Stopped by a policeman for taking pictures of a church

<p>I don't think a complaint is indicated. Had the cop asked for ID or to search the OP's bag (if he had one), I might have a different view. Had he <em>demanded</em> either, the conduct would have approached grounds for a 1983 action. But the cop simply asked a question; though he probably could have handled it better, I don't think he did anything that would even raise an eyebrow in the PD. Save the complaints for when a cop is truly out of line, lest one be seen as crying wolf.</p>

<p>As a Police Officer and photography "hobbyist" I would suggest that since you were in a "non-white" neighborhood the Officer may have used the words "watch yourself" as simply that. You admit yourself that your carrying a big bulky camera and maybe robberies aren't as uncommon as you would think where you were. We have a church in town that is as beautiful as any other here and I assure you I wouldn't want to be out walking around it even in daylight with a big camera in my hands. Some cops are badge heavy for sure but sometimes we are just brief and it gets misconstrued as badge heavy. He didn't threaten to cite you or arrest you for that matter so take it for what it is, an Officer not being overly polite. As another subject stated he may have been dispatched by your everyday "concerned citizen" that has nothing better to do than call about anything they might consider suspicious. In that case he is required by oath to check it out so that he can tell the boss that it was nothing with a clear conscious that he actually determined that to be the case. Don't let such a small interaction seem so domineering Ed, I wouldn't.</p>

<p>Jill, it may have been a bit harsh (nothing personal however) but when one reads this whole thread it's obvious there is a lot of supposition and believing going on while mr. Horn keeps contradicting himself as I and other people have pointed out.<br>

In your reply to me you said it yourself <em>"...could have escalated a nothing into a something". </em> That's the whole point, it was nothing. And on that notion people draw all kinds of unjustified conclusions, keep on going about photographers rights which weren't violated, mr. Horn was in no way stopped shooting although he later claimed the officer did everything to stop him which, as is proven by his own words, is totally and utter crap.</p>

<p>On the same token however it's equally unjustified to qualify mr. Horns remarks as being smartass remarks.</p>

<p>Walter wrote: <em>"Whenever you are questioned by the police it is NEVER a "non-story". </em> That's true. There is however a <strong>HUGE</strong> difference between being asked a question and being questioned which has a different connotation alltoghether.</p>

<p>Edward, you deserve credit for being consistent in evolving this little fairytale. You call yourself a victim, please man grow up. You come here with a non-story and now feel sorry for yourself because people call you on your contradictions which you classify as "blaming the victim". Personally I only react on the fact that you utter inconsistent nonsense.</p>

<p>You call yourself a streetphotographer. Let me point out that there is a big difference between shooting on the street and being a street photographer. If you really were a streetphotographer you would know that you regularly have to deal with irate people out there (which didn't happen here). That's no big deal however, it's par for the course and not worth mentioning. Certainly nothing I would complain about in a forum. How it's being dealt with? By using some basic people skills, nothing dramatic as showing a Krages print-out of photographers rights as someone adviced which btw is laughable at best.</p>

<p>If you really feel violated by this the best advice anyone can give you is to do yourself a favour and stay away from shooting out there.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Fortunately, in my "world", which is Denmark, an episode like the one Edward describes, should have been absolutely unthinkable. But never say never...<br>

Greg</p>

 

<p>While the incident wasn't as bad as it could have been or arise to something resulting in disciplinary sanctions, it still never should have happened.</p>

<p><em>the Officer may have used the words "watch yourself" as simply that. </em><br /><em></em><br />Yeah right. If that was the concern there would be none of the getting out of the car and asking questions and making the watch yourself statement at the end where someone is not rolling over with respect for being questioned.</p>

<p>ah, the land of the free - reminds me of germany, about 1937</p>

<p>I guess I can't be terribly sympathetic with OP. He wasn't stopped or substantially interfered with and was allowed to go about doing what he was doing. The LEO was doing one part of his job which is to make contact with the public and be visibly present; these guys have an uneviable job, and frankly a lot of the people they deal with are less than truthful about what what they are doing. Would we all like to go about our days without being accosted by the police? Sure, but in today's day and age, its inevitable that we will be at some point.</p>

<p><em>The LEO was doing one part of his job which is to make contact with the public... ...Would we all like to go about our days without being accosted by the police? Sure, but in today's day and age, its inevitable </em><br>

<em></em><br>

You can be an apologist for police bothering people who are obviously doing nothing wrong or causing problems of any kind (i.e. photography) but that doesn't justify it. If this 'day and age' nonsense is valid criteria for appropriate conduct, police would be acting appropriately if they made people stop taking pictures of something merely if they started doing it often. Sure, this wasn't the most egregious example of LE interference but this rationalizing this sort of thing as appropriate behavior is ridiculous.</p>

