Not a crime

[thequixotic2001]

Hello, I joined the forum a few weeks back, Found it while searching for other Canon related sites and thought i'd join, I have spent many hours reading some of the threads and will carry on doing so when time allows :).
Anyway, Thought I had better post something so here goes :rolleyes:.
Had an email from my Nephew a few weeks back telling me that he had been stopped and searched under the anti terrorism law, I then found THIS (http://www.not-a-crime.com/) site yesterday via flickr, I have done some searching but can't find it here, although I expect it is somewhere :oops:
If anyone has not seen it then so much the better I suppose.

Richard

[asysin2leads]

There will always be cops who like to use that lame excuse to stop photographers. Cops have the right and the authority to stop anyone they see fit. That's the nature of the business. However, they don't have the right to detain someone simply on the fact that they were taking a picture. Unfortunately, it happens. It's happened to me and many others here on POTN. How we handle the situation will really tell how far the situation escalates. I'm sorry that your nephew had this happen to him. Unfortunately, it's the society we live in and it will only get worse.

Welcome to POTN, btw.

[Mike]

Hi Richard, welcome to the forum.

As Kevin said, it is an unfortunate side-effect of photography that there will be photographers stopped for innocuous reasons. There are a couple of websites that help photographers understand what you can and cannot do:

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php
http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

Thanks for your link though too, that's one I've not seen yet.

[thequixotic2001]

Thanks for the welcome and the links.
Yes it is unfortunate but don't you think it is a bit unfair to have a record for being stopped and searched, Being searched if you look suspicious then fair enough but for it to be recorded also is going to far IMO. Surely it would be better to have common sense policing in this case, but then again half the Police force these days are not old enough to have any life experience let alone common sense.
It is just another case of the ridiculous state we live in and unfortunately it looks like another thing we will have to live with.

[Cosha]

Thanks for the links guys, i have printed this information off and keep it in my Camera bag!

[Mike]

Surely it would be better to have common sense policing in this case, but then again half the Police force these days are not old enough to have any life experience let alone common sense.

Sadly that's the truth of it. I deal with a lot of police officers during my day job and they are getting younger and younger. PCSOs are also sadly lacking in proficiency in the common sense department much of the time which also does not help our cause.

Thanks for the links guys, i have printed this information off and keep it in my Camera bag!

That's the idea! I always keep one or two handy but thankfully I have yet to use one.

[Fixxi]

This is for if/when you come to the states:
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm


:)

[Mike]

One of the guys in the SE UK thread posted this, it'll make you chuckle: http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Police_officer_caught_taking_pictures_news_287791. html

[Cosha]

hehe im sure that was a PCO and not a real police officer!

i guess we just have to remember the police are humans also, so treating them with respect and not "i know my rights" as soon as they ask a few questions

[thequixotic2001]

One of the guys in the SE UK thread posted this, it'll make you chuckle: http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Police_officer_caught_taking_pictures_news_287791. html
And I bet nothing was said to him, It is a funny shot though.

i guess we just have to remember the police are humans also, so treating them with respect and not "i know my rights" as soon as they ask a few questions
Well some are but there are many that think because they wear the uniform they are something very special, I would never state that I know my rights but I would also want the same respect as they would like.
Anyway until the day comes I guess I won't have to worry about it.

[Cosha]

I heard a story a while back that a police officer asked a general question about the camera ( i got the impression the police officer was into photography) and the GWC just ran away as fast as he could :D

ill try and find the link, quite a funny read :)

No i havent had a frisk yet either, but i dont think ill do a runner if it ever happens :eek:

[joey3000]

I heard a story a while back that a police officer asked a general question about the camera ( i got the impression the police officer was into photography) and the GWC just ran away as fast as he could :D

ill try and find the link, quite a funny read :)

No i havent had a frisk yet either, but i dont think ill do a runner if it ever happens :eek:

Ha! I could just imaging it happening. Cop does know if he should persue or just stand there... priceless.

