Anyone tried shooting Federal Property lately?

Did you know that because of the Patriot Act (or so I was told) that

it is illegal to shoot <i>any</i> federal property, indefinitely?

This includes monuments, sculptures, statues, etc. that are owned by

the Federal Government. How does everyone feel about this?

<br /><br />

I was a little distraught when I was told I couldn't shoot a quote

etched in concrete in front of a federal courthouse this weekend, but

I was even more bothered when the officer told me that it included

all federal property. <br /><br />

 

Talk about trying to run us into the ground with paranoia. Great

administration we have, huh?

You were misinformed by the officer. This is simply not true.

The Patriot Act does not impose any restrictions on photography. Neither does the Homeland Security Act.

Maybe so, but as I was about to press the sutter he said this, "If you take that picture I will confiscate that camera." I said, "Pardon me?" and he repeated himself. I said "Why?" And he said, "It is forbidden by law to take pictures on any federal property. I tell people this numberous times everyday. I'm sorry." I asked, "Since when did that go into effect." And he said, "Since 9/11." Then he went off on some spiel about the patriot act and terrorism.

 

Go figure.

Because it worked on you and people before you, he will continue to use that lie.

 

I would make an effort to report his behavior to his superiors.

Have a lawyer send a certified letter to him and his boss explaining to them that the patriot act does not forbid photography, and that you are well within your rights to photograph Federal government property from a position on public property. Have the letter kindly inform them that if they attempt to confiscate your camera for photography from a position on public property, that they will be sued until they're homeless.

I've got better things to do than messing with the Fed Gov. I've seen what they can do. You guys are welcome to come to Sacramento and have at them. It's the Federal Courthouse right across from the Amtrak station, so it won't be difficult to get to. =)

"Talk about trying to run us into the ground with paranoia. Great administration we have, huh?". You come whining here about the problem and when you're advised that you were right and the officer was wrong you welcome someone else to get it straightened out, and then blame it on the administration. Go figure!!

This is truly pathetic. It shows a level of ignorance, gullibility and fuzzy thinking that is truly astounding. And then topped off with a distinct dose of paranoid inertia.

 

Nice typing.

I am not entirely convinced that I am wrong. Just because a few people on this forum say I am right I'm not going to challenge it. It isn't worth it. This <i>was</i> a federal courthouse and I seriously doubt this officer was just making it up. I.E. I'd be willing to bet I would lose my ass if I tried to challenge it. You want to deal with it go ahead.

<br /><br />

And if you are going to lay a bunch of crap on my for my feelings right on, more power to you. Because I <i>am</i> paranoid of the currrent state of our country. When prisoners start disappearing I have to wonder. You guys are the idiots.

 

And a special "Fuck you" for Mr. Cooper - I wasn't whining. Just stating a simple fact. And asking what everyone else thinks. How's that grab you?

<br /><br />

<i>paranoid inertia</i>

<br /><br />

So that is what it's called?

Why is this B.S. posted in the "Travel Photography" section?

 

PS, Anthony, there a sets of rules for two different kinds of people:

 

One set of rules is quoted to people who APPEAR on the surface to be spineless follower types. (The federal security officer quoted law from this code.)

 

The other set of rules is what's known as "The Law".

1. Travel photography because I travelled to where I encountered this situation.

 

2. You guys are showing such depth for assuming things on such baseless reasoning. I'm hardly spineless.

 

I'm actually respectful of the law, especially in things I do not know. Now I have people dogging me for not taking legal action against my government for what may (or may not have been) the actions of a single security officer.

 

Can you people be serious? That is why are legal system is so screwed up right now.

 

Finally, I am currently in the process of discussing this with a lawyer on a legal forum, where I am sure they have a better handle on the law than all of you know it alls on p.net. We shall see.

ANY Federal property? Like in Yellowstone National Park? Like in all National Forests? Like in all National Wildlife Refuges? Like in the majority of the Western USA, where the Federal Government owns most of the property?

 

I think not.

How about this... any federal property that houses a field office of the FBI, the DOJ, the Secret Service, assorted other federal agencies... from the sounds of it that is indeed illegal.

<I>Did you know that because of the Patriot Act (or so I was told) that it is illegal to shoot

any federal property, indefinitely?</I><P> The oficer is wrong. Next time this happens

ask

for his or her supervisor.

Well, at least one of the people that responded is, in fact, a well known attorney and has published a number of books on both photography and/or the law. On the other hand, the rest of us are educated, capable of critical thinking, and well grounded in the basic legal issues affecting our hobbies or our businesses.

 

I usually make it a practice to not argue with the drunk or the insane. You type too well to be drunk.

one reason the legal system is screwed up right now is because too many people lay down

their rights in fear.

