Any photographers been arrested?

[CombatCamera13]

I just thought I would throw this out there. This hapened to me when I was in college. I bet a buddy I could get some great shots by the White House. I did but also had to deal with this guy. When I was released my buddy said he got a even better shot. This one.
Oh by the way, I don't rock that haircut anymore. It was a military school thing.

[CombatCamera13]

Oh....and before anyone catches it, yes that is a Nikon D1X. That was before I found the only real camera was a Canon. Sorry for that little eye sore.

[cdifoto]

You look scared. :)

So what were you arrested for?

[CombatCamera13]

Well they took me into their little station and asked me what the photos were for and they wanted to see them. I didn't really get arrested. But I was in the back of the police car. What a fun ride. Sadly I was thinking if I only had my wide angle to take shots from the back seat. Haha

[Phil Light]

So, do they not allow pictures to be taken near the White House or what? Surely there are thousands of people doing that every day aren't there?

[Phil Light]

Oh, wait... On second thought, you DO look like a terrorist.

[Cyrus]

Necessary evil for sure

[Hersh]

What were you taking pics of by the White House?

I've done that before and haven't had any trouble whatsoever.

[BottomBracket]

Perhaps it's because you had a Nikon? Kidding. I have taken pictures of the White House before but only from the touristy Pennsylvania Avenue angle. Where were you at? I suppose there might be sensitive areas at the side or back of the White House area where they do not permit photography at all. Were there signs prohibiting camera use?

[iLuveKetchup]

I took a pic of the George Washinton Bridge (NYC). While walking back to my car after the photoshoot, I was surrounded by Palisade Interstate Police. They confiscated my camera & questioned why I was taking pictures of the GWB. Long story short, I was let go after I cleared the background check w/ the Feds. I got my camera back, but I never posted the shot.

[cataclysmcow]

I took a pic of the George Washinton Bridge (NYC). While walking back to my car after the photoshoot, I was surrounded by Palisade Interstate Police. They confiscated my camera & questioned why I was taking pictures of the GWB. Long story short, I was let go after I cleared the background check w/ the Feds. I got my camera back, but I never posted the shot.
I'd fight for unlawful detention on this. I'm about fed up with this notion of giving up my rights to a criminal administration and even more so to a public who will not only abide by it but blindly believe it.

It'd be a far stretch to even say that you were subject to conspiracy laws. AFAIK there are no public photography laws pertaining to the GWB.

[justisnmnz]

I understand having rights and everything. But would you rather a terrorist be allowed ot take pictures of a sensitive building to plan an attack? Honestly I would rather have a small inconvenience and be safe than regret not acting.

But to answer the question, no I haven't been arrested. :)

[gooble]

I'd fight for unlawful detention on this. I'm about fed up with this notion of giving up my rights to a criminal administration and even more so to a public who will not only abide by it but blindly believe it.

It'd be a far stretch to even say that you were subject to conspiracy laws. AFAIK there are no public photography laws pertaining to the GWB.

Please keep your political opinions elsewhere.

[tsw910]

WOW .. thats insane ..

i had some of kinda of a same issue .. i took some pictures of the bridge in NYC here a few months back .. the cops came ask a few questions and left .. but a month later, a detective came to my home and ask more questions ... but it felt weird at first ..but at least we know our boys in blue are doing their job with terrorist taking future plans !

[montreal]

I understand having rights and everything. But would you rather a terrorist be allowed ot take pictures of a sensitive building to plan an attack?

I'm wondering why a terrorist would need to take pics of his target in the first place. There's got to be thousands of pictures of the white house available on the Internet or as postcards.

[pepperoni]

I took a pic of the George Washinton Bridge (NYC). While walking back to my car after the photoshoot, I was surrounded by Palisade Interstate Police. They confiscated my camera & questioned why I was taking pictures of the GWB. Long story short, I was let go after I cleared the background check w/ the Feds. I got my camera back, but I never posted the shot.


I've mentioned this before, but that is total BS. I understand things are different now, but for pete's sake... what about the guy with a canvas painting a picture? Same difference?

I dunno... stuff like this gets my blood all in a boil sometimes.
$.02

[Phil Light]

I understand having rights and everything. But would you rather a terrorist be allowed ot take pictures of a sensitive building to plan an attack? Honestly I would rather have a small inconvenience and be safe than regret not acting...

I agree. I don't like it. But that's the world we live in now.:cry:

[cataclysmcow]

Please keep your political opinions elsewhere.
The whole subject that the OP implied is a result of the current state of affairs and our current administration. I don't see how that's not political.

If you're offended by me calling the current administration criminal then fine. I acknowledge it, but I don't apologize for it. Both major parties have pushed initiatives that violate our rights and propagate misinformation about out rights. There are very few places where it is actually illegal to take photographs from a public place, but public opinion and some officials would lead you to think otherwise. I guess should have reworded my post to express my objection to that specific point.

[justisnmnz]

Of course it's not illegal to take photos of a bridge or building, however it is our job to know what is and what isn't legal to photograph. It is the authorities job to know what is and isn't a threat. To them, someone who might look suspicious while taking pictures of a high risk area is a potential threat, and it is their job to invesigate the threat. I honestly don't see the problem in an officer questioning a photographer, as long as that photographer has nothing to hide, it shouldn't be a concern.

Of course that is all my own personal opinion. :lol:

[naqs]

before you know it all photographers will need a licence to even carry their camera outside in public... :(

[cataclysmcow]

Of course it's not illegal to take photos of a bridge or building, however it is our job to know what is and what isn't legal to photograph. It is the authorities job to know what is and isn't a threat. To them, someone who might look suspicious while taking pictures of a high risk area is a potential threat, and it is their job to invesigate the threat.
I agree. The officer would be derelict in his duties if he didn't. The understanding that law enforcement officers have of the law though is often incorrect regarding photography.
I honestly don't see the problem in an officer questioning a photographer, as long as that photographer has nothing to hide, it shouldn't be a concern.
I don't see being questioned as an inconvenience, but the OP was actually detained. You aren't obligated to give a law enforcement officer any information (even your identification) in such a case unless the officer feels there is an imminent threat. I don't advise being such an ass myself and I'd never act this way, but you'll likely end up with a rough day because of it. Whether that's wise or just is definately a political discussion.

[iLuveKetchup]

before you know it all photographers will need a licence to even carry their camera outside in public... :(
You actually need a permit to shoot in any NY landmark with a tripod. Got stopped from shooting at Grand Central Station w/ a tripod. This time around, I didn't get harassed w/ a bunch of questions from the police officers. They kindly made me aware that I need to have a permit to shoot w/ a tripod. So I just unmounted my cam & started taking pics handheld.

I do feel that it is BS that photographers are not allowed to take a picture where ever he/she wants. But at the same token, I understand the hightened security around NYC. At this instance, I do believe that the authorities are looking out for the greater good. But this doesn't stop me from shooting where every I wish w/ or w/o a tripod.

[cp-Mike]

I'd fight for unlawful detention on this. I'm about fed up with this notion of giving up my rights to a criminal administration and even more so to a public who will not only abide by it but blindly believe it.

It'd be a far stretch to even say that you were subject to conspiracy laws. AFAIK there are no public photography laws pertaining to the GWB.
I agree. Crap like this is starting to make this country seem more like Iron-Curtain-Era Eastern Europe. You cannot be detained for taking pictures of a public landmark, bridge, etc unless there is a law that explicitly states that a particular object or place is off-limits. Questioned, sure. Harrassed, no. Detained? Certainly not.

I recommend everybody read this page about the legal rights of photographers: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm Although it talks mostly about confrontations with non-law-enforcement people, I still find it to be very insightful and I definitely keep a copy or two in my camera bag at all times. To quote a little bit from the page:
When people think back on the acts of domestic terrorism that have occurred over the last twenty years, none have depended on or even involved photography. Restrictions on photography would not have prevented any of these acts. [...]

As the flyer states, there are not very many legal restrictions on what can be photographed when in public view. Most attempts at restricting photography are done by lower-level security and law enforcement officials acting way beyond their authority. Note that neither the Patriot Act nor the Homeland Security Act have any provisions that restrict photography.So that stuff about terrorism is a load of baloney. If the fuzz tries to drop that on you, call their bluff, then call their supervisor. If we don't stand up for our rights, nobody else will.