[darksike]

funny. I'm not the most organized person when it comes to my toys. we were on our way to Indiana from NJ and had 5 stops on the way. I think it was Ohio bus station that they did a random check for all passengers and they opened my backpack (tarmac but a notebook bag). I had a laptop with charger (that wasn't neatly tucked away), camera, lens that's wrapped in 2 papertowels, and few other electronics. they stop and just kinda stood there for a few seconds trying to make out of my bag. my friend just chuckle

[ShotByTom]

I'm a Police Officer and a photographer. I personally think this is just silly. If you're stopped and quesitoned, just answer the questions and you'll be on your way. If you're taking photos of bridges, public/government buildings, schools, on railroad tracks...etc..then don't be surprised if you're questioned. I've confiscated media cards and cameras before, the photographer always dictates how far it goes...you may think you know your rights, but I know my job! The more you refuse to cooperate the more you're going to be questioned, and the more you "demand respect" and "I know my rights.." the more suspicious you seem.

If you think Police officers lack common sense....talk to your fellow citizens that call about "suspicious" people every day! If an Officer randomply stops you, it's likely because someone has reported you for some reason..

[ChrisRabior]

It's one thing to be questioned, but another thing entirely when you're confiscating gear.

Cops have a bad rap, and people are always on edge when spoken to by an officer. Really, be happy that a local LEO took interest in what you're doing. It means they're attentive and doing their jobs. Most likely, the small talk will go along without a hitch and they'll leave you to your photography.

Now, sometimes you get the idiot that decides you're not allowed to photograph something from public property, despite willingness to show you're a harmless photographer. Sadly, while most often that idiot is a power tripping security guard, sometimes that idiot is an officer. And don't get me wrong, sometimes the idiot is the photographer that wandered onto private property or is shooting somewhere they shouldn't be.

I'm sorry to hear you've confiscated media cards and cameras. That kinda stuff could get you, your department, and the city you work for sued for violating civil liberties. Sure, there are obviously going to be times that you have cause to take a person's gear.. if they shot a crime, were involved in one, etc. But taking a person's gear because they don't want to talk to you or because they didn't take the most cordial tone? Taking a person's gear because they're not interested in conversing with you beyond what they're legally required to do?

I'd be interested in hearing the circumstances in which you deemed it appropriate to take a photographer's gear. I'd think a person's demeanor would result in an arrest, a seizure of the person, before it would justify a seizure of their property.

[thequixotic2001]

a521, Not sure where you are from but you can't do that in the UK apparently.
Also I am not saying all police are the same but you do get the power happy ones that DO NOT always know best.
I would also answer any questions and comply but I would also expect to be treated like a human being.
Watch the first video here, http://www.photo-forum.org/photo-forum-know-your-rights-special
It did not surprise me TBH.

[ShotByTom]

It's one thing to be questioned, but another thing entirely when you're confiscating gear.

Cops have a bad rap, and people are always on edge when spoken to by an officer. Really, be happy that a local LEO took interest in what you're doing. It means they're attentive and doing their jobs. Most likely, the small talk will go along without a hitch and they'll leave you to your photography.

Now, sometimes you get the idiot that decides you're not allowed to photograph something from public property, despite willingness to show you're a harmless photographer. Sadly, while most often that idiot is a power tripping security guard, sometimes that idiot is an officer. And don't get me wrong, sometimes the idiot is the photographer that wandered onto private property or is shooting somewhere they shouldn't be.

I'm sorry to hear you've confiscated media cards and cameras. That kinda stuff could get you, your department, and the city you work for sued for violating civil liberties. Sure, there are obviously going to be times that you have cause to take a person's gear.. if they shot a crime, were involved in one, etc. But taking a person's gear because they don't want to talk to you or because they didn't take the most cordial tone? Taking a person's gear because they're not interested in conversing with you beyond what they're legally required to do?

I'd be interested in hearing the circumstances in which you deemed it appropriate to take a photographer's gear. I'd think a person's demeanor would result in an arrest, a seizure of the person, before it would justify a seizure of their property.

