Harassed by Police for photography on playground. (Memory card confiscated and harassed by police)

[cenelsonfoto]

Yeh, right?

[robert_edge]

"Yer out of yer mind, buddy."

 

Thanks. I was there two months before the invasion of Iraq. The city was full of journalists and photographers waiting for the Iraqi government to grant them visas. These are the kinds of journalists and photographers who work for major media in war zones and can afford to hand out in places like the Amman Hilton. You may think that I am out of my mind, but the fact is, the photographers that I met were acutely aware of the culture and they respected it.

[michael s.]

Call me old fashioned, but I do believe that as a general matter, a seizure of personal property by law enforcement should take place only upon probable cause that a crime has been committed.

 

And I believe that in the U.S., it is and should remain permissible, with darn few exceptions, to take photos of persons in public places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g., *not* public bathrooms).

 

For me these are serious concerns.

 

Is this one incident as serious as the kinds of things you mention in the first paragraph of your 10:22 post, Robert ? Of course not. But the person who posted the question, whose property was allegedly seized and who was allegedly threatened with (possibly groundless) arrest and prosecution if he repeats his (apparently lawful) conduct has asked for suggestions, and mine were offered with sincerity.

[cenelsonfoto]

Keep shooting!<p>

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/151/379992207_34a5066a3b_m.jpg"><p>

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/173/379990296_c256c69d6d_m.jpg"><p>

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/181/379986673_0893f0fdd3_m.jpg"><p>

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/167/379936140_a8e18dff11_m.jpg"><p>

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/151/379911810_e063003abb_m.jpg"><p>

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/160/379911814_59fa8b64ca_m.jpg"><p>

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/132/379911809_53063087e5_m.jpg"><p>

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/127/379911808_44ed4c8d95_m.jpg"><p>

[cenelsonfoto]

"You may think that I am out of my mind, but the fact is, the photographers that I met were acutely aware of the culture and they respected it."

 

No, I think yer out of yer gourd for bringing the ME into this discussion about police in this country. It's pretty clear to me, but if you cannot see the absurdity of your arguments, well... can't help ya, pal. I don't wanna hurt yer feelings, so I'll leave you to it.

[robert_edge]

Michael,

 

Any right thinking person in a common law jurisdiction would agree with you as a matter of principle. But it is also worth considering the question of perspective, whether every legal right should be treagted as a right in all circumstances and whether every potential legal issue should be treated as a legal issue resulting in a call to a lawyer.

 

The funny thing is, I was in a situation the other day where I told a mother, a stranger, that I wanted to photograph her child. She objected. I know that I didn't have to ask her. Furthermore, having asked her, there is an argument that I could have done it anyway. But you know, that is a legal analysis, not a real life analysis.

 

I gather that you are a lawyer. So am I. Take that as you will.

[ray .]

Thing is, you have to tread carefully around children these days. Teachers are not even

allowed to physically touch students in certain instances. People read and watch a lot of

sensational news, and though it's blown out of proportion, some of it is valid. Things have

gotten complicated, and the parent/child and especially mother/child bond is something

you

cannot take lightly. At all. It's quite possible that even if you were talking to parents

somebody

else thought something was fishy and complained. They could care less about a

photographer's rights if they are even aware such a thing exists. As far as the cop, there

are

just people who think that bullying is the easiest route to take and maybe it was

something he needed to feed his ego. You're the only one who knows the situation well

enough to know what to do. Calm down, sleep on it, and then decide the proper course of

action. There are all kinds of things that can come up worthy of a lawsuit, but

sometimes it's not worth the hassle.

[robert_edge]

Nelson, I raised the Middle East because Mr. Flanigan did. And you know what, I think that it was useful that he did, because it helps get the discussion beyond the narrow confines of law applicablre in Detroit. I guess that I think that a broader discussion is useful, especially a discussion that goes beyond strictly legal considerations.

[cenelsonfoto]

No, you raised the ME in your post without provocation.

