Pictures containing Govt. Employees...

[Bubber Jones]

Ok, so I was at a school function shooting snapshots of all of the kids with my S400. I took a couple of pictures of three friends and it happened that a local sheriff’s deputy was in the background. He noticed and came up to me demanding to confiscate my camera stating that it was illegal to take pictures of law enforcement personnel. I assured him that I was only taking snap shots of the kids, but he was very adamant. I showed him that I could delete the two pictures of him in the background, but he did not back down. He only reluctantly backed down after I showed him that I erased the entire flash card.

Is this correct? I have a hard time believing that a police officer can attempt to confiscate your camera for unintentionally having them in the background of a snap shot… Am I off base?

[scotgasch]

Hmmm.... I will do some research on this, but personally I would have thrown a fit...you were in a public place....come to think of it I have taken pictures of several protests at my county courthouse and there were definately officers and deputies in my pics, and they didn't seem to care, in fact one even smiled for me...

Call the sherriff's dept and ask...be specific and ask for the actual written law.

[Bubber Jones]

It was a very heated discussion and I got his name and badge number. I'll be calling the department during normal business hours to find out what my rights may, or may not be....

DM

[SoCal69]

I'm not so sure... The reason I say this is that being on public school school premises does not mean you are in a public place. Now, I still think he has no basis for claiming you can't have law enforcement personnel in the photos, but he may have a basis for questioning your presence with a camera on school property. Many schools and districts have strict media (photography and video) policies regarding photos of students and the use of photos. If this was not some function which parents were attending and you were really just the only one there, I think they would have a right to approach you (but not necessarily confiscate your camera). I think it really depends on the specific circumstances.

[Bubber Jones]

The function was winter guard painting sets for upcomming shows. They were painting outside because of the space required to lay out all of the set pieces. There were several parents there (and photographed) and the police officer was there on a routine "beat", so to speak... he was not asked to be there specifically, just there as a part of his normal patrol...

I may (I said may) feel differently if I had my 10D and gigantic zoom lens hanging around, but with the cigarette pack sized camera taking snap shots, it seems way too excessive....

[Tom W]

Ok, so I was at a school function shooting snapshots of all of the kids with my S400. I took a couple of pictures of three friends and it happened that a local sheriff’s deputy was in the background. He noticed and came up to me demanding to confiscate my camera stating that it was illegal to take pictures of law enforcement personnel. I assured him that I was only taking snap shots of the kids, but he was very adamant. I showed him that I could delete the two pictures of him in the background, but he did not back down. He only reluctantly backed down after I showed him that I erased the entire flash card.

Is this correct? I have a hard time believing that a police officer can attempt to confiscate your camera for unintentionally having them in the background of a snap shot… Am I off base?
I'd call the DA - it sounds to me like someone in law enforcement wanted to use their position in order to obtain a free camera. That may be wrong, but that's the approach I'd take.

[gsmx2]

I can say with almost 100% certainty that at least here in California, the public has the right to photograph or videotape law enforcement officers as they conduct their business. I would contact the D.A.'s office to confirm what the law is in your state and be up front with the circumstances.

Then if the Deputy was out-of-line, you should file either an informal (verbal) complaint for a formal written complaint against him with the Sheriff's Department. At the least he needs to be educated on what the law is before he gets his Department in trouble in a more volatile situation.

gsm x2

[scotgasch]

I agree...my wife is a legal assistant for the DA where we live and I had her ask the DA and he said that in ANY circumstance he would have no right to take possession of your camera just for including him in pictures...
Even a rookie deputy should know the law concerning this, so I would not believe him if he said he "thought" it was against the law.

I would call the DA's office and go through the correct proceedures of filing a formal complaint!!

[TeraGram93013]

Bubber! Where are you?

Have you used that card much since this incident?

There's utilities on the 'net that you can download and you may be able to recover some of those images that you erased. My hubby had a problem with his SmartMedia card, d/l'd some utility and it brought back images that he had erased over a week before hand! Not all of them, mind you, but a goodly portion.

That cop was WAY out of line. I shoot pics of the cops all the time in the middle of all sorts of activities. I got shots of them arresting a bank robber, rounding up a violent protestor at a rally shortly before Ahnold was elected governor, walking the crowd at Avocado fest, sitting in their squads doing speed-checks, ... if a cop does it I've probably shot it.

NOT ONCE have they ever hassled me over it. Indeed, on more than one occassion an officer has approached me, given me his card and said something like "if those shots are any good could you email me a copy?"