I've highlighted what gets people into trouble, in my experience. Two guys were photographing protection details for public events, when questioned they refused to discuss why and what they were doing, so their gear was conficscated and they were escorted off the property. Their gear was returned a few days later after detectives reviewed their images, and formatted their cards.

We have a public trail that runs through the city, it used to be a rail line that ran into downtown. The city removed the tracks and made it a very nice running/biking/skating trail that is about 15 miles long. There are bridges on the trail that go over interstates and main roads in the county and I have been dispatched several times on people standing over the interstates, and...my favorite... taking pictures on the trail where it runs along a beautiful canal...a great location for photographs....when I arrive and see them taking pictures I just watch them, most of the time I don't even approach them, but sometimes I'll get out and talk to them. You'd be surprised how many times the original caller will call back and complain because I didn't do anything about them taking pictuers!

I've never had a photographer whip out a "Photographer's Bill Of Rights" or get angry because they feel harrassed, except on two occassions where they felt they had the right to photograph security details. Almost every person I talk to is happy to answer questions and is eager to show that they aren't doing anything wrong. But! I realize there are officers out there who aren't as comfortable talking to people and their "questioning" sounds more like an interrogation, and people are put off by that.

We can't arrest a person because of their demeanor, we arrest based on their actions. If someone is taking pictures and refuses to show you or explain what they've taken, then it is appropriate to seize thier equipment to determine if a crime has been committed, or for safety issues. It's actually easier, and more often better, to seize property that can be returned, rather than seizing a person for something you think they've done.

Those are very rare circumstances. I love photography and I always look for an opportunity to meet other photographers. I've actually become friends with many sports photographers and shooters for local papers. One of the local photojournalists used to ride along with me in my patrol car on late shift. I know a couple of photographers that work for Getty and have taken pictures of me, I've been in sports illustrated and on many pro sports team websites because I've gotten to know the photographers.

[gcogger]

It seems pretty clear you're from the USA, yes? The statement "If someone is taking pictures and refuses to show you or explain what they've taken, then it is appropriate to seize thier equipment to determine if a crime has been committed" is not the case in the UK.

By the way, I don't understand what you mean by "photographing protection details" and "photograph security details"?

[nemo man]

Hi Richard, and welcome to here. I'm from Wales too (Carmarthen).

Couple of things.

It's not just police officers that are the problem it is increasingly security guards, local council officials, and other power-trippers. I had a bad experience 6 months ago with Swansea Council officials. I ended up going to the Ombudsman for Wales. Didn't get me anywhere though.

I think it's illegal for police (in UK) to delete images as it is deleting what could be evidence.

You may take shots from a public place of public or private buildings and of people (including children) There is no law to prevent that. You could be walking along a public path through a private estate and snap away as much as you like.

There is no law in the UK to stop photographers taking shots of people in the street, but you might be charged other offences such as harassment.

Who said the terrorists can't win?

[Mosca]

The more you refuse to cooperate the more you're going to be questioned, and the more you "demand respect" and "I know my rights.." the more suspicious you seem.

If you think Police officers lack common sense....talk to your fellow citizens that call about "suspicious" people every day! If an Officer randomply stops you, it's likely because someone has reported you for some reason..


Oh now that's just plain silly. First, if I want pictures of schools, bridges, government buildings etc for terrorist reasons, I'll get them off the internet where no one will watch... or if I need a "today" photo, I'll get it with my phone. Second, anyone doing anything illegal is going to be "yessir, nosir, here is what you want sir, good day to you sir." Because they know photography is legal, and that will get them on their way.

Frankly, and especially based on your response to the OP, yes I do think police officers lack common sense. I think that they get all huffy when they overstep their authority, and that they are ill equipped emotionally to deal with legitimate challenges to said overstepping. That is why citizens are getting murdered by Tazers. An amateur photographer who is also a police officer, who challenges a photographer whom he knows is clearly within said photographer's rights to be taking pictures at a specific location, is looking for a confrontation, regardless of whoever has complained or called in. If he then escalates the confrontation when the photographer asserts his rights, then he has created his own little mini-police state for that particular time and place. For you to then assert that in that instance the officer is right, and the photographer wrong; well, yes, at least one police officer lacks common sense. And is also somewhat frightening. And needs to get his head screwed on straight.