Here's is an interesting <a href="http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/497496.html">article</a> about the same sort of situation. Obviously, you're all right, and next time I'll lay down the law, and after I get arrested, or harassed or whatever happens, at least I'll know that I was right too. Oh, and then I'll sue. Yeah, then I would really be American, huh? <br /><br />Insanity aside, I'll let the officer know he is wrong next time, before I do the exact same thing, and walk away.

Noooooooo. Not this again. @nthony, I heard John Ashcroft was in SF recently doing a Patriot Act strategysession and he TOLD that security guard to mess with you. He's EVERYWHERE. And he wants your camera.

 

Moderator, please....

What on earth would they do if you posted a photo of the FBI building in D.C. that was pre-nine-eleven. They would have to move the building to insure no new images were anywhere to be found....

 

 

 

 

 

Ha!

What Ellis said, plus it's imperative to start a paper trail with certified mailing to supervisor of said security guard of your account of the incident.

 

Then, return there later and shoot agian. If harassment reccurs, repeat paper trail to one level higher up the chain of command, referencing the first incident and your documentation thereof.

 

One thing people fear as much as the end of a gun barrel in this country is getting sued.

I've developed a theory over time that everything is illegal. Whatever it is, any kind of activity or lack thereof, can be made illegal by the application of some law already in existence. How often have the RICO statutes been applied when a prosecutor couldn't come up with anything better? A favorite of mine is violating a person's civil rights when you couldn't get a conviction for something else. Photographing a federal building? Consipiracy to commit...You have to ask yourself how far you are willing to go. You may be well within your rights but if one or more cops tell you to stop, are you willing to get arrested, have your stuff confiscated and hope you'll get it back after you spend thousands to prevail in the legal system. It is completely at odds with what we are supposed to be about but it's the reality.

 

Rick H.

<i>One thing people fear as much as the end of a gun barrel in this country is getting sued.</i>

<p>

"People" might, but the government and its employees generally do not. Government officials can rarely be sued over their official duties, and suing governments is also difficult. It's called "sovereign immunity." Threatening to sue a law enforcement officer in particular will usually result in much hilarity. They hear it every day.

On the other hand, if you look through USC Title 18 you'll find several references of imprisonment up to on year, or fines up to $1,000, or both, for any agent of the U.S. government who exceeds the authority granted in a warrant, maliciously procure a warrant, or in general engages in unwarranted search and seizure.

If they're not busting you for a felony, they have to follow certain rules or they ARE subject to suit. And they know it.

 

Photography is not a felony.

 

To Anthony: the words "photography" and "photo" are entirely absent from the y=text of the USA PATRIOT act. The only instances of "camera" in the act are (a) in the legal phrase "in camera" borrowed from latin, meaning essentially private court proceedings but not the things we use to take pictures, and (b) specific permission for government agencies to PURCHASE and USE cameras for surveillance.

 

In other words, the next time a law enforcement officer tells you the USA PATRIOT Act restricts photography of government buildings or of ANY subject at all, you should feel free to tell that person they are ill informed. The Act simply makes NO REFERENCE to how people may pursue their interest in photography.

 

Separately, we should note that photographing U.S. military installations or equipment considered "restricted," "classified," "secret" or "top secret" (without express permission in advance from the facility commander) is specifically prohibited by law inder a separate section of 18 USC. DoD commercial contractor facilities enjoy the same protection when working on restricted, classified etc. products.

 

But courthouses? No prohibition in federal law. Furthermore, you see the same marble facade in news broadcasts all the time. The Governator doesn't prohibit pics of his pecs on the steps.

 

I understand your statements here, and I am not telling you to "get tough" when you'd rather just be non-confrontational. But the truth is important. The truth is: the person who said you couldn't take pictures of the courthouse was either WRONG or LYING. Let's hope he or she was just wrong.

 

There are a lot of good, honest, underpaid and overworked law enforcement folks in this fine country, and many of them have been given poor info about citizens' rights and supposed restrictions thereto.

 

But some law enforcement types are lazy bullies who LIE because it's, well, easier. You may have met one of those.

 

Take pictures of every courthouse, police station and FBI office you see in the good old USA. It's okay. It's legal.

 

If you get hassled by a law enforcement officer, you could stand your ground or acquiesce... your choice.

 

You won't wind up in court. You won't have to give up your camera or film unless (a) you somehow add a felony to your day's activities, or (b) the officer finds a judge ill-informed enough to issue a warrant. You may be ASKED to hand stuff over, but you need not comply.

 

Above all, have FUN! Be well,

Attorney Bert Krages has created a one-page document that in a

nutshell tells you what you can and cannot do as a

photographer, in this day of homeland security. I will try to link it

here, but if I'm not successful, you can email me and I will gladly

forward it to you. I have a couple of friends who have used it

recently while shooting downtown, when confronted by security

personnel.