I tell you, I would be sitting at my computer firing off letters to every newspaper in the region if I were you. What this guy did is wrong, wrong, wrong. This is the US of A (and I'm assuming that's where you are, all bets are off if you're elsewhere) not **** Germany (oh oh I've got a political rant coming on, I'm going to close this post now).

[Yance]

Nowhere in the US is it illegal to take pictures of police. Regardless, don't ever get into a heated argument with law enforcement. Keep your cool but do not back down. Keep a sense of humor and if possible ignore him. If he persists, make sure there are witnesses and get as much info as possible. If you are verbally or physically abused when keeping your cool, you have the potential for a good lawsuit. There are some police that think they are local warlords. They need to realize they don't have rights beyond the letter of the law. Sorry if I rant but IMHO abuse of authority is criminal.

[Tom W]

Nowhere in the US is it illegal to take pictures of police. Regardless, don't ever get into a heated argument with law enforcement. Keep your cool but do not back down. Keep a sense of humor and if possible ignore him. If he persists, make sure there are witnesses and get as much info as possible. If you are verbally or physically abused when keeping your cool, you have the potential for a good lawsuit. There are some police that think they are local warlords. They need to realize they don't have rights beyond the letter of the law. Sorry if I rant but IMHO abuse of authority is criminal.

Somebody once told me that one out of 10 people was a complete jerk - an abrasive, sneaky, good-for-nothing idiot that was to be avoided at all costs. While I'm most respectful of our law-enforcement officers, there is no evidence that they are any different from the general population in this regard.

The cop in question in the original post probably fits that category.

[TeraGram93013]

Nowhere in the US is it illegal to take pictures of police.

Since 9/11/2001 this may not be true. For Pete's Sake it is illegal to photograph bridges in New York City and other places now, so it isn't too much of a stretch to imagine the laws regarding the photography of police officers has also changed in some places. I know, however, I'm in the clear in Santa Barbara County, California.

However, the situation as described by the OP doesn't seem to fit any restrictions that I could conjure in my imagination.

We also don't know where Bubber is at, at least not from the info shown on the screen. Maybe some of y'all have a better notion having read his other posts, but it is quite possible he lives somewhere with much more stringent laws regarding this issue, such as Canada or England.

[neil_r]

[i].

We also don't know where Bubber is at, at least not from the info shown on the screen. Maybe some of y'all have a better notion having read his other posts, but it is quite possible he lives somewhere with much more stringent laws regarding this issue, such as Canada or England.

We have not had Sheriffs in England since the days of Robin Hood....
(We have really but it is just an honorary post that represents the Queen when she cant be assed to attend a function)

If it were illegal to take pictures of British Bobbies the UK postcard industry would go bust.

It is a very interesting point though. I am not 100% on this but don’t you elect the sheriff in the USA, even if you don't he is a public servant and ultimately answerable to the public.

If it is a uniformed policeman who has nothing to hide I really can’t understand why he would object here.

No one ever claimed that the video of Rodney King was obtained illegally!

N

[IndyJeff]

Back in 95 or 96 walking from the 1st turn at Indy, right after the race, a guy who was drunker than any two people ever should be ran into a little trouble with the police. He tried to run when they confronted him, they ran him down and slammed him to the ground. A couple of thumps with a nightstick and the guy had all the fight beat out of him.
One of the photograhers was right next to where this all started and he had some film left in the camera so, he fired off about 10-12 frames of the chase and the beating. As soon as they had him cuffed, one of the cops came over and demanded the film from the camera. The photographer said no way. The cop then threatened to arrest him. At that point someone got on the cell and called the his agency office at the track, I think it was eithr UPI or AFP. Anyway some guy comes rollling upon a scooter and identifies himself as a member of the press. He then tells the cop that the guy who shot the film is a member of the press and in no way was the cop getting the film without a court order. The cop then radioed for backup. His buddies had all left taking the drunk to the lockup area. Pretty soon there were about 7 cops there. As the cop is arguing with this guy a fairly well dressed gentleman walks up. Tells the photo guys, "Don't say another word". He then hands the cop his card. Dude is a lawyer and tells the cops they have no right or authority to confiscate this mans film. The cop said you don't represent these guys, get out of here or you will be going to jail. The head photo guy then speaks up and says, "I am hiring this guy to represent me and my photographer and any more conversation should be directed thru him, my attorney."
Soon a supervisor shows up, now they have about 10 photographers standing around, some taking pictures while all this is going down. The super order the cops to walk away. The attorney is telling him this is not over with. A complaint was filed with the sheriffs dept.

