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 27 Jun 2014 (Friday) 16:19
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Photographer vs. Police

 
this thread is locked
battletone
Senior Member
Avatar
503 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 74
Joined Sep 2009
     
Jun 29, 2014 13:46 |  #61

sandpiper wrote in post #17001395 (external link)
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 (external link)

The TSA also warns that local or airport regulations may impose restrictions that the TSA does not. It is difficult to determine if any localities or airport authorities actually have such rules. If you are told you cannot take photographs in an airport you should ask what the legal authority for that rule is.


Cameras: 5D Mark IV, EOS 3, Elan 7
Lenses:15mm 2.8 fisheye, 16-35mm 2.8L II, 24-70mm 2.8L II, 85mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8L, 70-200L II IS
Tripod: Gitzo GT2531, Arca-Swiss Z1, RRS PC-LR
Lights: Photogenic PL1250 x2, 1500SL x1, Canon 580ex, YN 568ex II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,171 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 50
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Merseyside, England
     
Jun 29, 2014 14:30 |  #62

battletone wrote in post #17001467 (external link)
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 (external link)

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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MattPharmD
Senior Member
Avatar
255 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jun 2011
     
Jun 29, 2014 14:30 as a reply to  @ post 17000396 |  #63

Preeb wrote in post #16999615 (external link)
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 (external link)
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.


Photography is just a hobby for me.
Twitter: @PharmNerdMatt (external link)
Youtube:The PharmNerd (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dave3222
Goldmember
Avatar
1,392 posts
Gallery: 170 photos
Likes: 717
Joined Jul 2013
     
Jun 29, 2014 15:03 |  #64

MattPharmD wrote in post #17001553 (external link)
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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdiver2
Goldmember
Avatar
1,032 posts
Likes: 67
Joined Feb 2012
Location: Safety Harbor Fl
     
Jun 29, 2014 15:08 |  #65

sandpiper wrote in post #17001395 (external link)
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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ShotByTom
Goldmember
Avatar
3,032 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 116
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Indianapolis
     
Jun 29, 2014 15:18 |  #66

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


Gear
Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
insufferably pedantic. I can live with that.
Avatar
19,523 posts
Gallery: 74 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7409
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Jun 29, 2014 15:51 |  #67

MattPharmD wrote in post #17001553 (external link)
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.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | Comments welcome

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
battletone
Senior Member
Avatar
503 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 74
Joined Sep 2009
     
Jun 29, 2014 16:38 |  #68

sandpiper wrote in post #17001552 (external link)
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.


Cameras: 5D Mark IV, EOS 3, Elan 7
Lenses:15mm 2.8 fisheye, 16-35mm 2.8L II, 24-70mm 2.8L II, 85mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8L, 70-200L II IS
Tripod: Gitzo GT2531, Arca-Swiss Z1, RRS PC-LR
Lights: Photogenic PL1250 x2, 1500SL x1, Canon 580ex, YN 568ex II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MattPharmD
Senior Member
Avatar
255 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jun 2011
     
Jun 29, 2014 16:39 |  #69

Dave3222 wrote in post #17001612 (external link)
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 (external link)
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.


Photography is just a hobby for me.
Twitter: @PharmNerdMatt (external link)
Youtube:The PharmNerd (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DwainRowe
Senior Member
Avatar
783 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 9
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Northeast Tennessee
     
Jun 29, 2014 17:44 |  #70

MattPharmD wrote in post #17001763 (external link)
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


6D | EF 17-40 f/4 L | EF 70-200 f/4 L IS | EF 50mm f1.4 USM -|- Rebel T2i | EF-S 17-55 IS | Σ 10-20 f3.5 EX DC | Σ 70-300 4-5.6 DG Macro (Yes, I am cheap) | Speedlite 580EXII | YN622c
EOS M | EFM 22 f/2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NewCreation
Goldmember
Avatar
3,216 posts
Gallery: 47 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 592
Joined Jan 2013
Location: Michigan
     
Jun 29, 2014 17:50 as a reply to  @ DwainRowe's post |  #71

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.


My name is Brenda ~Saved by grace, walking by faith
http://brendahoffmanph​otography.com (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DocFrankenstein
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,324 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Apr 2004
Location: where the buffalo roam
     
Jun 29, 2014 18:15 |  #72

PeteD wrote in post #16998595 (external link)
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. ;)


National Sarcasm Society. Like we need your support.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
insufferably pedantic. I can live with that.
Avatar
19,523 posts
Gallery: 74 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7409
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Jun 29, 2014 18:34 |  #73

DwainRowe wrote in post #17001864 (external link)
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.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | Comments welcome

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
YamahaRob
Senior Member
Avatar
571 posts
Joined Dec 2009
Location: WI
     
Jun 29, 2014 19:00 |  #74

rdwalton wrote in post #16999081 (external link)
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.


Rob
Nikon D300
Canon AE-1P (it becomes digital when pics are scanned in with a scanner:lol:)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tstowe
Goldmember
Avatar
1,194 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Beaufort, SC
     
Jun 29, 2014 19:45 |  #75

ShotByTom wrote in post #17001638 (external link)
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.


www.ToddStowe.com (external link)
www.TheTalon.SmugMug.c​om (external link)

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

20,908 views & 0 likes for this thread
Photographer vs. Police
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 Grex79
671 guests, 300 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.