Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 28 Feb 2012 (Tuesday) 19:32
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Do cops have the right to prevent photographers recording time lapse video?

 
BreitlingFan
Goldmember
Avatar
1,427 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2010
Location: California
     
Mar 02, 2012 02:27 |  #136
bannedPermanent ban

moose10101 wrote in post #13998042 (external link)
The officer is perfectly within his rights to ask questions and to observe the individual. The individual is perfectly within his rights to refuse to answer the questions. I'm pretty sure that any officer outside of Barney Fife would be able to figure out if the individual had something on his person that he might be planning to throw over the side, and in that case the officer has reasonable suspicion to detain the potential brick-thrower.

And what difference should it make whether it's my mother, your mother, or nobody's mother?

That's wishful thinking on your part. People who want to give up a degree of safety in order to retain personal freedoms usually have a very good idea of the risks involved. People who demand more protection from the government, and are willing to give up those freedoms in order to get it, rarely go through that thought process.

Those who complain about police overstepping their bounds will always be the first, and the loudest, to whine when police don't stop crime...


Gear List
"I feel bad for people who don't drink. They wake up in the morning and that's the best they're gonna' feel all day." - Dean Martin

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
BreitlingFan
Goldmember
Avatar
1,427 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2010
Location: California
     
Mar 02, 2012 02:29 |  #137
bannedPermanent ban

BlurredImage wrote in post #13998128 (external link)
Identifying oneself and providing a driver's license are separate things.

Do you carry your birth certificate around just in case you are asked to provide it? You only need a DL when you are operating a motor vehicle. Period.

Um, right. Thank you for stating what everyone already knows.

The most common form of ID is a driver's license. If someone doesn't have a driver's license, he should still be prepared to identify himself...


Gear List
"I feel bad for people who don't drink. They wake up in the morning and that's the best they're gonna' feel all day." - Dean Martin

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ump107
Member
Avatar
62 posts
Joined Jan 2009
Location: NJ USA
     
Mar 02, 2012 03:10 as a reply to  @ post 13999232 |  #138

I believe some of this (as far as US citizens goes) falls under the protections of the 4th amendment. There is a fair amount of case law that protects the actions of both the officers and the public. And that leads to the question of is an officer asking for a person’s ID conducting a search? If the photographers’ actions would give the reasonable belief that he was trying to hide something could he have received a pat-down for the “Safety of the officer”?

I am not saying that either party was 100% right or wrong in this case. Yes, the photographer wasn’t breaking any laws that have been reported other than illegal parking. The department in question chose not to pursue to prevent it looking like reprisal for the YouTube post.

Armchair quarterbacking the incident (you know we are all doing it;)) one could say the officers probably should have run the vehicles registration, asked the photographer if it was his car and what he was doing. After satisfying that he wasn’t actually in the process of committing a crime tell him to move his car as it was illegally parked, and let it go as that. If they wanted to be aggressive they could have written the parking ticket and then told the photographer to move.

And to answer the main topic question in most cases, depending on what country your in, and where you are, No, usually


Alan
Full Gear List
Canon 40D, Canon BG-E2N Battery grip, Canon 580 EX II
Canon 18-55mm EFS 3.5-5.6 IS, Canon 28-105mm EF 3.5-4 USM, Canon 50mm 1.8,
Tamron 28-80mm 3.5-5.6, Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
moose10101
registered smartass
1,685 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 251
Joined May 2010
Location: Maryland, USA
     
Mar 02, 2012 10:07 |  #139

BreitlingFan wrote in post #14004692 (external link)
Those who complain about police overstepping their bounds will always be the first, and the loudest, to whine when police don't stop crime...

No, the people who are most willing to hand over their ID unnecessarily will always be the first, and the loudest, to whine when the police tell them to:

1) stop taking photos
2) delete the photos they've taken
3) hand over their camera.

But they'll never put 2 & 2 together and realize that acceding to the first improper "request" only encourages police officers to make those other improper "requests" the next time they interact with a photographer.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Markk9
Senior Member
284 posts
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Greensboro, NC
     
Mar 02, 2012 10:58 |  #140

BreitlingFan wrote in post #14004692 (external link)
Those who complain about police overstepping their bounds will always be the first, and the loudest, to whine when police don't stop crime...