In the end, the original cop was repremanded and got some time off without pay. The other cops who were there as backup were also repremanded but no time off, just a note in their file. The photographer got an official letter of apology from the sheriffs dept. and a check to cover the legal expenses charged by the attorney. Now before you go thinking, ambulance chasing lawyer, the guy refunded all the fees that were paid by the state. Wasn't much, like $350 or something in that range.

Moral to this is, the cops have no right to confiscate your film or camera. The only exception would be if it were used in the commision of a crime, then it would be held as evidence and released at the end of the case.


The cop in the original post on this thread was dead wrong. If it were me, I would have stood my ground with the press or not, and told him that before I would erase the images, he would have to arrest me and he had no legal grounds to do so. I would also ask that a supervisor be summoned. If he would refuse, I would have asked another parent to please call the cops and ask for a super to show up.


edit:
Here in Indiana school property is public property. A school represenative can ask you to leave the school grounds and if you refuse it is a class D felony for trespassing.

[neil_r]

pictures of police.[/i]


We also don't know where Bubber is at, ......, but it is quite possible he lives somewhere with much more stringent laws regarding this issue, such as Canada or England.


Trust me no none in the UK is named Bubber :D

N

[EoSD30fReAk]

i take lots of pictures from accidents and no police man here in holland ever complained to me.
if they don't want people looking/taking pictures they put up a black screen.

i would certainly make a complaint if i where you

[MediaMagic]

There have been some law changes here in the US due to the suspiscion that terrorists photograph possible targets.

I have no idea if any of these new laws apply in your area. One thing to be sure of, which doesn't apply in your case, you may not include the front of a federal building in any photograph (not sure why it would only apply to the front, so I'd be careful if any part of a federal building was in the composition).

If you are caught taking a photo including the face of a federal building, you are subject to immediate arrest and of course, your equipment will be confiscated. I'm sure you'd get it back, but it might not be in the shape it was when they took it. Whether this is enforced seems to be at the discretion of the "goon of the day".

I do know as gestapoesque as this sounds, it is 100% true.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Where would we be if we were no longer alloud to take photos of cops beating Rodney King? :lol: :roll:

[SoCal69]

Where we would be of we were no longer alloud to take photos of cops beating Rodney King? :lol: :roll:

Hmm... well, L.A. would have a few more $$ in its coffers for law abiding taxpayers!

[Tom W]

There have been some law changes here in the US due to the suspiscion that terrorists photograph possible targets.

I have no idea if any of these new laws apply in your area. One thing to be sure of, which doesn't apply in your case, you may not include the front of a federal building in any photograph (not sure why it would only apply to the front, so I'd be careful if any part of a federal building was in the composition).

If you are caught taking a photo including the face of a federal building, you are subject to immediate arrest and of course, your equipment will be confiscated. I'm sure you'd get it back, but it might not be in the shape it was when they took it. Whether this is enforced seems to be at the discretion of the "goon of the day".

I do know as gestapoesque as this sounds, it is 100% true.

Its not much of a problem around here - we've got plenty of birdwatchers in the park at the local hydro dam taking pictures with some rather long glass. Nobody's bothered them yet.

I've taken a few bridge and dam pictures as well since 9/11. I can't speak of other areas, though.

[Bubber Jones]

Wow this thread is moving right along...

I spoke to a Sergeant today and explained the situation, he put me in contact with the officer’s supervisor and he rattled off most of what you have listed here. He was very nice and confirmed that the officer’s actions were wrong. I left it at a verbal complaint and he assured me that he would take it up with the officer and apologized for the incident.

And all of this went down in the Atlanta, GA area.

btw, thanks for all of the input.

Dan

[Tom W]

Glad to see that you reported it, and glad to see that the Sherif's department agreed with you. At least his actions are now on record in case he gets another complaint.

Do you live in his jurisdiction?

[CyberDyneSystems]

Glad to see that you reported it, and glad to see that the Sherif's department agreed with you. At least his actions are now on record in case he gets another complaint.

Do you live in his jurisdiction?

.............. because he'll be by with some "back-up" and a bunch of pipes and axe handles later tonight... :shock: :roll: :)

[Tom W]

Glad to see that you reported it, and glad to see that the Sherif's department agreed with you. At least his actions are now on record in case he gets another complaint.

