# Law enforcement continues to crack down on photographers despite the law



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 19, 2011)

I phrased this title specifically. 

Members of the law enforcement community in the following areas continue to be purposefully ignorant of the law, and the rights of citizens to legally photograph and/or video record them when they are in public performing their duties.

Cases in point:
*Man Arrested for Videotaping Cops in Florida*

Man records a cop doing a drug bust.
Cop notices he is being filmed, demands the video.
Man refuses.
Cop arrests man.
Friend of first man then begins to video.
He too is arrested.

Absent additional information, this looks to be an abuse by the cops in question.

*New Jersey Cops Threaten Man With Arrest for Videotaping Them*



> "Put the camera away or I'm going to throw it on the ground," one cop threatens.


I wasn't aware that a law enforcement official, while in the performance of his or her duties, can threaten to destroy private property on whim.


> "Put  it away, you're going to be locked up for disobeying a police  officer  if you don't put it away," one of the new arriving cops tells  him.


IF filming a LEO in public is legal, then the order to cease a legal act would seem to be unlawful, and civilians are under no legal requirement to obey an unlawful order.
Are they?

*Atlanta Police Once Again Told They Must Allow Citizens to Videotape Them*

$40,000 settlement.
Atlanta cops who are purposefully acting outside the law here have now cost the cash strapped city significantly, especially when you consider this is the second lawsuit, and legal action ain't cheap.

*Federal Officers Detain Photographer; Destroy His Video Footage*

I wasn't aware that it was at all legal for -ANY- law enforcement official to destroy evidence.

*New York Woman May Win $70 Million Default Settlement After Photography Arrest*

Ouch.
*Secret Service Agents Detain Man for Taking Photos in Front of White House*

The "SS" seems to be really poorly trained when it comes to dealing with the deadly "Kodak 35mm".   A previous case had one poorly trained SS agent ready to draw and fire on a photographer...one who had previously done a portrait of his boss, you know, that guy folks call "Mr. President" that lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Then there is this case:
*Charges dropped against Florida student arrested for videotaping 
*
Fabricating a report, exaggerating the situation, harassing a photographer. Naughty Naughty.  Wait a minute...isn't this where we came in?


Atlanta's now had -2- major screw ups in how their police department handles photographer interactions. Want to bet there'll be another one soon, despite -2- rounds of 'correction'?

Miami continues to also attempt to harass and intimidate photographers, despite losing over a dozen cases, and repeatedly getting 'egg' on their faces.


Now I haven't mentioned my favorite bunch of scumbags, the TSA, but that's only because I said 'law enforcement' here, and anyone with a clue understands the TSA are -civilian- not -law enforcement-. Well, except the jack booted sex offenders and petty thieves in the TSA uniforms that is.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 19, 2011)

For the record, when I shoot in public I carry a binder with all pertinent laws and court decisions. I know for a fact that it is 100% legal for a woman to be topless in NY, and that I can legally shoot her on any State Park or Beach provided I don't haul in a truck load of gear or try shooting nudes in the playground.  Despite that, I won't shoot in Buffalo because the couple of cops I asked basically said "we don't care if it's legal, we'll find something to run you in on.".  A different jurisdiction got me 2 offers to hold lights. 

I don't post the OP here to bash, but to point out that despite serious attempts to fix a broken system, the 'guys in the trenches' continue to screw it up, and its looking intentional.  This isn't good PR, and it doesn't make folks like me too inclined to trust the folks in uniform during encounters.  Eventually, someones going to get really hurt.

Yes, some of these cases are idiots out looking for trouble, but more and more it's some average shmoe, or some hobbyist and that's just not good.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 19, 2011)

Bob,

I'm tired.  I'm grumpy.  It's been a long couple of days.  In short -- I'm in a mood to read this in a way that I know isn't what you mean...

There are plenty of otherwise good officers who either make up stuff if they don't know or are well intentioned, but just plain wrong.  That doesn't make it some conspiracy by cops against cameramen.  It's kind of like the Open Carry idiocy.  They wait for that cop who isn't willing to admit that he doesn't know, and is sincerely trying to solve a problem... so he does or says something stupid.  With the photographers, in some cases, there are also legitimate security concerns -- though they were handled the wrong way.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 19, 2011)

Honestly I believe most officers don't know the laws regarding filming them.  I didnt until we had to babysit the Westboro Baptist Church freaks a few years ago. Its not usually a top priority in the Police academy.  All they know is "I'm trying to do my job and this guys got a camera in my face he must be out to get me."  Since lets be honest most times someones pointing a camera at us is usually followed with "I got you on tape now, I'm going to have your job."  Since normally the only time anyone wants to tape us is when were trying to arrest someone and its normally someone thats being very uncooperative so were already irritated or amped up. 
I know in My state you can take pictures and you can visually record me but you cant audio record me without my consent and If your using a video recorder I can legally tell you to stop. If you dont you can be charged.  I believe there are 11 states that have similar 2 party consent laws with regard to audio recordings.


----------



## MJS (Feb 19, 2011)

I think it'd be interesting to see the photo laws for each state, regarding LE.  IMHO, unless there is an actual, set in stone law, as long as the person taking the pics. is not in any way, shape or form, hindering the investigation, then by all means, film away.  Hey, I have to be careful and watch what I say and do at work, as everything is recorded, so that should apply to others as well, others being those in the field.  

If the person taking the pics is standing within arms reach of the cop, then yeah, that guy needs to be removed, arrested, etc.  

And if there are laws in effect, then people need to be made aware of them.


----------



## Carol (Feb 19, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> If your using a video recorder I can legally tell you to stop.



Citation please?

Is this a municpal, state, or federal law?  If so, which one?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 19, 2011)

The police are public officials, doing their job in public.  You can take photographs in public, and you can definitely take photographs of public officials.  I'm sorry if cops don't like it, but them's the breaks.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 19, 2011)

Carol said:


> Citation please?
> 
> Is this a municpal, state, or federal law?  If so, which one?



If it records sound then its our states Wire tap laws.  Were a 2 party consent state.  Remember when Monnica Lewinski's friend recorded her calls she got in trouble because she was in Maryland.  If its just video and no audio then you can film all you want.  If its audio then I can tell you to stop.    Now there is a case right now working thru the courts they may change that where a man on a motorcycle taped his traffic stop then was told to stop but didnt and put it on You Tube.  He was arrested for wiretap violations.  I believe this case will change that law regarding police


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 19, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The police are public officials, doing their job in public.  You can take photographs in public, and you can definitely take photographs of public officials.  I'm sorry if cops don't like it, but them's the breaks.



 I never understood why you would even want to take pictures of cops in the first place?  You dont take pictures of your trash man so why Police?


----------



## Carol (Feb 19, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> If it records sound then its our states Wire tap laws.  Were a 2 party consent state.  Remember when Monnica Lewinski's friend recorded her calls she got in trouble because she was in Maryland.  If its just video and no audio then you can film all you want.  If its audio then I can tell you to stop.    Now there is a case right now working thru the courts they may change that where a man on a motorcycle taped his traffic stop then was told to stop but didnt and put it on You Tube.  He was arrested for wiretap violations.  I believe this case will change that law regarding police



That is not a citation of a specific law.

