I had someone to call cops on me

[Heck]

These things take fun out of photography. BTW the bush looks good :thumbup:

Tell me about it. I tend to think before I shoot and where I shoot now. I got hassled less when I was really doing illegal things.

 

[Village Idiot]

Your first link is an attorny's opinion, not a copy of the written law

Your second link is not relevant to the post

But my links were the law.

 

[manaheim]

Ummm ok.

The entire legal system boils down to interpretations of laws. The judiciary branch is specicially chartered with doing exactly that.

An attorney's interpretation of the written law, therefore, holds a SIGNIFICANT amount more water than all us photographers stating what we think may be the case.

The second link is an actual write-up of just such an interpretation... both questioned and defended.

To be more specific... none of my comments are my interpretations of laws. I am not qualified to make such interpretations. All of my statements are based upon research of qualified person's interpretations of the laws. Case in point, my first link... which is a legal interpretation by an attorney.

So, yeah... they're very relevant.

 

[manaheim]

Your first link is an attorny's opinion, not a copy of the written law

Your second link is not relevant to the post

But my links were the law.

An interesting read, btw. Thanks for posting that.

 

[manaheim]

God I'm being sloppy on this thread. Sorry for the spam.

Cop is always right so all you can do is protect your gear and avoid being locked up on a trumped up charge. I was told I could not take a photo of a bridge while I was in a public park. I was also told cameras were banned from that park lol. Now holding 5 grand worth of camera im not about to go all perry mason on this guy. I just said ok and walked away. Sucks but thats the way it is now a days.

This isn't actually correct, but in some ways it is practically correct.

The cop isn't always right. In fact, FREQUENTLY cops are really not well versed in the rules around photography at all. I've heard plenty of examples of this and seen a few documented cases. I don't blame them... it's a bit obscure anyway, and what sometimes seems like "common sense" in this space, isn't.

However, if you puff up your chest at a cop and start asserting yourself, you're gonna get boned. As I said in my first response to all this, as much as I claim I wouldn't even show them my ID, odds are pretty good that if they had asked me for it I probably would have.

As someone wise on this thread posted- your best weapon here is humor. Make some sort of disarming funny remark and most people (including cops) will laugh and move about their business, and it won't even get to the point of IDs and such.

That said, the problem with all this is if people do not assert their rights, eventually we will lose them. This isn't alarmist stuff, it's provably true (but not without getting into all kinds of politics and stuff, which we obviously need to stay well clear of)

Ok, I'm done. Bye!

 

[JAFO28]

This is funny that I came across this post. My wife who just got home, was out with her mother. She had her camera with her and pulled over on the side of the road when a cop drove by then proceeded to turn around and just see if they were alright. My wife was shooting some flowers on the side of the road. Then the cop asks her about her camera, and tells her he has a d300, so they just start chatting about photography. It's funny how you can get a night and day response depending on the person involved.

 

[j-dogg]

At least the bush came out nice.

 

[skieur]

You showed him your ID?

Hell, I don't think I would have even showed him the pictures I took. Too funny.

(and yes, you might have spent a night in jail for that because he'd probably bust you just to make your life difficult, so no, I wouldn't really recommend that)

I had a 3-year-old with me, last thing I wanted is confrontation. The cop was somewhat an asshole. After I showed him the pic, he asked me with a smirk "So, you like bushes?" I told him "I like pictures". I guess he had hard time believing that I was spending time to take a picture of a bush :lmao:

If he would have approached me I would I would've said "Anything I can do for you officer?" He probably would ask to see my ID and for me to stay there. To that I would say "Do you have any grounds on which to hold me?" If he said to stay there with him he would be breaking the law, without giving me a reason that is. I would then ask for his badge number and call his superiors. But if he said he had no ground I would ask if he was holding me and if not I would walk away, if he was, again he is breaking the law.

:thumbup: Legally correct and most appropriate.

skieur

 

[epp_b]

Most law enforcement officials are pathetically undertrained. In Canada, the RCMP training program is six months. Customs officials are trained for only ten weeks. This is not enough time for people who have the legal power to kill and otherwise wreak havoc on peoples' lives simply by adding their name to some list.

How respectful (or, more likely, disrespectful) a given law enforcement official is depends entirely on person's character and upbringing. They are not trained to be courteous, professional or observant. They are trained to be naively suspicious and xenophobic about everything and to act on it with total disrespect for peoples' rights.

 

[table1349]

God I'm being sloppy on this thread. Sorry for the spam.

Cop is always right so all you can do is protect your gear and avoid being locked up on a trumped up charge. I was told I could not take a photo of a bridge while I was in a public park. I was also told cameras were banned from that park lol. Now holding 5 grand worth of camera im not about to go all perry mason on this guy. I just said ok and walked away. Sucks but thats the way it is now a days.