And no, I'm not some young punk full of piss and vinegar. I'm a middle aged family man working a middle manager job who is scared to death that some day I'll be in a diabetic trance, and some idiot cop will mistake it for non-compliance and Tazer me to death (which has already happened here in the "land of the free"). Because all you guys ever think about is confrontation and authority.

[Mosca]

"If someone is taking pictures and refuses to show you or explain what they've taken, then it is appropriate to seize thier equipment to determine if a crime has been committed, or for safety issues."

No, it isn't. It is not appropriate for you to seize their equipment. In fact is is specifically illegal to do so. You can do it, and get away with it. But that doesn't make it appropriate, or legal.

"Men of liberty are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by mean of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." -Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, 1928

"Insidious encroachment" means baby steps; it means a millimeter here, a millimeter there. If you think that your little encounters aren't important, I'm here to tell you that they are exactly the "insidious encroachments" that Justice Brandies wrote about 80 years ago.

[thequixotic2001]

Hi Richard, and welcome to here. I'm from Wales too (Carmarthen).
Thanks for the welcome nemo man, I am from Cardiff.
My view has been the same for years, The law is there to protect the guilty.

[Veemac]

...And no, I'm not some young punk full of piss and vinegar. I'm a middle aged family man working a middle manager job who is scared to death that some day I'll be in a diabetic trance, and some idiot cop will mistake it for non-compliance and Tazer me to death (which has already happened here in the "land of the free"). Because all you guys ever think about is confrontation and authority.


Recently in our locale, a United States Marine attempted to murder two police officers by gunfire at the end of a pursuit. I suppose I should now also quake in my boots in fear at the sight of any U.S. Marine because they're all murderers.

I've made it almost 47 years into my life without ever having been beaten, tazed, falsely imprisoned, harrassed or otherwise unfairly treated by a police officer. The experiences of 99.99% of the people I know are the same. Sure, there are a few badge-heavy cops out there, but they're an infinitesimal minority in their profession - unfortunately, they receive the majority of the media attention. It's been my experience that most people who have negative contacts with police officers invite or incite it in some way.

[Mark_Cohran]

Gentlemen, let's stay on topic and avoid unnecessarily inflammatory responses. Threads like this usually have a short life because they spiral downward into a circular and infinite debate.

[number six]

Their gear was returned a few days later after detectives reviewed their images, and formatted their cards.

Confiscated and images destroyed, eh? Did they get a search warrant?

Here's an interesting item from the NYPD:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=7942200&postcount=1

-js

[ShotByTom]

It seems pretty clear you're from the USA, yes? The statement "If someone is taking pictures and refuses to show you or explain what they've taken, then it is appropriate to seize thier equipment to determine if a crime has been committed" is not the case in the UK.

By the way, I don't understand what you mean by "photographing protection details" and "photograph security details"?

I meant dignitary protection details...officers...federal, state and local, that are assigned to a specific area when politicians are in town or during very large public events. If someone is photographing snipers, search stations and undercover officers, they are going to be questioned. If they don't cooperate then their equipment can be seized and investigated. When the cards are formated they are always saved on our servers as evidence, there's always a chance a judge will order them returned.

[wickerprints]

Law enforcement's purpose is to (1) prevent crimes from occurring; (2) apprehend those who are suspected of committing crimes; and (3) investigating suspected criminal activity and gathering evidence through legal means to support prosecution.

The problem is, none of the above says anything about doing the right thing, being courteous to the public, or acting with restraint. To the extent that these ideals conflict with the aforementioned goals, they are not exercised because it is not part of their job function.

The police can and will lie to you if they believe doing so will assist these goals. They are legally allowed to deceive you during questioning. This is why you never, EVER volunteer information to a police officer--even if you are not a suspect--unless you have legal counsel present. Several former detectives have advised this.

