A bit O.T. -- Stops by police in the U.S.

[michael s.]

<p>Several times on this Forum, we have discussed what appears to be an increasing tendency on the part of police in the United States to stop persons on the public street who are engaged in what is often referred to as "suspicious behavior." </p>

<p>On occasion the so-called "suspicious behavior" has been nothing more than photography -- an activity many of us believe ought not be regarded, in an of itself, as suspicious.</p>

<p>Here is an Associated Press article which, while <em>not</em> <em>about photography</em> , addresses the prevalence of stops in the U.S., objections to the practice, and consequences of it:</p>

<p>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091008/ap_on_re_us/us_stop_and_frisk</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p><em>"Police in major U.S. cities stop and question more than a million people each year — a sharply higher number than just a few years ago. Most are black and Hispanic men. Many are frisked, and nearly all are innocent of any crime"</em></p>

<p>this is completely O/T; it's about racial profiling, not photography. i'm not sure what the implications are for photographers.<em></em></p>

<p>i will say that i live in Oakland, i'm African American, and i've never been stopped by police and hassled while out shooting.<em> </em> yet racial profiling does exist--it's an ongoing issue in most major cities, and certainly in Oakland. the irony here is that cameras and cel-phone videos are becoming increasingly important in cases of citizen journalists documenting evidence of police misconduct.<em></em></p>

<p>OTOH, i just read a story in Vanity Fair about the Pakistani terror attack in India last year--truly frightening stuff.<em> In this case, the police didnt notice any suspicious activity until it was too late, and actually could have stopped the attacks before they happened, but ignored an undercover agent who infiltrated the terrorist cel and sold them SIM cards, by which they could have been traced. for his heroism, he was arrested and charged with conspiracy (true story).<br /> </em></p>

[michael s.]

<p>No argument, Eric. (And I, too, pointed out that this article is <em>not</em> about photography.) </p>

<p>An issue of interest to me, in a more general way, is the sort of behavior -- <em>short of the commission of a crime</em> -- that leads to a person being stopped by police these days. Related issues include the manner in which such stops are documented, if at all, and the consequences of that documentation.</p>

<p>(I'll take a look at that "Vanity Fair" piece if I can.)</p>

[jeff_conrad]

<p>This behavior isn't new to NYC. In 1999, the New York Attorney General's office released a <a href="http://www.oag.state.ny.us/bureaus/civil_rights/pdfs/stp_frsk.pdf"> report</a> (PDF) on the NYPD's “stop-and-frisk” practice. Unsuprisingly, the report noted that there sometimes are disparities between what's legal and what actually happens. Police everywhere have long stretched the law when they felt it impeded doing their jobs, and in many cases, it probably is motivated by a genuine concern for officer safety.</p>

<p>What I find disturbing is that the article states, “The practice is perfectly legal” without mentioning the conditions to which it is subject. A stop is lawful if the police have specfic and articulable facts that suggest that the person stopped is involved in a crime; a frisk is lawful if, in addition, police have specific and articlulable facts that suggest the person stopped may be armed and dangerous. A good starting point for an example is <em>Terry v. Ohio</em> : Detective McFadden observed three men who appeared to be “casing a job, a stickup.” The situations described in the article don't seem to come even close; in fact, photography might seem suspicious by comparison.</p>

<p>Fortunately, the police in the SF Bay Area don't seem quite so aggressive, and in particular, don't generally seem to harass photographers, as Eric mentioned. In 30 years, I haven't even been approached by the police. So far, anyway.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>Every time I come across stuff like this, i just remember a quote by Benjamin Franklin...."<strong>They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety...."</strong></p>

 

[walter_degroot]

<p>gee my 38 year old son was asked by a uniformed officer, while buying coffee, and when his large automatic pistol<br>

peeked out from under his sweater.<br>

if he had a permit. he answered Yes and was asked what kind of pistol it was.<br>

it was an unusual caliber<br>

the officer asked to examine it " gee I never saw one of those"<br>

making comments. he NEVER asked to see the permit.<br>

of course we do live in America<br>

( true story)</p>

[tomwatt]

<p>Andy of Mayberry used to check suspicious activity too. I think it's always been there in one manner or another, and abuses have been there right along with them... just that the possibility of the stakes being higher raises the blood pressure of the patrolling police considerably, never knowing if a casual stop is going to find more than just someone going about their business, even if the business is slightly shady.<br>

