Stopped by a policeman for taking pictures of a church

<p>OK, what is with the police today? Yesterday I was taking pictures of a church (a closed church, no one there but the building). A police car pulled in front of me. Silly me, I figured he couldn't possibly want to stop to ask what I was doing.</p>

<p>He got out of the car and, yes, wanted to know what I was doing.</p>

<p>"I'm taking pictures of the church."</p>

<p>"Why?"</p>

<p>"Because it's a nice church."</p>

<p>"You just watch yourself."</p>

<p>And then he got in his car and stayed in it watching me until I had finished taking my pictures.</p>

<p>I would like to think that he was concerned that I might get robbed and wanted to make sure I was safe. I really would like to think that.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It would help to know what country/city/part of town you are talking about!</p>

<p>Clifton NJ</p>

<p>Say three "Hail Marys" and don't do it again!</p>

<p>From my <em>many posts</em> on this subject, people here know I come down firmly on the side of the photographer's right to photograph on the public street.</p>

<p>However, in some communities, religious institutions have on occasion -- yes, even modern occasion -- been the target of bigots and vandals. This is by no means a trivial concern.</p>

<p>Therefore, at first blush, I don't have a problem with an officer politely questioning you to ascertain what you're doing, then allowing you to continue, as he appears to have done.</p>

<p>The admonition to "watch yourself" was perhaps not the best choice of words. I'd have preferred that the officer say in essence what I have said above.</p>

<p>(Disclosure: I am not and have never been a law enforcement professional. However, in a prior career, I worked with law enforcement professionals whose job it was to detect, redress, and where possible prevent criminal activity based upon race, religion, national origin, etc. That is a difficult and in my view important job.)</p>

<p>You should have told him that after a long day of stealing peoples souls with your camera, you decided to stop at the church to release these souls from your camera in hopes that by doing so, their accent to Heaven would be assured :)</p>

<p>Well I can think of several reasons why your policeman acted as he did :</p>

<p>1) the church might have been targeted by vandals / burglars / extremists and he might have been briefed to watch out for anything odd going on there (ie you).</p>

<p>2) he might have been suffering from <em>Police Photography Paranoia Syndrome</em> (PPPS) . This seems to be a recent but common health problem afflicting police services around the world. It may soon be classed as a pandemic as it has been observed in several countries world-wide.</p>

<p>3) He might have been at the end of his shift and wanted to avoid any paperwork arising from apprehending real villains.</p>

<p>4) etc</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Have you reported him? It must be obvious even to a policeman that photographing a church is unlikely to be a criminal act. Unless people like your cop are "retrained" they will keep on doing it. "Watch yourself" is downright offensive and threatening.</p>

<p>Were you in a seedy area? I've been stopped by police around abandoned industrial buildings, but that's about it. Realistically I think a lot of photographers walk in to situations they just arent aware of frequently. It's hard to see what's around you with your eye in a view finder.</p>

<p>Police nowdays are doing things that are more proactive in the prevention of crime. Sure if nobody's at the church he would be a little suspicious because of the recent church fires, and vandalism that is a sad testimony to our country today, and most of it was caught on tape, youtube.. <br>

For all the police knew you were with a group that went ahead to start the vandalism, etc..<br>

To me this isn't an issue of do you have the right to take a picture from a public street but if you are confronted by police or security how do YOU carry yourself. If they believe that you have no criminal intent they will probably go on their way. If you get stinky about your rights, etc the police can get stinky too and arrest you and keep you in jail for hours while your case is being decided. Remember sometimes you can be right about an issue but convey that in the wrong way..<br>

This happened to me at my church. <em> </em>I was pulled over off the road across the street from the church getting pictures for a cover for our church directory. Busy highway. Policeman pulled up and asked what I was doing. I told him that I wanted to get pictures of the church and this was the best time of day and there was nobody there so the pictures would be perfect. I also asked if he needed me to call the pastor and he could talk to him if needed. I think I convinced him that I had no criminal intent so he went on his way.. </p>

 

<p>So the standard question list will now be augmented : not only will everybody have to account on "How are you doing", but everyone better know the answer to "Why are you doing ...', "Why are you here?" ..., and better answer coherently, legitimately to this new policeman's standard question. To prevent crime and terror.</p>

<p>As if those that wander are prone to committing crime and terror ... They are just out to be in the air, the wind, no purpose other than photographing whatever hits their fancy. As some poke their noses for no apparent reason in public. I think nose pokers should be subject to terror related harassment as well! Everyone is suspicious ...</p>

<p>And so progress on the terror front is made! 20,000 such harassments a day are terror in themselves.</p>

<p>"The admonition to "watch yourself" was perhaps not the best choice of words. I'd have preferred that the officer say in essence what I have said above."</p>

<p>I would agree. But some cops simply don't have the social or verbal skills to choose less badge-heavy/authoritarian words. If he was really concerned, versus just being curious, he would have done a "FI" -- field interrogation: asked for ID and recorded the contact. I'd interpret "watch yourself" as his awkward way of saying, "have a nice day, sir." But part of me would be tempted, if I'm in the OP's shoes, to ask for clarification on what "watch yourself" means or implies.</p>

<p>Well, Brian, I don't know Edward (other than through some of his posts here on pnet). But my guess is that based upon Edward's response, his appearance, his demeanor, etc., the officer probably decided that the somewhat more detailed field contact report wasn't even necessary.</p>

