I had someone to call cops on me

[table1349]

Have to disagree a little with you gryphonslair99. Whats in the constitution is a lot of god given rights. The constitution just protects those rights from being infringed upon by an overbearing government.

If God gave us these rights then why did and have so many sacrificed their lives to secure, protect, and keep them? God did not give you one right in the Constitution. The Constitution was written by men after so many had sacrificed their lives to secure this land and allow for them to be written by the survivors that then created the country we now live in.

 

[table1349]

I think it may be a regional thing because in 30+ years of photographing in NYC and Philly no one ever bothered me about taking pictures anywhere. Yet when I lived in Chicagoland for about 4 years recently I was stopped several times in different parts of the area (mostly in the burbs) and asked what I was doing and why - people seem to be more suspicious around there.

You are correct. Not only by region but by time frame. Much of this came about after 9/11. San Francisco is one local that has a very heightened awareness.

 

[table1349]

On the other hand, should I be happy that we have those people around as next time they could prevent real crime from happening?

Not likely, I have found those annoying people with nothing better to do with their lives are rarely, if ever, around at the right time when something bad is actually happening. When there is a burglar in your house they're trying to see who is playing music too loud, or still making noise at 9PM at night. Ironic, isn't it?

Was this a burglary that you witnessed? If so did you act like a responsible citizen and report the crime in progress? Are you professing that LEO should walk, drive around your private property as they see fit so they can discover a burglary, or are you suggesting that burglars all force entry in a locations viewable from public property where they are easily noticeable when others are watching?

Loud music respects no property lines. When called to check such activity by a citizen who feels their rights are being violated, (sound familiar) the officers respond. Either you have little clue as to how common crimes are committed, or you are espousing that you should give up more of your rights so the cops as you seem to intimate "fight real crime."

An old woman approached my girlfriends mom about a party that her sister threw one night while their parents were out of town. She knew about it, so it wasn't one of those parties. The old woman worded it as, "The next time your daughters decide to throw a party, maybe they'll remember to close the blinds." I cut in and told her that no one was forcing her to stand at her window spying on other peoples business and that maybe the next time she didn't like something, then to close her own blinds.

And by leaving the blinds open you have no expectation to privacy, thus placing your business in the public domain. Wait are you saying that something in the public domain should not be viewable???

I honestly hate people like that.

I'm betting the old lady feels the same way. :mrgreen:

 

[table1349]

This is what may happen if you think your free to film or take photos in public and test your rights with the police.

Sounds like this guy was technically correct on several points, but practically speaking, he didn't handle it very well (nor did the police for that matter).

For those who are truly concerned about how to behave in an encounter with the police, you may find the following link helpful; it's the ACLU's "bust card", intended to combat racial profiling, but the basic rights should apply to all of us.

Know Your Rights: What To Do If You?re Stopped By The Police (Bust Card) | American Civil Liberties Union

All in all, a legal debate with an officer during a stop is probably not advisable...you can dig yourself a deeper hole (as the guy in the video did, cracked windshield and all). This is especially true if you think the officer is being unreasonable in the first place; you're unlikely to successfully sway their opinion. As others have mentioned earlier in the thread, the best bet is probably to diffuse the situation as efficiently and quickly as possible. If you feel your rights were violated, you're better off contacting an attorney from your home, not a jail cell.

:thumbup: +1, including most of the ACLU's suggestions. Some are very much area specific, but most are universal in the U.S.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

There is a good reason I'm a misanthrope. And few of my photos include humans.

 

[skieur]

What case law are you speaking of that provides special rules for photographers? There are cases brought by photographers that clarified a point of law, but they are not photography specific. They are point specific applicable to all that fall into that particular point of law, not just photographers.

Why not? Like if a photographer sues a cop for confiscating their equipment and deleting images. Sure it boils down to destruction of property/evidence, but it lays down an official precedent that says a law enforcement officer can't just take a photographer's camera and delete images from their camera because you don't like it and you think it's wrong.

That's directly regarding photography.

You started getting the point and then fell back into being a photographer, it's not about photography, it is about the 4th Amendment, search and seizure. That is the point I am trying to make. There are no special rules, laws or constitutional guarantees granted to photographers.

Every 4th Amendment issue is judged on it's own merits based on the facts of the incident be it photographs/photographers, computers/users-owners, or left handed 3 wheel widgets/and their owners. Some 4th Amendments situations are painfully obvious and some are not requiring the intercession of the courts to make a determination.

If you want to avoid hassles and make situations like these easier to deal with and get on with your life or shooting, you need to understand not only all of your rights, but all of your responsibilities. When evaluating a situation look past the trees and see the forest.

Your argument is irrelevant. Sure it is about photography. If the guy in the latest video had not been filming the police there would have been no confrontation. In other incidents, if the guy had not been taking pictures of a building or a refinery there would not have been a confrontation with police. If guys had not been taking photos in the New York subway, there would not have been confrontations with the police. When police are telling photographers that they can't take pictures then it is definitely about photography. When a judge says that the police are wrong, and photographers can take pictures in a public place, then it is also about photography.