 

"I want to add something else. There are cultures, such as in the Middle East, that take serious objection to Americans doing whatever the hell they want photographically on the basis that their laws, as photographers (if not parents) perceive them ought to apply universally." - robert edge, Mar 25, 2007; 10:01 p.m.

[robert_edge]

Nelson, you're right. I mentioned it as an example, and that no doubt triggered Mr. Flanigan's response, and my elaboration. I'm so sorry. Can we perhaps get beyond high-school debating and maybe talk about the issue? Which is, from my point of view, whether the legal response, even assuming that we are talking only about common law jurisdictions and ignoring a lot of other people who participate in Photo.net, is the only, or maybe even right, way to deal with this question?

[john_h.1]

"it is truly extraordinary that every time this issue comes up, participants in this part of photo.net, and the Americans in particular, immediately turn the discussion into a debate about the American constitution."

 

Um, that's because it IS a matter that involves the U.S. constitution.

 

 

"In case what I am saying is not crystal clear: Not every issue in life is a legal issue"

 

Um, this one is. You know police intervention and all.

 

"I want to add something else. There are cultures, such as in the Middle East, that take serious objection to Americans doing whatever the hell they want photographically on the basis that their laws, as photographers (if not parents) perceive them ought to apply universally."

 

Um, were talking about photography inside the U.S. You know, the territory where the constitution is the law of the land.

 

"go ahead, turn this into a legal issue"

 

Um, the police turned it in to a "legal issue" according to the post.

 

"there is such as thing as perspective. Running off to the ACLU about this, given that there are real-life human rights issues in the US (as there are in every country), strikes me as kind of silly. I don't know, I guess I'd just like to think that the ACLU has better things to do with its time."

 

Um, this stuff ARE real life issues and 'civil liberties'. Such as police banning legal conduct because they want to. We have, like, laws around here and stuff.

 

"the immediate resort to "call your lawyer", just plain bizarre."

 

Um, seeking help someone who is an actual legal expert for handling 'legal' matters is, like, what lawyers are for.

 

"I guess you could even sue a parent for damaging you or your camera while preventing you from taking a photograph of his kid."

 

"Um, yes. And guess what? Those events are actual crimes. You know, stuff for police to respond to as opposed to stuff that's not a crime.

 

"Go to Amman and start exercising your First Amendment Rights by photographing veiled women without permission. Or for that matter, go to Jerusalem and photograph an Arab kid. Watch while he places his arm over his face, and feel proud of yourself. I'm speaking from experience."

 

Um, we are talking about the what is permissible in the U.S.

 

"the photographers that I met were acutely aware of the culture and they respected it."

 

Um, here, we have a culture where laws are not made up by police. Please respect that.

[robert_edge]

Nelson,

 

I'll tell you a funny thing about Jordan. If you rent a car, you don't need insurance. Why? Because if you have an accident and someone gets hurt or killed, there is no legal system, as you understand it, that will adjudicate the claim.

 

On the other hand, a lot of people are deeply offended if you take their photograph. By that, I mean take their photograph period, with or without permission. On the other hand, there are people who don't have a problem with it. Every person who goes to Jordan has a choice about this, to ignore people's views on this or to respect them. Either way, the question is not going to wind up in the courts. So it isn't a legal question, which of course makes it a question that one has to actually decide for oneself.

[wigwam jones]

Rights which are neglected tend to become eroded. One asserts their rights, or encroachments become the norm instead of the exception. That much, I believe.

 

I also believe that not every battle has to be fought to the hilt; in fact, doing so will wear you out in time.

 

But the struggle for freedom is eternal. In the US, we enjoy a fuller measure of it than most in the world, and for that, I am grateful. That does not mean that I will simply shrug every time what I perceive as my liberties are encroached upon.

 

I am a conservative, I tend towards libertarianism, and although I have come in time to believe that the demands of society do outweigh some individual rights, I feel that picking our way through these exceptions ought to be done with extreme care - not just for the perceived danger we are 'protecting' ourselves from, but also for posterity, with an understanding that each successive generation of Americans will be 'less free' than the last in some manner.

