Every Photographer needs to watch this

[jsorrien]

Photographer films his own 'anti-terror' arrest

Photographer films his own 'anti-terror' arrest | UK news | The Guardian

 

[skieur]

I am amazed that you can supposedly be arrested for "anti-social behaviour" in England, since the police can construe almost any behaviour as being "anti-social".

It also contradicts the right to privacy, freedom from unlawful detention and freedom of movement, since no one should be intimidated into a choice between being arrested and providing personal information.

skieur

 

[PhotoXopher]

From what I saw they were pressing their luck, just give them your name and address - big frickin' deal. It's almost like he wanted to get arrested so he could film it.

Without knowing the other side, and the manner in which it was conducting himself (conveniently NOT videotaped) it's hard to pick a side on this one.

The how he was acting makes me suspicious as well.

I guess I'd make a bad cop too.

 

[pharmakon]

I kinda see both sides as well. I think it's messed up that the police can just tell you that you give your information or you are going to be arrested, but at the same time the fact that he was so adamently refusing to give basic contact information would just make him look all the more suspicious. But if you give it then what? are you flagged for suspiscous behaviour indefinately?

Terrorism may not be defeating our governments, but it seems that it is slowly stealing the rights and freedoms of our citizens. It took me 2 hours to get through TSA screening last week, for a domestic flight. I ended up leaving some of my photo gear at home because I was concerned about what flack I would get trying to bring flash triggers in my carry-on. The last thing I wanted was some over inflated security officer to pull me in for questioning about having a "detonator" in my bags. Looks like I'm already giving up. :sad anim:

 

[skieur]

From what I saw they were pressing their luck, just give them your name and address - big frickin' deal. It's almost like he wanted to get arrested so he could film it.

Without knowing the other side, and the manner in which it was conducting himself (conveniently NOT videotaped) it's hard to pick a side on this one.

The how he was acting makes me suspicious as well.

I guess I'd make a bad cop too.

Legally, you do not have to provide any sort of ID, when stopped by police. They can ask for it, but you are not obliged to provide it. This was admitted by a police veteran with more than 30 years experience on video.

As a matter of fact, being stopped by the police for no legal reason is illegal, and part of a police state, not a democracy. Unlawfult detension is illegal as well and in New York that has resulted in $30,000 successful lawsuits against transit police.

So, the gentleman was standing up for his rights and I would recommend that he follow up with a civil suit against the police.

skieur

 

[Dominantly]

From what I saw they were pressing their luck, just give them your name and address - big frickin' deal. It's almost like he wanted to get arrested so he could film it.

Without knowing the other side, and the manner in which it was conducting himself (conveniently NOT videotaped) it's hard to pick a side on this one.

The how he was acting makes me suspicious as well.

I guess I'd make a bad cop too.

Legally, you do not have to provide any sort of ID, when stopped by police. They can ask for it, but you are not obliged to provide it. This was admitted by a police veteran with more than 30 years experience on video.

As a matter of fact, being stopped by the police for no legal reason is illegal, and part of a police state, not a democracy. Unlawfult detension is illegal as well and in New York that has resulted in $30,000 successful lawsuits against transit police.

So, the gentleman was standing up for his rights and I would recommend that he follow up with a civil suit against the police.

skieur

Not true.

It is Illegal to refuse to show identification to a police officer if they stop you. They may also detain you for a short period of time, but have to release you unless charges are brought against you.

 

[JohnMF]

part of the problem is thicko's not understanding what it is exactly that they're trying enforce, or if it needs enforcing at all.

Good on the guy for standing up for himself, and good on the press for reporting it. Stupid ideas, and stupid people, need to be challenged.

 

[skieur]

From what I saw they were pressing their luck, just give them your name and address - big frickin' deal. It's almost like he wanted to get arrested so he could film it.

Without knowing the other side, and the manner in which it was conducting himself (conveniently NOT videotaped) it's hard to pick a side on this one.

The how he was acting makes me suspicious as well.

I guess I'd make a bad cop too.

Legally, you do not have to provide any sort of ID, when stopped by police. They can ask for it, but you are not obliged to provide it. This was admitted by a police veteran with more than 30 years experience on video.

As a matter of fact, being stopped by the police for no legal reason is illegal, and part of a police state, not a democracy. Unlawfult detension is illegal as well and in New York that has resulted in $30,000 successful lawsuits against transit police.

So, the gentleman was standing up for his rights and I would recommend that he follow up with a civil suit against the police.

skieur

Not true.

It is Illegal to refuse to show identification to a police officer if they stop you. They may also detain you for a short period of time, but have to release you unless charges are brought against you.

You are incorrect. You need to show identification ONLY if you are driving an automobile or after you have been arrested and charged. They CANNOT detain you without REASONABLE cause and "anti-social" behaviour is certainly NOT reasonable cause.

skieur

 

[PhotoXopher]

This could vary by country, correct?

Did they ask for ID? I thought they just asked for a name and address to write down. I got kind of bored with him asking if he was going to be detained so it's possible I missed it.

 

[Dominantly]

How are you going to tell me I'm incorrect when you don't even live in this country?