The police are not required to stop crime, the police are not required to protect you.


Retired Eagle Driver.............Lon​g Live the Eagle.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nmcgrew
Senior Member
874 posts
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Mill Creek, WA
     
Mar 02, 2012 12:17 |  #141

BreitlingFan wrote in post #14004698 (external link)
Um, right. Thank you for stating what everyone already knows.

The most common form of ID is a driver's license. If someone doesn't have a driver's license, he should still be prepared to identify himself...

Except no. We do not have to produce 'papers' on demand without due reason. Being out in public at night is not due reason. Taking pictures is not due reason. Being a jerk is also not due reason.

So what harm is there in complying? Sadly, these days, there can be a lot of harm. Now, I know this is going to sound crazy, but it's true.

A photographer is stopped by police for taking pictures of boats in a harbor. There happens to be a nearby oil refinery. Due to the particular color of this person's skin, someone calls the police reporting a suspicious person taking pictures of the refinery. A possible target for terrorism. Using the Patriot Act as an excuse, the police make the man hand over the camera to inspect the images. They see only boats. They have him hand over his ID and he complies. What's the harm, right? With no reason to arrest him, the police tell him to leave and he continues to comply. A few months later he goes to the airport and attempts to fly somewhere. No go, he's on the no fly list because he is now a person suspected in committing terrorist activities. His name, obtained when handing over his ID, was forwarded to homeland security for further investigation.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 546
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Mar 02, 2012 14:22 |  #142

That's an interesting story.

The "broader" picture is that it's obvious from the video that these officers are of the mistaken assumption that they can threaten a citizen with arrest for either not handing over ID or for not turning off the video. Maybe they know the actual law, maybe not, but the only way for them to learn is by being challenged and losing, either in the field or in court.

Of course the details of these laws vary from state to state. Photogs should learn the applicable laws, but LEOs have no excuse for violating the laws...


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CMfromIL
Senior Member
Avatar
623 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Folsom CA
     
Mar 02, 2012 14:50 |  #143

BreitlingFan wrote in post #14004692 (external link)
Those who complain about police overstepping their bounds will always be the first, and the loudest, to whine when police don't stop crime...

For a vast majority of the time, the police don't 'stop' crime. They investigate crimes that have already been committed.

Our jails and prisons are not full of criminals that were 'stopped in the act, or just before they committed it". ;)


Like me on facebook! http://www.facebook.co​m/CollinMcKahinPhotogr​aphy (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cacawcacaw
Goldmember
Avatar
2,862 posts
Likes: 19
Joined May 2010
Location: Ventura, California
     
Mar 02, 2012 15:20 |  #144

Nmcgrew wrote in post #14007704 (external link)
... A photographer is stopped by police for taking pictures of boats in a harbor. There happens to be a nearby oil refinery. Due to the particular color of this person's skin, someone calls the police reporting a suspicious person taking pictures of the refinery. A possible target for terrorism. Using the Patriot Act as an excuse, the police make the man hand over the camera to inspect the images. They see only boats. They have him hand over his ID and he complies. What's the harm, right? With no reason to arrest him, the police tell him to leave and he continues to comply. A few months later he goes to the airport and attempts to fly somewhere. No go, he's on the no fly list because he is now a person suspected in committing terrorist activities. His name, obtained when handing over his ID, was forwarded to homeland security for further investigation.

Good post. Once we get started down the slippery slope of giving up "just a few" rights, it's hard to change course.

The more directly photography-related issue is the media companies ongoing attempt to control the internet. None of us are happy with the current state of affairs, including on-line piracy and the internet's role in sex trafficking. But, the alternatives could be far worse. Just as Walmart might make you prove that your are the owner of an image before they'll print it, it's conceivable that, if the giant media companies have their way, that all digital media will be controlled to the extent that one has to prove that they have the proper permissions before they'll be allowed to distribute it or to view it.