I always respond to the police as if I've just run into a long-lost buddy, and I always receive good, decent, respectful and fair treatment (meaning, I do get a ticket from time to time). If a policeman asks you a question and you turn and run, what are the police to think? Or if you snarl at them in response to a question, what's going to happen?<br>

Not long ago, I saw a nifty looking knife on a policeman's belt and asked about it... he took it off his belt and gave it to me to fiddle with - it was a hi-tech switchblade, nice knife. I've also talked with some about their weapons, and preferences. And have even been allowed to poke my head into the front of patrol cars to see how their computer laptop mounts were installed. While most people fall into that large group of folks that are "not criminal but ordinary citizens", cops are usually making instant judgement calls in their heads - threat/non-threat, criminal/non-criminal.</p>

[mikael_karlsson]

<p>Would y'all prefer it if LE wouldn't do any crime preventative work at all? Just react to crimes after they happen? Doing forensic photography for my SO, react to violent death, serious injury and fatality traffic accidents is a big part of what I do. I will always prefer a sobriety checkpoint that tests drivers at random to having to go out at 3 in the morning to photograph a couple of teenagers who are dead in a ditch because one of them decided he, or she, was "sober enough" to drive. Preventative work cuts down on crime and with less crime there are less victims hurting or worse. I can't tell you how much drugs I've seen coming off the streets because of simple "stop and ask" occasions. Cops, like customs inspectors, need to be able to conduct random controls every now and then.<br /><br />I agree 100% that there must be checks and balances for when LE can stop, question and search. But it needs to be weighed against crime prevention. The vast majority of people stopped are nice enough about it but there's always someone who decides to be an absolute a$$ just for wanting to be an a$$. Most cops I know - and I know a lot - give the same respect and treatment they are given when interacting with a member of the general public.<br /><br />I know what it feels like to wrestle someone who's high on PCP in the morning and an hour later conduct a routine traffic stop that goes bad and an hour after that having to put on a big smile interacting with a member of the gp. Cops are human too. Sometimes there are bad days. Sometimes there are bad cops, just like in any other profession. </p>

[sam_motskin]

<p>I totally agree with Tom. That has been my experience as well all along. If you treat police with respect and behave with dignity and self-respect they'll treat you the same. They have a tough job to do being between a hammer and the hard place. If they prevent a crime they are accused by certain activist and political groups of profiling whatever that is. If they don't they are accused by the same people of not doing their job. I think we need to keep cool head, see the things for what they are, and avoid generalizations. </p>

<p>Yes, there are bad cops, but there are areas in big cities where I being a Caucasian can't go without risking my life</p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Would y'all prefer it if LE wouldn't do any crime preventative work at all? Just react to crimes after they happen?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i don't think that's the issue here.</p>

<p>i dont think anyone is advocating for anarchy and lawlessness. and treating police with respect in interactions with them goes a long way. in general, having a positive attitude and being honest if you were speeding, running a red light, etc., can result in police not playing "bad cop."</p>

<p>at the same time, if you look at the original article the OP linked to, it's clearly stating that there is a racial disparity in cases of people randomly frisked and that most of those people are 100% innocent. so it comes down to methodology, and begs the question of whether LE is actually engaging in crime-prevention or just harrassing people of a certain ethnicity.</p>

<p>there's definitely room for improvement in the absolute least, and as far as NYC goes, the Amadou Diallo and Sean Bell situations are examples which should have resulted in clear lessons being learned, but apparently haven't.</p>

<p>sure, police have a difficult job--i don't think anyone's debating that--but they can also be guilty of having a "us vs. them" mentality.</p>

<p>i'll tell you one place you definitely don't want to take photographs: near or in a cop bar. there's no telling what a drunk, off-duty, armed police officer might do to anyone snooping around. (fyi, cops have extremely high levels of alcoholism, domestic violence, and suicide--it's a stressful job, for sure.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>there are areas in big cities where I being a Caucasian can't go without risking my life</p>

</blockquote>

<p>just want to address this here real quick. speaking of avoiding generalizations, there are some assumptions in this statement, it seems, that areas which are unsafe for Caucasians are somehow safe for everyone else. I don't think so. a high-crime, low-income area is a dangerous environment, period. the danger is the same for anyone who's not from there and who has no business being there. sure, being white in the ghetto can make you stick out like a sore thumb, but its not as if everyone else gets a pass when it comes to criminals looking for prey. and it's not like stray bullets automatically target Caucasians over anyone else. just something to think about.</p>

