Photography Law in the United States

[amolitor]

I always do what cops tell me to do. Cops in this country, you may have noticed, carry guns. My rule is actually more general than that, when a person with a gun asks me to do something, I do it. This seems to substantially reduce the frequency with which I get shot.

 

[Gavjenks]

What happens if somebody confronts you?

3) A police officer: If they tell you to stop photographing, you have to do so.

Incorrect.

Edit: actually no, this was correct as originally written. Second guessed myself.

I don't know if it's true federally, but it's at least usually a lawful order for a police officer to order you to freeze / stop moving for purposes such as ensuring maximum officer safety, which could thus include taking pictures in some circumstances.

And although in the absence of any special events or circumstances it PROBABLY wouldn't normally be a "lawful order" to say to stop photographing on, for instance, the sidewalk, it can be very ambiguous whether various orders are lawful or not, since they can make claims about being threatened by your gear, or they may have legitimate external reasons to be emptying the street that you don't know about, or who knows what. For all you know there's a sniper on a roof that has a vendetta against people whose photos are being taken, and they're eliminating potential targets by telling you to stop.

And in some states, it very well may be illegal to just not follow a direct order, period (unless theyre telling you to stab a guy or something. But ceasing an action like photography is clearly not itself committing another additional crime or anything).

There's also common law considerations, even if nothing exists in a statute in your state regarding this. For example, if your photography is obviously disturbing the peace via loud arguments, etc., a police officer may well be within his right to force you to stop.

It's all very gray, and state dependent, etc. etc. which overall makes it a terrible idea at best to not follow such an order, and at worst it could hold up in court as illegal not to, depending on what the situation actually was.




Edit: Nor is this exactly a very pressing "civil rights" issue that we all need to be standing up for, in my opinion. Police officers can already just detain you entirely, legally, if they feel it necessary, so it's not a big deal for them to be able to tell you to do things that constitute, essentially, just partial detentions, like stopping photography, because this doesn't lead to any runaway power scenarios since they already have more power than that.

When it comes to SEARCHES, it's a different story (your memory card), and I do suggest strenuously standing up for your rights in that regard, by clearly and politely saying "I do not consent to a search" and then simply not complying, if asked to see photos (but don't physically resist if they go for them anyway).

 

[Buckster]

You Have Every Right to Photograph That Cop | American Civil Liberties Union

Know Your Rights: Photographers | American Civil Liberties Union

Bert P. Krages Attorney at Law Photographer's Rights Page

 

[Tailgunner]

I always do what cops tell me to do. Cops in this country, you may have noticed, carry guns. My rule is actually more general than that, when a person with a gun asks me to do something, I do it. This seems to substantially reduce the frequency with which I get shot.

:roll:

 

[KmH]

What happens if somebody confronts you?

3) A police officer: If they tell you to stop photographing, you have to do so.

Incorrect.

Edit: actually no, this was correct as originally written. Second guessed myself.

I don't know if it's true federally, but it's at least usually a lawful order for a police officer to order you to freeze / stop moving for purposes such as ensuring maximum officer safety, which could thus include taking pictures in some circumstances.

And although in the absence of any special events or circumstances it PROBABLY wouldn't normally be a "lawful order" to say to stop photographing on, for instance, the sidewalk, it can be very ambiguous whether various orders are lawful or not, since they can make claims about being threatened by your gear, or they may have legitimate external reasons to be emptying the street that you don't know about, or who knows what. For all you know there's a sniper on a roof that has a vendetta against people whose photos are being taken, and they're eliminating potential targets by telling you to stop.

And in some states, it very well may be illegal to just not follow a direct order, period (unless theyre telling you to stab a guy or something. But ceasing an action like photography is clearly not itself committing another additional crime or anything).

There's also common law considerations, even if nothing exists in a statute in your state regarding this. For example, if your photography is obviously disturbing the peace via loud arguments, etc., a police officer may well be within his right to force you to stop.

It's all very gray, and state dependent, etc. etc. which overall makes it a terrible idea at best to not follow such an order, and at worst it could hold up in court as illegal not to, depending on what the situation actually was.




Edit: Nor is this exactly a very pressing "civil rights" issue that we all need to be standing up for, in my opinion. Police officers can already just detain you entirely, legally, if they feel it necessary, so it's not a big deal for them to be able to tell you to do things that constitute, essentially, just partial detentions, like stopping photography, because this doesn't lead to any runaway power scenarios since they already have more power than that.

When it comes to SEARCHES, it's a different story (your memory card), and I do suggest strenuously standing up for your rights in that regard, by clearly and politely saying "I do not consent to a search" and then simply not complying, if asked to see photos (but don't physically resist if they go for them anyway).

Where does this information come from?

 

[Steve5D]

I love threads like this...

 

[ShooterJ]

lol...

Well, while it's not illegal to take photos of someone screaming in your face.. punched could be the least of your worries. You could also be stabbed/shot/beaten by multiple attackers etc..

Use some common sense.

Can a police officer tell you to stop photographing ... technically no.

But I CAN have you put the camera down.. anything in your hands can be potentially dangerous and so in effect, I stopped you.

There ARE a lot of things photographers shouldn't worry about, legally... and there are a LOT they should be aware of in terms of responsibility, courtesy and personal safety.

Some good points were hit on... but hopefully it doesn't encourage people to do what was called "obnoxious", when in reality the word should be "dangerous" or "stupid".