Do you live in his jurisdiction?

.............. because he'll be by with some "back-up" and a bunch of pipes and axe handles later tonight... :shock: :roll: :)

I would certainly hope not. That would be way beyond unprofessional. But I'd keep my powder dry, and stay friends with the local constable.

[Bubber Jones]

Do you live in his jurisdiction?

I do, but he doesn't patrol my area, so he doesn't have any business over here on a normal basis...

.............. because he'll be by with some "back-up" and a bunch of pipes and axe handles later tonight...

hehe, I thought of that. That's why I declined to file a written complaint. No need to rock the boat too much... :D

Dan

[Tom W]

Do you live in his jurisdiction?

I do, but he doesn't patrol my area, so he doesn't have any business over here on a normal basis...

.............. because he'll be by with some "back-up" and a bunch of pipes and axe handles later tonight...

hehe, I thought of that. That's why I declined to file a written complaint. No need to rock the boat too much... :D

Dan

Good thinking! He sounds like he's either a little ignorant of the law, or he's got "rookie-idis", that young cop feeling that they are among the chosen few that have absolute ruling authority over the peasants. Most outgrow that, but a few hang on to that feeling.

[spock84]

Maybe he was just there to look at the kiddies and didn't want anyone to have solid evidence. :roll:

[IndyJeff]

You know the more I thought about this this evening two possibilities came up.

1. He was moonlighting in uniform and not supposed to.

2. He was a reserve officer and just wanted to push his weight around.



Oh and for CyberDyneSystems

.............. because he'll be by with some "back-up" and a bunch of pipes and axe handles later tonight...

Bwhahahahahahahahaha, man I really need that laugh tonight. Thanks.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I aim to please! :mrgreen:

[stopbath]

Were you able to rescue the shots that you deleted. Can you post the image of the police officer in question?

Hope he didn't cause too much wasted time and effort on your part.

If you ever see him again, snap some more pictures without him seeing...

[BoySpot]

Jumping back to those comments about not being allowed to photograph the front of federal buildings, does that include The White House and the US Capitol? I suspect a few people are still trying to take pictures of those places when they visit DC. Maybe their next pictures will be of Guantanamo Bay (from the inside).

[CyberDyneSystems]

I was wondering the same thing??? It is truly an odd predicament?

[MediaMagic]

Jumping back to those comments about not being allowed to photograph the front of federal buildings, does that include The White House and the US Capitol? I suspect a few people are still trying to take pictures of those places when they visit DC. Maybe their next pictures will be of Guantanamo Bay (from the inside).

I have no idea what is enforced or the criteria for the enforcement.

Here's the synopsis. I was in a federal building when I took my son to his swear in for the navy (MEPS). I had to go through the metal detectors, and send my bags through x-ray like at the airport. After all the ceremony, I was back at the entrance waiting for the bus to leave to get a shot and I asked the officer on duty where the new recruits catch the bus. He politely pointed me to where the bus parks and then specifically told me "make sure you are not standing in any place where the front of this building will be in the photographs".

I asked what that had to do with anything, and he pointed to a sign on the wall (the new regulation about photography) and explained the illegality of photographing the front of the building. I read the documentation and sure enough, it's for real. Lots of oomee oomee gobbie gobbie legal jargon, but the message comes through loud and clear.

Funny, i could take pictures of whatever I wanted inside the building.

I'm not sure what the enforceable definition of a "federal building" is.. seemed very vague and ambiguous. I'd imagine it is deliberately that way to allow any suspicious person with a camera to be detained. Other specific mentions were "military bases" and "federal facilities"..

I'd say that the Capitol and White House could fall under the category of "national landmarks" as their photographs appear in puclications throughout the world but who knows?

[Tom W]

Jumping back to those comments about not being allowed to photograph the front of federal buildings, does that include The White House and the US Capitol? I suspect a few people are still trying to take pictures of those places when they visit DC. Maybe their next pictures will be of Guantanamo Bay (from the inside).

I have no idea what is enforced or the criteria for the enforcement.

Here's the synopsis. I was in a federal building when I took my son to his swear in for the navy (MEPS). I had to go through the metal detectors, and send my bags through x-ray like at the airport. After all the ceremony, I was back at the entrance waiting for the bus to leave to get a shot and I asked the officer on duty where the new recruits catch the bus. He politely pointed me to where the bus parks and then specifically told me "make sure you are not standing in any place where the front of this building will be in the photographs".