<p>In other words, Edward, you just aint <em>that suspicious</em> . :-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>aaagh NEW JERSEY!<br>

as a former denizen of NJ ( over 60 years)<br>

it is a place that " unless it is specifically allowed, it could be forbidden"<br>

a man out here in Pennsylvania, started the process of building a new home on a lot he had owned for over 30 years. After his home was destroyed by a fire.<br>

when the local zoning CZAR started making it difficult and convoluted,<br>

he asked the man " are you from NJ? " the man admitted he was.<br>

this is a legalistic mind set.</p>

<p>Another man. this time in NJ, lost his home and his wife to a fire.<br>

he was ORDERED to pay to remove all traces of the house. which he did, leaving only a bare lot.<br>

when he appoarched the town to change his property taxes ( only a bare lot left)<br>

he was told he had to pay taxes on the house until " next year"</p>

<p>It's a wonderful state</p>

<p>I would have started taking photos of him, his squad car, and his license plate. What's he going to do, arrest you for taking photos in a public place?<br /> <br /> If so, from what I have read, this generally ends up in a settlement for the photographer.</p>

<p>I am a little surprised by some of the comments here. Even the suggestion that there could have been "criminal intent" or that the officier didn't know what he was doing seems silly. When a person is putting a camera to their face and pressing a shutter, I think it's fairly obvious what they are doing. Why is a different question. But in any event it's clear they are not a vandal. I would also hope that he was just concerned about your safety (I am not familiar with the area but it sounds like it could be rather run down). Either that or he is suffering from PPPS.</p>

For what its worth, I was standing across the street from the church so there was no issue of tresspass. Clifton isn't the best neighborhood but it isn't the worst. Certainly better than the one I grew up in.

 

My camera was a big-ass Pentax 6x7 with an even bigger shift lens. No tripod. I guess that in the policeman's eyes "big camera" equals "dangerous weapon".

<p><em><< ... I guess that in the policeman's eyes "big camera" equals "dangerous weapon". ... >><br /> </em></p>

<p>On the contrary, Edward, my sense -- and of course I wasn't there -- is that your big, pro-level camera, coupled with your appearance, age, attire, demeanor, manner of responding, etc., all made it <em>appear far less likely</em> to that officer that you posed a danger to the church, or for that matter, a danger to anyone or anything else.</p>

<p>And of course there was no trespass involved. Clearly there was no illegal conduct of any sort on your part, which is why, after a moment of inquiry that could and should have been handled more adroitly, you were permitted to continue doing exactly what you had been doing.</p>

<p>There are many things we don't know. For starters, has that church or, for that matter, any religious or cultural institution in the community been the subject of threat or attack in recent months ? Did someone phone in "suspicious behavior" ? (If so, a police department will often respond by having an officer visit the scene.) And the list goes on.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I would have thanked the officer for the advice and forgotten the whole incident. Most likely, you with your expensive gear were in danger in that location. Police usually petrol more in high crime areas. If the officer was polite to you otherwise, then I do not know why are you making a fuss over it. Sandy</p>

<p><em> Most likely, you with your expensive gear were in danger in that location.</em><br>

<em></em> <br>

What information presented here makes it "most likely" that Ed was in danger?</p>

<p>I'm amazed at some of the posts here. The police watched you while you took your photographs. Wasn't that better than if they hadn't been there and you had been mugged? </p>

<p>Wouldn't happen here. There are far too many tourists all taking photos of everything and everyone.</p>

<p>But a funny thing did happen to me. We live in an area of Sydney that is popular with new arrivals from South Africa, and we know how paranoid wealthy South Africans are and how they like their security, don't we.<br>

Well, we were trying to decide on a color to paint our house front door, so we drove around looking at what other people had done. Soon we stopped outside a house with the perfect colour door. I got out and took a photo. Just as I was getting back into the car this guy came rushing out of the house. I drove off, only to see him jumping into his car and he gave chase. Just like the movies. I pulled over and he stopped behind us and rushed up to the drivers window and asked why I was taking photos of his house. I told him we were BOSS agents (SA Secret Police) keeping an eye on him. He looked stunned for a second and then realised we were joking and smiled. I told him we liked the color of his front door, thats all. I then told him that he was not in Joburg now and he could relax.</p>

<p>Just to make it clear, the officer DIDN'T simply send men on my way. He sat a few feet from me for about five minutes, watching me all the time, driving off only when I stopped taking pictures. VERY disconcerting</p>

<p>Maybe it was the beard that got to him.</p>

<p>And astute reader has pointed out to me that I wasn't in Clifton but rather in Passaic. Anyone know the story there? The officer was definitely NOT acting in my interests and was doing everything he could to get me to stop photographing.</p>

<p>OK, I think I have my answer. The answer is "Passaic".</p>

<p>I did a little research. Passaic was just recently the center of one of the state's largest bribery scandals. The mayor, two council members and an assemblyman were arrested on bribery and graft charges. I have never seen behavior from a policeman like this before, but I have never been in a town where the entire city government had just been arrested before. Somehow the two have got to be connected!</p>

<p>Read the appellate decision in <em>State of New Jersey v Stampone </em>it will clarify the inappropriate actions of the LEO who questioned you. You were under no obligation to answer any of his questions. The incident you described is an improper Terry Stop, and as such, a violation of Title 42 Section 1983 USC in regards to clearly established law. </p>