Stopped by a policeman for taking pictures of a church

[ned1]

<p>I knew perfectly well what he was doing was illegal. That very fact made it seem unwise for me to challenge him.</p>

<p>My guess is this had something to do with the corruption scandal and he was trying to chase off what must have looked like a journalist.</p>

[john_ashby2]

<p>I guess you should consider your self luck. This was big news in Seattle 5 years ago: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001979027_locks14m.html</p>

<p>It's really not the land of the free any more.</p>

[gene thornton]

<p>Here in Fort Lauderdale we have a sea port, it handles cargo and fuel ships, there also are pleasure cruse ships, the US Navy often has some ships here as well. since 9/11 the sheriff has become paranoid. There is now a fence around the convention center which is in the port and to get in for any reason you must have previous clearance, a visitor must produce a photo ID and don't even think of taking pictures.<br>

This is where this story leads, in front of the convention center is a fountain with a sail fish standing on its tail, the display has running water and is lit at night. I wanted to photograph this, first I had to get permission from the convention center director, then upon arriving on the specified evening (no activity in the center) I stopped at the security gate and explained to the deputy what I wanted to do, he was quick to respond "No pictures in the port" I then explained that the director had OK this, so he calls his Sargent and I was let in. I had my drivers license scanned and I was issued a pass and an armed deputy as an escort.<br>

While I was there the depuity just sat in his car watching, he seemed like a nice guy so I asked him why all this security just to take a photo of the fountain. He explained that no pictures were to be taken facing the water, I mentioned there is a building between the fountain and the water, you can't see the water from here. Yeah, I know was the answer, but I don't make the rules.<br>

So I inquired as to what they do when the tourists pull out there cameras and start taking pictures, he run the window up and drove off.<br>

All this gotta make us feel safer</p>

<p> </p>

[andrevallejo]

<p>That's one of the reasons I usually travel to Europe on vacations...!</p>

[michael s.]

<p>Bob Ervin wrote:<br /> <em><< ...State of New Jersey v Stampone </em> it will clarify the inappropriate actions of the LEO who questioned you. ... >></p>

<p>I just read <em>Stampone</em> . And I liked the opinion and agree with the Court. But that opinion in no way clarifies -- for me at least -- that the officer who questioned Edward did anything inappropriate.</p>

<p>Quite the contrary. While the Court said the circumstances in <em>Stampone</em> (man sitting in a parked car at 5:00 pm who said he was waiting for his girlfriend) did not warrant a <em>Terry</em> stop, the opinion went on almost immediately to say the following:</p>

<p>"<em>This is not to say that Officer Fazio was prohibited from approaching defendant and<br /> engaging him in voluntary conversation, i.e., a field inquiry." [pdf of the opinion, on page 4]<br /> </em></p>

<p>As I read Edward's description of his Passaic encounter, it was certainly no more than a field inquiry. So far as we know from what Edward has written, his i.d. was not requested, he was not patted down for weapons, and he was plainly permitted to go on about his business -- taking photos -- after his conversation with the officer.</p>

<p><em>Stampone</em> was completely different. Mr. Stampone's i.d. was demanded, and he was ultimately arrested, and then prosecuted and convicted for two offenses: (i)failing to exhibit his license and (ii)disorderly conduct.</p>

<p>I'm glad you pointed out the <em>Stampone</em> opinion, Bob, because it was worth the read and because I'm glad to see the occasional Appellate Court decision I agree with, and language I appreciate. But I just don't believe the <em>Stampone</em> case says much about Edward's experience in Passaic. To the extent it says anything, it supports what I've been saying in my posts above: the officer speaking to Edward to ask what he (Edward) was doing was not unlawful, and not even inappropriate, but that officer would've done better had he used a slightly different approach and different language.</p>

<p>@ Edward: You think he gave you a rough time, but imagine what would've happened had you turned out to be councilman instead of a photographer :)</p>

[jtk]

<p>The cop gave you something to talk about. Be happy.</p>

[doug_santo]

<p>The only thing I want to know is if you went to Rutt's Hut after you finished your photos?</p>

<p>The site listed below includes a write-up in .pdf format of generalized photographer's rights from an attorney who works in this area of the law.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm">http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm</a></p>

[vic_reynolds]

<p>Never really had that problem-especially my taking photos of churches at night. I may get an occasional passerby, but that's all.<br>

I think the officer sounded a tad paranoid. To be honest, I find more threatening folks inside the church than folk outside making images.<br>

Oh well, at least he didn't haul you in.</p>

[michael s.]