[walter_degroot]

<p>we often think of the police as big macho guys.<br>

maybe a few are<br>

but most are oriented to helping people.<br>

des.<br>

and the movements people make.<br>

" I knew he was a perp, he acted liklea perp " sort of a third sense that policemen learn of usually learn.<br>

I think the convesation with my son was casual because he knew he was legal.<br>

accidental or "incidental" exposure of a concealed weapon is part of the law.<br>

Brandishing is not.</p>

[tomwatt]

<p>Eric, that's an excellent point. I know of areas in the South (where I am from) that are 'no go' areas for the police from about sundown on Friday night until time for church on Sunday morning. One needn't be any particular race, creed or color to be murdered there.<br>

Police are sometimes big macho guys. And some are veterans, just returned from the theater of combat. With reflexes still at a high level, and prone to being jumpy. You also don't know whether or not their best buddy was gunned down last week at a convenience store, etc. So you cannot know their state of mind while LE is doing their job.<br>

Jumpy? So what you say? When I first got out of the Army, I was walking along the sidewalk on a quiet midwestern main street when a UPS driver behind me dropped his aluminum dolly onto the pavement. The clanging sound was (in my mind) identical to that of an M-16 being locked for firing. My companions were astounded to see that I had hit the deck and was half-concealed beneath a parked truck in the wink of an eye. It just happens.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>" I knew he was a perp, he acted liklea perp " sort of a third sense that policemen learn of usually learn.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>someone's been watching too many TV crime shows.</p>

<p>let me give you an example of why racial profiling isn't necessarily effective. there was a recent quadruple murder in farmville va. the suspect was a "normal"-looking 20 yr old white kid from california who met a 16-year old online. he got into an argument with her over a text message she received from another guy and killed her, her best friend, and her parents. then he apprently spent some time alone with the dead bodies.</p>

<p>here's the kicker: the police were called to the home twice--once by the parents of the friend, once by the perp himself. both times, they failed to deduct that there were four dead bodies in the home. once they even searched another area of the home and found nothing. it wasnt until after the bodies were discovered and the suspect was ID's by an tipster that the kid was caught, and then only because he didnt have enough money to change his flight and was sleeping at the airport. there are dozens, if not hundreds of similar cases, of cops letting criminals get away through not doing due diligence.</p>

<p>so that cop radar stuff is pure poppycock.</p>

<p>i honestly dont think racial profiling can be justified in all cases, though obviously, it's a common practice which maybe results in some fluke arrests which otherwise wouldnt have happened but more often than not resulting in innocent citizens being harassed. the skip gates thing is a good example. one of Time magazine's 20 most influential Americans arrested for breaking into his own house. had law enforcement been doing their job, they would have checked his ID, verified his story, and left quietly.</p>

<p>getting back to the original topic, which is 'suspicious behavior' and how that affects photography, i'd say if you are out shooting it kind of depends where you are. random cop stops are one thing, but i dont think photographers in this country are being targeted more than anyone else. if you're acting strange and funny, and there's a cop around, i would hope that cop <em>would</em> stop you.</p>

<p>the first rule of thumb is that trespassing is always suspicious. if you're photographing nuclear test sites or Area 51 or industrial complexes or something, that's definitely suspicious behavior. ditto for government buildings. if you're on private property, you might have more to worry about than the police if you're caught snooping.</p>

<p>where cops are concerned, they probably dont want you taking pics of their crime scene or observing traffic stops too closely (unless you're invited for a ride-around or have a press badge). they probably dont want you taking their picture without asking. they may ask you to delete pics, which is technically within your right not to in most cases, but if you disagree, you could be charged with a crime which may or may not later be dropped and arrested. politeness does go a long way with cops, but cops arent always polite themselves.</p>

<p>bottom line, i think, is have a business card or something which identifies you as a photographer in case you do get stopped.</p>

[mikael_karlsson]