Of course, if it is about your rights, the same perspective holds true, it is about your rights to express your creativity through photography and to utilize your camera equipment to do so, covered under the Constitution.
As I said before that is not my take, that is the take of the American press, judges, and lawyers for all sides of the issues.

You seem to be implying that if you don"t want hassles, then you should give up your rights. That position puts the boot to the American rhetoric that other countries keep hearing about Americans standing up for freedom and the rights of the individual.

So, you seem to be saying that the true rhetoric is that photographers should be setting an example for others by asserting their rights ONLY IF IT IS CONVENIENT and presents no sort of risk

Interesting!

skieur

 

[Josh220]

On the other hand, should I be happy that we have those people around as next time they could prevent real crime from happening?

Was this a burglary that you witnessed? If so did you act like a responsible citizen and report the crime in progress? Are you professing that LEO should walk, drive around your private property as they see fit so they can discover a burglary, or are you suggesting that burglars all force entry in a locations viewable from public property where they are easily noticeable when others are watching?

Loud music respects no property lines. When called to check such activity by a citizen who feels their rights are being violated, (sound familiar) the officers respond. Either you have little clue as to how common crimes are committed, or you are espousing that you should give up more of your rights so the cops as you seem to intimate "fight real crime."

And by leaving the blinds open you have no expectation to privacy, thus placing your business in the public domain. Wait are you saying that something in the public domain should not be viewable???

I honestly hate people like that.

I'm betting the old lady feels the same way. :mrgreen:

I have no idea what you are trying to say. There are a few errors that I can't seem to correct into a logical sentence, and a few points that I can't for the life of me figure out how you came to the conclusion you did.

I think you hastily wrote your responses and didn't take the time to proof read anything.

 

[table1349]

Was this a burglary that you witnessed? If so did you act like a responsible citizen and report the crime in progress? Are you professing that LEO should walk, drive around your private property as they see fit so they can discover a burglary, or are you suggesting that burglars all force entry in a locations viewable from public property where they are easily noticeable when others are watching?

Loud music respects no property lines. When called to check such activity by a citizen who feels their rights are being violated, (sound familiar) the officers respond. Either you have little clue as to how common crimes are committed, or you are espousing that you should give up more of your rights so the cops as you seem to intimate "fight real crime."

And by leaving the blinds open you have no expectation to privacy, thus placing your business in the public domain. Wait are you saying that something in the public domain should not be viewable???

I'm betting the old lady feels the same way. :mrgreen:

I have idea what you are trying to say. There are a few errors that I can correct into a logical sentence, and a few points that I can figure out how you came to the conclusion you did.

I think you wrote your responses.

Gee I can't understand what you are trying to say, Maybe it is from the selective editing.

 

[Josh220]

Wharrgarbl?

 

[table1349]

Why not? Like if a photographer sues a cop for confiscating their equipment and deleting images. Sure it boils down to destruction of property/evidence, but it lays down an official precedent that says a law enforcement officer can't just take a photographer's camera and delete images from their camera because you don't like it and you think it's wrong.

That's directly regarding photography.

You started getting the point and then fell back into being a photographer, it's not about photography, it is about the 4th Amendment, search and seizure. That is the point I am trying to make. There are no special rules, laws or constitutional guarantees granted to photographers.

Every 4th Amendment issue is judged on it's own merits based on the facts of the incident be it photographs/photographers, computers/users-owners, or left handed 3 wheel widgets/and their owners. Some 4th Amendments situations are painfully obvious and some are not requiring the intercession of the courts to make a determination.

If you want to avoid hassles and make situations like these easier to deal with and get on with your life or shooting, you need to understand not only all of your rights, but all of your responsibilities. When evaluating a situation look past the trees and see the forest.

Your argument is irrelevant. Sure it is about photography. If the guy in the latest video had not been filming the police there would have been no confrontation. In other incidents, if the guy had not been taking pictures of a building or a refinery there would not have been a confrontation with police. If guys had not been taking photos in the New York subway, there would not have been confrontations with the police. When police are telling photographers that they can't take pictures then it is definitely about photography. When a judge says that the police are wrong, and photographers can take pictures in a public place, then it is also about photography.

Of course, if it is about your rights, the same perspective holds true, it is about your rights to express your creativity through photography and to utilize your camera equipment to do so, covered under the Constitution.
As I said before that is not my take, that is the take of the American press, judges, and lawyers for all sides of the issues.

You seem to be implying that if you don"t want hassles, then you should give up your rights. That position puts the boot to the American rhetoric that other countries keep hearing about Americans standing up for freedom and the rights of the individual.

So, you seem to be saying that the true rhetoric is that photographers should be setting an example for others by asserting their rights ONLY IF IT IS CONVENIENT and presents no sort of risk

Interesting!

skieur

Actually I strongly encourage everyone to know and use their rights. However I also strongly encourage everyone to also accept the

responsibility that goes with those rights. I'm going to do something here that I normally do not do, because like everyone here except for the OP, I wasn't there. Let's look at what the OP posted and break it down a bit.

I just got my Tamron 17-50 at the post office and naturally had to go out and take some test photos with it. I was babysitting tonight so I took my 3 year old daughter with me for a walk down the block

2 house from mine, there was some kind of bush that interested me. So, I decided to take a picture, while my daughter was playing with something on the lawn next to me and tried different angles, naturally standing close to the bush and moving around.

Ok, can someone see a problem with any of this. I can't.

Finally I took a picture and turned around to see some people across the street, looking very suspiciously at me. I didn't think much about it, but 2-3 minutes later, a motorcop came over and rode his bike right over the sidewalk to intercept me.

I am going to speculate here based my years of experience. Some people across the street, looking very suspiciously at me. Who probably called in what they considered suspicious activity. The motorcop was probably close and responded because they were close. Motorcops in most jurisdictions don't ride beats and patrol a particular area, they are usually traffic officers. When they received the call they got it from a dispatcher. They knew neither the calling party or the person called in on. What they knew was that a citizen, exercising their right to feel protected, called in what they perceived to be a suspicious character or suspicious activity.

He demanded to know where i lived, who was the girl with me, what did I take a picture off. After I showed him the picture on the camera and the bush, my ID and walked with him to my house, he was satisfied and left.

His actions were based upon reasonable suspicion based upon the call that the officer received. The officer detained the OP and gathered the basic information necessary to either make a determination at that point or to continue the investigations. The OP obviously provided the information necessary for the officer to make a determination that, contrary to what the calling party(s) believed there was no suspicious activity and went back to what ever they were doing before responding to the call.

Those people were very disappointed and finally walked away as well.

Tough $#!%. Their disappointment really doesn't matter.

that made me think, how boring must be life for some people and how intrusive and nosy can people be! On the other hand, should I be happy that we have those people around as next time they could prevent real crime from happening?

We all have different perceptions, of what is around us. The important word in that sentence is perceptions. If we all as human beings saw the same thing we wouldn't be having this discussion and I would be out of a job.

While i appreciate the fact that the OP was detained for a bit and inconvenienced for a short period of time. The OP could have acted in another manner. But in this situation what purpose would acting differently have accomplished other than to lengthen the detention until the officer had their suspicions satisfied.

As for calling parties like the probable ones in this situation, yes there are those that can be a pain in the neck (think 3 feet lower ) but are you wiling to take on the vicarious liability of choosing to ignore a call for services like this.

Whenever there is a situation like this there are three sides of the story, yours, theirs, and the truth. The truth is usually found somewhere in the middle of the other two. Again that word perception comes into play.

Oh, the bush in question:

Nice picture.

No one thinks twice if an officer responds to a call of a person with a gun in their hand on a busy street. That gun is a single purpose item. It is designed to inflict damage, be it human, animal or a target of some kind. Target practice isn't something that happens legally on public streets.

Photographers and many others with other items that they carry with them and use are dual purpose items. That camera can be used to record events, create art, create memories or it can be used to provide intelligence for those with nefarious intentions.

The probabilities are that in this photo there is at least one person that is or has criminal intent. Can you pick out that person?

Like I said in a previous post, if you are in a situation like this, or any situation, step back and look at the forest, not just the trees.

 

[table1349]

Wharrgarbl?

Mike Teavee: There's a big difference between waves and particles. For one thing...
Willy Wonka: [interrupting] MUMBLER! Seriously, I cannot understand a word you're saying!

Seriously, Johnny Depp did a much better job.

 

[Fedaykin]

This is what may happen if you think your free to film or take photos in public and test your rights with the police.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYHhBJPTHqo

Sorry but that is not a good example of "testing your rights", the guy went about it all wrong. All he had to say was that they were on public property and he had the right to film them as they were not even inside the building. Instead he increased the tension immediately by asking them for ID right off the bat and blabbering on without actually telling them he had the right to film, etc.

 

[danieldowns]

Crazy world we live in. I can only imagine what was going through the complex minds of those watching you. Its funny they waited around to be satisfied with it all.

Daniel Downs Photography & Design-Home

 

[patrickt]

Cameras are the new guns.

They make EVERYONE nervous...neighbors, cops, friends, family...it sucks. I hate you had the five-oh called on you, but I'm glad it seemed to work out!

Good shot, though!

It really depends on where you are.

 

[epatsellis]

for everyone's enlightenment, and edification, Bert Krages is an attorney who specialises in photographer's rights cases, he has a pdf here: Bert P. Krages Attorney at Law Photographer's Rights Page that you should download, read until you understand it, print it out and carry it with you at all times. It can (and has for me) help you better understand your rights, as well.

In addition, know the laws in your state, Illinois has a stop and ID law, a few other states do as well. I'd also suggest some research on the term "Terry Stop", for what is considered a detainment and what the requirements are for a legal detainment. Lastly, if you have a family attorney, it would be wise to spend a few $$ now and consult with them as to what your rights in your state are, and how to handle the situation when they are violated.