Photographer vs. Police

sandpiper wrote in post #17001395
Whilst I still believe they were heavy handed and over the top in their reactions, the key part of this is that you were on airport property and NOT in a public space. The fact that the public have access to somewhere does not make it "public" as far as photography is concerned, the owners of the property can make any rules they like for what people can do, whilst on their land. So, they were quite within their rights to ask you to stop taking photographs and leave the airport grounds.

When you went back again, and continued to do something that you now knew was not allowed whilst on their grounds, and had been asked previously to desist, you became a "persistent offender" and they banned you from their premises. Harsh treatment, I agree, but they are within their rights and you are, legally, in the wrong I am afraid. You were being a bit naive to think you could just keep going back there and not get kicked out again at least, or barred from entry in future.

I am not sure how they stand on things like the "hostility to a police officer", that sounds dubious to me but doesn't alter the fact that they have the right to ban you for repeat offending. Your claim of "unlawful commands" is also dubious as they have every right to tell you to stop and leave their premises, especially when you went back again.

I don't understand why they feel that photography ban is necessary, airports over here are happy with photographers, but if that is their policy then you have to accept it, or at least shoot from outside the airports grounds. Had you just accepted that they didn't allow photography the first time you were challenged and left, then that would be it. You wouldn't have been given a one year ban.

Who knows, if you were friendly and apologetic and explained what you were doing properly you might have got a similar response to the one cdiver2 had in a similar situation and, instead of getting yourself banned, been given permission to carry on and a phone number to call whenever you wanted to go back. Attitude makes a huge difference in these situations and being friendly and nice often gets a similar response. From the tone of your original post, "serious corruption of power", "burn it all down and start clean" etc. you come across as somebody who has a chip on their shoulder and isn't going to have a friendly, chatty attitude when challenged. The only person that will hurt is you, I'm afraid.

Your original post makes out that you had your rights trampled on, but you were in the wrong and going back again was a seriously bad move.

Well this is America and we had/have rights.
Feel what you want about my tone, some of us are fine blending in when the time comes. But I think the ACLU would have taken my side had I thought to record it or saved the paperwork.
https://www.aclu.org …your-rights-photographers

battletone wrote in post #17001467
Well this is America and we had/have rights.
Feel what you want about my tone, some of us are fine blending in when the time comes. But I think the ACLU would have taken my side had I thought to record it or saved the paperwork.
https://www.aclu.org …your-rights-photographers

You missed my point, you were NOT in a public space, you were on the airports property. That is a totally different situation, and is akin to shooting in a mall. A mall is open to the public, but is not public space and the mall owners can decide to not allow photography and ask people to stop or leave, just as the airport can.

That document you are waving, to support your position, clearly states in the second bullet point:

When you are on private property, the property owner may set rules about the taking of photographs. If you disobey the property owner's rules, they can order you off their property (and have you arrested for trespassing if you do not comply).

You were on airport property, they set the rules and you disobeyed them, so they asked you to leave. You then went back again to do so a second time, so weren't complying and they could have you arrested.

I do see the part about airports lower down, but they are not stating that in any categorical manner, just that they "don't believe" restrictions at airports are constitutional. That sounds, to me, as if it needs to be tested in a court of law, they are certainly not stating, as a fact, that you have the right to take photographs on airport property, if the airport has rules against it.

Preeb wrote in post #16999615
And you are expressing exactly the paranoia I was referring to. I have never had an officer demand ID unless it was a traffic stop. I have had them ask politely, and I don't have an issue with offering it. Annoying a cop is stupid.

I guess here is the difference. I often do not have an ID on me when I am out downtown. As I have been pickpocketed before, I leave my wallet in my car, and take nothing but my camera and a few dollars which go in my front pocket. I had never thought about not having a DRIVERS license, until a couple of years ago when I was stopped by a cop thinking I was acting suspicious around a government building. In reality I was trying to do a series on the details of architecture. He asked for my ID and I told him my name and that I didn't have my ID on me. He didn't believe me and told me that if I didn't provide ID I was going to jail. As I couldn't provide it, I was frisked and detained while he waited on a supervisor to arrive (he was on foot, was waiting on a car). I didn't know my rights that day, but now I do. That day, they were infringed upon by someone who claims to protect them.

I still don't carry an ID with me if I don't have to.