Does it make you look suspicious? Absolutely. Could it make your life difficult? Yes, if the police want to. But is it the smart thing to do. You bet!

The police are not on your side. They never have been. They are largely unaccountable, protect their own, and suspect everyone. It is an integral part of what they are trained to do. What rational mind trusts someone simply because they have a badge and a gun? There are corrupt people in all walks of life, and law enforcement is no exception.

And there are good police officers who not only know how to uphold the law, but also do so in a way that is humane. But in my experience, such individuals are extremely rare, because law enforcement encourages a culture of authority. There is a strong self-selection effect in that many of the very people who are interested in law enforcement are those who thrive off exerting personal authority over others. The nature of the occupation attracts those whose personalities enjoy being in positions of power, with little to no regard for the needs of others. This selection bias has been well-documented in numerous occupational psychology studies.

There is also the effect of working in a job in which one is constantly exposed to high levels of social stressors. Over time, this has an impact on the way an individual responds to certain situations, as it is a defense reflex. This is also well-studied in both the police as well as the military.

This is why we see conflict between photographers and law enforcement. Due to pervasive media and political messages constantly reminding the population of a constant and imminent terrorist threat, there is increasing pressure upon law enforcement to respond preemptively with regard to even the slightest and most tangentially suspicious activity. This is part of the way terrorism succeeds--by heightening public fear, the goal of terrorism is to cause the state to restrict civil liberties and enforce increasingly totalitarian measures in order to protect the citizenry, until the police state becomes so repressive that it is eventually corrupted from within, or overthrown.

I don't buy the argument that the police have the right to detain individuals or confiscate their property simply on the basis that they aren't given complete and immediate submission. If the police actually understood all the limitations to their power as well as the people do, they wouldn't be police, they'd be lawyers, because there are a lot of things they are not allowed to do. Destroying your property (legally recorded images) is certainly one of them. Sure, you can sue later, but it's gone forever, and even in the unlikely chance you do win, what's a few bucks in civil damages compared to a future of being harassed? That's why most people just give in. And it's wrong.

[Mark_Cohran]

As I suspected, this topic is spiraling out of control. I've deleted some personal comments. Either stay on topic and keep the comments germane to the subject and not the posters or this thread will die a quick death.

[ShotByTom]

Gentlemen, let's stay on topic and avoid unnecessarily inflammatory responses. Threads like this usually have a short life because they spiral downward into a circular and infinite debate.

Ok....I'm out.

Are any of these unnecessarily inflamitory???

Oh now that's just plain silly. First, if I want pictures of schools, bridges, government buildings etc for terrorist reasons, I'll get them off the internet where no one will watch... or if I need a "today" photo, I'll get it with my phone. Second, anyone doing anything illegal is going to be "yessir, nosir, here is what you want sir, good day to you sir." Because they know photography is legal, and that will get them on their way.



Frankly, and especially based on your response to the OP, yes I do think police officers lack common sense. I think that they get all huffy when they overstep their authority, and that they are ill equipped emotionally to deal with legitimate challenges to said overstepping. That is why citizens are getting murdered by Tazers. An amateur photographer who is also a police officer, who challenges a photographer whom he knows is clearly within said photographer's rights (((who determined THAT??))to be taking pictures at a specific location, is looking for a confrontation, regardless of whoever has complained or called in. If he then escalates the confrontation when the photographer asserts his rights, then he has created his own little mini-police state for that particular time and place. For you to then assert that in that instance the officer is right, and the photographer wrong; well, yes, at least one police officer lacks common sense. And is also somewhat frightening. And needs to get his head screwed on straight.



And no, I'm not some young punk full of piss and vinegar. I'm a middle aged family man working a middle manager job who is scared to death that some day I'll be in a diabetic trance, and some idiot cop will mistake it for non-compliance and Tazer me to death (which has already happened here in the "land of the free"). Because all you guys ever think about is confrontation and authority.

I'll make it easier for you, I'll just go away. :p

[cspratt]

Any experiences in Canada?