Taking Pictures of Police Officers in Uniform

<p>Greetings All,<br>

A friend from Canada and I spoke this evening, and he raised an issue of concern that I was ignorant about. As I recall some one informed him that 12 US States have local statutes that prohibit Police in uniform from being photographed. Is this accurate? I did a Photo.net search and located this:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/street-documentary-photography-forum/00ImQP">http://www.photo.net/street-documentary-photography-forum/00ImQP</a><br>

<br>

Local and State Laws change so often that ignorance when dealing with someone who can arrest you at will is not a good thing for a street Photog to be ignorant about: especially if you are from Canada visiting . . . SO: Anyone know of such States Rights Laws we need to be aware of so as to prevent miscommunication from all concerned. Thanks in Advance for any and all lucid factual info.</p>

<p>Out of curiosity, is your intention to travel about, photographing police officers on the job?</p>

Have not heard about any statutes prohibiting photography.

 

Your friend could be talking about making audio recordings where the two party rule for consent is still

required, even when one of the parties is a police officer.

 

If in doubt, just ask...

<p>No, if that were the case I would be being paid, and I get paid to take pictures of some people who do not really exist unless you know what they do. I have a Canadian friend who is going to Massachusets for Holiday, and someone informed him he better not take any pictures of ANY Police Officer in any vacation picture when he goes out and about while he is on vacation. In the spirit of friendship to my Canadian photog friend, he asked me to find out, so I made this post.<br>

Matt on a related some what off topic note; it is good to see you again. The last time we communicated you were going to shoot a funeral @ The National Cemetary.</p>

<p>No, if that were the case I would be being paid, and I sometimes get paid to take pictures of some people who do not really exist unless you know what they do and they ask me to take their picture as I endeavor to serve the Greater Good.<br>

I have a Canadian friend who is going to Massachusets for Holiday, and someone informed him he better not take any pictures of ANY Police Officer in any vacation picture when he goes out and about while he is on vacation. In the spirit of friendship to my Canadian photog friend, he asked me to find out, so I made this post. My friend Andre waas told that there were 12 US States that have a new ordinace since 9/11 that prohibits even inadvertant photgraphs and if you are found in violation of the ordinance; that an arrest is possible. I thought this was an urban internet obfuscation of reality; however I did want to verify since I reside in Maryland.<br>

<br />Matt on a related some what off topic note; it is good to see you again. The last time we communicated you were going to shoot a funeral @ The National Cemetary.</p>

<p>If the U.S. is becoming a "police state" as many people believe it is, why go out of your way to antagonize these authority figures? What are you trying to prove? Leave them alone and they will leave you alone. </p>

<p>Personally, I find cops in uniforms to be poor subjects. And they, if wanted to, can arrest you on any BS charges...like disorderly conduct. Of course, you may have legal "law book rights" on your side and fight it etc...but, then, your vacation is ruined. The ability to gauge their mannerism, interactions, gestures and their ego is as important as what the "law" says, if not more.</p>

<p>What I would be worrying about more is plain clothes cops:))</p>

I photograph cops all the time. Zero problems. Then on the other hand, I don't start off with a bias based on others'

preconceived notions. Attitude and behavior will carry you far. Or not...

<p>I agree with Brad:<br /><br /> Attitude is almost everything, and how one postures themselves goes a long way to determining their future. There are bad apples everywhere; INCLUDING Photographers. Looking at Brad's portfolio illustrates the truth of his words. I think on occasion almost everything is worthy of a good subject. On the subject of plain clothes cops - I have found and witnessed - they are plain clothes for a reason - and if you do not give them one - you will be left to go as you please. my .02 namaste~ </p>

<p>I suspect that Brad is right, and that the issue being (badly) conveyed here is the <em>recording</em> of people. A recent local case, here in Maryland, brought that into the news. I suspect it won't ultimately go anywhere, because that law doesn't apply in public, per se. Maryland is a strange place.<br /><br />Regardless, it really is all about how you come across. Confrontational? Furtive? Of course you'll piss off a cop (or anyone, for that matter). That doesn't mean you're in legal trouble, but it sets the stage for an unpleasant exchange. So, be pleasant, think about whether you're appearing deliberately shady/provocative or simply touristy, and don't sweat it otherwise.</p>

<p>Matt, Well Said. Amen!</p>

<p>"Of course you'll piss off a cop (or anyone, for that matter). That doesn't mean you're in legal trouble, but it sets the stage for an unpleasant exchange. "</p>

<p>The difference is that a cop who is p'd off will likely say, "You can't do that; I'm a cop and that's against the law" versus what anyone else who's p'd off might say, such as, "I don't like you taking my picture; Why are you taking my picture you creep; do that again and I'll punch your lights out." They all mean the same thing... just different words depending upon if they tend to be confrontational, authoritarian, etc. by nature or by occupation.</p>

<p>Dealing with strangers can be a crap shoot!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Of course you'll piss off a cop (or anyone, for that matter). That doesn't mean you're in legal trouble, but it sets the stage for an unpleasant exchange.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You will never know when unpleasant exchange will lead to legal trouble. That is precisely my point. Be pleasant and act accordingly...but just realize they *can* arrest you for "disorderly conduct." at anytime. They'll probably drop charges if they have nothing on you. </p>

<p>I live near Boston and, although cops don't like being photographed, they're not exempt by any means. Know the law... I've been questioned by the police on numerous occasions but always at the behest of some idiot (who, more often than not, wasn't even the subject I was going after). The police have to respond to all calls...</p>

<p>Anyhow, my standard line is, "I'm well within my rights..." They know the law but you have to let them know that you know the law, too. So bring it up first so they know they're not dealing with a twit. Most of the police I've dealt with are, eventually, decent enough guys. When I got my Street Photographer's Membership kit there was a whole paragraph on how to deal with police, the public, and street vendors...</p>

<p>Basically Dylan summed up the attitude of the average policeman: <em>The cops don't need you and, man, they expect the same...</em></p>

<p>Here is NYC, there are no rules prohibiting the photographing of police officers. In fact, most willingly agree to pose with tourists for photos upon request in the popular tourist areas like Times Square. If there is a police operation/investigation underway and you make a nuisance of yourself disrupting things, that is another story. Obviously, you never have to right to impede the police from carrying out their duties so you can snap a photo.</p>

Ed C, perhaps your friend read ...