Dave3222 wrote in post #16999674
Around a year ago, a man and woman were walking down a street in an older part of my city known for its high gang and criminal activity. An officer saw the couple, both having cameras slung on their shoulders, pulled up and questioned them if they needed any help. They stated no and continued walking. The officer asked them where they were from and if they knew the area. The man told the officer unless he was being detained he was not answering any questions. The couple continued on their way and the officer left. Within the hour, the couple that had ventured into the neighborhood to take photos of older victorian homes were not only robbed of their camera equipment, but all their cash and cellphones as well. Ironically, the same officer that stopped to speak with them initially and let them know about the area was the same one to take the report. I do believe that some cops may overstep their scope of authority, but most are there just trying to keep the sheep from the wolves.

I am actually unsure that your story is even relevant. Most of the cops in my city are great. I am usually happy to talk to many of them as I am downtown. I know that some that approach me are politely trying to figure out what I am doing and I am okay with that. I have even met some photographers in uniform that way who were just curious. However, the instant they imply that they have a right to demand ID, to see my camera, or to detain me I have learned that it is time to stand up for myself.

I of course don't go out and try to provoke anyone, but I don't fault those that do. If the cops responded appropriately, then simply recording them would never work as provocation and people would stop.

MattPharmD wrote in post #17001553
I am actually unsure that your story is even relevant. Most of the cops in my city are great. I am usually happy to talk to many of them as I am downtown.

You just made my point. They have a job to do and simple conversation is not violating your rights. The couple would have made aware of the neighborhood had they taken the same position you do and just converse with the officer. Simple mutual respect goes a long way.

sandpiper wrote in post #17001395
Whilst I still believe they were heavy handed and over the top in their reactions, the key part of this is that you were on airport property and NOT in a public space. The fact that the public have access to somewhere does not make it "public" as far as photography is concerned, the owners of the property can make any rules they like for what people can do, whilst on their land. So, they were quite within their rights to ask you to stop taking photographs and leave the airport grounds.

When you went back again, and continued to do something that you now knew was not allowed whilst on their grounds, and had been asked previously to desist, you became a "persistent offender" and they banned you from their premises. Harsh treatment, I agree, but they are within their rights and you are, legally, in the wrong I am afraid. You were being a bit naive to think you could just keep going back there and not get kicked out again at least, or barred from entry in future.

I am not sure how they stand on things like the "hostility to a police officer", that sounds dubious to me but doesn't alter the fact that they have the right to ban you for repeat offending. Your claim of "unlawful commands" is also dubious as they have every right to tell you to stop and leave their premises, especially when you went back again.

I don't understand why they feel that photography ban is necessary, airports over here are happy with photographers, but if that is their policy then you have to accept it, or at least shoot from outside the airports grounds. Had you just accepted that they didn't allow photography the first time you were challenged and left, then that would be it. You wouldn't have been given a one year ban.

Who knows, if you were friendly and apologetic and explained what you were doing properly you might have got a similar response to the one cdiver2 had in a similar situation and, instead of getting yourself banned, been given permission to carry on and a phone number to call whenever you wanted to go back. Attitude makes a huge difference in these situations and being friendly and nice often gets a similar response. From the tone of your original post, "serious corruption of power", "burn it all down and start clean" etc. you come across as somebody who has a chip on their shoulder and isn't going to have a friendly, chatty attitude when challenged. The only person that will hurt is you, I'm afraid.

Your original post makes out that you had your rights trampled on, but you were in the wrong and going back again was a seriously bad move.

+1

I would also like to add I think some people are looking for easy money, antagonize a cop until he looses his cool and the rest is easy money. I know I could not earn as much in a year as some settlements have been on case's like this.

This is just about about a whole bunch of idiots with nothing better to do than harass each other..

MattPharmD wrote in post #17001553
I often do not have an ID on me when I am out downtown. As I have been pickpocketed before, I leave my wallet in my car, and take nothing but my camera and a few dollars which go in my front pocket.

Don't car break-ins happen where you live? Around here, they're so common that the police don't come out to take a report.

Another reason to carry a wallet is that your health-insurance card, if you have one, should be on you at all times.

Anyway, carrying a business card that identifies oneself as a photographer might defuse some of these cop/photographer confrontations.

sandpiper wrote in post #17001552
You missed my point, you were NOT in a public space, you were on the airports property. That is a totally different situation, and is akin to shooting in a mall. A mall is open to the public, but is not public space and the mall owners can decide to not allow photography and ask people to stop or leave, just as the airport can.

That document you are waving, to support your position, clearly states in the second bullet point:

When you are on private property, the property owner may set rules about the taking of photographs. If you disobey the property owner's rules, they can order you off their property (and have you arrested for trespassing if you do not comply).