<p>Edward wrote:</p>

<p><em><< ... I knew perfectly well what he was doing was illegal. ... >></em></p>

<p>Nope. Certainly not "illegal" for an officer to simply ask what you're doing, and once he determines you're photographing, to sit in the squad car and watch as you continue to take pictures. That does not violate any law I'm aware of in any part of the U.S., nor does it violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure. (Fourth Amendment considerations are at the heart of the so-called "Terry stop," referred to above.)</p>

<p>Now, whether the officer's actions constituted good or bad law enforcement, whether they were supported by sensible underlying law enforcement policy and strategy ... Those are questions well worth asking.</p>

[ned1]

<p>I believe it's called "profiling". And yes, however much talking heads on Fox will say it's legal, it isn't.</p>

[clivefox]

<p>I love the USA and have many friends there, but is times like this when I am glad I live Down Under. Our policemen are too busy chasing the bad guys to worry about photgraphers</p>

[ned1]

<p>OK, I just developed the film and here is the actual picture that I was taking at the time. I leave it to you to decide if I could have been perceived as a threat to the church.</p><div></div>

[michael s.]

<p>Edward wrote:</p>

<p><em><< I believe it's called "profiling". And yes, however much talking heads on Fox will say it's legal, it isn't >></em></p>

<p>You'll never find me among the talking heads on Fox, Edward. Never.</p>

<p>{For Clive Fox from Australia, and for others from countries outside the U.S., Edward's reference to "Fox" is shorthand for "Fox News," a t.v. channel known in the U.S. as home to some commentators on the -- how to say this delicately ? -- the right, or perhaps far right, side of the political spectrum.}</p>

<p>Sorry -- you've gotta come up with more than a simple declaration that it's illegal.</p>

<p>"Profiling" is something I'm a bit familiar with. It's a serious problem, but in my view the questioning of a white, middle aged photographer as to what he's photographing when his camera is pointed at a religious building is certainly <em>not</em> a classic case of profiling.</p>

<p>This ACLU page is not a bad place to start for a basic discussion of profiling, for those who may be interested:</p>

<p>http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/racialprofiling/index.html</p>

[ned1]

<p>You got it. I was profiled for doing a perfectly legal activity: taking photographs. Profiling isn't just about race.</p>

<p>And for what it's worth, I was a white man in a non-white neighborhood, so it may have been reverse racial profiling.</p>

<p>And what really sucks is I was planning on taking a bunch more pictures of the church closer up but it was just too uncomfortable being stared at while I was working.</p>

<p>I know it may sound as if I am over reacting, but frankly I felt violated.</p>

[nyphotopro]

<p>I suggest you head over to: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm and print out (multiple times) "The Photographer's Rights" PDF and keep a bunch of them in your camera case, waiting to hand one to the type of cop who thinks he/she can stop you from taking a photo in public just because they can. If you act like you know your rights and demonstrate that you know your rights, they'll be less inclined to mess with you if you stand your ground.</p>

<p>You might want to read this story about the attempted ban by the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority on photography: http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2005/05/subway.html</p>

<p>You also might be interested in downloading a memo produced by the Washington law firm of Covington & Burling for the National Press Photographers Association which basically refutes the incorrect notion that cops have the authority to simply stop photographers from "making pictures in public places." The link to the downloadable PDF of the memo is embedded in the body of the posting:<br>

http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2005/08/rights.html<br>

I suggest printing out a few of that memo, too, and giving it to a cop to read the next time one bugs you while you are engaged in the process of making a photo in public.</p>

<p>While I'm not trying to give legal advice, my understanding is that the memo makes it abundantly clear that as long as you're not trespassing on private property and are in an area that the rest of the general public can be in and you're not interfering with police, firefighters or other public workers or officials in the performance of their duty, and you're not causing some sort of problem by your actions, you can pretty much photograph whatever you see.</p>

