ACLU Photography suit against LA County Sheriff Settled

[Damon DAmato]

<p><a href="http://www.laweekly.com/news/photography-is-no-longer-a-crime-in-los-angeles-5416532">This suit was brought against the LA County Sheriff</a> for interfering with photography, an activity protected by the First (freedom of speech) and Fourth (protection against unreasonable searches and seizures) Amendments.<br>

Deputies "have been accused of detaining legitimate photogs for snapping shots of what law enforcement deemed to be sensitive sites, such as courthouses, refineries, jails and tall buildings."<strong> <br /></strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />The ACLU argued that the policy of detaining photographers for taking pictures violated both the first (freedom of speech) and fourth (protection against unreasonable searches and seizures) amendments of the U.S. Constitution.</p>

<p>The training, supplied through a newsletter detailing the LASD policy and given to all new recruits and to all deputies assigned to patrol, states that members of the public 'have a First Amendment right to observe, take photographs, and record video in any public place where they are lawfully present” and prohibits deputies from “interfering, threatening, intimidating, blocking or otherwise discouraging' photographers from taking photos or video unless they are violating a law.</p>

</blockquote>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>In the wake of 9/11, the Los Angeles Police Department established an anti-terror laundry list of 48 suspicious activities, including taking pictures with <strong>"no aesthetic value,"</strong> that could be used to stop people for questioning.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The police aren't overworked enough without having to determine what is aesthetic and what isn't? Did they take art lessons as part of their training? </p>

<p>Wonder if the rest of the country's police forces will adopt the same policy and now focus more on crime stopping instead of wasting our resources over this crap. I know for a fact in towns with heavy tourist trade the police don't even look at you twice taking pictures of bridges, courthouses and local refineries so there doesn't seem to be a consistency in the law if this IS a real law.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>Damon, thank you for posting this.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The police aren't overworked enough without having to determine what is aesthetic and what isn't?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tim, I would put it another way. Aren't there enough things that are prohibited without the police inventing more?</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<blockquote>

<p>Wonder if the rest of the country's police forces will adopt the same policy and now focus more on crime stopping instead of wasting our resources over this crap.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />In another development today, <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/03/ferguson-cops-routinely-block-public-from-filming-them-doj-says/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+arstechnica%2Findex+%28Ars+Technica+-+All+content%29">according to Ars Technica</a>, Attorney General Holder released the Department of Justice' report about policing in Ferguson, MO. <br /><br />A big part of <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2015/3/4/read_doj_report_on_civil_rights">the report</a> had to do with police routinely preventing photography and videography of interactions with the public. I infer by this that Holder is telling local police officers and departments that they will find no protection from the federal legal system.</p>

[jeff_conrad]

<p>What constitutes “aesthetic value”? Porn? Would the average cop recognize “aesthetic value” if it bit him? OK, perhaps I’m being a bit too harsh.</p>

<p>I’m sure there are more than enough things that are prohibited without the police inventing more. But this is irrelevant; what matters is that in most cases, police lack the authority to invent more—that’s the prerogative of legislative bodies such as the Legislature and city council. And even they are constrained by the Constitution, which well might bar prohibiting photography except in the most extraordinary situations (e.g., certain military facilities). There is now a fair amount of jurisprudence suggesting that most photography is protected by the First Amendment, but I don’t think there is anything dispositive—such as a Supreme Court decision.</p>

<p>Is there any such law prohibiting “suspicious” photography in LA? You can be sure that had there been such a law—valid or otherwise—it would have been cited, and there would have been no settlement. Basically, unless there is a law barring an activity, the activity isn’t illegal, and police have no authority to detain someone for engaging in that activity. And in some cases, there is a specific right—such as granted by the Constitution—to engage in the activity, which is stronger protection than the fact that an activity simply isn’t illegal.</p>

<p>Alex Kozinsky—now chief judge of the Ninth Circuit—summed it up nicely in <em>Duran v. City of Douglas</em>, 904 F.2d 1372 (9th. Cir, 1990):</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If there is one irreducible minimum in our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, it is that a police officer may not detain an individual simply on the basis of suspicion in the air. No matter how peculiar, abrasive, unruly or distasteful a person’s conduct may be, it cannot justify a police stop unless it suggests that some <em>specific crime </em>has been, or is about to be, committed, or that there is an imminent danger to persons or property. Were the law any different—were police free to detain and question people based only on their hunch that something may be amiss—we would hardly have a need for the hundreds of founded suspicion cases the federal courts decide every year, for we would be living in a police state where law enforcement officers, not the courts, would determine who gets stopped and when. (904 F.2d 1372, 1378; emphasis added)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As we have repeatedly seen, however, what happens on the street is not always what is prescribed in the courtroom. We’ll see what happens in LA. And Ferguson.</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>Well good for the ACLU. Law enforcement is sworn to uphold end enforce the law, not make up what they think should be new laws. Sometimes they seem to forget that and need a stern reminder.</p>