*Please cite a specific law* -- either municipal, state, or federal that supports your statements.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 19, 2011)

Carol said:


> That is not a citation of a specific law.
> 
> *Please cite a specific law* -- either municipal, state, or federal that supports your statements.



I dont have the book in front of me to give you the actual title numbers Im at home I dont have many law books at home. I know Its our states wire tap laws,  we are a 2 party consent state which means both the person recording and the one being recorded have to consent to be recorded.  The only exception is a state certified law enforcement officer has to advise you your being recorded but you cant refuse and thats because the NAACP won a suit requiring our state police to have in car cameras because they were accused of racial profiling and they didnt want the officers turning off the cameras.  Also undercover operations are exempt as well but the recording device must be registered with the state and it has to be mentioned in the reports at time of trial and discovery rules apply


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 19, 2011)

There is an opinion that the use of the wiretapping laws to protect cops is an abuse, and will eventually be corrected by the courts.

The basic rule is, if you can see it from a public space, you can shoot it.
Meaning if I'm on the public sidewalk in front of my house, and the cop is on the public street, in plain view, I can legally photograph or video.  

Absent a law against, it's legal.

As I've said before, there is a difference between the idiot who wants you to move the bodies around and the documentor who is a reasonably safe distance away.
Now, in those 2-party states, my question is this: Dash cams? Do they record audio? You do not have my consent. So, since I don't give my consent, do they get turned off?  If not, why if the argument is safety can you record, byt I for the exact same reason, can't?

USA Today had a piece on this topic.
Our view on cops and cameras: When citizens film police, it shouldn't be a crime  



> Only in Massachusetts and Illinois is it    explicitly illegal to make an audio recording of people    without their consent,  so officials there can prosecute those who tape police encounters. Ten  other states, including Maryland, have "two-party consent" laws that  require both (or all) people being audiotaped to approve, but the  statutes apply to "private" conversations, such as a phone call.  Generally, courts and prosecutors conclude that an officer arresting  someone in a public place has no expectation of privacy.
> In many jurisdictions, the police themselves  record these encounters with dashboard cams in their cruisers. Most of  the time, these cruiser-cam videos show law enforcement officers doing  their jobs with great competence and restraint.
> Occasionally, however, citizen videotapes show an entirely different set of events than the police report.



An opposing view was also linked, that I recommend reading. It echos what our own member LEO's have stated.
Opposing view on cops and cameras: Respect officers' rights



> Our problem is not so much with the videotaping as it is with the  inability of those with no understanding of police work to clearly and  objectively interpret what they see. Videotapes frequently do not show  what occurred before or after the camera was on, and the viewer has no  idea what may have triggered the incident or what transpired afterwards.





> No one can speak knowledgeably about a piece of  video without viewing it through the prism of experience and training.  It is not a question of whether a citizen has the right to videotape an  incident, but a matter of ensuring that any officer involved has the  right to due process and fair, objective treatment independent of  subjective and sometimes ill-informed opinion based on a videotape  showing but a vignette of a significant event.



Gizmodo: 
*Are Cameras the New Guns?*


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 19, 2011)

http://gizmodo.com/#!5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns


> A recent arrest in Maryland is both typical and disturbing.
> On March 5, 24-year-old Anthony John Graber III's motorcycle was  pulled over for speeding. He is currently facing criminal charges for a  video he recorded on his helmet-mounted camera during the traffic stop.
> The case is disturbing because:
> 1) Graber was not arrested immediately. Ten days after the encounter,  he posted some of he material to YouTube, and it embarrassed Trooper J.  D. Uhler. The trooper, who was in plainclothes and an unmarked car,  jumped out waving a gun and screaming. Only later did Uhler identify  himself as a police officer. When the YouTube video was discovered the  police got a warrant against Graber, searched his parents' house (where  he presumably lives), seized equipment, and charged him with a violation  of wiretapping law.
> ...



This might be the Maryland law:  *Section 10-402*

http://law.justia.com/maryland/codes/2005/gcj/10-402.html

Also, all states Electronic Surveillance laws
http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=13492


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 19, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> There is an opinion that the use of the wiretapping laws to protect cops is an abuse, and will eventually be corrected by the courts.
> 
> The basic rule is, if you can see it from a public space, you can shoot it.
> Meaning if I'm on the public sidewalk in front of my house, and the cop is on the public street, in plain view, I can legally photograph or video.
> ...


As I said prior there is a case going thru courts now here that Im sure will change our law but as of today our policy is if your recorded your to tell them to stop.  If they refuse get there information and forward it to the States Attys office so they can review and file charges.  Our States Attys still say we have a right to privacy Just like others.  I know that will change prob this year or early next year. 
Now my personal feelings are I dont care if you record me.  I have been recorded before and Ive never tried to get anyone arrested on Wiretap laws.  As long as you dont put yourself in my investigation keep your distance I could case less.  In fact theres a few local rap videos floating around Youtube and Face book with me in it them arresting people.   I dont care and when the law does get changed it wont effect me.  Now I do know officers they will not like the change not that they are bad cops they just don't want to be recorded.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 19, 2011)

A recent arrest in Maryland is both typical and disturbing.
On March 5, 24-year-old Anthony John Graber III's motorcycle was pulled over for speeding. He is currently facing criminal charges for a video he recorded on his helmet-mounted camera during the traffic stop.
The case is disturbing because:
1) Graber was not arrested immediately. Ten days after the encounter, he posted some of he material to YouTube, and it embarrassed Trooper J. D. Uhler. The trooper, who was in plainclothes and an unmarked car, jumped out waving a gun and screaming. Only later did Uhler identify himself as a police officer. When the YouTube video was discovered the police got a warrant against Graber, searched his parents' house (where he presumably lives), seized equipment, and charged him with a violation of wiretapping law.
2) Baltimore criminal defense attorney Steven D. Silverman said he had never heard of the Maryland wiretap law being used in this manner. In other words, Maryland has joined the expanding trend of criminalizing the act of recording police abuse. Silverman surmises, "It's more [about] contempt of cop' than the violation of the wiretapping law."
3) Police spokesman Gregory M. Shipley is defending the pursuit of charges against Graber, denying that it is "some capricious retribution" and citing as justification the particularly egregious nature of Graber's traffic offenses. Oddly, however, the offenses were not so egregious as to cause his arrest before the video appeared.
Almost without exception, police officials have staunchly supported the arresting officers. This argues strongly against the idea that some rogue officers are overreacting or that a few cops have something to hide. "Arrest those who record the police" appears to be official policy, and it's backed by the courts.