<p>Good luck,<br>

Matt Snider, Former Assoc. Regional Director, Region 8, NPPA</p>

[peter_szwed]

<p>I'm a New Jersey resident in a largeish town away from any city. I've never been harrased when I've been out late taking pictures. At most, the local cops are interested in what kind of equipment I'm using and they're usually surprised I can get away with the available light. They've passed me taking pictures of the court houses, county building, even the police station it self, without even questioning me. Maybe they know me on sight and pass the word "he's harmless" or they have a less confrontational approach to checking me out.</p>

[michael s.]

<p>I was typing as you were posting your photo, Edward. Of course there's nothing even remotely threatening about it.</p>

<p>But that begs the question. First, there was no way for the officer to know what that photo, or for that matter any of your other photos, would look like. Moreover, it would be hard to envision that any photograph -- in and of itself -- would be constitute a "threat" to the church.</p>

<p>The officer questioned you to determine what you were doing out there. You answered -- apparently satisfactorily -- and he didn't stop you, interfere with you, or take his inquiry any further. His parting comment no doubt should have been much better, both more informative and less foreboding. To the extent that he was intimidating, that's unfortunate. I mean that. (See my earlier posts.)</p>

<p>Also, and I've said this before in other discussions, I think it is regrettable -- and I'll go further, I think it is <strong>wrong</strong> -- that photography on the public street is regarded by many as a "threatening" endeavor.</p>

[steven nelson]

<p>Whenever I am approached by police with a question like "what are you doing?" I now respond politely with an answer and a question such as "taking photographs, am I causing any problems?"<br>

<br />This past weekend I was taking a shot with my view camera from the top of a hill at a cemetery. A deputy pulled his car up behind me and walked towards me asking what I was doing. I answered and asked if I was causing a problem. He apologetically said no and told me he was at the cemetery to visit the grave of a colleague. Without asking I would not have known he was just being friendly and not harassing.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<blockquote>

<p>Without asking I would not have known he was just being friendly and not harassing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In that case you seriously have to work on your people skills, I mean come on. What's the big problem here anyway. Some of you act like you're dealing with aliens. I'm out there shooting a lot in lots of cities. Do you really think in Europe we never get asked questions by the police? It's simply part of their job. There's a big difference between asking a simple question which should be considered normal and harassing people. Nowhere in the OP's story one can find evidence of a policeman doing that. Big deal, there is no story here other than the fact that some of you have got rights on the brain. Reading all this one could wonder where the paranoia really is.<br>

Most are ordinary but professionally acting people in a often difficult and not to well paid job. No, I'm not one of them but in all my years out there I've had far more help from police officers than anything else. I think it's time for a bit of nuance here, don't you think.</p>

[ablyth]

<p>You missed a fantastic opportunity! You should have given the officer your business card and offered to shoot his daughter's wedding! ;)</p>

[mikael_karlsson]

<p>There's almost always something more to stories like this one and that "something more" is often something the individual questioned by law enforcement simply have no clue about, and have no way of having a clue about.<br /><br />- Could be a buy/bust of drugs going down in a nearby house and the PO was simply sitting on the perimeter observing/acting on activity in the area.<br />- Could be a recent series of crimes in the area (rape, home invasion, burglaries etc...) and the cop was there to have a police presence and to act on anything out of the ordinary and (not rightfully so) for this particular officer that happened to include photography.<br />- Could be the cop just had a huge fight with his wife, found out his daughter eloped, watched his kid OD on drugs, whatever and was in a really foul mood.<br />- Could be - as mentioned before - that the PO has really p*ss-poor people skills and that his "watch yourself" simply was his way of saying "take care and be safe".<br /><br />Does any of this make the field contact or questioning right? Nah, not really but maybe there's a different perspective on things. I'm not defending what the PO did, just saying there might be a lot of things going on that are crucial to why the OP was questioned to begin with.<br /><br />If you want to complain or want an explanation (or both) contact the Chief's office at the PD in question. Even if you don't have a badge number or name they will easily be able to figure out which PO this is/was. If you feel it needed log a complaint with the Chief's office.<br /><br />I interact with law enforcement all the time. I do crime scene photography for my local SO and PD's. While harassing people for no apparent reason is never good nor acceptable in any situation please remember that it is in the very nature of law enforcement to watch, ask questions, be familiar with what is going on in the neighborhood etc. Some Deputies and PO's aren't very good at it (just like all plumbers, computer programmers, farmers, doctors etc don't have excellent people-skills). Since contact with law enforcement is often something that makes us feel uneasy it tends to be reacted to in a different manner compared to, say, if your plumber sounded less that chirpy on the phone when you wanted him to come snake your drain out...</p>