 

[jwbryson1]

Can a police officer tell you to stop photographing ... technically no.

Thanks. I've learned before not to argue with this guy even when I know I'm correct.

 

[ShooterJ]

The law is complex.. it varies by region and there aren't really any laws set in stone regarding photography. There are however, civil liberties which apply to any person whether they have a camera or not.

Also, harrasment is something that can be dealt with. If you're in someones face and they are telling you to back off and you don't do it.. they can call us. And then we will tell you not to harass people... at which point you have been given a lawful order by a police officer and failure to comply can and probably will result in your arrest.

Our job is to keep the peace ... if you're upsetting that balance, we can intervene and no amount of " I have the right to shoot in public " will get you any sympathy from a judge who can see that ..

A) You were engaged in harassment

And

B) You disobeyed instructions from a police officer

So this set in stone "these are my rights" attitude needs a closer examination...

If you're practicing common sense and common courtesy and you're not looking for trouble, it won't be an issue for you.

 

[Gavjenks]

Where does this information come from?

My post was basically "The law is a huge tangled mess in this regard, so you should play it safe." Basically I sat there and researched that particular sub point for an hour, and found different answers for almost every single state being discussed, and all kinds of crazy situational factors that mattered.

I can't give a more specific citation for the LACK of a centralized, straightforward statute. There just doesn't seem to exist anything simple that addresses this, and in at least some cases, it is definitely legal to make you stop (one or two mentioned by shooterJ here). So it's a bad idea to guess.

If you are a professional member of the Paparazzi, and have been given extensive training on exactly what you can get away with regarding local laws, and your salary depends on being as obnoxious as you can get away with, then maybe you can keep shooting when an officer tells you to stop and be confident in getting away with it / actually have a reason to. But for the other 99.99% of people reading this, the ambiguoitites make it clearly not worth it.

Well, while it's not illegal to take photos of someone screaming in your face.. punched could be the least of your worries. You could also be stabbed/shot/beaten by multiple attackers etc..

I will try to edit it to make it a little more cautionary

 

[KmH]

There are several levels of law here in the US:
Local
County
State
Federal

So it's to be expected that there are variances, particularly when local, county, and state laws are involved.
By the same token, US law at any level, is not necessarily applicable in other countries.

 

[Gavjenks]

There are several levels of law here in the US:
Local
County
State
Federal

So it's to be expected that there are variances, particularly when local, county, and state laws are involved.
By the same token, US law at any level, is not necessarily applicable in other countries.

Your rights to photography in the US derive primarily from the First Amendment.

This means that no state law can impose any additional restrictions on your photography (with some very limited exceptions such as limiting intra-state commerce on photography equipment or having varying rules about how to obtain a permit if you want to block off a street or something to do a shoot, etc.), due to the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Emphasis mine. First amendment rights are privileges of federal citizenship, and thus are universally protected across states, making the fundamental "what can I photograph?" rules consistent everywhere in the country.



Not outside the country, but that's why the thread is entitled, "Photography Law in the United States"

 

[skieur]

The law is complex.. it varies by region and there aren't really any laws set in stone regarding photography. There are however, civil liberties which apply to any person whether they have a camera or not.

Also, harrasment is something that can be dealt with. If you're in someones face and they are telling you to back off and you don't do it.. they can call us. And then we will tell you not to harass people... at which point you have been given a lawful order by a police officer and failure to comply can and probably will result in your arrest.

Our job is to keep the peace ... if you're upsetting that balance, we can intervene and no amount of " I have the right to shoot in public " will get you any sympathy from a judge who can see that ..

A) You were engaged in harassment

And

B) You disobeyed instructions from a police officer

So this set in stone "these are my rights" attitude needs a closer examination...

If you're practicing common sense and common courtesy and you're not looking for trouble, it won't be an issue for you.

However, a police officer can also harass a photographer and be in the wrong, if the photographer is not disturbing anyone by his photography and is acting in accordance with his constitutional rights in the US.

 

[ShooterJ]

The law is complex.. it varies by region and there aren't really any laws set in stone regarding photography. There are however, civil liberties which apply to any person whether they have a camera or not.

Also, harrasment is something that can be dealt with. If you're in someones face and they are telling you to back off and you don't do it.. they can call us. And then we will tell you not to harass people... at which point you have been given a lawful order by a police officer and failure to comply can and probably will result in your arrest.

Our job is to keep the peace ... if you're upsetting that balance, we can intervene and no amount of " I have the right to shoot in public " will get you any sympathy from a judge who can see that ..

A) You were engaged in harassment

And

B) You disobeyed instructions from a police officer

So this set in stone "these are my rights" attitude needs a closer examination...

If you're practicing common sense and common courtesy and you're not looking for trouble, it won't be an issue for you.

However, a police officer can also harass a photographer and be in the wrong, if the photographer is not disturbing anyone by his photography and is acting in accordance with his constitutional rights in the US.

You are absolutely correct.. but again, contesting it with the officer on the street will get you nowhere.

Take it through proper legal channels and deal with it the right way.

 

[skieur]

There are several levels of law here in the US:
Local
County
State
Federal

So it's to be expected that there are variances, particularly when local, county, and state laws are involved.
By the same token, US law at any level, is not necessarily applicable in other countries.

I am sure however that Local, County, and State Law cannot violate US Constitutional Rights.