Pretty Bias Article there.  
1)Graber was doing 80+ MPH and popping wheelies in between cars.  The trooper got out of his car with his gun out but never waived it around and didnt point it at Graber and as soon as he saw Graber was complying with his order to turn off the bike he put his gun away.  The trooper asked if the camera was recording and Graber lied and said "no"
2)Silvermans full of crap that same court heard a similar case 9 months prior to this case Where a passenger in a car on a traffic stop recorded the officer with his cell phone camera and he was arrested (and I believe convicted) So if hes never heard of a case like this hes a bad lawyer then.
3) they didnt arrest him at the time because  they didnt know he was recording the stop.


----------



## Carol (Feb 19, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> A recent arrest in Maryland is both typical and disturbing.
> On March 5, 24-year-old Anthony John Graber III's motorcycle was pulled over for speeding. He is currently facing criminal charges for a video he recorded on his helmet-mounted camera during the traffic stop.
> The case is disturbing because:
> 1) Graber was not arrested immediately. Ten days after the encounter, he posted some of he material to YouTube, and it embarrassed Trooper J. D. Uhler. The trooper, who was in plainclothes and an unmarked car, jumped out waving a gun and screaming. Only later did Uhler identify himself as a police officer. When the YouTube video was discovered the police got a warrant against Graber, searched his parents' house (where he presumably lives), seized equipment, and charged him with a violation of wiretapping law.
> ...



You forgot to mention a critical detail -- the wiretapping charges against Anthony John Graber III were dismissed by a Hartford County Circuit Court judge.  This was published in the Baltimore Sun on Sept. 27, 2010.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/blog/2010/09/motorcyclist_wins_taping_case.html
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20...-20100927_1_police-officers-plitt-cell-phones



> In a decision that could make it easier for citizens to record police  officers in Maryland, a Harford County judge ruled Monday that state  police and prosecutors were wrong to arrest and charge a man for taping  his own traffic stop and posting it on the Internet.


This is a copy of the Motion to Suppress that was filed in said case -- in addition to the ruling here in State of MD v. Anthony John Graber III, there is also plenty of other justification in support of videotaping a police officer while in the line of work.

http://www.aclu-md.org/aPress/Press2010/Suppress.pdf


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 19, 2011)

Carol said:


> You forgot to mention a critical detail -- the wiretapping charges against Anthony John Graber III were dismissed by a Hartford County Circuit Court judge.  This was published in the Baltimore Sun on Sept. 27, 2010.
> 
> http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/blog/2010/09/motorcyclist_wins_taping_case.html
> http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20...-20100927_1_police-officers-plitt-cell-phones
> ...


I didnt forget to mention I didnt know the case was over yet.  I thought there was an appeal in this case.  But See you proved my original point  Most officers dont know.  And now I have no clue other then to say in THAT county you can record police.  Its still not a State wide thing until our state court of appeals rules on it so as far as I know we still follow the old rules.  Ill ask our States Atty Wed when I go back to work.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 20, 2011)

When it comes to "cops and the law":

-There are the "easy laws" that are simple to determine and charge; someone is caught stealing property they get charged with larceny.

-There are some obscure or rare laws that a cop may have some specific expertise in due to their position (narcotics) or special experience. I became somewhat of a local expert on counterfeit sports apparel when people started complaining about buying bogus stuff. After a lot of research, meetings with DA's and calling in special investigators from the major league sports franchises who flew in from across the country, I was able to get warrants and put together some airtight cases. 

-Then there are the "what the hell do I do situations" which I think some of these camera cases fall into. A cop runs into an unusual situation and he/she is not specifically familiar with the statute in question. He opens up his law book and sees that a statute appears to fit the situation. In some cases there are laws on the books (like these wiretapping laws) that on their face look like they can be charged legitimately. A cop sees that they are being filmed, they arrest and charge based on a specific statute that appears to fit the situation. Unless their local DA's office tells them to knock it off, their dept writes a policy telling them to knock it off or their state clarifies the wording of the law you get what we have here. It's a "lets charge it and see if case law is made" situation.

Then of course there are cops that intentionally "railroad" people on trumped up or misapplied charges.


----------



## MJS (Feb 20, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> I never understood why you would even want to take pictures of cops in the first place? You dont take pictures of your trash man so why Police?


 
Probably because the trash man isn't abusing their power.  Now, dont misunderstand...I was raised to have the utmost respect for LEOs.  My Grandfather retired as one, I have a number of friends that are, and I work with them daily.  But, there are the proverbial bad apples, that ruin the image of the good ones.  So Officer 1 beats the **** out of someone on a stop, and suddenly everyone is going to assume that it may happen to them.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 20, 2011)

Carol,
  Thanks for the update on that one. I wasn't aware of it.

Arch,
 To me, there's justifiable and then there's purposefully ignorant.  The cases in Miami and Atlanta to me fall into the second, where there has supposedly been several court cases and repeated 'education' forwarded to the guys in the trenches who continue to make illegal arrests, and use bulling and intimidation techniques because their uniform and badge allow them to enforce personal whim as law.  The 'what the hell do I do here, have to make my best guess and hope it's the right one' cases, I'm ok with unless there's a track record, like Miami and Atlanta. In those cases, who do you blame for continued violation of civilians rights?

As to purposeful ignorance, I'm tangenting slightly here:
*2011 January 12.* Seven sort-of topfree women shovelled snow off a sidewalk today in New York City. They wore coats that were open and no tops under them. A group of strippers traded their poles for snow shovels Wednesday in a  topless attempt at clearing Times Square sidewalks. But police were  having none of that, and ordered the nearly-naked ladies back inside.

It's been legal in NY state for women to be top free where ever men can be since July 7, 1992 when the NY Supreme Court issued a landmark decision.  Despite that ruling, law enforcement agencies across NY continue to harass and arrest women exercising their right. NYC knows the law here, they paid out $29,000 in 2007 when they screwed up and their victim sued and won.

Here's one persons experience after his wife decided to walk on some local nature trails topless, and the local police dispatched.


> http://tera.ca/articles.html#Buffaloed  (warning, link has bare boobies so don't look if that bothers you or violates an HR policy)
> The newspaper never did a story on Linda          because the police department finally found that she was          acting within her legal rights removing her shirt in the          town park. But they weren't happy about telling me          this.
> I talked to the police department          after we got home. Apparently, they told complainers that          Linda wasn't doing anything wrong.
> 
> ...



Now, I only cite the NY top free issue here as another example of cops willfully ignoring established case law and court decisions to enforce their personal views.

The cops who don't know, I can understand. You get them updated and educated and you have a better law enforcement officer, one who can focus on real crimes in an efficient way.  The 'I don't care what the law says, I'll run you in anyway and let someone else decide' guys....eh, those I take issue with.  Guy with a camera, woman with her boobs out, guy parked in the handicap spot without a permit...which of these 3 is actually breaking the law?

Now, alot of the LEO's on MT have said 'we don't know'.  Some have said they'll check into it. A few of you have cited laws, and in some cases even made it easy for non-cops to look up. 

When I shoot, I carry this:
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Simply passing copies out at every police station in the US and requiring officers to read it would cut down on a number of needless harassment cases.