[Gup]

<blockquote>

<p>If there is one irreducible minimum in our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, it is that a police officer may not detain an individual simply on the basis of suspicion in the air. No matter how peculiar, abrasive, unruly or distasteful a person’s conduct may be, it cannot justify a police stop unless it suggests that some <em>specific crime</em>has been, or is about to be, committed, or that there is an imminent danger to persons or property. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>In Canada that used to be called 'justifiable cause'. That is a phrase I haven't heard for many years as our police forces slowly morph into an 'us and them' mentality. The unions are too strong, the pay is too high and they are almost untouchable.</p>

[Rick Helmke]

<p>Gup unfortunately that mentality is spreading through the lower 48 as well. I developed the habit of listening to law enforcement on a scanner during my news days and still do. Even in this medium size college town if you are wearing a hoodie and walking down the street you will be having a conversation with an officer. I haven't tried photographing a traffic stop or other interaction lately. I should, there are usually 2 or 3 in front of my house in a month but why bother?</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>No matter how peculiar, abrasive, unruly or distasteful a person’s conduct may be, it cannot justify a police stop unless it suggests that some <em>specific crime </em>has been, or is about to be, committed, <strong>or that there is an imminent danger to persons or property.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Danger may have been the excuse for the police actions against photographers in Ferguson if they saw or interpreted the law to mean danger to the photographer. Just wish chief justices would be more specific in their wording of a righteous ruling or POV.</p>

<p>Frankly from my experience with my local police I don't think it would matter if they knew of any law they were trained to uphold even if it was literally written in stone and posted in front of the police department.</p>

<p>I'm surprised in the level of inconsistencies the local police officers I talk to in my town differ on how much they know and/or interpret the law in particular local ordinances in whether they decide to do something about it or do nothing. One officer I spoke with in my local park pulled out a 3 ring binder listing all ordinances they were required to enforce while another one I spoke with just yesterday on the same ordinance told me to call another department because it wasn't under police jurisdiction.</p>

<p>Where does one find out what ordinances local police are required to uphold?</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>This is why I am a card carrying member of the ACLU.</p>

<p>If the police ask me for my ID, they get my ACLU membership card.</p>

<p>So far, I haven't had to play that card.</p>

<p>(Since I shoot a lot at night, stay tuned.)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<blockquote>

<p>If the police ask me for my ID, they get my ACLU membership card.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Love it!</p>

[Uhooru]

<blockquote>

<p>Wonder if the rest of the country's police forces will adopt the same policy and now focus more on crime stopping instead of wasting our resources over this crap.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

It all depends if it gets into training cycles and the training officers get on to of it for roll call training on legal updates. If not, it won't. </p>

[jeff_conrad]

<blockquote>

<p>In Canada that used to be called 'justifiable cause'. That is a phrase I haven't heard for many years</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Gup, that sounds the same as “reasonable suspicion” in the US, and it’s as applicable today as it was in <em>Terry v. Ohio</em> in 1968.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just wish chief justices would be more specific in their wording of a righteous ruling or POV</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tim, in this case, they couldn’t really be much more specific—the courts interpret the laws, but they don’t make them. And <em>Duran</em> was less about grounds for a stop than about protected speech. It seems that Mr. Duran got pickled and ejected from a bar by police. On the way home, Mr. Duran apparently shouted obscenities at the officer while extending the middle finger, causing the officer to <em>fear for his life</em>. Proceeding from <em>City of Houston v. Hill</em> (1987), <em>Duran</em> held that the obscenities and finger were speech protected by the First Amendment (though I wouldn’t suggest trying either at home).</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>an imminent danger to persons or property</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absent violation of a law, this would be a mighty shaky justification for a stop. Of course, most things that would pose such a danger are probably illegal anyway.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If the police ask me for my ID, they get my ACLU membership card.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lannie, you’re a braver man than I (and I’ve been a card-carrying member for over 30 years). My guess is that police—especially ones making illegal stops—would not be amused by such an approach, even though it’s probably perfectly legal.</p>

<p>How you’re required to respond depends on where you live. In <em>Hiibel v. Sixth Judical District Court of Nevada</em> (2004), the Supreme Court upheld a Nevada law requiring a person detained on reasonable suspicion to “identify himself” to a peace officer; apparently the Nevada Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court interpreted this to mean simply giving one’s name [Tim—here’s a case where the Nevada Supreme Court definitely could have been more clear]. Although only the Nevada law was specifically upheld, it has been generally assumed that similar laws in other states that have them are also valid. It’s not that simple however, because the meaning of a state law is determined by the state’s highest court, so conceivably, laws in different states with identical wording could have different meanings.</p>