 

I grit my teeth when I see Reverend Fred Phelps' crew with their "God Hates Fags" placards, protesting the funerals of dead US servicemen and servicewomen. It hurts me to think of people burning crosses or defacing the flag. But I have to keep uppermost in my mind the fact that these acts are exercises in freedom of expression. When the extremes, the most objectionable and loathsome among us are allowed to speak freely, I feel that my right to speak my mind is also protected.

 

Photography *is* expression, no different than speech, poetry, prose, sculpture, cartooning, and so on. Photography serves many purposes that are beneficial to society, including being a powerful tool of the media, who supposedly occupy a sanctified place as a watchdog of the people, among other functions.

 

And although it sounds petty and small to demand my right to take a photograph of a child whose parents object - this is simply the point of the spear. This is where the test is made on a daily basis. Do we or do we not have the right to take photographs in public?

 

We know that there are exceptions. As US citizens, we do not take our rights with us when we leave the country - we must obey the rules and laws of the nations we visit - including the Middle East. We must obey our own laws as well, many of which prohibit photography, or which place constraints on such activities. If we feel strongly that a law is unconstitutional, then there are several proper venues for making a challenge. One is to petition one's lawmakers to effect a change in law. Another is to intentionally break the law, submit to arrest and prosecution, and attempt through the judicial system to prove the law unconstitutional. But otherwise, one must obey the law or suffer the consequences.

 

My concern has been, and remains, the approach to this issue that appears to submit to laws that do not exist.

 

That is, a parent objects to a child being photographed, and we capitulate. That is all well and good for oneself. But those among us who practice this also seem quite content to pass that prohibition on to all photographers. It does not fash them at all that 'feelings' are not laws.

 

I respect the fears of parents, even the ones I consider unreasonable. And depending on the circumstances, I may shrug and move on without objection when asked to stop taking photographs by a parent.

 

But I will not, I cannot, give in to demands that I delete my photos, show them to a 'concerned parent', identify myself, tell them what purpose I am going to put the photographs to, and so on. Nor will I willingly surrender my property to a law enforcement officer without a valid search warrant being served on me. If it is to be search incident to lawful apprehension, then let's get on with the arrest. Let's make it all nice and legal - you arrest me and take my stuff, and then yes, we let the lawyers sort it all out.

 

If this seems a trivial pursuit - well, all I can say is, you ought to see me foam at the mouth when it is suggested that I ought to have the number of firearms I can own limited in some way, or registered with the state. This is nothing compared to that. I like *all* my rights, thanks.

 

Perhaps it is not meet for everyone to rave and rant about rights. Perhaps it is enough that a certain lunatic fringe keep pushing at the edges, making sure the tent stays up for everyone who finds it all very tedious and not worth the trouble. No problem, I enjoy the animating contest of liberty. The revolution never ended, and I'm a slip kid at 46.

 

I think that's my last screed for the night. Take care, all.

[vverna83]

Thanks for the continuing discussion and I think it's a worthwhile discussion to have.

 

For the record I'm not going to sue for ''damages'' or anything like that I just want to make

sure that nothing happens as far as anything going on any kind of record that could cause

problems for me in the future.

 

Let me state my opinions on some of the issues being raised, the "americans that think

they can do whatever they want" issue. When in Rome do as the Romans do, if you are

abroad you should aquaint yourself with the culture and the laws that apply. In AMERICA

the law says that execpt for military installations and a few other government buildings

anyone can take a picture of anything they darn well please as long as the subject isn't in a

''private area.'' If an american travels to India that american needs to abide by the laws in

India.

 

My stupidity comes into play when I wrong fully beleived that the police officers that

confronted me cared about the laws they are supposed to be enforcing and openly

cooperated with them. I wrongfully thought ''this is a pretty simple situation and i'll be on

my way in 5 minutes'' I guess I was naive, from now on if i'm ever in this situation again

I'm just gonna have to assume the worse and make sure all the hoops are jumped through

on the police officers part. (search warrents ect.)

 

I'd like to point out to those that think our rights as PEOPLE (not just americans) to go

about our business with out harassment are not things you should start making

exceptions too. Anyone who says that "times are changing and this is the way things are

now" Please please PLEASE think about that real hard for a while and ask yourself what

you think is going too far. Then browse some articles in newspapers from the UK. Just

last week two brothers were sent to jail for animal creulety because their dog was

overweight. (I'll see if i can find a link, it was ''The Sun'' if anyone else wants to look)

[ray .]

It's unfortunate though that if someone had a problem with Vincent they didn't tell him

themselves, as

opposed to running to the police, just as you don't wish him to run to a lawyer. Assuming

that's what happened of course.

[ronaldo_r]

I agree that most if not all parents, myself included, no NOT want strangers photographing their kids. That's why I try not to take pcitures of other's children unnecessarily.

 

To me, this falls under the 'good manners & common sense' approach. E.g, it is not illegal to smoke outside. However, I feel that people who do smoke in close proximity to others without any consideration are rude.

 

With photos, if you know that something is going to stir trouble, don't do it.

[robert_edge]

"Then browse some articles in newspapers from the UK. Just last week two brothers were sent to jail for animal creulety because their dog was overweight."

 

As we all know, the UK, compared to the US, is a totalitarian state. God knows what we would do without the most perfect nation in the world showing the light to the rest of us.

[wigwam jones]

"With photos, if you know that something is going to stir trouble, don't do it."

 

I'm a born lever-puller. Oh, and sorry, I thought I was done for the night. My bad.

[wigwam jones]

"God knows what we would do without the most perfect nation in the world showing the light to the rest of us."

 

You're welcome.

[vverna83]

"As we all know, the UK, compared to the US, is a totalitarian state. God knows what we

would do without the most perfect nation in the world showing the light to the rest of us."

 

Yes and that's what happens when people start to willfully surrender their rights if anyone

wishes to deny this I would suggest they spend some time at the local library in the ''history''

section.

[robert_m_johnson]

Boy life was a lot simpler being a kid back in the day. As a parent I also kept an eagle

eye on my boys. Here are a couple of pics that took seconds to shoot, never saw them

again, and they are probably older then some of you now! :-)<div></div>

[robert_m_johnson]

<div></div>

[spanky]

I'm cetainly no expert but I'd bet that in most cities ones property cannot be seized without a search warrant or at least being charged with suspicion of whatever crime they think you are committing. I also think you did the right thing by contacting an attorney. If everyone who has had this unfortunate occurance just rolled over then it would happen with much more frequency.

 

I'm also reminded of the Middle Eastern woman here in the US who would not uncover her face for a drivers license picture several years ago. She of course tried to sue and while I don't know the outcome I think the laws shouldn't be enforced for some and not others especially for driving which is a privilage and not a right (as she apparently thought.)

[john_elder1]

Vincent, you did nothing legaly wrong. I shoot kids without parental permission in public frequently and you don't need anyone's permission. The police violated your civil rights AND committed theft. Anybody who thinks this kind of illegal activity by police in the USA should be tolerated is a fool. You probably have a 1983 Civil Rights Action. Call ACLU first. If that doesn't work out , do some research and find an atorney who has handled civil rights violations. John Elder, Esq

[ronaldo_r]

"...you did nothing legaly wrong..."

 

Allegedly. We don't know the police side of the story. We don't know why the images were taken. What kind of images, we also don't know.

 

Apart from legal issues, there's could be a moral angle to this story. Even if completely legal and innocent. E.g, can I play loud music during the hours I can do so legally? Yes I can. Are the neighbours going to be happy about my perfectly legal activies? No they aren't.

 

Same can be applied to photography. Is takaing pictures of other people's children legal? Sure it is. Are the parents [and the police who represent the parents in this case] are going to encouragne such perfectly legal activities? I don't think so.