The flip side of my entire argument is also however, that just because you have something with a camera in it, that doesn't make you a photographer. Just because you bought an iPhone doesn't make you a reporter. People need to not be grade a "entitled" *******s, and realize that because you can doesn't always mean you should.  A lot of these negative exchanges are the fools own damn faults.  You don't poke a bear with a stick, pun intended.

Cops need better education on ALL laws, because you should know that which you are attempting to enforce. 
People need better manners, and better education on the law as well, because when you do know the law you can both protect your rights, and avoid violating them. Sadly most who scream "I know my rights", don't.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 20, 2011)

It is hard to argue against the right to video tape and or photograph in public.  While there may be individual laws in certain areas more than likely over time they will be overturned.  However, law enforcement officers have a particularly demanding job that is dangerous and they do not need to be harassed while doing it.  So there would be times when a photographer/videographer probably could over step their bounds.

Case in point shooting pictures of the white house or another sensitive place.  I would hope that the Secret Service would intercept someone whom they were suspicious of and question what is going on.  

Likewise if a photographer is interfering with an arrest then they too should be detained, etc. until it is sorted out.

I see this as a kind of common sense thing in that an LEO going about his job in a professional manner should have no issue being photographed/videotaped, etc.  However, LEO's working undercover and doing a drug bust might not want to be video taped, etc. because it could blow their cover in the future.

I think over time the courts will sort this out so that photographing and videotaping in a public place will be the norm.  Because it makes common sense!


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 20, 2011)

Let me hit a couple of points now that I'm a bit more rested.

First, generally speaking, I don't care if you take pictures of me on the job.  Or videotape me.  (There's a picture of me and a cruiser in a schoolroom in France, for example.)  I do prefer you ask first -- because I may want to make sure that my fly is up or wipe the powdered sugar off my jacket.    But there are times and activities that I'd prefer you not.  For example, when I was in a specialty unit that did semi-dynamic entries, we weren't keen on having people record our vehicles or entry tactics.  We'd *prefer* to keep that sort of thing more confidential for officer safety; surprise is a vital tool in those situations.  Similarly, taking pictures in some locations (the White House or the Pentagon, for example) can raise concerns.

That leads me to the second situation I've run into problems with photographers.  We do get the occasional calls about people taking pictures that seem suspicious to the callers.  Or we notice it ourselves.  Yeah, a lot of the people who raise those suspicions are Middle Eastern today -- but not all.  Someone deciding to take pictures of the underside of a bridge, or supports of the water tower, or the employee entrances to courthouses or police departments are probably going to raise some questions, no?  There are legitimate reasons to take those pictures (architecture or engineering students might be studying the bridge structure, for example) or they may be innocent coincidences (taking a picture of tree that happens to be by the employee entrance, for example).  But it's kind of reasonable to have questions, right?  Once investigated, the event can be dismissed -- or forwarded for proper investigation.

Then there are types of photography that might cause problems.  You wouldn't a blame a cop stopping to find out what was up if he saw what appeared to be a group fighting, right -- even it was really a martial arts class.  And a semi-nude, or even merely racy poses photography shoot on a playground is probably going to gather some attention.  If the activity is causing a disruption, then the cops may have to respond.  It may not be an illegal activity -- but it can still cause a problem.  Toplessness is apparently legal in NY.  But, y'know, going topless at the playground might well be a disruption.  Again -- I'll compare it to the Open Carry idiots.  

Open Carry stages events where they exercise their legal right to carry a firearm openly.  They do this in places where they hope to get a reaction, leading to the police being called.  And they hope that the officers will make a mistake, and do something wrong or illegal.  It's idiocy because rather than support their right, they're pushing for a confrontation.  And a woman walking around topless is idiocy, in our culture, too.  It may be legal.  The cultural issues may be silly.  But they're there.  And odds are good that the woman strolling through a Buffalo park topless is looking for a reaction.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 20, 2011)

MJS said:


> Probably because the trash man isn't abusing their power.  Now, dont misunderstand...I was raised to have the utmost respect for LEOs.  My Grandfather retired as one, I have a number of friends that are, and I work with them daily.  But, there are the proverbial bad apples, that ruin the image of the good ones.  So Officer 1 beats the **** out of someone on a stop, and suddenly everyone is going to assume that it may happen to them.



And neither do 99% of Police Officers.  I guess I see my jobs as rather boring and have no idea why you would be interested in taking my photos other then looking for the "Gotcha moment" when I do screw up something I am only a man so it happens.  I think that why alot of police resent people that want to tape them or film them because in my mind I know then only reason your doing it is to try to "get me"  if I do screw up.

Case in point.  My 2nd year on the job I made a traffic stop guy was drunk I asked him to step out and to field tests.  I didnt know at the time we were 3 houses down from his house.  I had my back to the houses facing the street he was in front while I was giving him HGN test (the follow my pen with your eyes test).  Now Im a big guy 6 ft 225lbs.  The guy was smaller like 5'8 130 lbs(this is important later).  As im doing the HGN test the guy swings at me so I scoop him up slam him on ground and cuff him.
1 month later I'm called into the commanders to be notified of an internal investigation for police brutality.  Turned out the house we were in front of was his friends and he was taping the incident from his window.  Now because my back was to the house and our size difference on his tape you cant see the guy swing at me in fact you cant even see him standing there at all except his feet and legs so it looks like were standing there and all of a sudden I slam him for no reason.  They took the tape in to the internal affairs office and filed a complaint.  
Thankfully for me I had a Dash Cam running also that showed him swing at me.  Had I not had the dash cam Im pretty sure I would have been in trouble because his friends tape did look pretty bad.

Like I said in other posts I really dont care if I'm recorded but I can see why someone might.  You would not want to be sitting at your desk at your job and some guy standing there filming everything you do.  Plus for a cop the one time you pick your nose or start singing in you car it will end up all over You Tube.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 20, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> Then there are types of photography that might cause problems.  You wouldn't a blame a cop stopping to find out what was up if he saw what appeared to be a group fighting, right -- even it was really a martial arts class.  And a semi-nude, or even merely racy poses photography shoot on a playground is probably going to gather some attention.  If the activity is causing a disruption, then the cops may have to respond.  It may not be an illegal activity -- but it can still cause a problem.  Toplessness is apparently legal in NY.  But, y'know, going topless at the playground might well be a disruption.  Again -- I'll compare it to the Open Carry idiots.
> 
> Open Carry stages events where they exercise their legal right to carry a firearm openly.  They do this in places where they hope to get a reaction, leading to the police being called.  And they hope that the officers will make a mistake, and do something wrong or illegal.  It's idiocy because rather than support their right, they're pushing for a confrontation.  And a woman walking around topless is idiocy, in our culture, too.  It may be legal.  The cultural issues may be silly.  But they're there.  And odds are good that the woman strolling through a Buffalo park topless is looking for a reaction.



One more set of examples of scenarios that cause problems...