[cp-Mike]

You actually need a permit to shoot in any NY landmark with a tripod. Got stopped from shooting at Grand Central Station w/ a tripod. This time around, I didn't get harassed w/ a bunch of questions from the police officers. They kindly made me aware that I need to have a permit to shoot w/ a tripod.
Good to know. Do you know how/where one would apply for said permit?

[Jeffrey Konya Photography]

Nothing to do with the picture really... but I sure do like the "Officer Safety" this U.S. Capitol Police Officer is using. He is like 3' away and has his hands in his pockets... he obvious felt no threat and must have never paid attention in the police academy about hands free and reactionary gaps. You could have "shot" him! (LoL... Shot images him with your Nikon that is)

[adam*]

If any spy/terrorist wanted to take photos they would either look online or use a much more discrete camera. It's all ridiculas.

[TexasStar]

I was stopped by a security guard from taking pictures of the Dallas Convention Center. I just couldn't believe it at the time. I asked him what's to stop me from going down the street into a high rise and taking all the pictures I want with a telephoto lens. He said nothing would stop me, but their policy is not to allow photography of the building.

For some reason, as a loyal tax-paying citizen, this really bothered me.

[naqs]

If any spy/terrorist wanted to take photos they would either look online or use a much more discrete camera. It's all ridiculas.

Thats true... your more likely going to find a terrorist standing amongst the tourist with a small point and shoot.

[kenyc]

I'd fight for unlawful detention on this. I'm about fed up with this notion of giving up my rights to a criminal administration and even more so to a public who will not only abide by it but blindly believe it.

It'd be a far stretch to even say that you were subject to conspiracy laws. AFAIK there are no public photography laws pertaining to the GWB.

Exactly!

KAC

[Box Brownie]

I understand having rights and everything. But would you rather a terrorist be allowed ot take pictures of a sensitive building to plan an attack? Honestly I would rather have a small inconvenience and be safe than regret not acting.

But to answer the question, no I haven't been arrested. :)

I'm wondering why a terrorist would need to take pics of his target in the first place. There's got to be thousands of pictures of the white house available on the Internet or as postcards.

To answer the OP ~ no I have not been arrested but the reason I have quoted the two above is:-

They say fear of being a victim of crime is greater than the possibility of being a victim & on the same basis the public perception is to see & read about proactivity when it comes to 'deflecting' the risk of terrorism and such actions by police and private guards is deemed acceptable because the average Joe taking photographs is visible compared to getting pictures by research that would be more useful to the criminal/terrorist.

Oh, and by degrees very little has changed when it comes to how police will handle a situation ~ in the 1970's I was stopped on my way to a Sunday 'shift' (I was a health service worker), roads deserted and I was flagged down by two beat bobbies in Central London. I treated this like a traffic stop and got out of my car to discuss the matter they asked me the usual "what is the car number.." but then asked me the mileage and what I had in the boot (trunk), very odd I thought. I was on my way within 3 minutes. Why the quick story ~ well the 70's in London was at the time of the IRA bombings & later that same year we had a bomb scare at the hospital I worked at!

[Olyst]

They say fear of being a victim of crime is greater than the possibility of being a victim & on the same basis the public perception is to see & read about proactivity when it comes to 'deflecting' the risk of terrorism and such actions by police and private guards is deemed acceptable because the average Joe taking photographs is visible compared to getting pictures by research that would be more useful to the criminal/terrorist.



And keeping fears in people minds is an absolute necessity to justify anything the gouv/police/army would do in the name of 'protection'.

[kenyc]

And keeping fears in people minds is an absolute necessity to justify anything the gouv/police/army would do in the name of 'protection'.


Yep, we've become a nation (world) of wimps!

KAC

[MikeMcL]

Great shot and a funny story. It is too bad you are a Marine, or we could be friends.

USAF! LOL

Peace.

[MikeMcL]

Oh I have been arrested, but never for photography. They never catch me... haha