Was this cop full of [EXPLETIVE]?

[Sjixxxy]

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.

 

[sqjaw]

Some one must have took a wiz in his pond and he was not happy so he passed it on to you: Suggest you check with you local Law for such info and when found copy it and send it to the Chief of Police and have advise his People about harressing photographers :

 

[Mike Ip]

Yes he was full of it. It's called the first amendment. If something is happening in public space, you can photograph it freely.

 

[35mmdelux]

A statute does not exist because there is no law against photography in public places.

 

[35mmdelux]

Yes he was full of it. It's called the first amendment. If something is happening in public space, you can photograph it freely.

Wrong. The 1st Amend has to do with free speech, not photography. There is NO law against photography in public places in the USA. Its that simple.

Why not ask the cop for the statute (which doesnt exist).

 

[johannielscom]

Must have been a cop that got trained using the new police state course 😛

 

[kxl]

Yeah, I think the cop was a little confused on the meaning and purpose of a statute.

It's a basic lesson in American civics. In the US you start out with the FREEDOM TO DO ANYTHING YOU WANT. Statutes exist to LIMIT those freedoms. The Consitution then limits those statutes to guarantee certain freedoms.

So, in this case, there is no existing statute that limits your freedom to take pictures in a public place. If a statute is created to limit that freedom, then the enactment and enforcement of that statute potentially becomes a Constitutional issue.

 

[Al Kaplan]

I would have just told him to go ahead and arrest me and we'll let a judge sort it out. You're even entitled to photograph the cop while in public, write down his badge number, and file a complaint about his behavior. Try the state attorney's office, and notify the newspaper about what's going on. That idiot should be stripped of both his badge and his pension.

 

[JFH]

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...

 

[Sjixxxy]

Yeah, I think the cop was a little confused on the meaning and purpose of a statute.

It's a basic lesson in American civics. In the US you start out with the FREEDOM TO DO ANYTHING YOU WANT. Statutes exist to LIMIT those freedoms. The Consitution then limits those statutes to guarantee certain freedoms.

So, in this case, there is no existing statute that limits your freedom to take pictures in a public place. If a statute is created to limit that freedom, then the enactment and enforcement of that statute potentially becomes a Constitutional issue.

This is exactly what I was thinking. So if any statute number were to be thrown out, they would have to had came from him to tell me what I couldn't do, and not the opposite way around.

It seemed obvious that he fed me a spoonful moments later when he appeared to stumble on some words before telling me that he wouldn't be able to provide those numbers either.

 

[oftheherd]

At least in the USA, things that are not specifically prohibited are allowed. Therefore, if it isn't prohited by statute, which he will have to show, you can't be prohitited. There are gray areas. The best thing is to check with a lawyer in your jurisdiction, who is familiar with law on photography. You might also check with you local prosecutor's office.

No officer in his right mind is going to arrrest you if he isn't 100% sure he has you on a violation. Be aware that if he does so, he may then try to fall back on something like causing a disturbance and it may be difficult to defend if it is your word against his. Most cops aren't even going to waste time with that kind of thing. Yours was totally ignorant of law, even if he thought he as doing the right thing.

Always be polite, but firm. Don't give a policeman a reason to arrest you on some other charge. If he feels you are questioning his authority he may try to make an example of you. One thing that might work is to ask for an official, such as a sergeant or lieutenant to come to the scene. They don't want to look dumb in front of them. But you just never know. Much of the paranoia has gone away after 9/11, but not all. Even if you are right, don't make such an issue in public as to embarrase the poor guy or he will look for something, anything, to re-establish his authority.

 

[bmattock]

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.

Public laws state that which must be done (you must stop for stop signs) or prescribe behavior (you cannot steal the property of others). It does not say what you can legally do. The list of things you are allowed to do is nearly infinite. Where is the law that says you can jump up and down? Where is the law that says you can hold your breath as long as you want to?

The police officer was wrong.

However, it is difficult to argue with a cop without being cited or arrested, and you definitely won't win. One must decide whether or not it is worth their time and effort.