A few years back, a local campus PD got a call about people with guns in the parking lot, abducting someone.  Show up, gun-face the group, and find out the guns were props and the group was a bunch of knuckleheads working on a school video project.

Then, from personal experience...  I respond to a call about someone being pushed into the trunk of a car.  Find the car, stop 'em, get the person out of the trunk... and discover that it was another "video project."  The "pushing in" was just some horseplay for the designated idiot who was going to videotape riding in the trunk...

Like I said...  Some activities may be legal -- but still disruptive.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 20, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> I never understood why you would even want to take pictures of cops in the first place?  You dont take pictures of your trash man so why Police?



What does that have to do with anything?

I don't take photos of many things I have a perfect right to take photos of.  Are you saying that if you don't _'understand'_ why I'd want to take a photo, I should not be allowed to do so?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 20, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> And neither do 99% of Police Officers.  I guess I see my jobs as rather boring and have no idea why you would be interested in taking my photos other then looking for the "Gotcha moment" when I do screw up something I am only a man so it happens.  I think that why alot of police resent people that want to tape them or film them because in my mind I know then only reason your doing it is to try to "get me"  if I do screw up.



My employer can 'watch me' nonstop while I am at work, including reading my emails and searching both me and my property when I enter and leave.  If they find me doing something in violation of company policy, I can be fired.  If they find me in violation of the law, I can be turned over to the police for arrest.

As a public official, you work for the citizens of your community.  If they want to watch you, they have that right.  If they catch you doing something wrong, or apparently doing something wrong, that's life.  Don't like it?  Don't take our coin.  As long as you wear our livery, your behavior at work is our business.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 20, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> What does that have to do with anything?
> 
> I don't take photos of many things I have a perfect right to take photos of.  Are you saying that if you don't _'understand'_ why I'd want to take a photo, I should not be allowed to do so?



I didnt say it had anything to do with the topic it was just a question sorry if it bothers you.  Nobody ever feels the need to take photos of the walmart greeter I was just wondering why everyone wants to tape me I mean I know Im pretty but....


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 20, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> As a public official, you work for the citizens of your community.  If they want to watch you, they have that right.  If they catch you doing something wrong, or apparently doing something wrong, that's life.  Don't like it?  Don't take our coin.  As long as you wear our livery, your behavior at work is our business.


Easy big fella I didnt know I was not allowed to post my thought with out the "I pay your salary" bit coming out.  I was just making conversation about the topic.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 20, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Easy big fella I didnt know I was not allowed to post my thought with out the "I pay your salary" bit coming out.  I was just making conversation about the topic.



Is it not true that public servants are accountable to their employer?

People often use the _"I pay your salary"_ statement to try to argue their way out of a ticket, or demand special treatment or to demand favors from police officers.  I get that.

However, just as I am accountable to my employer, so you are to yours.  I am not that fond of having my employer look in my computer bag when I enter or leave certain areas, or to watch me on closed-circuit TV, or to read my emails sent from or received on company networks, but I have a choice.  So do you.


----------



## granfire (Feb 20, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> I didnt say it had anything to do with the topic it was just a question sorry if it bothers you.  Nobody ever feels the need to take photos of the walmart greeter I was just wondering why everyone wants to tape me I mean I know Im pretty but....



Well, Walmart greeters have very limited powers. I don't think they can do a whole lot even to those idiots that can't park.

I think the 'need' to tape police while they commit their job stems from those lovely incidents a la Rodney King (yes, I know, I know) when a handful of people just lose their minds for a moment (It does not take a long time)

Naturally I can see the element of helplessness. And a good helping of instigatorship and the desire to make the next viral youtube hit. 

The way I see it, if police goes by the book, there should be no reason to get upset when the cameras roll. Who knows, it could aid their case (though I doubt the footage would surface then)

But yes (not along the 'we pay your salary' line though) when you are a servant of the public you have to take the public interest into consideration.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 20, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> I didnt say it had anything to do with the topic it was just a question sorry if it bothers you.  Nobody ever feels the need to take photos of the walmart greeter I was just wondering why everyone wants to tape me I mean I know Im pretty but....



Why would anyone want to use legal tools to ensure that those charged with enforcing the law are obeying it themselves?  I have no idea.  That seems so strange to me.  I mean, once we place a group of people in the position of enforcing our laws and give them the authority to make arrests, investigate crimes, and pursue wrong-doers, we should probably just trust them and let them do whatever they think is right.  After all, they would never betray our trust.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 20, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I am not that fond of having my employer look in my computer bag when I enter or leave certain areas, or to watch me on closed-circuit TV, or to read my emails sent from or received on company networks, but I have a choice.  So do you.



Difference is you know your being watched we don't always know until it shows up on You Tube.  Difference is you don't always know what your looking at when police are doing something and what you see may not be reality yet you record it and put it on the internet could endanger someones life.  I work undercover and there are times Ill go into bad areas have cops stop me lock me up and rough me up a little.  Now I do this every so often in different areas.  if perhaps someone saw that recorded it and then someone sees it on you tube and realizes hey that same thing happened to that same guy in my area 2 months ago he I bet hes a cop.  next time I go into his area to buy drugs he puts a gun to my head.  Now I know thats outrageous example.
I'm not saying I against recording police and I see the value of it but you cant expect us to be happy about it you said yourself your not fond of being watched.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 20, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Why would anyone want to use legal tools to ensure that those charged with enforcing the law are obeying it themselves?  I have no idea.  That seems so strange to me.  I mean, once we place a group of people in the position of enforcing our laws and give them the authority to make arrests, investigate crimes, and pursue wrong-doers, we should probably just trust them and let them do whatever they think is right.  After all, they would never betray our trust.



I guess I don't see the world as dark as you do.  I think for the most part most Police are good people and do the best they can.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 20, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Why would anyone want to use legal tools to ensure that those charged with enforcing the law are obeying it themselves?  I have no idea.  That seems so strange to me.  I mean, once we place a group of people in the position of enforcing our laws and give them the authority to make arrests, investigate crimes, and pursue wrong-doers, we should probably just trust them and let them do whatever they think is right.  After all, they would never betray our trust.


Bill, I think you're taking this in a different direction than was intended.  

I don't quite get why some of the people who've taken my picture wanted a picture.  I'm just a guy doing my job.  (OK, the French school teachers?  They're school is in one of those exchange programs where they have a sister school in my jurisdiction.  So I get that one.  But the woman last month who wanted a picture of her grandson with me?  Don't get that one at all...)

Most of the time, filming or watching me work would be boring as all heck...  I mean, watching me run radar or do some other form of traffic enforcement, or take a larceny report or work a crash?  Really, you wanna watch that?  OK...  That Walmart greeter might be more interesting.  Might at least be some pretty girls walking in the door!


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 20, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> Bill, I think you're taking this in a different direction than was intended.
> 
> I don't quite get why some of the people who've taken my picture wanted a picture.  I'm just a guy doing my job.  (OK, the French school teachers?  They're school is in one of those exchange programs where they have a sister school in my jurisdiction.  So I get that one.  But the woman last month who wanted a picture of her grandson with me?  Don't get that one at all...)