<p>Racial profiling is not a good thing. But where are the lines drawn? Two recent personal experiences as examples:<br /> <br /> 1. We see four young (mid teens) African-American males driving down the road in a very high-crime area. They drive slightly over the speed limit. They're driving a brand new Lexus SUV with plates from a different area of town. Attire is typical of the area they're driving in. We turn around (4 caucasian dudes in a mini-van) and they take off. We give chase and they bolt. The Lexus had been stolen less than an hour ago.<br /> <br /> 2. Caucasian male between 30-40 is walking down the street at close to midnight in a predominately African-American neighborhood known for being a gang/high crime area with a plethora of crack-houses and prostitutes. The guy looks "normal". He doesn't have the "chicken walk" typical of crack heads, his clothes are clean (ish at least) and his demeanor is that of someone being out on a walk. He gets stopped (again by 4 white dudes in a mini-van) and questioned. He is clearly under the influence but we can't smell any alcohol on his breath. His pupils are very small contrary to what they should be at this late hour and it being fairly dark outside. He is asked a number of "control questions" (harmless questions such as where are you going? where are you coming from? what address does this friend live at? etc) and gives some "good" answers and some "bad" answers. The combination of the location, the late hour, his answers, and (the biggest factor) the apparent influence of something along with his small pupils, he is searched. In his waistband is a loaded pistol with one round in the chamber. In his pockets heroin and Rx pain pills (opiates) are found. <br /> <br /> In both cases arrests were made. Seemingly the initial reaction was due to the race of the players. But is this racial profiling? I don't know but I don't think so. It was simply a matter of the person(s) being out of place that lead to the initial reaction. On the other hand, the same course of action would be taken if the four young teens had been Hispanics, Caucasian etc driving in the same neighborhood. <br /> <br /> That same evening/night we stopped and questioned an older African-American male walking a small dog, in the same crime-infested neighborhood. Turns out the guy was lost, confused, and had walked into the wrong place. He was given a ride home. Also, numerous other people were stopped, asked questions and went on their merry way. Race made no difference in any of the stops.<br /> <br /> It's also worth noting that very rarely is it possible to see the race of a driver when conducting a traffic stop when it's dark outside. The reason for most traffic stops are speeding or erratic driving. Most of the time you end up behind the driver by luck/chance or he/she comes flying down the road and there's no time to see much of anything of the driver's features, let alone what race he/she is.<br /> <br /> Don't get me wrong folks, I think racial profiling stinks. It absolutely exists - sadly - and I hope that some day it will go away even though I honestly doubt it. As long as people have prejudices against others because of what they look like, racial profiling will be there no matter how wrong it is. Are some cops racist pigs? No doubt. Just like some plumbers are and some store clerks and some cashiers etc. It might be more visible in LE simply because of the high profile of things when they go bad. The vast, vast majority of LE want to help, protect, and assist though. But yes, just like in any other profession there absolutely are turdheads that should never ever have been able to even get into let alone graduate from the academy. These people normally get weeded out as their true ilk becomes apparent. Just like everywhere else, some slip through the cracks.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>In both cases arrests were made. Seemingly the initial reaction was due to the race of the players. But is this racial profiling? I don't know but I don't think so. It was simply a matter of the person(s) being out of place that lead to the initial reaction. On the other hand, the same course of action would be taken if the four young teens had been Hispanics, Caucasian etc driving in the same neighborhood.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>you answered your own question. if the same action would have been undertaken regardless of race, it's not racial profiling.</p>

 

[jeff_conrad]

<p>One needs to be very careful when using “stop.” If <em>stop</em> really does mean detention under circumstances of <em>Terry v. Ohio</em> , there needs to be an articulable suspicion of criminal activity. For the folks in the Lexus, speeding alone justified the stop, and attempted flight essentially demanded it. The cause to stop in the second two cases is far less obvious; from the description, though, it doesn't sound like either was actually a stop.</p>

<p>It's not uncommon to use <em>stop</em> loosely. But the distinction <em>is</em> important; careless use of <em>stop</em> last fall cost Palo Alto, California Police Chief Lynn Johnson her job. The distinction often gets lost in some of the endless discussions in this forum, as in <a href="../street-documentary-photography-forum/00UVVh">this thread</a> , where the OP wasn't stopped at all.</p>

<p>Again, “suspicious” isn't at all the same as “casing a job, a stickup.” People may differ on whether photographing a government building or an industrial complex is “suspicious,” but absent something else, it's not a basis for detention. Not even close.</p>

[mikael_karlsson]

<p>Good point Jeff, thanks for clarifying!</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>As a minority in the and 60s and 70s one gets used to it, quit buying expensive vehicles when I was young as a result of the high number of stops, "to make sure it was not stolen".</p>