Have you ever had the cops called on you for having an SLR Camera?

[scooter0071]

<p>Well this is what happened to me. I was walking several blocks from my home to a park I go to about 3 times a week. A guy drove by me several times, the last time while driving he was taking a photo of me with his phone. I remember this guy as a person who followed me several blocks last year from this same park. Well this time he called the cops and told them I was at the park (actually when he saw me I had not yet got there) taking photos of young kids. Well a local cop showed up and questioned me. He informed me that they were responding to a suspicious person with a large camera taking pics of kids call. I informed him I had not taken any photos yet that day yet but definitely would not photo any other persons child ever without consent, even though legally I am aware I could without with breaking any laws. I just would not be comfortable with that. The officer agreed I had not broken any laws even if I would have photoed kids at the park. I informed the officer I come to this park several times a week to photo birds and bunnies and an occasional military jet that goes by. We are close to an Air Force Base. My question to you all is have any of you had the cops called on you simply for having a camera and how did you handle it?</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>While working for the paper I have had numerous citizens confront me about taking pictures. If I am in a kind mood I tell them I am a photojournalist and they usually become instantly friendly and apologetic. If I am in a bad mood or they rub me the wrong way, I tell them to get lost without an explanation. Most of the cops know me so it is not an issue. Sometimes they don't like what I am photographing but they also know that we both have jobs to do.</p>

<p>IF I were hassled by a cop (and it hasn't happened) I would go the very next day and file an official complaint with internal affairs. I would accuse the cop of violating my constitutional rights. I would give a copy of my complaint to my elected officials and consider consulting with the local chapter of the ACLU. I would consider this to be that serious.</p>

<p>We had an incident with a paper I used to work for. The other photographer was photographing a particularly bad traffic accident in which some young people were killed. One of the cops on the scene lost control of himself and threatened the PJ. The paper came to his defense with the police in no uncertain terms. Most police departments do not want a turf war with the media. They always lose them.</p>

<p>It seems to me that the cop you met handled it very well. </p>

<p>A bit of understanding goes a long way. 20 years ago a person with a camera shooting children could pretty much only take them home and look at them. Creepy as it 'could' be mostly no harm no foul. Now there are websites devoted to pictures of children may of which push the bounds of propriety. Now a child can be exploited without his/her consent in a much more invasive way. </p>

<p>I am glad you ask the parents. No you are not required to in the US as far as I know, but it is the wise and kind thing to do to ask. I have found that most people are pretty understanding once they know what you want the pictures for. </p>

[starshooter]

<p>As a photojournalist I carried a press card for many years. I have even had Secret Service, Olympics and United Nations press cards. Press cards used to be magic especially in New York City and Los Angeles because the police were known to be serious about checking press card holders out.<br>

But today's world is a different one. A lot of jurisdictions don't give out press cards, they are afraid of a lawsuit for preventing legitimate press photographers from doing their job.<br>

As for non-press photographers, the world seems to be full of busybodies these days. I wonder what having a "large camera" has to do with anything.<br>

I read about one guy who wore a loud neon safety-type sleeveless jacket when he did street photography -- no one could say he was sneaking around. Maybe you should think about a jacket that says "Bird Photographer" in big letters on the back. You should not have to do this but times are a'changing and not for the better. Good luck.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I'd call the local police public relations folks and *calmly* discuss it with them. In some cities the departments have specific policies regarding photography, including to leave photographers alone if they're doing nothing specifically illegal such as trespassing. However even with those policies some individual officers don't get the message. It's entirely possible your call may help.</p>

<p>If anything, you might have an equally valid complaint against the driver. If he drove by several times, as you described, and photographed you from his vehicle, in some jurisdictions that may be considered stalking. But don't expect the authorities to consider this a valid complaint. It's a point of logic more than a point of law.</p>

<p>The officer was only doing what he believed at the moment was part of the job. But unless the complaint and the response was in connection with an illegal activity, there was no reason to investigate. If carrying a large camera and photographing kids, adults, bunnies, buildings or bugs in a public place isn't illegal, it makes no sense to investigate. But not everything the authorities do makes sense. Often they do it because they worry about the consequences for not having investigated if something does go badly.</p>