Replacing my Canon 7D, Tokina 12-24mm, Canon 17-55mm, Sigma 30mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.4, and 150-500mm with a Panasonic Lumix FZ1000. I still have the 17-55 and the 30 available for sale.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DeaconG
Goldmember
Avatar
1,474 posts
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Port St. John, FL
     
Mar 02, 2012 19:32 |  #145

Markk9 wrote in post #14007185 (external link)
The police are not required to stop crime, the police are not required to protect you.

Ward v 3rd US Court Of Appeals, IIRC. (This was many years ago, so my recollection may not be dead on).

The police are only required to maintain public safety.

This happened after a home invasion in DC where the suspect held two women in their home for several hours and the DC Police basically sat on their hands for several hours before bothering to do anything.

Afterwards, the women sued the DC po-po for inaction.


Gripped 5D Mark II & 50D|70-200 2.8 IS L|24-105 L|17-55|10-22|28 1.8|Σ 150-500|Σ 120-300 EX DG|Σ 50 1.4 EX|Σ APO 2X TC|580EXII|various other bits and pieces
"Reality holds surprises for everyone!" King Solovar, Crisis On Infinite Earths

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dragoro
Senior Member
Avatar
268 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Feb 2012
Location: Troy Mi
     
Mar 03, 2012 12:59 as a reply to  @ DeaconG's post |  #146

http://www.theverge.co​m …aw-ruled-unconstitutional (external link)

Welp, you can video and photograph cops in illinois now.


Nikon D810:
Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G AF-S ED LENS
Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 Di VC USD
Benjamin Timmins Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Yno
Senior Member
Avatar
862 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Jan 2008
Location: San Jose, California
     
Mar 03, 2012 21:06 as a reply to  @ Dragoro's post |  #147

Looking at the video, I came to the conclusion that a:the photographer is a jerk, or b:the photographer is a jerk and set this whole thing up to make the cops look bad.

Cops cannot be expected to know every law on the books. Lawyers and judges don't even know most of them; that's why they spend a bazillion bucks to have paralegals and interns researching for months for a minor point. Really can't expect the average beat cop to to be a walking law library.

So who really cares if the cop knows who you are? Hell, I would have given him my ID and then invited him to view my website, visit my camera club, and maybe get him into photography. The photographer was the one who made this into a hostile situation.

I have been questioned by law enforcement personnel while geocaching (sorry, google it if you don't know what it is) and with a quick explanation have aroused their interest in the game rather than their suspicion of me. We don't all have to make ourselves martyrs for the ACLU.


I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.
www.imawino.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bear ­ Dale
"I get 'em pregnant"
Avatar
4,866 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 742
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Australia
     
Mar 03, 2012 21:59 |  #148

Yno wrote in post #14017401 (external link)
Cops cannot be expected to know every law on the books.

Sorry, but thats a "cop" out.

A citiizen can't use ignorance of a specific law as a defence, neither should a paid law enforcement officer try to.


Cheers,
Bear Dale

Some of my photos featured on Flickr Bear Dale (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shayneyasinski
Senior Member
657 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Canada (sask)
     
Mar 03, 2012 22:33 |  #149

Cops can do whatever they want, sure I am not a fan of it but I like where I live in that they ask instead of just kill you like some places in the world.

The guy in the vid would have been fine if he showed some ID and talked to the cops about what he was doing.

But NOOOO he was a smarty pants who knew his rights...... try that in mexico.


my gear Canon 7D, Canon 5DMK2, 70-200 f2.8 IS, 50mm f1.8, canon 430 speedlight, canon 17-55 2.8 IS, canon 100mm macro sigma 10-20, Canon 17-85 , 60 cokin filters , 2x telecoverter.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bear ­ Dale
"I get 'em pregnant"
Avatar
4,866 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 742
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Australia
     
Mar 03, 2012 22:51 |  #150

shayneyasinski wrote in post #14017810 (external link)
But NOOOO he was a smarty pants who knew his rights...... try that in mexico.

But it's NOT Mexico.......isn't THAT the difference?


Cheers,
Bear Dale

Some of my photos featured on Flickr Bear Dale (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

15,878 views & 0 likes for this thread
Do cops have the right to prevent photographers recording time lapse video?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is AlanJr
731 guests, 206 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.