There are several routes in such cases.

One is to stop taking photographs, and then contact the police department in question. File a complaint. That will get to the bottom of the matter. If the police department in question also believes that taking photographs in public is illegal, then decide if you wish to hire a lawyer or contact the ACLU; they are clearly wrong (in the USA).

Another is to continue taking photographs and assume you'll be cited and/or arrested. Be prepared to have your equipment confiscated and/or spend a few nights in jail awaiting a bond hearing. Then hire a lawyer, etc.

A third method is to stop taking photographs and just go away. Probably the most expedient route, but anyone else who takes photographs in that area is going to experience the same thing, until someone finally does something. And it reinforces the erroneous opinion that some people (including some on RFF) have that you have to get permission to take photos of people in public.

If you choose the second route, be sure not to resist or argue with the police officer in any way as you're being cited or arrested. "Resisting arrest" is a very real charge and you may 'win' your point about public photography not being against the law, only to find that you have to fight a resisting arrest charge that is more serious and hard to win against.

Sorry it happened to you. There are a lot of uninformed people out there, and some of them wear badges. It's a fact of life.

I was stopped by a NYC park police officer when I tried to take a photo of him, and he told me it was illegal to take photos of police officers without their permission. I told him he was full of it. He's a public servant, we're in public, if he doesn't like it, he could go pound sand. He said if I took a photo of him, he'd arrest me. I did not take a photo of him. I was right, but I was not prepared to pay the price of being right at that time.

 

[antiquark]

Your mistake was that you actually answered his questions:

James Duane explains why innocent people should never talk to the police:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865#

 

[wgerrard]

Last comments from oftheherd and Bill have it it right. Don't give the officer a chance to charge you with something else. You want to be able to demonstrate that the cop charged you with a violation of a nonexistent law. Don't give him a change to charge you with violation of a real law. Be polite and nonconfrontational. Get the cop's name and badge number. Ask what law you are suspected of violating. If the response to that is a generic "it's against the law", ask the cop to call a superior to the scene. If the cop insists on charging you, continue to be cool and polite. Do what they want you to do. Remember and record all the details. Then, contact your local district attorney. If that person continues to insist the cop was right, find an attorney. Your local newspaper and TV stations might be interested in the story, so give them a call.

 

[kuzano]

Something similar happened to me a couple of years ago

Something similar happened to me a couple of years ago

I told the officer he should take the bullet out of his shirt pocket, put it in his gun and go look for someone doing something truly criminal.

 

[Gumby]

Another is to continue taking photographs and assume you'll be cited and/or arrested.

Cited or arrested for WHAT, exactly?

 

[pakeha]

gee, aint democracy and freedom great😱, sounds like a script from the simpsons , and remove that tatoo before you get arrested as well😀,

 

[wgerrard]

gee, aint democracy and freedom great😱, sounds like a script from the simpsons , and remove that tatoo before you get arrested as well😀,

It's all a matter of how much you want to pay for the pleasure of stomping your feet. Refusing to cooperate with a cop who wants to arrest you on a bogus charge will most likely get you arrested on a legitimate charge. If your goal is to avoid arrest and to determine what the law actually says, then cooperation seems the better choice. In essence, you are trying to prove a negative -- that a law does not exist -- and that's almost certainly going to be a futile effort with a cop. Just go along and bounce it over his head.

 

[Mephiloco]

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.

 

[Steve Bellayr]

What is his probable cause to stop you? There must be probable cause that you, the photographer, have violated a statute. If someone complains that you were harrassing him or her that is probable cause. When in public no subject has the expectation of privacy. As a tourist if I am taking pictures of historical sites and someone walks in front of me they can not expect any privacy. However, if you read the newspapers you will learn that a number of alledged/convicted terrorists had extensive photographs of their intended sites. Thepolice are expected to walk a fine line between security and your rights. The best answer is to state that you are a tourist and your hobby is photography. Politeness is the best defense. Criminals are never polite. They have certain profiles that elicit further investigation.