<p>Whenever you are questioned by the police it is NEVER a "non-story".<br>

AMEN<br>

Its like "minor surgery". Its only "minor" when it happens to someone else. I don't think people would be quite so nonchalant if they were the one being harrassed.</p>

 

<p>My comments re:<em>stampone</em> should be taken in relation to <em>NV v Hiibel. </em>Most importantly NJ has no stop and identify law, therefore any interaction with LE must be concentual. NJ state law does not compel a person to identify themself, and <em>Terry</em> as well as <em>Hiibel</em> forecloses on the 5th Amendment right to refuse to answer interogation. As a side note, the SC majority really made a blunder in <em>Hiibel </em>that will bring a mass of dicta challenges as other states enforce their stop and identify laws. Justice Bryer's dissent opened the door to for Cert on like cases. </p>

<p>The officer should have been reported...plain and simple. The comment of "watch yourself" could be considered harrassment. </p>

<p>I would have asked...."Watch myself from what?" Heaven help the fellow if he wanted to push it further. Another mallacop mentality officer who I would take great pleasure in dragging through the courts. These fools need to be put in their place. They are out of line, ignorant, and self important. I've seen enough of them over the years with other photographers get knocked down a notch or two.</p>

<p>For those of you that are interested in the implications of <em>Terry, Hiibel</em>, etc. I suggest you read this article: <a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/doclib/20080313_CrimKlein.pdf">http://www.fed-soc.org/doclib/20080313_CrimKlein.pdf</a><br>

The author sheds some light on the erosions of your 4th and 5th Amendment Rights giving reason for all citizen to be concerned. </p>

<p>Wow. If only there were a definitive book about which rights are included in the First Amendment - with lots of analogous stories. Be a best seller, wouldn't it?<br>

As a "street shooter" (i.e.. Photojournalist) for over 42 years - and with 4 years as a member of The White House Press Corps, it's my opinion there's much perspective missing here, even in this long thread. It has been my own observation that since September 1, 1997, incidents of American Citizenry proclaiming "photography is illegal!" have increased a thousand fold. Then another thousand fold since 9/11. And what is truly amazing to me - again this is just my own opinion and observation - is that we now live in a time where almost every single man, woman and child between the ages of 9 and 80 are carrying on their person some type of camera. Another observation; everywhere you go outside your own home there are City, State, Federal and Private cameras (mostly video), watching you, photographing and filming you and your vehicle, both indoors and outdoors. Look around. Cameras E V E R Y W H E R E. Yet, to this day, and everyday I'm out "in the streets" with my Nikon professional camera, at least one person comes up to me and says something about my camera. I'd say most remarks are equally divided between "wow, what a big camera" and "it's illegal to take pictures!" It takes a lot of my time, which I willingly give, to answer all the questions those Americans then tend to begin asking. Most walk away a bit more thoughtful and a bit more knowledgeable about The First Amendment of OUR Constitution.</p>

 

<p>I can see the headlines now: "Man arrested for taking pictures of church."</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>As I've said, I think the OP has made a bigger deal out of this than necessary, but that isn't to say that it's no deal, and I don't think we should be beating him up. It's possible that the intent was simply to advise the OP to be careful lest he get mugged, but had that really been the case, he'd likely have have mentioned this at the onset.</p>

<blockquote>The LEO was doing one part of his job which is to make contact with the public and be visibly present;</blockquote>

<p>To the extent of stopping his car, getting out, and approaching the OP? Ya gotta be kidding ... The cop probably didn't do anything illegal, but did his actions really serve any legitimate government interest?</p>

<p>That said, I think the OP should recognize that, as Ton said, one encounters ornery people in the street from time to time; it simply comes with the territory. Be assured that I don't like being questioned by people packing iron any more than the OP, but when it stops with a couple of questions, I just move on.</p>

<p>What would happen if the person questioned by the constable had been me? Foreign, from a country to the north which doesn't support US foreign policy, with a decided non-Jersey accent. The constable may well have been concerned for the safety of the camera toting person, given it may well have been a non-white area. Suspect the constable chose the words appropriate for the situation.<br>

My photography is transportation devices, railways and similar. Photography of those items often entails problems with the locals be they uniform wearing or otherwise. Railways aren't always located in the best parts of a town so it means too I as with others should watch our backside. Suspect the constable was being cautious, good for him. The OP was concerned too however iMO overly so.</p>

<p> </p>

I have been stopped myself, in fact last weekend as a matter of fact, while photographing a fountain. I told the officer what I was doing and produced one of my photography business cards. That has always the end of it for me, fortunately.