I hate to burst your bubble, but I AM correct.
You are mixing Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause.
FACT: Police may stop you and search you WITHOUT probable cause. They may conduct a search of the outside of your clothing (PAT Down) for their safety, if they feel a weapon, they may remove it, if they feel what may be contraband, they may not remove it. All the officer needs is reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. They may also temporarily detain you in their vehicles. All based on Reasonable Suspicion...

Terry v. Ohio- 1968
The US Supreme Court ruled it was NOT a violation of the 4th amendment, setting the standard for the "Terry Stop".

 

[skieur]

This could vary by country, correct?

Did they ask for ID? I thought they just asked for a name and address to write down. I got kind of bored with him asking if he was going to be detained so it's possible I missed it.

Basic rights do not vary much in western democracies. They have no right to even ask for a name and address on the street. In the US many state laws that allowed this were struck down by the Supreme Court.

skieur

 

[skieur]

How are you going to tell me I'm incorrect when you don't even live in this country?

I hate to burst your bubble, but I AM correct.
You are mixing Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause.
FACT: Police may stop you and search you WITHOUT probable cause. They may conduct a search of the outside of your clothing (PAT Down) for their safety, if they feel a weapon, they may remove it, if they feel what may be contraband, they may not remove it. All the officer needs is reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. They may also temporarily detain you in their vehicles. All based on Reasonable Suspicion...

Terry v. Ohio- 1968
The US Supreme Court ruled it was NOT a violation of the 4th amendment, setting the standard for the "Terry Stop".

To burst your bubble, you are not in the UK where the video originated, or in Canada that has a similar legal history and your views are off base for the US as well.

Even reasonable suspicion cannot be stretched to the normal activities of a street photographer. Moreover in England, where the video took place, there is no gun mentality like in the US, therefore even less reasonable cause for suspicion.

Now, please.... a reasonable suspicion that a street phtographer is going to committ some act of terrorism... Surely even americans cannot be that paranoid or lacking in common sense.

skieur

 

[Dominantly]

How are you going to tell me I'm incorrect when you don't even live in this country?

I hate to burst your bubble, but I AM correct.
You are mixing Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause.
FACT: Police may stop you and search you WITHOUT probable cause. They may conduct a search of the outside of your clothing (PAT Down) for their safety, if they feel a weapon, they may remove it, if they feel what may be contraband, they may not remove it. All the officer needs is reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. They may also temporarily detain you in their vehicles. All based on Reasonable Suspicion...

Terry v. Ohio- 1968
The US Supreme Court ruled it was NOT a violation of the 4th amendment, setting the standard for the "Terry Stop".

To burst your bubble, you are not in the UK like the poster or in Canada that has a similar legal history and your views are off base for the US as well.

Even reasonable suspicion cannot be stretched to the normal activities of a street photographer. Moreover in England, where the poster is, there is no gun mentality like in the US, therefore even less reasonable cause for suspicion.

Now, please.... a reasonable suspicion that a street phtographer is going to committ some act of terrorism... Surely even americans cannot be that paranoid or lacking in common sense.

skieur

My views are not off, the info I posted was taken from a legal based site, so I'm in no way just making it up.
I also have family and friends in the police world (22yr CHP, 10yr Sheriff) and they confirmed it. If they stop you for being suspicious and question you, more power to you to try and remain anonymous and not show identification . A police officer would probably take it as a mission to make sure you have an eventful night.

Who is talking about photographers? I said nothing about that incident. I quoted you when you started talking about not having to comply with a police officers request when stopped.

I did look up "Anti-Social Behavior" and it looks pretty broad and encompassing.

"An Anti-Social Behaviour Order or ASBO (pronounced /ˈæzboʊ/) is a civil order made against a person who has been shown, on the balance of evidence, to have engaged in anti-social behaviour in the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland [1]. The orders, designed originally by Tony Blair in 1998[2], were designed to be imposed after minor incidents that would not ordinarily warrant prosecution[3]. The orders then restrict behavior in some way, by prohibiting a return to a certain area or shop, or by restricting public behavior such as swearing or drinking. As the ASBO is a civil order, the defendant has no right to evidence that might disprove the assertions of the plaintiff, though violating an ASBO can incur up to five years imprisonment."

If people were in fact reporting the photographers, they were likely viewed as causing alarm or distress.


Photography is most certainly something we watch for in regards to terrorism (planning stages). Photographing sensitive areas in a suspicious manner will get attention, and you will be approached. I doubt you would be able to think of one so I'll offer an example. If you were in San Diego and were driving a pleasure boat around the harbor and decided you wanted to get a nice photo of a submarine, and parked off the barrier... I'd give you maybe 2 mins before you had some high speed boats on your tail with sirens blazing.

 

[skieur]

It is always interesting when a photographer is detained, BUT no charge is laid. It is even more interesting when the colleague who provided personal information was not even detained.

The very strong implication was that NO charge was valid, and there was no chance whatsoever of conviction. The follow up by some photographer victims of harassment and detention by transit police in New York was filing law suits. The standard settlement seems to be $30,000.

I would strongly suggest that any photographer facing this kind of harassment do the same thing. File law suits. It can be the worth the effort.

skieur

 

[Shelly1204]

I hate to burst your bubble, but I AM correct.
You are mixing Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause.

You are misinterpreting the law. I don't have too much time to respond, but you may want to research the legal definition of "reasonable suspicion". You can legally quantify it, it is not "because the cop thinks you look suspicious".