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 20 Aug 2011 (Saturday) 14:30
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Long Beach Police Chief Confirms Detaining Photographers Within Departmental Policy

 
troymm
Senior Member
268 posts
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
     
Aug 29, 2011 22:12 |  #136

I have, have you? https://photography-on-the.net …?p=13011954&pos​tcount=113


1D MKIII, 5D MKII, 40D, 24-70L, 35L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 135L, 85 1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
troymm
Senior Member
268 posts
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
     
Aug 29, 2011 22:20 |  #137

It seems many people know their constitutional rights, but dont know how their rights work within the legal system.


1D MKIII, 5D MKII, 40D, 24-70L, 35L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 135L, 85 1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 546
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Aug 29, 2011 23:24 |  #138

troymm wrote in post #13022085 (external link)
It seems many people know their constitutional rights, but dont know how their rights work within the legal system.

So, you are claiming that non-consensual detention of someone who is not suspected of breaking the law is legitimate? As far as I understand, that is not considered OK and is not actually the LAPD policy in question. Do you have authoritative sources showing that this practice has been legally upheld? The sources I linked to earlier in the thread (the "Stop and Identify statutes") do not recognize the unfettered right of the police to detain someone who is not actually suspected as a crime.


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
troymm
Senior Member
268 posts
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
     
Aug 30, 2011 00:11 |  #139

tonylong wrote in post #13022396 (external link)
So, you are claiming that non-consensual detention of someone who is not suspected of breaking the law is legitimate? As far as I understand, that is not considered OK and is not actually the LAPD policy in question. Do you have authoritative sources showing that this practice has been legally upheld? The sources I linked to earlier in the thread (the "Stop and Identify statutes") do not recognize the unfettered right of the police to detain someone who is not actually suspected as a crime.

No, i am not claiming a detention of someone who is not suspected of breaking the law legitimate. However, this is not the case in this incident. This was not a consensual stop, the officer was dispatched to scene. This fact alone make a difference to the totality of the events that followed.


1D MKIII, 5D MKII, 40D, 24-70L, 35L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 135L, 85 1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 546
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Aug 30, 2011 00:51 |  #140

troymm wrote in post #13022593 (external link)
No, i am not claiming a detention of someone who is not suspected of breaking the law legitimate. However, this is not the case in this incident. This was not a consensual stop, the officer was dispatched to scene. This fact alone make a difference to the totality of the events that followed.

Actually the policy that has been referenced regarding this case requires reporting and gathering information but does not in any way specify any kind of detention, especially non-consensual. Gathering information in this case would only apply to talking to the person who "called in" about the photographer, observing the photographer and maybe having a consensual conversation with the photographer.

But, the big question in this case is whether the officer went beyond consensual to non-consensual when he "asked" for the ID of the photographer. According to the photographer, who is a journalist, he asked the officer if he was actually required to surrender his ID and the officer answered yes, on the grounds of the national security. That in itself is where we step over the bounds of legality. The courts have upheld the "stop and identify" laws where there is reasonable ground to suspect that something is "amiss" but the policy about "keeping an eye out" and "gathering information" absolutely does not authrize detaining people who are not giving reasonable suspicion that they are breaking the law.

So in that sense, if an officer tells you to surrender your ID "or else" then as far as I can see that officer is overstepping the law. If you had proof of this then you would have grounds for a suit. But, of course, proof is not so easily obtained. In this case, the officer denied making a demand, so who do you believe?

If I was a reporter who wanted to go out legally photographing things and evaluating the response of the cops you better believe I would at least have an audio recording device with a microphone set up and recording the conversation.


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
troymm
Senior Member
268 posts
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
     
Aug 30, 2011 01:28 |  #141

I re-read the original story, but I cant find where does it talks about it being a consensual stop? The reporter may have believed it was a consensual stop because of the officers demeaner, but it appears to be a detention from the begining of the dispatch.

I think all the points on both side of the discussion has been said. I hope we all can agree to disagree.


1D MKIII, 5D MKII, 40D, 24-70L, 35L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 135L, 85 1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 546
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Aug 30, 2011 01:59 |  #142

troymm wrote in post #13022868 (external link)
I re-read the original story, but I cant find where does it talks about it being a consensual stop? The reporter may have believed it was a consensual stop because of the officers demeaner, but it appears to be a detention from the begining of the dispatch.

I think all the points on both side of the discussion has been said. I hope we all can agree to disagree.

If you read both articles posted, you will see that there was a disagreemint as to whether there was a consensual "stop" or non-consensual, and that seems to me to be the crux. If a citizen/photog is detained in a non-consensual way without reasonable suspicion af actual criminal activity that seems to go beyond the legal capacity of law enforcement, and if that is true, then there is grounds to both complain and take legal action if you can provide proof of that action. Of course, when there are different versions of this type of scenario, a court will not give a decisive ruling.


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
RTPVid
Goldmember
3,365 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2010
Location: MN
     
Aug 30, 2011 07:06 |  #143

Cute, but you were asking me to re-state what I have already posted several times in this thread. To what end (other than to appear to have the "last word") I have no idea.


Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
troymm
Senior Member
268 posts
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
     
Aug 30, 2011 10:28 |  #144

RTPVid wrote in post #13023666 (external link)
Cute, but you were asking me to re-state what I have already posted several times in this thread. To what end (other than to appear to have the "last word") I have no idea.

No, it is not cute and I was not asking you to restate anything. If you saw my previous post you would have read that it was a legal stop and legal detention. I was just trying to advise you of your lack of knowledge or misinterpretion of the laws regarding this event. You seem to be only focusing on one facet and not the totality of the circumstances.


1D MKIII, 5D MKII, 40D, 24-70L, 35L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 135L, 85 1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RTPVid
Goldmember
3,365 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2010
Location: MN
     
Aug 30, 2011 11:01 |  #145

troymm wrote in post #13024374 (external link)
No, it is not cute

I agree. I was being sarcastic.

troymm wrote in post #13024374 (external link)
and I was not asking you to restate anything.

Funny. Sure seemed like you did. It had a question mark and everything.

Do you have anything to back up your contention that being dispatched frees an officer from his legal obligation to not violate the 4th amendment?


Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
moose10101
registered smartass
1,745 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 296
Joined May 2010
Location: Maryland, USA
     
Aug 30, 2011 13:32 |  #146

troymm wrote in post #13024374 (external link)
If you saw my previous post you would have read that it was a legal stop and legal detention.

Detention? Yes.

Legal detention? What's your basis for that? Aesthetic evaluation?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 546
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Aug 30, 2011 21:26 |  #147

troymm wrote in post #13024374 (external link)
If you saw my previous post you would have read that it was a legal stop and legal detention.

I don't get it. From my reading, a "legal detention" implies a non-consensual detention that is only enacted when an officer has reasonable suspicion that either a crime is being comitted or is being "planned" (such as with the Terry Stop ruling). But when there is not that reasonable suspicion then a non-consensual detention is not legal (unless someone is driving or doing something else that requires some kind of official enforcement). Of course you could call a "consensual" detention" legal if you wish but you have to be clear about your terms! A non-consensual detention, from what I understand, is only legal under the above conditions. A Consensual "talk" does not have a legal constraint.

So, and this is what is at issue with the posted story: the photographer claims that when the officer asked for his ID he responded to a question by the photog that the ID was "required", at which point the situation became non-consensual. But the officer denied it.

As we know, the photog was not breaking the law. Of course it drew the attention of the officer, and his approaching the photog to ask questions consnsually are not the problem. Nowhere in the "Policy" that get mentioned is there any indication that a non-consensual detention is called for in this type of case, only where crime or the reasonable suspicion of a crime is is there and can be upheld. And recent rulings have backed up the photographers in that they can legally shoot, well, things.

It all hangs on the consensual/non-consensual thing. So, did the photographer lie or did the officer? Hmm, I could see a news-hungry photog spinning the story. But, I could see the officer denying things because he could get in trouble. And, without any evidence, well, we just stay at square one.

But when you say "If you saw my previous post you would have read that it was a legal stop and legal detention." then I wonder why you are saying that. Are you saying that the photog lied and so your argument is correct? Why would you assume that? An argument based on an unfounded assumption is fallacious, just like if I were to assume that the cop lied and argued based on that assumption. Fallacies are never a good way to argue!

Or, are you arguing that the detention was legal even though it was non-consensual? If so, please cite legal decisions that have been upheld where a photographer who was not doing anything criminal and who was not being obnoxious or acting suspicious in some real way (not as in taking non-aesthetically pleasing photos -- that's just silly) way was non-consensually detained! This is important info if you have a source, otherwise the argument would again be a fallacy, based on an unfounded assumption.

So please, put some teeth in it with an authoritative cite!


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
alabama1980
Goldmember
Avatar
1,213 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Gadsden, AL
     
Aug 31, 2011 01:55 |  #148

The problem is "they" keep expanding the definition of "probable cause", and no one seems to notice or care as long as they back it up with words like "terrorism" or "homeland security". Those words make the erosion of liberty somehow acceptable.

I don't know whats worse...the use of those words to coerce people into forfeiting freedoms, or the people that blindly eat it up like candy.

Don't be so short sighted to think that it's just this particular policy. You have to look ahead to the precedent these things set for future law making. If you start now allowing them to barter with fear, then it will not stop.

Personally, I choose not to live in fear of some ever present boogeyman.


Name's Andy! :)
Facebook (external link)
My 500px (external link)
asheltonphoto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
S.Horton
worship my useful and insightful comments
Avatar
18,051 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 117
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Royersford, PA
     
Aug 31, 2011 06:01 |  #149

It is easy to discuss from a chair -- After a few visits to other countries, things snap into focus.

Andy, there's a saying and I cannot recall where I heard it, but it goes something like "control is a thing given".

But, it can be taught -- way OT but you might like the read:
http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Learned_helples​sness (external link)

Consider that idea in today's environment.


Sam - TF Says Ishmael
http://midnightblue.sm​ugmug.com (external link) 
Want your title changed?Dream On! (external link)

:cool:

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

11,425 views & 0 likes for this thread
Long Beach Police Chief Confirms Detaining Photographers Within Departmental Policy
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 Chinedude
759 guests, 169 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.