I asked what that had to do with anything, and he pointed to a sign on the wall (the new regulation about photography) and explained the illegality of photographing the front of the building. I read the documentation and sure enough, it's for real. Lots of oomee oomee gobbie gobbie legal jargon, but the message comes through loud and clear.

Funny, i could take pictures of whatever I wanted inside the building.

I'm not sure what the enforceable definition of a "federal building" is.. seemed very vague and ambiguous. I'd imagine it is deliberately that way to allow any suspicious person with a camera to be detained. Other specific mentions were "military bases" and "federal facilities"..

I'd say that the Capitol and White House could fall under the category of "national landmarks" as their photographs appear in puclications throughout the world but who knows?

The definition is indeed vague and ambiguous (as are most laws written by lawyers - good way to drum up business). I've plenty of pictures taken over the last couple of years that have federal facilities in them, but none are strategic in nature. I've never been harassed when I shoot pictures at federal dams and such in the area. But I wouldn't think of photographing military installations and such these days. While I may have taken a picture of "bomber row" on a certain air force base 20 years ago, I wouldn't attempt that now (if they even let me that close again).

And I suspect that different jurisdictions consider these things differently as well. I'm in a less populated city in the south. People are fairly open, and tend to know one-another to a great extent. But if a stranger is in town taking unusual pictures, rest assured that he is being observed. Granted, there is a fair amount of tourism here, but there is also a fairly well-beaten path to where most pictures are taken.

We obviously aren't the symbolic target that New York or Washington is to a potential terrorist, and thus aren't as strict about photography. But I would suspect that if you went to photograph one of the federal dams and started taking the kinds of pictures that might detail structural elements of the dams, you may be questioned.

[BoySpot]

In the UK they are a lot more friendly with what you can take pictures of. If you are on outside looking in, you are fine. A few years back, I took some shots of RAF Harriers from a farm (which I had permission to be on). It was shortly after the IRA had blown something else up and everyone on base was a bit twitchy. They spoke to me but were happy that I could continue doing what I wanted as long as I didn't try and get into the base.

I suspect that wouldn't be allowed in the US at the moment. Hopefully, it will all settle down. As we found over here, you can't live life permenantly worrying about who is around the corner. It's still safer than getting in your car!

[gsmx2]

An interesting article stating that "It is NOT illegal to photograph the fronts of federal buildings, unless you are doing it for the purposes of terrorism.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/01/278675.shtml But not sure that I believe everything I read on the Internet, especially when the byline is "Media Whore."

gsm x2

[Ikinaa]

I asked what that had to do with anything, and he pointed to a sign on the wall (the new regulation about photography) and explained the illegality of photographing the front of the building. I read the documentation and sure enough, it's for real. Lots of oomee oomee gobbie gobbie legal jargon, but the message comes through loud and clear.

Funny, i could take pictures of whatever I wanted inside the building.

I'm not sure what the enforceable definition of a "federal building" is.. seemed very vague and ambiguous. I'd imagine it is deliberately that way to allow any suspicious person with a camera to be detained. Other specific mentions were "military bases" and "federal facilities"..

I'd say that the Capitol and White House could fall under the category of "national landmarks" as their photographs appear in puclications throughout the world but who knows?

Perhaps to don't want to appear the picture inside a missile head that uses optical recognition for hitting its target?

[BoySpot]

In which case I would disguise my camera so no-one could see me take the picture. Maybe I could hide it in a hat. Better ban hats just in case. And bags, now I come to think of it. Buttons on coats could be suspicious too.

Let's face it, we have better things to do than be running scared of a potential threat. Life is short enough as it is.

[pradeep1]

Wow this thread is moving right along...

I spoke to a Sergeant today and explained the situation, he put me in contact with the officer’s supervisor and he rattled off most of what you have listed here. He was very nice and confirmed that the officer’s actions were wrong. I left it at a verbal complaint and he assured me that he would take it up with the officer and apologized for the incident.

And all of this went down in the Atlanta, GA area.

btw, thanks for all of the input.

Dan

Atlanta heh? What area? I live close by. We both can show up and start taking pictures of this cop and give him a hard time.

[Bigred]

ive taken lots of pictures at manifestations and there was cops and all everywhere and nobody ever told me anything, my uncle is in the police department, I'll ask him for the answer and come back to you guys with that

[4walls]

....If you ever see him again, snap some more pictures without him seeing... and post them here! :wink: