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.
