Telephoto lenses present a clear security threat...

[craig_gillette]

<p>The primary reason one would not (or should not) be required to delete the image are the 4th and 14th Amendments in the US. The 4th is the basic statement on search and seizure and the 14th requires due process if the state is to deprive a person of life, liberty or property. However, an officer might request a wide variety of things that can not legally be required (without warrant, due process, etc.)</p>

<p>As pointed out above, destruction of the image might also be destruction of evidence, either of what you were or weren't doing. Completely anecdotally, I know that collection of evidence is usually a scrupulous task, when it comes to contraband of some sorts. However, it's not unusual to see the booze poured out of containers (and not saved) when a possible drinking offense occurrs. Something for the discussions at law school I'd guess.</p>

<p>A side discussion might be worthwhile when "information" is disclosed to outsiders in ways that could compromise an investigation or prosecution or might lead to harm of some sort, as to whether it should be further disclosed.</p>

[mwaks]

<!-- [if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->

<p>It's easy to say in retrospect "No you should not have deleted the photo. Sue the police for a settlement" ............but it's not so simple when confronted with an excited, adrenalin charged cop possessing handcuffs, mace and a gun confronting you. If you have the mentality to fight for your rights at that given moment, then go for it. I think most peoples first reaction is to just defuse the situation. There is not much time to plan. It's not unknown for cops to put the hurt on someone for no good reason. Fast thinking usually puts physical safety first before constitutional rights.</p>

[fischerphotos]

<p>Isn't it just amazing what photography can do.....</p>

[arthur_ozolins]

<p>Khm I live in Latvia and if I would go to court for that railroad picture above I probably would loose the trial. We have a law that premits to take pictures of railroad stations, roads, hydro-electro stations and etc. And I think it is simmilar in other countries too because of security reasons. Interesting that not so long time ago when latvia was in USSR we could no take pictures where you can see both sides of the bridge. :) And a lot of places where named in different location names, for example, hydro-electro station "PLAVINU HES" was located in town AIZKRAUKLE, but they named it PLAVINU so enemys would not find it so easly :))))<br>

You have to understand that railroad is strat. object and government is not intrested that people take pictures of railroad tracks, stations.</p>

[Jeff Lear]

<p>Regarding Bob's OP, is there any indication as to how Scotland Yard became aware of the photograph? Was it published prior to their notification or was the photo brought to their attention as a matter of security by the journalist or his/her employer? IMO, the idea that anyone would publish such sensitive information, regardless of how legally it was obtained or how inept the police chief was seems ludicrous.</p>

<p>My hope is that the journalist provided the photograph to Scotland Yard as evidence that anyone with a camera and telephoto lens could have photographed the same document and that their operation had been compromised by the inept chief.</p>

<p>As far as Michael deleting his images at the direction of the police I say, pick your battles. If the image is one of importance to you then state your case by explaining your rights under the 4th and 14th Amendments to The (U.S.) Constitution, document the officer's identification and if the demands persist, delete the images (knowing that they can be recovered later) or be prepared to take a ride. In all likelihood, Michael could have returned to the same spot 10 times and never be confronted so as long as Michael hadn't potentially discovered an as yet undocumented species of flora, it's probably not worth the argument or the inconvenience of being detained.</p>

<p>What I worry about is when over-zealous police discover that deleted images are not truly deleted and begin demanding that you re-format your memory card in their presence. How long will it be before this is common knowledge?</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>Yeah, those cops! None of them could possibly know anything about photography or read forums. (Well one shot my first wedding but that was using film years ago.) More likely the few that are unfamiliar with the issues of legal search and seizure might not be aware of image recovery but even more likely, like the vast majority of cops and photographers, the unpleasant interactions are few and far between and the issue never comes up. For that matter, if one were to read these forums, it's not unusual for there to be questions that deal with recovering lost images so there are more than a few photographers equally blissfully unaware of the techniques.</p>

[Jeff Lear]

<blockquote>

<p>Yeah, those cops! None of them could possibly know anything about photography or read forums.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not what I meant to imply.</p>

[peterblaise]

<p>.</p>

<p>You know reformatting does not erase the image data either, don't you?</p>

<p>"Pick your battles" may mean, "cause one police person to grow up and join our legal society accurately", you mean "pick the COST of your battles", and without such seemingly small battles, we might get stuck with bigger battles, sich as someone like Harold Koh as chief legal counsel at the State Department. Oh, wait a minute ...</p>

<p>Freedom isn't free. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. I say: shoot the cop. =8^o</p>

<p>... photographically speaking. ;-)</p>

<p>Now, if we would only carry live broadcast cameras synced to the Internet, this would be a moot point.</p>

<p>.</p>

[Jeff Lear]

<blockquote>

<p>You know reformatting does not erase the image data either, don't you?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I didn't, no. </p>

<p>I agree, there should be some dialog between photographer and officer. You won't change his or her mind but perhaps when they get home they will go on to their "police.net" and post a question in the Beginner Law Enforcement Questions forum about harassing photographers. The advice they receive from their peers will be more impactful than my arguing with them out by the train tracks. In my experience, a civilian trying to convince a law enforcement officer that they are wrong and you are right... a losing proposition. </p>

<p>The fact that you've been unlucky enough to happen upon the probably one-in-a-hundred cop who thinks that your camera is a tool of terrorism is a sign that your day isn't going well to begin with.</p>

[mwaks]

<p>Well it would seem someone has been reading this thread. In the NY Post today news is out that the NYC Police Dept issued instructions to their officers that the right to take pictures in the Big Apple is as American as apple pie. Furthermore officers are not allowed to demand viewing or deleting photographs. <strong>Victory is ours! </strong></p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>The Mayor's (Film) Office in New York has had clear public policy in place on photography, what is allowed, what would require permits, what kind of cooperation is expected from city agencies for quite a while. "They" haven't been reading this thread, some of them have been ignoring the laws and the Mayor. </p>

[nathan_tia]

<p>

<blockquote>

<p >

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2128740">Michael Wakslicht</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /></a>, Apr 10, 2009; 01:22 a.m.</p>

 

<p >Bob Atkins: I took a photo of a plant growing between the tracks on a NYC subway track. A police officer questioned me and told me to delete the photo. I cooperated with him to avoid trouble. .....But what could have happened if I insisted I'm not a terrorist and refused to delete the photo? It sounds like a perfect example of the settlement situation you described. There was some big shots in the United Nations that day, except I was in another borough of NYC all together.</p>

 

</p>

</blockquote>

<p >Michael,</p>

<p >If you didn't delete and caused a scene, in this case you may have been slapped with a trespassing charge. If you were on the tracks (that is). Most tracks are not public property. If I were caught on the track I would kiss ass and try to get out of trespassing charges. Then retrieve images later. However, if you are on public property i would tell the police to stick it. I didn't break any laws and they have nothing on me.</p>

<p >Nate</p>

</p>