This isn't actually correct, but in some ways it is practically correct.

The cop isn't always right. In fact, FREQUENTLY cops are really not well versed in the rules around photography at all. I've heard plenty of examples of this and seen a few documented cases. I don't blame them... it's a bit obscure anyway, and what sometimes seems like "common sense" in this space, isn't.

However, if you puff up your chest at a cop and start asserting yourself, you're gonna get boned. As I said in my first response to all this, as much as I claim I wouldn't even show them my ID, odds are pretty good that if they had asked me for it I probably would have.

As someone wise on this thread posted- your best weapon here is humor. Make some sort of disarming funny remark and most people (including cops) will laugh and move about their business, and it won't even get to the point of IDs and such.

That said, the problem with all this is if people do not assert their rights, eventually we will lose them. This isn't alarmist stuff, it's provably true (but not without getting into all kinds of politics and stuff, which we obviously need to stay well clear of)

Ok, I'm done. Bye!

A little prospective from the cops stand point.

The cop isn't always right.

You are correct, except at the time that the cop is conducting that investigation. At that particular point in time he is right, even if he is wrong. You are not going to win the argument as to who is right at that point on the street and in the short term, he/she is the one that will be leaving the jail with out having been arrested, posting a bond or having his finger prints taken.

The place to decide who was right or wrong is not on the street but with either Professional Standards (we still call it internal affairs) or in a court of law. That is what due process is all about. If you feel that you were treated in a rude or unprofessional manner call Professional standards. If you feel your rights were violated call an attorney. There isn't a city, county, municipality, parish or anything else that doesn't have some sort of obstruct legal process law on the books. What's obstruct legal process? There is really no good reason to have that charge used in these kinds of situations.

FREQUENTLY cops are really not well versed in the rules around photography at all.

How can we be versed in something that doesn't exist???

Show me one mention in the constitution about photography or photographers rights. Ok, show me the photographers "rules" in the Bill of Rights. There aren't any.

Photographers have no more rights than any other person without a camera and no less. Putting a camera strap around your neck gives you no additional legal protections. And being on "public property" is not cart-blanc to do what ever you want. Remember that your rights stop where another persons rights begin. Everyone has the same protections and the same responsibilities under the laws and under the Constitution of the United States.

For those that live outside of the United States, you will have to check the laws of the place that you live.

 

[epp_b]

How can we be versed in something that doesn't exist???

Show me one mention in the constitution about photography or photographers rights. Ok, show me the photographers "rules" in the Bill of Rights. There aren't any.

lrn2freedomofexpression
lrn2freedomofthepress

 

[table1349]

How can we be versed in something that doesn't exist???

Show me one mention in the constitution about photography or photographers rights. Ok, show me the photographers "rules" in the Bill of Rights. There aren't any.

lrn2freedomofthepress
lrn2freedomofthepress

lrn2freedomofthepress has nothing to do with photography.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is a freedom granted to EVERYONE, not just photographers.

The ownership of a camera also does not make someone a member of the press.

 

[skieur]

How can we be versed in something that doesn't exist???

Show me one mention in the constitution about photography or photographers rights. Ok, show me the photographers "rules" in the Bill of Rights. There aren't any.

lrn2freedomofexpression
lrn2freedomofthepress

Yes, Freedom of Expression and Freedom to Use One's Property...as in photographic equipment.

skieur

 

[skieur]

How can we be versed in something that doesn't exist???

Show me one mention in the constitution about photography or photographers rights. Ok, show me the photographers "rules" in the Bill of Rights. There aren't any.

lrn2freedomofthepress
lrn2freedomofthepress

lrn2freedomofthepress has nothing to do with photography.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is a freedom granted to EVERYONE, not just photographers.

The ownership of a camera also does not make someone a member of the press.

So, photographers are exercising their freedom granted in the american constitution to everyone. What's your point? A camera may not make someone a member of the press, but that does not in any way limit the constitutional rights of photographers who are not members of the press.

skieur

 

[table1349]

How can we be versed in something that doesn't exist???

Show me one mention in the constitution about photography or photographers rights. Ok, show me the photographers "rules" in the Bill of Rights. There aren't any.

lrn2freedomofexpression
lrn2freedomofthepress

Yes, Freedom of Expression and Freedom to Use One's Property...as in photographic equipment.

skieur

Now you are trying to add your take to the constitution. You have no more rights to use that camera than the next person does to use a flashlight or radio. That's the point, there are no special rules for photographers.

Remember, your freedom of expression and freedom to use one's property still stops at another persons freedom.