[andre_noble5]

<p>I had three Beverly Hills squad cars repond to me when I was photgraphing a lovely synagogue with my 4x5 a couple years ago. Next door in Los Angeles, I never had that type of reaction when photographing synogogues. I am a minority who could pass for arab descent, but I think the larger issue is that the Beverly Hills cops have a lot of time on their hands between incidences of real crime</p>

[jennifer_r2]

<p>I was reading this and thinking that even though it made you uncomfortable, the police officer didn't try and stop you, he just made you uncomfortable because he stayed and watched...in my head, I was comparing it to other threads I have seen where photographers get indignant because they photograph people on the street and those subjects get upset because it makes them uncomfortable to be photographed by a stranger for an unknown purpose, even though it's also legal. Just something to think about. Is a police officer sitting there watching you any worse than a photographer taking pictures of strangers on a street if those people don't want there pictures taken?</p>

[david johnson]

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

<p>Gosh, I agree – not at all clear that the cops are the paranoid ones.<br /> <!-- [if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!-- [endif]--><br /> My first take on the phrase “Watch yourself”, was that the LEO had concern for your safety. I really do believe that. And, I expected to read further down that you went home, opened the newspaper and read that two days ago a photographer got hit on the head with a brick on the same corner and had all his gear stolen.<br /> <!-- [if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!-- [endif]--><br /> No offense to any individuals, but this story hardly warrants feelings that we live in a fascist state. I wasn’t there and perhaps the “watch yourself”, was delivered with an edge to it, but still, no request for an ID, no pat down, no demand that you pack up and move along? Sorry, I do not see anything illegal or profiling in his actions. Poor communications skills? Perhaps. Illegal? No.<br /> <!-- [if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!-- [endif]--><br /> What if a scruffy looking large person walked by you and acted the same and used the same words and then stood around watching you? What if he asked how much that fancy gear was worth? Nothing illegal in that is there? Perhaps the arrival of the police car in those circumstances might be viewed differently?<br /> <!-- [if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!-- [endif]--><br /> As a matter of fact, a few weeks ago I was in an almost identical situation, except it was daytime. On a trip to my wife’s small hometown to view her Mother’s recently placed grave marker she requested that I take a number of nostalgia shots, like her childhood home, grandparent’s old house, her school and church.<br>

Church was in a transitional neighborhood and when we arrived a couple of perhaps under the influence youths staggered by so we left the camera in the truck while we walked about the church looking at light and angles until they left. Shortly after we began shooting a police car arrived and then pulled into the parking lot opposite the church and just observed us and appeared to busy himself with paperwork until we left. I was OK with that, though a little paranoid as I had beer on my breath and a cooler in the back seat (wife was designated driver and her hometown and the road to it are very boring so I was enjoying a beer or two). Glad he did not ask us what we were up to and smell my breath.<br /> <!-- [if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!-- [endif]--><br /> I noticed that the church courtyard had surveillance cameras, and was sad that petty robberies and vandalism justified the expense of this gear at a small town church. And I imagine that neighbors seeing me walk about the churchyard and buildings without my camera might have taken pause for concern and perhaps called the police.<br /> <!-- [if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!-- [endif]--><br /> There is usually more to every story.</p>

[ross_odom]

<p>Here in Dallas I never have a problem with the cops. I live downtown and they're everywhere. It's the security guards that are always getting in my face. I don't violate any property laws, so they have nothing on me. When they threaten to call the police, I say go ahead, and they pretend to call the police. I loiter around awhile, maybe take another shot, and eventually walk on.</p>