For some reason we get a large number of Brazilian tourists here more then any other country that Ive noticed.  They always want pictures taken with us.  Since most are very attractive woman I dont mind so much


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 20, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> I guess I don't see the world as dark as you do.  I think for the most part most Police are good people and do the best they can.



I think they absolutely are mostly good and decent people doing the best they can.  You haven't been around here long enough to see me defend law and order as well as those who put their lives on the line to protect us and enforce our laws.  I've worked in law enforcement and I overwhelmingly give the police the benefit of the doubt whenever questions arise regarding anything they might be accused of doing.

That does not mean that I think they should not be photographed, watched, and monitored by every legal means.  Those to whom we give great authority are not immune to scrutiny.  It goes with the job.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 20, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> Bill, I think you're taking this in a different direction than was intended.
> 
> I don't quite get why some of the people who've taken my picture wanted a picture.  I'm just a guy doing my job.



Sorry if it wasn't intended, but I'm trying to answer the question.  It's the same question as gun-grabbers who say _"I don't get why you need X number of guns."_  The answer is, it's not a valid question.  It is no more their business how many guns I own than it is anyone's business why I want to take a photo of a police officer and not a sanitation worker.  The answer is (politely) _'none of your business'_.  You don't need to know, it's not an appropriate question to ask.  I take photographs that I want to take.  I need no justification if it's otherwise legal.  I know you don't get it.  You don't have to.

From a photographer's point of view, the very question implies that there are reasons why a person should not take a photo of a police officer.

We live in the most heavily-surveilled society of all time; we're constantly being photographed, in public and private places, by governments and businesses.  We do not object when we're photographed by traffic cameras and ATM machines and security cameras left right and center; but let a photographer raise a camera to his eye and point it at us, and it's _"why do you want to take a photo of me?"  _So the watchers get watched once in a while.  Good, says I.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 20, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think they absolutely are mostly good and decent people doing the best they can.  You haven't been around here long enough to see me defend law and order as well as those who put their lives on the line to protect us and enforce our laws.  I've worked in law enforcement and I overwhelmingly give the police the benefit of the doubt whenever questions arise regarding anything they might be accused of doing.
> 
> That does not mean that I think they should not be photographed, watched, and monitored by every legal means.  Those to whom we give great authority are not immune to scrutiny.  It goes with the job.



I understand that but it still does not mean we like it.  I dont think anyone police, docs, lawyers, gas station attendants would like to be filmed.  Esp when you have no control on what happens after its recorded, how its edited and after its edited how its distributed to the masses.  At least when your boss is doing it you have a reasonable expectation that it will be treated in a professional manner and used in a professional capacity.  When any college film student with a grudge against the police and a brand new laptop with the latest editing software can destroy your career, and your life you can see why we would be a little unhappy with the whole thing.  Not everyone has such noble intentions as you do.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 20, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> I understand that but it still does not mean we like it.  I dont think anyone police, docs, lawyers, gas station attendants would like to be filmed.  Esp when you have no control on what happens after its recorded, how its edited and after its edited how its distributed to the masses.  At least when your boss is doing it you have a reasonable expectation that it will be treated in a professional manner and used in a professional capacity.  When any college film student with a grudge against the police and a brand new laptop with the latest editing software can destroy your career, and your life you can see why we would be a little unhappy with the whole thing.  Not everyone has such noble intentions as you do.



You don't have to like it, and I can understand why you don't.


----------



## Carol (Feb 20, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> I understand that but it still does not mean we like it.  I dont think anyone police, docs, lawyers, gas station attendants would like to be filmed.  Esp when you have no control on what happens after its recorded, how its edited and after its edited how its distributed to the masses.  At least when your boss is doing it you have a reasonable expectation that it will be treated in a professional manner and used in a professional capacity.  When any college film student with a grudge against the police and a brand new laptop with the latest editing software can destroy your career, and your life you can see why we would be a little unhappy with the whole thing.  Not everyone has such noble intentions as you do.



This isn't a matter of "like".  When in public, one has no reasonable expectation of privacy -- which makes public videotaping legal.


----------



## Carol (Feb 20, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> Bill, I think you're taking this in a different direction than was intended.
> 
> I don't quite get why some of the people who've taken my picture wanted a picture.  I'm just a guy doing my job.




Here's another guy just doing his job.  




The Plow Guy by Sikaranista, on Flickr

Is it interesting?  I dunno....but to me, this is one of the most beautiful sites in the world


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 20, 2011)

I spent 2 hours today photographing toy tanks that were positioned on a nude model's body. You don't have to understand why I did it. No matter what you may think was the reason, you're probably off.  No one, other than the photographer needs to know why they shoot what they shoot.  I've spent hours shooting the gravel patterns in my driveway, or grass on my lawn.  It's art.  And, just as some folks shoot air planes and pilots, or firefighters and trucks, some do like shooting cops n their cars.  Me, I like shooting WWII planes and tanks.
But.  There's a right way, and a wrong way.   Me, I try to do it right.

But, there's enough fear out there that makes me cautious.  Case in point, while at a local park I saw a US Border Patrol SUV parked there. Was right by a tree, guy had the binoculars out and was scanning something.  Would have made a great shot, a beautiful shot.  But, I like my camera, I like my teeth, and I like my shoulders not being dislocated. So I didn't take the shot.  Yes, I could have asked for permission, but I don't need it. Yes I could have seen about posing the shot, but it was the moment and mood, and you can't pose that sometimes. A while later I was glad I had walked away as I saw a second BP agent and 2 Erie County deputies playing 20 questions with another photographer who had made the mistake of thinking that the lighthouse was ok to photograph.  Which light house?  This one.
Congrats, if you looked according to the part of conversation I caught, you're now guilty of terrorist activities, agents of Al Kayeda, and probably beat your kids. Yes, that's a vital national defense installation or something, top top secret. How secret?
Google "buffalo lighthouse" and see.

The guys who are responsible for determining if I can reenter my own country, or just arbitrarily stop and demand my papers within 100 miles of the border, haven't got a clue on photographer rights, or how Google works.  Wonder why I get worried sometimes?


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 20, 2011)

Thing is...it seems like many of these videographers/photographers are not interested in "justice" or some other higher cause as much as they are getting as many hits as they can on Youtube. 

Personally, I could care less if someone is taking my picture, although gang members doing counter-surveillance of undercover officers so that they can expose them to danger seems like a situation I would like to do something about.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 20, 2011)

Oh, as to Walmart.... I've seen a few greeters that were cute.  But then again, there are more interesting things to shoot at Waliworld.
At least, "People of Walmart" think so.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 20, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Thing is...it seems like many of these videographers/photographers are not interested in "justice" or some other higher cause as much as they are getting as many hits as they can on Youtube.
> 
> Personally, I could care less if someone is taking my picture, although gang members doing counter-surveillance of undercover officers so that they can expose them to danger seems like a situation I would like to do something about.