<p>First time commenting on any of the forums here, hello. I myself have had numerous experiences with law officers while shooting in public and yes it can be difficult. I think a lot of time we forget that not everyone understands what drives us to be photographers. A lot of people don't understand that, what we may find to be interesting can seem very strange to others. </p>

<p>I can remember back into the mid to late 1970. when I was in high school, I took a "Photo Journallism class and was asigned to take a photo of a clock, I went to the local Mall and started taking photo's of the malls clock. The mall "police" took me to a secret place inside the mall and have to have my teacher to tell them what I was there for. Never got my photo. I think the mall police thought I was taking picture of the sky lights. Oh, how I long for a simpler time.</p>

<p>Because this neighborhood seems to be off the tourist radar screen, and taking pics of a more or less ordinary older church building is not so common, the officer was just doing due diligence to be sure you lacked malicious intent. This is part of an officer's job.<br>

Seems to me the policeman took "Because it's a nice church." as a passive aggressive response. When he asked why you were photographinc the chuch, he was asking for information about you, eg why you were interested in photographing this church, and you gave him no information about you. He was essentially asking you to reassure him you had no malicious intent. Had you said that you were an architectural photographer and found the church to be an interesting subject, he probably would have moved on. But you didn't offer the policeman that level of reassurance. Saying only "Because it's a nice church" is what someone might say when they want to say "I don't have to tell you" without saying it that way. <br>

I consider the policeman's response to be essentially saying, "Ok, you are probably here without malicious intent and just taking pictures of this church, but since you aren't going to play ball and reassure me of that, then I'm going to play your game too, just to be on the safe side. </p>

 

I frequently photograph on Mare Island, former naval shipyard in northern California. Since it's no longer Navy property, it's

now open. The "industrial" part of it consists of wonderful old boarded up buildings, other parts are housing, offices, golf

course, cemetery, chapel, wetlands, etc. I've been stopped several times by security guards while photographing the old

buildings in the "industrial" area. The guards have always been friendly and I felt that their concern was warranted because

of the amount of vandalism of those empty buildings. I tell the guards who I am, what I'm doing, give them my business

card, and thank them. They've never asked me to leave or tried to stop me.<div></div>

<p><em>Because this neighborhood seems to be off the tourist radar screen, and taking pics of a more or less ordinary older church building is not so common, the officer was just doing due diligence to be sure you lacked malicious intent. This is part of an officer's job.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Due diligence? Drive by. Look out the window. See what someone is doing. See them taking pictures. Translation... No suspicious activity of any kind. Guess what? Mission accomplished. <br>

<em></em><br>

<em>since you aren't going to play ball and reassure me of that, then I'm going to play your game too, just to be on the safe side. </em><br>

<em></em><br>

You really think hovering right by the guy because he didn't cowtow was motivated by a desire just to be "safe"? That's almost funny.</p>

<p><em><br /></em></p>

<blockquote>just doing due diligence to be sure you lacked malicious intent.</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps I'm missing something, how could one effect malice by taking a photograph of a church? Catch the church in a sex act and try blackmail?</p>

<blockquote>Seems to me the policeman took "Because it's a nice church." as a passive aggressive response. When he asked why you were photographing the chuch, he was asking for information about you, eg why you were interested in photographing this church, and you gave him no information about you.</blockquote>

<p>Could be, but but the OP's response was a direct answer to the question; I've given similar answers myself, not just to cops but to people passing by and casually asking why I was photographing something. As John and I have said, if the cop wanted information about the OP, he should have asked. If he doesn't know how to ask, his time would be better spent improving his questioning skills than getting mad at the OP. And if he can't be bothered, he shouldn't be a cop. How could he ever investigate real crime?</p>

<blockquote>... but since you aren't going to play ball and reassure me of that, then I'm going to play your game too, just to be on the safe side.</blockquote>

<p>Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for I am the biggest asshole in the valley? Again, I seem to be missing the safety issue.</p>

<p>It's silly that police officers have to be such jerks in situations like this. I was once stopped by an officer because I was taking pictures of a friend and we happen to be in front of Bank of America's headquarter building in Charlotte, NC. Reason the officer sited was because of terrorists and pics of the building could serve as some kind of blueprint... which sounds totally bogus considering that anyone can get more information on that building by searching Google or Googlemaps. The officer demanded I give him my SD card, which I told him was not necessary and instead we agreed that I would delete each picture in front of him which made me really upset.</p>