<p>Generally speaking in the US there is no *legal* difference between carrying a camera to photograph birds, bunnies, bugs, blossoms or buildings in a place where you have a right to be, and photographing people, of any age, in a public place or anywhere else you have a right to be. So unless they send officers to investigate people with big cameras photographing wildflowers in a public park, why would they do so for photographing people in a public park?</p>

<p>Now, prepare yourself for some contrary opinions, and the usual rash of logical fallacies based on emotion, fear, uncertainty and doubt. But civil rights and liberties of all kinds are only as good as the people who claim them. It is the nature of authority to continually push the boundaries toward infringing on rights. The burden falls to the individuals and groups infringed upon to defend their rights, or lose them.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Find out who this fellow is and get a restraining order against him. And be careful. He sounds as though he may be cut from the same cloth as a certain overzealous Florida resident who made headlines in the last year.</p>

<p>I never get hassled by police. Security guards, occasionally. Park rangers, they're the worst. I was once shooting a crumbling structure at a historical site, and a ranger pulled up in his car and warned me about photographing "government buildings." He drove away and left me to wonder what use the government had for a condemned pile of bricks.</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<blockquote>

<p>...civil rights and liberties of all kinds are only as good as the people who claim them. It is the nature of authority to continually push the boundaries toward infringing on rights. The burden falls to the individuals and groups infringed upon to defend their rights, or lose them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Couldn't say it better, Lex.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>I've never been approached by a cop. I've had a rancher walk out with a shotgun -- nice guy, actually. He thought I was weird, but he had no problems with my photographing his barn. I also make the local power station / refinery security staff rather edgy whenever I have a camera anywhere around their property. They've dispatched trucks full of men (5 at a time!) a few times now to inquire what I'm doing. I've never been told to go away, only to be careful, but to carry on.</p>

<p>I HAVE encountered people who got all freaky about my camera and would express very strongly they didn't want to photographed. I rather like Wayne's idea ("BIRD PHOTOGRAPHER"), except instead, I would put my photos on the web and print "See my work at (web address)" on my photographer's vest, front and back. Anyone with any questions could visit my website to see what I photograph.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Derailing again?<br>The thread started as one about people being suspicious about other people taking photos (enough so to seek help battling the perceived danger), but in reply #1 and from there on it has been about authorities and your struggle, or lack thereof, with them.<br>This is about your fellow citizens being suspicious about you, not about you being suspicious about the authorities.

[sarah_fox]

<p>And how has your response contributed to this discussion, QG?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Q.G., yours was the first post attempting to derail the conversation. This is the casual photo conversations forum. Photography is a form of communication and expression. Discussions about relevant issues, including liberties, rights, ethics, rules, restrictions, and the variations and vagaries among the many cultures and nations of our diverse membership seem entirely appropriate. There's a difference between relevant tangents that might delve into the nature of governmental roles in rights, and irrelevant politicking about ones favorite or least favorite politician, party, etc. Most of us know the difference even when we occasionally cross that gray line.</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>Wow, I must be the odd duck in the pond. Where I go I see no security or police....sometimes I may encounter a ranger. Nature is great.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>The irony is that the people with dubious motives would not advertise themselves by toting a clearly visible camera, they would use the camera in their mobile 'phone.</p>

[pjmeade]

<p>In the UK there was a period when the police regularly stopped photographers of all kinds using anti-terrorist laws, alleging that someone with a camera could be information gathering for an attack.<br>

I was threatened with arrest once at Horseguards Parade, at an event my wife was involved with.<br>

Eventually someone took a case to the European Court of Human Rights and the police were shown to be in the wrong, which lead to a change of policy.<br>

I've still got my "I'm a photographer not a terrorist" hoodie, but these days I wear it to the gym.</p>

[jordan2240]

<p>Never confronted, but I do get some dirty looks when I wander through the neighborhood with the 100-300 zoom on the camera. And these are probably the same people who post their entire lives and the lives of their children/grandchildren on facebook.</p>

[peter_doucette]

<p>Aren't there laws about using your phone while driving? I would be taking pictures of people doing dangerous and illegal things, and calling the police to make my neighborhood a safer place to live. And if the police were told I was taking pictures of children in the park. I would ask about filing false reports.<br>

But, be careful, he might be like the guy Dan S. mentioned above.</p>

[William Kahn]