I think that might fall under the 'interfering' rules, or espionage maybe?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 20, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Thing is...it seems like many of these videographers/photographers are not interested in "justice" or some other higher cause as much as they are getting as many hits as they can on Youtube.
> 
> Personally, I could care less if someone is taking my picture, although gang members doing counter-surveillance of undercover officers so that they can expose them to danger seems like a situation I would like to do something about.



Thing is, arrest me.  Please.  I need the money.  So far, photographers have collected quite a bit of money from cities and counties on account of being illegally detained, having their photographs and camera equipment confiscated, and so on.  It's like winning the lottery.  So please, if you see me taking a photo of a police officer, arrest me.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...usands_in_deleted_images_row_news_305659.html



> *Police pay photographer thousands in deleted images row*
> 
> *Wednesday 16th February 2011*
> 
> ...


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 23, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Is it not true that public servants are accountable to their employer?


 
I am not employed by citizens.  I am employed by the city.  It is to the publicly elected figures that I am accountable.  Even more then that, I am accountable to the laws of the state and the Constitution of the United States.  

As an extreme example, if it is as you say, then I couldn't arrest them, because I am "accountable" to them for my actions.  Although my job is to provide them with a service, they are in no way my "employer".  

Doesn't mean that I disagree with your larger premise, but I've always found this line of reasoning weird.  There are reasons to be responsive to them, just like a salesman who chooses to ignore his customers wishes may be fired.  But I still find the train of thought weird.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 23, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I am not employed by citizens.  I am employed by the city.  It is to the publicly elected figures that I am accountable.  Even more then that, I am accountable to the laws of the state and the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> As an extreme example, if it is as you say, then I couldn't arrest them, because I am "accountable" to them for my actions.  Although my job is to provide them with a service, they are in no way my "employer".
> 
> Doesn't mean that I disagree with your larger premise, but I've always found this line of reasoning weird.  There are reasons to be responsive to them, just like a salesman who chooses to ignore his customers wishes may be fired.  But I still find the train of thought weird.



In the USA, authority flows from the citizenry to the government, not the other way around.  As you stated, you are not directly employed by the citizens of your jurisdiction, but your bosses are, and the laws you serve were written by legislators elected by the voters to do their will, or by plebiscite in a more direct fashion.  This is unlike a private corporation which is beholden to customers, yes, but not employed by them.  A private company can choose to ignore the wishes of its customers, but it may lose their business.  In the USA, a government must obey the dictates of the electorate with regard to who is in office and who is not, what laws are passed and what laws are overturned, with the exception that all laws must pass Constitutional muster.

In any case, we are getting a tad off track.  The point of the O/P, I believe, and certainly the point I got from it as well as other recent news stories, is that the law states people can take photographs in public, including of public officials like police officers, in most jurisdictions.  Police continue to harass and arrest photographers who do so.  The courts continue to slap the police down and even to order them in some cases, to knock it off, and the police continue to ignore these laws and judge's orders.  I find that reprehensible and without justification.  Stating that you (not you personally) don't like to be followed around and photographed by people hoping to trip you up isn't important.  I'm sorry you don't like it.  It is what it is.  I don't get to arrest people who take photos of me in public - not that they do - but in any case, if I'm in public, I have to deal with the fact that I may be photographed.  So do the police.

But go right ahead and arrest me - as I said, I can use the money.


----------



## Carol (Feb 23, 2011)

Go ahead, arrest Bill...and leave me alone :lol2:

(Sorry Bill, couldn't resist )


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 23, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> In any case, we are getting a tad off track. * The point of the O/P, I believe, and certainly the point I got from it as well as other recent news stories, is that the law states people can take photographs in public, including of public officials like police officers, in most jurisdictions.  Police continue to harass and arrest photographers who do so.  The courts continue to slap the police down and even to order them in some cases, to knock it off, and the police continue to ignore these laws and judge's orders.*  I find that reprehensible and without justification.  Stating that you (not you personally) don't like to be followed around and photographed by people hoping to trip you up isn't important.  I'm sorry you don't like it.  It is what it is.  I don't get to arrest people who take photos of me in public - not that they do - but in any case, if I'm in public, I have to deal with the fact that I may be photographed.  So do the police.
> 
> But go right ahead and arrest me - as I said, I can use the money.



That was my point.

If I'm out walking about and happen to see something to photograph, I shouldn't have to worry about cops being the ones to bully me, intimidate me, steal (i mean "confiscate") my camera, delete my photos (you know, "destroying evidence"), and possibly feel the need to rough me up ("injured while resisting arrest") to teach me a lesson ("ie cops are bullies and to be feared not respected"). 
All because I thought it interesting that day to walk down a major street and shoot anything that caught my eye, that was in plain public view.

There are no laws on the books, outside of a few abused wiretapping laws, that prohibit photographing police, fire, rescue, medical, political, etc. None.
The US Government even reiterated that with it's recent edicts that shooting Federal property was legal...though the SS didn't get the memo...or the Constitution...

If anyone can find such a law, I'd like the full code #, etc and preferably a link to read the whole law.

The LEO's here...get it. We might disagree on a few minor points, but we're all on the same page.  You all I'm not worried about.  It's that rookie who doesn't know...or that grumpy vet having a bad day not caring what the law allows wanting to throw some weight around.  My insurance doesn't cover having my camera removed from my *** if it was put there by a cop...irate model maybe, but not a cop.  It's a specific clause..."proctologist not covered" 

Please keep in mind, my point concerns -legal- photography.  Not the type where the shooter gets in your face, in your way, interferes with your or their safety, etc.   There's a difference when there is an expectation of privacy, or you put lives at risk, or trespass, etc.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 23, 2011)

Carol said:


> Go ahead, arrest Bill...and leave me alone :lol2:
> 
> (Sorry Bill, couldn't resist )


But, Carol, you're so much more fun to put handcuffs on!  :EG:   

Returning to the topic...  As I said, I know that there are some cops out there who simply assume they can do anything they want.  You've got others who simply try their best to solve a problem -- and overstep the bounds in an sincere attempt to do the right thing.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 23, 2011)

Let me ask a sincere question here to the LEO's reading.

Scenario: You are out driving your beat.  You get a call to respond to your local airport. A TSA agent has detained a civilian within the airport who is taking photographs. The TSA agent insists that this is a crime. The civilian insists it is not. The civilian proceeds to hand you a print out that claims to be official TSA policy allowing for the photographing of anything in the airports, except the screens themselves.  The TSA agent tells you the civilian is wrong.

What do you do?












btw, section 2.7 of the TSA's Screening Management SOP document (that was leaked and is now all over various photography forums) says it is ok for the public, passengers and press to photograph, videotape and film at screening locations, as long as they do not interfere with the screeners ability to perform their duties, or as long as the screens and images on scanners is not shown. Confiscation and destruction of photographic equipment  is not allowed.  I'd post the exact text, however that's classified. Top Top secret in fact as the TSA doesn't even tell their own people this.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 23, 2011)

ID the photographer, ask him some questions to see exactly what he is up to..we do have the responsibility to determine if this guy is some sort of probe or terrorist scouting the location..or LE response. 