 

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

<p>whooooooooaaaaa<br />Parv, Could this be a double standard, and ALL Traffic Cameras in the States that take this viewpoint are now against their own laws and or prosecutions? <br>

The Rabbit Hole goes deeper . . .<br />I wonder . . . Your thoughts???</p>

<p>All I believe I know within certainty is my absolute ignorance.<br />namaste - emc~</p>

I personally got rather hot & angry while reading. Arresting people, even if they go out of their way not to interfere, for the sole act of recording is too much. (In the cases noted on Gizmodo,) Use of wiretapping laws was really a stretch. I certainly do not see any fault in recording (still or movie) law enforcement structure at work (provided person recording is not breaking any other laws & such).

 

I know that I will start giving money to ACLU & EFF in a few days.

<p>I just want to note, while laws do change frequently, police often don't understand or properly enforce the obscure stuff.</p>

<p>For instance, police in NYC sometimes enforce non existent photography laws. These enforcements often lead to the photographer making about 10-20K$ from said non existent laws. If if you have the time to be arrested, and the desire to fight it, it's almost worth a run in with the wrong LEO.</p>

<p>One of my favorite examples is the Amtrak photo contest that specifically asked for people to take photos of stations and on the train. People were arrested for this very thing by Amtrak Police (yes, Amtrak's own police), even though there was no law prohibiting it.</p>

<p>Not at all picking on police, I have close family who are police, I am just noting that sometimes urban legend or even a little too overzealous LEO might make laws that don't really exist. This happened to me in Pittsburgh where I was told I couldn't photograph the worlds shortest underground subway line. I checked and there is no law on this. He created his own law, which is unacceptable. Honestly, does anyone really think the .6 mile Pittsburgh T will be on some terror list?</p>

<p>As was noted above, in NYC there are no laws against photographing police officers. There are no laws against photographing bridges or subways either. However, there is still a rumor floating around that you cannot do such things because of either 9/11 legislation or the Patriot Act. Neither of which is true! I actually have the memo that tells NYPD to chill out on harassing photographers in the subways.</p>

<p>As far as photographing the NYPD, most will happily pose for you. Most understand that NYC sees close to 30 million tourist a year, and the NYPD is one of the most respected and romanticized police departments in the world.</p>

<p>The main reason I can think that these sorts of movements are underway to stop photographing police is because police in recent years have been caught doing a lot of very wrong things by public toting digital cameras and cell phones. In many cases they outright lied or even forged official reports to make their actions seem justified, only to have camera footage prove undeniably that they were lying.</p>

<p>Imagine if there was a way for them to say beat a kid down in Maryland knowing they could arrest and delete anyone recording the incident? Imagine how many people would walk the other way. What if they could have deleted the videos of the BART rider who was shot to death instead of tased? These rumors are generally designed to either expand power or protect power. It's really that simple!</p>

<p>Your friend might be refering to this case.</p>

<p>I first heard about it listening to this TWIP Podcast. It seems on person could go to jail for photographing police officers.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.twiplog.com/episodes/2010/6/17/twip-152-controversy.html">http://www.twiplog.com/episodes/2010/6/17/twip-152-controversy.html</a></p>

<p>Bill</p>

<p> </p>

>>> It seems on person could go to jail for photographing police officers.

 

No, from making an audio recording where both (or multiple) parties do not give consent. So-called wiretap

laws that that falls under have been on the books for years in each state. Federal as well, but in that case

only one party (presumably the person recording) needs to give consent.

<blockquote>

<p>No, from making an audio recording where both (or multiple) parties do not give consent.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you read the Gizmodo article about the guy in motorcycle, he had his house searched because his was video taping and posted it on youtube. This has nothing to due with audio records and it seems on the face the police are abusing the sprirt of the law here.</p>

<p>On the other hand I do not know if Gizmodo could be trusted as an accurate source of news of this type.</p>

<p>Bill</p>

<p>The Maryland motorcyclist's case, referred to in several posts above, was the subject of a front page article in yesterday's "Washington Post."</p>

<p>Bill from NYC is mistaken. The <em>only</em> basis for the criminal charge relating to the cyclist's posted video <em>is the audio recording</em>. He has been charged under Maryland's wiretapping statute.</p>

<p>(And here I agree with Bill that the charge is not well founded.)</p>

<p>Here is the article from the <em>Post</em>:</p>

<p>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/15/AR2010061505556.html</p>

>>> This has nothing to due with audio records and it seems on the face the police are abusing the sprirt

of the law here.

 

No, it has everything to do with audio recording. There is no law prohibiting making images. BTW, you

enjoy the same benefits of "anti-wiretapping" statutes requiring both (or multiple) parties to consent to

audio recording.

<p>Hi, Brad. Hey, I was going to post a link to your blog after some of the early messages, but then you popped in yourself. ;)</p>

<p>Did anyone see the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_P5jOoDDbI">recent video</a> of the girl who got punched by the cop in Seattle? Toward the end of the video, you see the cop *surrounded* by people shooting video of him. It was kind of hilarious in a macabre way.</p>