<p>In California, I’m not aware of any completely dispositive ruling that says a detainee other than the driver of a vehicle need not identify himself. But California statutory law; US, Ninth Circuit, and California decisional law; actions of the Legislature; and recommendations of the California Attorney General’s office strongly suggest that a detainee need not identify himself.</p>

<p>None of this may matter to police, of course. Recall the detention of actress Danielle Watts by an LAPD officer who insisted he had the right to “ID” her. He had no such right, of course, but he did have a gun and handcuffs, proving yet again that a Glock beats four aces.</p>

<p>I think it’s important to remember that the ACLU deal with the LASD isn’t a new legal ruling. Detention without reasonable suspicion has always been illegal; the LASD agreement is simply that deputies will obey the law—which is not always something the LASD have been noted for. If they have also agreed that photography is expression protected by the First Amendment, it’s a stronger protection than that an activity simply isn’t illegal.</p>

<p>As I said before, we’ll see what actually happens.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>We have a long, long way to go to make a dent in law enforcement attitudes. It took decades of incremental encroachment into civil liberties to get to this point. It will take years of consistent, concerted effort to undo the damage.</p>

<p>In February 2015 Ferguson, MO, police arrested not only demonstrators but also a handicapped woman in a wheelchair who was video recording the abuses committed by police who were arrested other people for the "crime" of video recording the arrests of peaceable demonstrators. The woman was removed by police (some say tossed) from her wheelchair and placed (or thrown) on the ground. This, despite all evidence showing she was at a fair distance and posing no hindrance whatsoever to police.</p>

<p>The encroachments began in the aftermath of the disastrous <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout">1986 FBI shootout in Miami</a> with two bank robbers. Several FBI agents were shot, some killed, by only one of the two suspects. The federal agency was so thoroughly humiliated that this single incident led to the militarization of the entire federal law enforcement, and was escalated by the Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents. The 9/11 tragedies enabled the now-militarized federal law enforcement to escalate their influence into civilian police and sheriff's departments nationwide, many of which are now militarized -- to the extent that some civilian law enforcement agencies are trying to unload some of the militaristic equipment they accepted, including armored vehicles. In the aftermath of the 9/11 frenzy we've seen an increase in the attitudes of police referring to citizens as "civilians" in a neverending war on <em>(insert drugs, poverty, illegal immigration, terrorism, etc., here)</em>.</p>

<p>The rush to militarized abuses were further escalated by the RICO act and conversion of police into privateers and pirates, preying on citizens in a blood lust for booty and profit.</p>

<p>We didn't get to this point in a single administration, and it will take time and a serious, prolonged effort to undo the damage.</p>

[spanky]

<p>You are not actually correct in your assertion regarding the Danielle Watts case Jeff Conrad. I was skeptical about your claim that the responding officer had no right to ID her. So I contacted a friend of mine who is an LAPD beat cop and she confirmed my hunch. Now one can argue that engaging in sexual acts in a public parking lot in a car during daytime with open doors isn't a serious crime or should not even be a crime but that's not the point. The point is that it is a crime and that is why a cop was sent to the scene based on a call the station got from someone in a nearby office building who saw them. It was determined that the officer acted within LAPD protocol even after Ms. Watts tried to turn the situation into a racial issue. Now a person who is asked to show ID to a cop can choose not to do so. However, this could result in that person being brought to the station for identification to be established. This can result in charges of obstructing and/or delaying a police investigation. Just an f.y.i. from the source.</p>

[jeff_conrad]

<blockquote>

<p>I contacted a friend of mine who is an LAPD beat cop and she confirmed my hunch</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Marc, you get your legal advice from the police? Thank goodness Nee, Moore and Quentin had better sense.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It was determined that the officer acted within LAPD protocol</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They investigated themselves and found no wrongdoing ... um, no comment.</p>

<p>The telephone tip probably gave Sgt. Parker reasonable suspicion to detain Ms. Watts; he did so and determined that no crime had occurred. Even had a crime been committed, however, there is nothing Sgt. Parker could have done because the offense (a misdemeanor) was not committed in his presence.</p>

<p>Sgt. Parker’s assertion that he had a “right to ID” Ms. Watts—and your friend’s apparent concurrence—is simply misinformed, and I challenge you to cite any <em>authoritative</em> source to the contrary; I can cite many to support my assertion.</p>