Tell the TSA that I have nothing to arrest for. Ask them if they want to issue a trespass warning which, if they have the authority to issue one and the photog refuses to leave, THEN I would have something to arrest for. 

Otherwise I try to sweet talk the photog into leaving for the time being or I tell the screeners to live with it.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 23, 2011)

I asked our county states atty today about this topic.  She said in this county as of right now we are following the belief that you can not audio record police in public.  You can take pictures and visually record but no audio.  If anyone is recording you and your not actively arresting someone and  they are not making a scene about it ie. Yelling "I got you on tape cop" or "were going to have your job" and they are keeping there distance from you then we should leave them alone.  If we are making an active arrest then we are to get the camera mans information and they will subpoena his recordings as evidence.  If the camera person is too close where hes getting in the way, causing a disturbance or if in a crowd and the crowd seems to be getting agitated by him recording us ie. becoming disorderly so they can get on tape being arrested, of "showing off" for the cameras then we will ask them to leave. If they refuse then they are arrested.
If later on something gets posted on the internet then they will go after the person.  I asked her about the trooper case she said as of right now that ruling only applies to Harford County not ours' Until either the state appeals court makes a ruling if its appealed, state legislature passes new rules or we try a case in this county and a judge here decides on it, that's what we are doing.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 23, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Let me ask a sincere question here to the LEO's reading.
> 
> Scenario: You are out driving your beat.  You get a call to respond to your local airport. A TSA agent has detained a civilian within the airport who is taking photographs. The TSA agent insists that this is a crime. The civilian insists it is not. The civilian proceeds to hand you a print out that claims to be official TSA policy allowing for the photographing of anything in the airports, except the screens themselves.  The TSA agent tells you the civilian is wrong.
> 
> ...



I call the Transportation Authority Police Department since all air ports are there jurisdiction and then run away as fast as I can.

However Id be careful trying to use super secret double probation internet SOP's that even the TSA officers cant see as my guide.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 23, 2011)

The Mouth of Sauron, errr I mean "Blogger Bob" at the TSA validates the "forbidden document"'s information.
http://blog.tsa.gov/2009/03/can-i-take-photos-at-checkpoint-and.html

There's a follow up at FlyerTalk (not affiliated with us) where one of their members hit up something like 50 airports for confirmation.  18 replied, with confusing answers.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trav...ert-can-i-take-photos-checkpoint-airport.html


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 23, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> The Mouth of Sauron, errr I mean "Blogger Bob" at the TSA validates the "forbidden document"'s information.
> http://blog.tsa.gov/2009/03/can-i-take-photos-at-checkpoint-and.html
> 
> There's a follow up at FlyerTalk (not affiliated with us) where one of their members hit up something like 50 airports for confirmation.  18 replied, with confusing answers.
> http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trav...ert-can-i-take-photos-checkpoint-airport.html




Gotta love how well the Govt keeps secrets


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 23, 2011)

The document in question was 'leaked' a few months back. It was released by someone with the TSA who had 'secured' it by layering black bars over the text, something easily removed by anyone who had a copy of Adobe Acrobat. Little knowledge was required I heard. The fact that the people responsible for ensure the safety and security of air travel are incapable of securing a document (hint: simple text substitution would have worked 100%) isn't a good thing, ya know?



> A redacted version of the document was intentionally posted on a  government Web site as an Adobe PDF file. Unfortunately, the individual  who created the file merely placed black boxes over the sections to be  redacted. The hidden text was left within the document. To view the  text, individuals needed only copy the text around and under the boxes  and paste it into another word processor.


http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/it...d-for-adequate-softwaresecurity-training/1317


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 23, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> The document in question was 'leaked' a few months back. It was released by someone with the TSA who had 'secured' it by layering black bars over the text, something easily removed by anyone who had a copy of Adobe Acrobat. Little knowledge was required I heard. The fact that the people responsible for ensure the safety and security of air travel are incapable of securing a document (hint: simple text substitution would have worked 100%) isn't a good thing, ya know?
> 
> 
> http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/it...d-for-adequate-softwaresecurity-training/1317


Im not sure I understand the point of posting a redacted version of an SOP if you don't want people to read it then why post it?  And if your knowingly posting something your not supposed to then why redact it at all your already in trouble.  Seems strange to me.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 24, 2011)

Bob -- here's the problem. 

I don't know the veracity of that photographer's document.  The TSA agent is supposedly a reliable source of information about their policies.  Who am I to assume is right?  The guy "just doing his job" or the guy trying to justify what he's doing?

Let me put a little different spin on it.  Change it to a purely private situation:  a mall.  Mall security rent-a-cop says that the policies prohibit unauthorized photography.  It's even posted at the door.  Guy trying to take pictures says he's within his rights, and pulls out an article that says malls are public areas.  Who seems to be more likely to be right?

In the scenario you describe, I'd have to assess the information being provided.  I'd probably turn it over to the local airport cops -- but I know that's a bit of a cop out here.  So -- what would I do?  Make the best call I can.  Probably ask the photographer to do the sensible thing, and stop pissing off the TSA goons.  Ask the TSA agent to let the guy leave...  and tell him he can get a warrant if he's so sure there's a violation of law.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 25, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> Probably ask the photographer to do the sensible thing, and stop pissing off the TSA goons.  Ask the TSA agent to let the guy leave...  and tell him he can get a warrant if he's so sure there's a violation of law.



Civil liberties are not defined by complacency and agreeing to unreasonable demands by people who are 'pissed off' at being photographed, whether or not it's legal.  They are defined by the outer limits of legal behavior.  In other words, if you want to know what the limits of free speech are, you have to test them by going as far as you can until a court of final authority finally rules that no, this is too far.  That's where the stake is driven into the ground.

Unfortunately, this scenario is a constant one, because those who would abrogate liberty will pull those stakes up and move them in, over and over again; usually in the name of 'security' or 'safety' or 'public decency'.  If no one is there to challenge them, the stakes stay moved in.  Later, they get moved in again.  It's the nature of things.

Liberty wasn't a one-time struggle and now we have it, tra-lah, we're all happy and free.  It's an ongoing back-and-forth conversation between the forces of freedom and the forces of order.  Both are required.

I can't always be the guy volunteering to get arrested, but I can go as far as I can without getting arrested, and that means yeah, pissing off some TSA goons.  No, I won't walk away.  Yes, I know they don't like it.  Too bad for them.  Too bad for me if I take one step too far and get arrested, because I gotta go to work in the morning.  Fortunately, there are people who are willing to go a little further than I am.

Yeah, I'm a PITA to the guys who don't like cameras pointed at them.  Tough.  They're a PITA to me.  Life goes on.


----------

