I'm a Marine. We don't take guff from soldiers.'
Ha, just 30 minutes ago i told my wife that this was coming!
Hey, anyone out there not a marine or never been a marine?
Ha, just 30 minutes ago i told my wife that this was coming!
Hey, anyone out there not a marine or never been a marine?
bmattock
Veteran
Hey, anyone out there not a marine or never been a marine?
Once a Marine, always a Marine!
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
The cop was wrong during the interaction, no doubt. But if you're going around shooting IR flash of strangers after dark in a public place... what did you expect?
IMO there was sufficient probable cause for a stop and shake. He should have cut you loose after determining you weren't a voyeur/upskirt drooler; his "gimme the ordnance" BS was just that - BS.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Royal Australian Air Force then Army Reserve (Royal Australian Signals). I have been on exercise with US Marines. An intriguing experience, if not completely edifying. But that's way off topic, so I shan't take it up here.Hey, anyone out there not a marine or never been a marine?
...Mike
Last edited:
AgentX
Well-known
True, if you're being detained under an S&I statute rather than a general Terry stop... As someone with federal law enforcement training, I never had an S&I to rely on (or constrain me, as the case may be) when I was working on the street (as much as I ever did, which wasn't much...) so I tend to think only of the Constitutional standards and requirements of federal law.
It's certainly true that a non-federal jurisdiction can require things of its officers that are not necessary under the broader Constitutional standard.
It's all pretty complicated and particular to a specific place, circumstances, and fact pattern. Maybe it shouldn't be...
eavis
Member
There is sometimes nice light around the NY Fed, so I used to shoot there. With all the security concerns -- there's lots of gold in there, apparently -- I wasn't surprised when the NY Fed cops asked me to stop. I used to snap a bit more and move on. Then, a few months later they had a change of heart. They didn't ask me to stop, but merely asked me what I was doing. I wonder if they got the memo.