I had someone to call cops on me

[skieur]

From GryphonsLair99

"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. " end quote



You have been watching too much television. In the real world cameras have NOT been used with nefarious purposes to gather intelligence. In fact at no time were camera for example used to gather intelligence befor the 9/11 incidents or before any other major terrorist incident. ONLY IN TV plots!:lmao:

When you are stepping back to look at the forest, gryphonslair, don"t base your VIEWS on television or movie plots. I have done television work as producer, director, and scriptwriter and can assure you that the plots are FAR removed from reality.

skieur

 

[epatsellis]

Yes, but the likelyhood of a "reasonable person" to suspect a terrorist plot, targeting bushes is just above or at zero, as is taking pictures of passing traffic, interesting architecture, etc. The act of suspicion, in and of itself, does not constitute unlawfulness, and that is the key to the "entire stopping to investigate any photographer" issue.

The reasonable person argument, and by inference reasonable cause to suspect, is key to the entire Terry Stop rulings by the SCOTUS, which is the very basis of any lawful detention scenario. If it fails the reasonable person test, it is, by definition of the SCOTUS, an unlawful detention.

 

[skieur]

A police officer can politely ask to see photos but in most jurisdictions the photographer has every right to refuse.

A police officer can ask for ID, but the photographer has a right to say No, or perhaps that he is not carrying ID. Carrying ID is not required by any pedestrian.

A police officer in most locations has NO right to detain a person without arrest and you cannot be arrested for taking photos.

Taking photos cannot be construed as a suspicious activity because there is NO law against doing so, for any reason.

Some state and local laws may contravene federal laws, civil rights or the constitution. They are not beyond question or appeal.

Sensitive government buildings CAN be photographed, since there in no US law against such action. Top secret installations MUST be listed in order to validate a NO photography section of the secrets act in the US. Most government buildings are NOT on the list.

skieur

 

[Browncoat]

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.

The best interpretation of the actual law I have seen yet on these forums concerning these matters.

:thumbup:

I think most of us would quietly go on our way and avoid a confrontation with the Five-O. Studies have shown that police officers are among the lowest IQ of any profession, so why bother risking a night in the cooler over something so trite? Their job is to enforce the law, not interpret it. That's why most of them wear a ridiculous mustache, it's their badge of honor that allows them to remain bullies after high school.

Move along, nothing to see here. Move along.

 

[table1349]

From GryphonsLair99

"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. "

You have been watching too much television. In the real world cameras have NOT been used with nefarious purposes to gather intelligence. In fact at no time were camera for example used to gather intelligence befor the 9/11 incidents or before any other major terrorist incident. ONLY IN TV plots!:lmao:

When you are stepping back to look at the forest, gryphonslair, don"t base your VIEWS on televion or movie plots. I have done television work as producer, director, and scriptwriter and can assure you that the plots are FAR removed from reality.

skieur

Well considering that I am a cop and do not watch cop shows, you managed to have that part completely wrong.

Secondly your guess that cameras have never been used for intelligence gathering comes from deep in some dream world that you are living in. Not only has still photography been used, video has also already been used. In this country, in Canada and virtually every western country.

I just returned from two days of Terror Attack and Suicide Bombing training. I have seen some of the photos that were taken as well as some of the videos that have been discovered. You are living in a dream world if you don't think that those that wish to cause harm use any and all methods to accomplish their aims.

If I have to choose between taking your word for it or the word of the person in charge of the EOD unit that investigated the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building and of a 29 year veteran in EOD and one of the premier Counter Terrorism units in this country you don't even run a close third.

 

[epatsellis]

Gryphon,
With all due respect, do you see the average photographer, or as in my case, a photographer shooting with a large format camera, in public a potential terror threat?

What, in your opinion, do you consider reasonable suspicion that a crime has, is in the process of, or is about to be committed, as defined in in the SCOTUS decision in Terry v. Ohio?

 

[manaheim]

Gryphon,
With all due respect, do you see the average photographer, or as in my case, a photographer shooting with a large format camera, in public a potential terror threat?

What, in your opinion, do you consider reasonable suspicion that a crime has, is in the process of, or is about to be committed, as defined in in the SCOTUS decision in Terry v. Ohio?

I've always wondered about that... seems like if you're a terrorist running around with a DSLR and a big lens is an obviously bad idea. iPhone would work wonderfully.

 

[Josh220]

I just returned from two days of Terror Attack and Suicide Bombing training. I have seen some of the photos that were taken as well as some of the videos that have been discovered. You are living in a dream world if you don't think that those that wish to cause harm use any and all methods to accomplish their aims.

And their first target... Bushes in neighborhoods across America!

I find it odd that you refer to yourself as a cop and not an officer. The police in my neck of the woods are mostly egotistical half-witts who do it to get a hard on, but I still refer to them as officers. Perhaps that is just from my time as a CJ major before I realized what type of people were getting in to the field. I have immense respect for those who do it for the right reasons, however those individuals seem to be few and far between lately, and they are only becoming more sparse as time goes on.

 

[table1349]

Gryphon,
With all due respect, do you see the average photographer, or as in my case, a photographer shooting with a large format camera, in public a potential terror threat?

What, in your opinion, do you consider reasonable suspicion that a crime has, is in the process of, or is about to be committed, as defined in in the SCOTUS decision in Terry v. Ohio?

Reasonable suspicion is on a case by case basis, in this particular case the reasonable suspicion was in all likely hood the two citizens that called in their complaint. Like I said are you willing to accept the vicarious liability to ignore such a call from citizens a not look into it.

With all due respect, do you have a formula to pick out a person in a crowd that is a potential threat? If you do then please share it, because I can make you a Billionaire, and my cut as you manager will make me a millionaire. :mrgreen: We can both retire somewhere where we will never have to worry about the situation coming to us.

 

[table1349]

Gryphon,
With all due respect, do you see the average photographer, or as in my case, a photographer shooting with a large format camera, in public a potential terror threat?

What, in your opinion, do you consider reasonable suspicion that a crime has, is in the process of, or is about to be committed, as defined in in the SCOTUS decision in Terry v. Ohio?

I've always wondered about that... seems like if you're a terrorist running around with a DSLR and a big lens is an obviously bad idea. iPhone would work wonderfully.

Why. There are lots of people running around with dslr's these days everywhere. One thing you have to understand, these people may be fanatical, they may be crazy, but they are not stupid. They learn quickly how to obtain their desired goal. That goal is not to kill military or blow up military installations any more. Not in this part of the world.

They are looking to kill people, as many as possible. Where do you find lots of people? Schools (Beslan Russia), large shopping areas(to many to even try an name in the middle east and asia), how about places like Times Square? Ever see someone with a DSLR in Times Square. How about the Capitol Mall in Washington DC, a famous landmark like the Golden Gate Bridge. There are thousands of places out there. If you had a kid graduate from high school did you take your DSLR to the graduation? Mass casualties are what they look for these days and if you are not part of their ideology then you are a target. There are no "innocent civilians" to them.

 

[table1349]

I just returned from two days of Terror Attack and Suicide Bombing training. I have seen some of the photos that were taken as well as some of the videos that have been discovered. You are living in a dream world if you don't think that those that wish to cause harm use any and all methods to accomplish their aims.

And their first target... Bushes in neighborhoods across America!

I find it odd that you refer to yourself as a cop and not an officer. The police in my neck of the woods are mostly egotistical half-witts who do it to get a hard on, but I still refer to them as officers. Perhaps that is just from my time as a CJ major before I realized what type of people were getting in to the field. I have immense respect for those who do it for the right reasons, however those individuals seem to be few and far between lately, and they are only becoming more sparse as time goes on.

You don't last in the business for 29 years being a police officer. Police officers are 9 to 5er's in the law enforcement world. They are here for a pay check. They answer the calls they are sent to, and make the reports that they have to. They usually move on fairly quickly to other pursuits.

Cops on the other hand, do the job because the believe in the job and care about the society that they are there to try an protect. The don't just answer calls after the fact. They are proactive and attempt to prevent incidents from happening when ever possible. The are dedicated to their profession. The word cop is not a bad word among LEO's. Look up the history of the word and you will understand why.

Sorry to hear about the sorry state of your neck of the woods. Maybe it's time to fine a new forest to play in.

 

[epatsellis]

Reasonable suspicion is on a case by case basis, in this particular case the reasonable suspicion was in all likely hood the two citizens that called in their complaint. Like I said are you willing to accept the vicarious liability to ignore such a call from citizens a not look into it.

Reasonable enough answer, though concern doesn't neccesarily equal commission of a crime, and has been made clear through numerous challenges, the extent of a search during a Terry Stop is limited to the offficer's well being in lieu of any commisssion or suspicion of a crime.

Of course we are under no obligation to answer unreasonable questions by the police, as affirmed by Justice White in his consenting opinion on Terry v. Ohio:

Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained or frisked but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. However, given the proper circumstances, such as those in this case, it seems to me the person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation." (392 U.S. 1, at 34)

​

It may not be the most prudent thing to do today, given the near police state we live in, but on constitutional grounds, you can.

In the OP's case, since no crime was being committed, the officer was clearly in the wrong for asking to see the images, in my opinion. I've seen it go much further, with an officer demanding that images be deleted, which is both unreasonable, and unlawful without a court order. There is a general hysteria amonng LEO's these days regarding photographers, and unless some common sense starts to rule (as in constitutional and civil rights being respected and upheld), there's going to be a flurry of actionable backlash, which I feel will ultimately work against the intentions of the LE community, as well as the basic principles of Law Enforcement.

[/QUOTE]With all due respect, do you have a formula to pick out a person in a crowd that is a potential threat? If you do then please share it, because I can make you a Billionaire, and my cut as you manager will make me a millionaire. :mrgreen: We can both retire somewhere where we will never have to worry about the situation coming to us.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps you misunderstood my intentions, so let me be perfectly clear, I was only asking out of curiosity, as many years ago when I received my FL CJ cert. there were very clear legal rules for reasonable suspicion and they seem to have gone the way of the dodo, with articulable reasoning having given way to and officers inarticlable "hunch", gut feeling or simple dislike for an individual. As a result, unlawful detention complaints, lawsuits and awards are at record levels. While I chose not to work in the field, CJ and constitutional law are interests of mine, and I pay attention to such trends.

With regard to your previous posting vis a vis the use of images by terrorists, they used soap too, should we be checking ID's for soap purchases? How about shoes, gasoline, gum? Where does a reasonable society, founded on constitutional guaranteed rights and freedoms draw the line? I don't have the answer, but I do know that in the last 30 years, I have seen more erosion of those rights to be very, very worried. I understand the job of LEO's is difficult, but the minute that those rights are ignored, we have entered a police state, by it's very definition.

 

[patrickt]

Any of you who might even remotely follow the advice on this thread from those who say, "Well, if that happened to me I'd just tell that cop...." should really consider printing out the thread so you can show the arresting officers all of the really impressive legal advice that has been posted. Hey, it never hurts to give the police officers a good laugh.

 

[epatsellis]

Patrick,
No, in fact compliance (with documentation and officers badge numbers, etc.) is the best course of action, the court system is where you are more likely to have the law actually enforced, with proper interpretation. LEO's have a difficult job, and they constantly tread a fine line, but there are many, many who have a "thug with a badge" attitude, those you can never reason with, and it's best to have a juge or magistrate hand them their hat based on law, not hunches or indignance.

I have already posted an informational piece by a lawyer that specializes in photographer's rights, it never hurts to know where to draw the line.

 

[table1349]

Reasonable suspicion is on a case by case basis, in this particular case the reasonable suspicion was in all likely hood the two citizens that called in their complaint. Like I said are you willing to accept the vicarious liability to ignore such a call from citizens a not look into it.

Reasonable enough answer, though concern doesn't neccesarily equal commission of a crime, and has been made clear through numerous challenges, the extent of a search during a Terry Stop is limited to the offficer's well being in lieu of any commisssion or suspicion of a crime.

Reasonable suspicion does not require the commission of a crime. It requires a reasonable, articulable, suspicion or belief that a crime has been, is being or is about to be committed. Articulable is a key word in reasonable suspicion or probable cause. In the OP's case the reasonable suspicion, if it is as it appears, is articulable in that the officer was responded to the suspicions of others.

Of course we are under no obligation to answer unreasonable questions by the police, as affirmed by Justice White in his consenting opinion on Terry v. Ohio:

Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained or frisked but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. However, given the proper circumstances, such as those in this case, it seems to me the person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation." (392 U.S. 1, at 34)

​

It may not be the most prudent thing to do today, given the near police state we live in, but on constitutional grounds, you can.

True, but reasonable suspicion/probable cause is a special circumstance. A consensual stop on the other hand it just that. Consensual on the part of the citizen or citizens and may be ended at their discretion at any time. They are required under a consensual stop to do nothing. It is at their consent.