<blockquote>

<p>This is about your fellow citizens being suspicious about you, not about you being suspicious about the authorities.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Q.G. is right. Two possible scenarios here: (a) Police get a call from a citizen about suspicious activity. (b) Police officer/security guard/park ranger, etc., see what they <em>think</em> is suspicious behavior, investigate, and screw it up. The OP is clearly about situation (a). It's important to remember that, if someone calls the police about suspicious behavior, <em>they must respond - period.</em> They got the call, an officer responded and handled the situation properly. Move along, folks, nothing to see here.</p>

<p>Edit: I meant to point out that the thread title is misleading. The call was not about a person with an SLR camera.</p>

<p>So, Bill, were you shooting a Canon in a town full of Nikon owners, or what? ;-)</p>

[scooter0071]

<p>LOL William. I was actually using my new Nikon D800 (LOVE IT) that I upgraded from my D300 that he saw me with last year. Maybe hes a Canon guy? That with the 70-200 2.8 made me suspicious I guess. I can not fault the officer that responded as he was only doing his job as he had to. He even knew that even if I would have been taking photos of kids it was not illegal. Once again that's not in my comfort zone anyway so that part is a non-issue. And since he was very professional I even offered by saying I know legally I am not required to but I am willing to let you view the photos that I have on the camera. He declined to even look at them. I guess I was not so suspicious to him.</p>

[Rick Helmke]

<p>When working as a media photographer I've been questioned more than a few times, asked for credentials and occasionally asked to leave. Ironically at least to me, I've never been approached for any reason when shooting for other reasons and my cameras all tend to be large SLR's.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Relevant or not, I've never been stopped with an SLR in hand, although I've had fairly frequent questioning when I am shooting old rangefinders and viewfinder cameras of the 1970s.</p>

<p>Is there something innately threatening about a Canonet 17?</p>

<p>I do avoid helicopter snipers when carrying my large telephotos.</p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>I'm convinced much of this is random - it's like any other unexpected collision of particles in the universe. I spent more than a decade of my spare time wandering around DC and northern Virginia, shooting whatever I saw, without a single confrontation with anyone - despite advice on these forums that there is often aggressive patrol of photography by authorities in those areas. Yet, since I moved back to liberal, do-what-you-please Vancouver I've been approached (and reproached) multiple times in the past year and a half for wandering around and shooting whatever I saw. In one case I was told that I couldn't shoot photos of a marina from a public sidewalk "because management doesn't like it". They threatened to call the RCMP, and I suggested that was likely the best thing since we weren't going to agree on whether I should photograph from there, but that I would stop until they showed up if that helped. After waiting around for 15 minutes I wandered off - apparently it wasn't that important that they should actually call the police.</p>

<p>I find humor usually helps - one guy was just upset at me because he thought I was with some kind of secret police organization and we ended up laughing about that before we were done talking. But you never know.</p>

[William Kahn]

<p>Kind of makes me wish I still had my old 16mm Minox spy camera. Oh, wait.....never mind!</p>

[CoryAmmerman]

<p>Q.G. de Baker:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Derailing again?<br />The thread started as one about people being suspicious about other people taking photos (enough so to seek help battling the perceived danger), but in reply #1 and from there on it has been about authorities and your struggle, or lack thereof, with them.<br />This is about your fellow citizens being suspicious about you, not about you being suspicious about the authorities.<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The last line from the OP is </p>

<blockquote>

<p>My question to you all is have any of you had the cops called on you simply for having a camera and how did you handle it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Who is really off topic here?</p>

[William Kahn]

<blockquote>

<p>Who is really off topic here?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>No one. The call was really about a suspicious adult male photographing young kids, not about having a camera.</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>Operator: "911. What's your emergency?"<br /><br />Caller: "I think there's a man taking photos of children in the public park."<br /><br />Operator:"Has he approached them, touched them, or molested them in any way?"<br /><br />Caller: "No."<br /><br />Operator: "Is he using extraordinary means to take photos of children where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, like under their clothes or in a bathroom, without their knowledge?"<br /><br />Caller: "No."<br /><br />Operator: "Then he's doing nothing wrong. Have a nice day."</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>I sometimes get unfriendly stares when I'm with my camera among strangers, but not since I started wearing around my neck a VIP circus pass which is a laminated card that looks remarkably similar to a press pass. </p>