You were on airport property, they set the rules and you disobeyed them, so they asked you to leave. You then went back again to do so a second time, so weren't complying and they could have you arrested.

I do see the part about airports lower down, but they are not stating that in any categorical manner, just that they "don't believe" restrictions at airports are constitutional. That sounds, to me, as if it needs to be tested in a court of law, they are certainly not stating, as a fact, that you have the right to take photographs on airport property, if the airport has rules against it.

You are confusing private property of an individual with private property that is under Federal control. With the airport, you don't have a home owner making the rules as you go along, you have set rules. If the photography was not allowed they would have banned me for that, instead they circumvented the lack of any rules against it by claiming hostility to the police, which would hold a bit more water with their superiors and any legal challenges.

Dave3222 wrote in post #17001612
You just made my point. They have a job to do and simple conversation is not violating your rights. The couple would have made aware of the neighborhood had they taken the same position you do and just converse with the officer. Simple mutual respect goes a long way.

I agree. The point being is that some officers do not stop at simple conversation. I am happy to have a simple conversation. However, those generally do not need to go beyond, "Hi, I'm Matt" as far as identification goes. And that I only do as part of courtesy. I offer the same information to everyone I talk with on the street. Since my indecent, I have had several cops follow my introduction with "Matt, may I see some Identification" Some follow my no with asking for my last name and address. When I ask if I am being detained and they say no, then I walk away. All of those things are my right. I could choose to provide that information to the officer, however I choose not to.

OhLook wrote in post #17001688
Don't car break-ins happen where you live? Around here, they're so common that the police don't come out to take a report.

Another reason to carry a wallet is that your health-insurance card, if you have one, should be on you at all times.

Anyway, carrying a business card that identifies oneself as a photographer might defuse some of these cop/photographer confrontations.

Generally, I park in a safer place than I am walking to. The hidden, bolted down safe in my truck makes it a safer place than my pocket. I would say that carrying an insurance card with you is a myth. I wear a medical ID bracelet and will settle my bill with insurance later. I don't have HMO insurance and can be treated anywhere in town. Again, after my incident, I maintain that I do not need to carry anything that identifies me. I also don't need a business card that identifies me as I don't really have a business, and am certainly not conducting any when doing my architecture and street photography. I am not confrontational and never break any laws while out with my camera. I never go out intending to have a confrontation with a cop, but if it happens I refuse for my rights to be violated simply because the cop doesn't care.

MattPharmD wrote in post #17001763
I would say that carrying an insurance card with you is a myth. I wear a medical ID bracelet and will settle my bill with insurance later.

Speaking as a licensed healthcare professional working in emergency medicine for 30 years... IN THE US.. hospitals (and EMS charged with the duty to act) are required to provide lifesaving (stabilizing) care regardless of the patient's ability to pay.

They can not refuse to provide you this care and may not turn you away or transfer you to another facility or indigent/publicly funded hospital until you are stabilized.

There is NO absolute need to carry a medical insurance card with you.

Now, back to photography talk.

Dwain

My thought on the video was that the photographer got what he wanted....a YouTube video that would generate hits. So now he's getting a bit of revenue while he looks to find another situation to record another money making video. Maybe I am a cynic.

PeteD wrote in post #16998595
A lot of what they uncover are from random stop and questions (no, I do not approve of) , this is one of their main tools. There was an instance here in Charlotte, NC where there was a guy taking a bunch of videos of the buildings and skyline. Someone reported him as suspicous and they stopped and questioned him. Wouldn't you know it. He was on a terrorist watch list

Maybe because some cop put him on that terrorist list the previous time they harassed him for taking pictures of buildings and skyline.

DwainRowe wrote in post #17001864
There is NO absolute need to carry a medical insurance card with you.

Well, printed matter from my insurers says you're supposed to. That's all I know.

rdwalton wrote in post #16999081
Well who are you going to call when the police abuse their power against you and attempt to harass you and you don't know your rights? Who's going to believe you if there is no video evidence? Could the guy have been more cooperative? Yes, But he was well within in rights and broke no laws.

Citizens Review Board.


BTW our local PD's officers have micro video cameras they wear now because of some people who like to try to instigate officers and make false claims.

Some of you really need to do a ride along with the police. Its pretty funny seeing someone go ballistic on an officer when THEY got pulled over for doing 30 over.

ShotByTom wrote in post #17001638
This is just about about a whole bunch of idiots with nothing better to do than harass each other..

Isn't that what this forum is mostly about? Harassing each other, that is.