Once the stop passes beyond the being consensual to a detention (Terry stop) or an arrest, the person can be required to provide certain information. As you move up the grid from consensual to detention to arrest, the information that you are required to provide also goes up. Many states now have Stop and Identify statues. The Supreme Court upheld those statues in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 for Terry Stops which are a detention.

If you want to have some real fun, get arrested and refuse to identify yourself. You will stay in jail until you are properly identified to the satisfaction of the jail and the court. They never bond out a "John Doe."

In the OP's case, since no crime was being committed, the officer was clearly in the wrong for asking to see the images, in my opinion.

Reasonable suspicionvalidity is not determined after the fact. The court determines the validity of reasonable suspicion base on. The Court Supreme Court emphasized that the standard courts should employ is an objective one. “Would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate?”

The facts the officer had at the time of the stop would be judged reasonable in this case. They were dispatched based on the suspicions of citizens.

I've seen it go much further, with an officer demanding that images be deleted, which is both unreasonable, and unlawful without a court order. There is a general hysteria amonng LEO's these days regarding photographers, and unless some common sense starts to rule (as in constitutional and civil rights being respected and upheld), there's going to be a flurry of actionable backlash, which I feel will ultimately work against the intentions of the LE community, as well as the basic principles of Law Enforcement.

Are there LEO's that may overstep the bounds? Yes. Are their photographers that act like idiots? Yes. Welcome to the world. It happens in every, and I mean every profession, across all sectors of society bar none.

What you call hysteria, in this day and age is actually due caution. When I started in 1982 I would have agreed with you. Since 911 with what has been learned here an abroad would astound and frighten you. Actually since Timothy McVeigh we started learning the sophistication that people with these types of intent will go to. McVeigh made several trips to Oklahoma City and the Alfred P. Murrah Building prior to blowing it up.

It is not a question of if there will be a Beslan type incident in North America, only a matter of when will it occur. The device in Times Square recently, while crude in construction, would have cause a devastating blast if it had gone off. There would have been a large loss of life from that device.

With all due respect, do you have a formula to pick out a person in a crowd that is a potential threat? If you do then please share it, because I can make you a Billionaire, and my cut as you manager will make me a millionaire. :mrgreen: We can both retire somewhere where we will never have to worry about the situation coming to us.

Perhaps you misunderstood my intentions, so let me be perfectly clear, I was only asking out of curiosity, as many years ago when I received my FL CJ cert. there were very clear legal rules for reasonable suspicion and they seem to have gone the way of the dodo, with articulable reasoning having given way to and officers inarticlable "hunch", gut feeling or simple dislike for an individual. As a result, unlawful detention complaints, lawsuits and awards are at record levels. While I chose not to work in the field, CJ and constitutional law are interests of mine, and I pay attention to such trends.

I appreciate the curiosity. Actually, the rules weren't all that clear as we apparently thought they were. The courts have not nor have the ever stepped away from articulable reasonable suspicion.

Think back to what you were taught about car stops and contacts with the operator and passengers in vehicles and compare it to what Arizona v Johnson has now lined out. Something that the entire Criminal Justice community long held true was flipped upside down.

What has given away is common sense in this country. We are by far the most litigious society on the face of the planet. Do some checking and see how many of those questionable detention lawsuits actually found the officers had conducted an unlawful detention. The number is extremely low.

With regard to your previous posting vis a vis the use of images by terrorists, they used soap too, should we be checking ID's for soap purchases? How about shoes, gasoline, gum? Where does a reasonable society, founded on constitutional guaranteed rights and freedoms draw the line? I don't have the answer, but I do know that in the last 30 years, I have seen more erosion of those rights to be very, very worried. I understand the job of LEO's is difficult, but the minute that those rights are ignored, we have entered a police state, by it's very definition.

I don't have that answer, but it is going to be an issue that society will have to deal with when that first school is blown up killing lots of kids, or that mall or whatever ends up being the eventual successful target. At what point are you going to demand that individuals give up some or at least hinder their individual rights to better protect the larger group and what are you going to be willing to give up to provide that protection. Those choices are going to be hard made and much argued, depending on whether it was your kid, wife, husband, mother, father etc or not that the explosion decimated.

One thing that was repeated over and over during the training that I just attended was that we must Learn from the past and Act for the Future.