Police Harassing Timelapse Photographer (Video title)

[o hey tyler]

Strobist had a blog post on this topic just the other day, but not about the specific video at the top of this thread. Anyway, it's interesting in context of the topic: Strobist: How to Avoid Dealing With the Police When Shooting in Public

Hint: Copy & paste the article to your word processor.... it's white text on a dark gray background. I HATE people who do that crap!

Yeah, I hate it when the contrast ratio is the same as black on white too. It's so terrible.

 

[NickA]

I'm not going to go into "what if" lala land with you. From what I saw of the video, the cops were wrong to continue to harass him. The photographer had nothing wrong with his tone until after the cop kept insisting on his ID and basically acting like an asshole. When the photographer tried to assert his rights, that he didn't have to show him his ID because 1, he was on public property, which the cop didn't dispute, and 2, he wasn't doing anything wrong, which the cop again didn't dispute, the cop called in backup and was even more of an ass. I don't even have an ID on me most of the time. That's my right.
And when is it not a time to be an A hole about your rights? I didn't serve in the Navy so people had to bend over and take it here in the US.

There is a lot of "what if" going on. You are "what if-ing" on what you saw. We don't know when the video started. Maybe he was an a-hole already. See what I mean? We have no ideal of what the whole story is.

I didn't serve in the Navy so people had to bend over and take it here in the US.

Thank you for that :thumbup:

 

[CMfromIL]

I'm not sure of the laws where the person was on the bridge (PA?), but in IL, he would have gone to jail for filming the police with AUDIO. It's a felony in IL, and currently under review by both the legislature, and the courts. Recently it was found to be unconsitutional by 2 lower court judges, but it hasn't worked its way through the appeals process.

You can video tape w/out audio, but not with audio.

As far as 'just show the ID' crowd, that's not what America is about. We are not a 'show me your papers' country, nor should we strive to be. If you are in a public area, not breaking any laws you should be free to move about w/out harrassment. If the officer had probable cause to need ID, then he should have stated it. He asked, the camera guy declined. That's his right. It's not hiding anything.

No more than I'd let an officer come into my home and toss my belongings about looking for drugs on a whim, simply because 'I don't have anything to hide'. There is no reason for the officer to need to see the ID, and there is no reason for the citizen to provide them.

 

[theregoesjb]

PA does not have a "stop and identify" statute (according to wikipedia anyway) Stop and identify statutes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I dont know how that affects filming a police officer. I would like to think that if you are not involved with any criminal act and on public property filming and a police officer enters into the situation without any legal reason then it shouldnt matter if you film them. Otherwise that could make it somewhat easy to accidently commit a crime all the time.

 

[12sndsgood]

well i'll just agree to disagree with you guys. i'll continue talking to the police with respect and showing my id and going about my business without anytime wasted and you guys continue to argue with the police and have your time wasted. i have more pressing things to do then sit and argue with police.

 

[skieur]

The police need to have probable cause to look at the guy's ID. He was pointing a camera at a freeway, not moving it, taking long exposures. There was no probable cause,

Really? What is the definition of "probable cause" in his state? I am not a lawyer, and, if I understand correctly, you are not either. I don't think either of us can make an assessment of what the police-officers at the time determined to be 'reasonable'.

This isn't Nazi Germany.

Please tell me that this statement was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Comparing a modern-day policeman in the US asking someone what they're doing on a bridge late at night to Nazi-era Germany is ludicrous. I would suggest that you head down a local retirement home and see if you can find someone who might have lived in Berlin, Dresden, Hamburg, or other large city and have them describe for you what life was like!

Legally, unless you are driving a car, you are not required to carry ID in Canada or in the US. I would venture to say that any state laws to the contrary would violate the American Constitution. Since you are not required to carry ID, you are not required to show it. I was once stopped by provincial police in a car full of people that was driving up the highway sideways in what the police would have considered to be suspicious circumstances. They impounded the car but the only ID they asked for was the license, ownership, and insurance of the driver.

If they arrest you they can ask for ID, but even then it can be a "John Doe warrant" but without a charge the arrest won't hold, since taking photos is not illegal.

If more people stood up for their rights like the photographer in the film, there would be LESS harassment of photographers by the police.

skieur

 

[CMfromIL]

well i'll just agree to disagree with you guys. i'll continue talking to the police with respect and showing my id and going about my business without anytime wasted and you guys continue to argue with the police and have your time wasted. i have more pressing things to do then sit and argue with police.

Who said anything about being disrespectful? The officer asked, and the photographer declined to produce ID. That's not disrespectful, thats being a citizen in the USA. No more 'disrespectful' than going to the voting booth, owning a firearm, speaking your mind in public or any other host of protected rights under the constitution.

There is a time and a place, and specific requirements for needing to show ID. Declining to produce it at a time that it's not required is not being disrespectful.

 

[o hey tyler]

The police need to have probable cause to look at the guy's ID. He was pointing a camera at a freeway, not moving it, taking long exposures. There was no probable cause,

Really? What is the definition of "probable cause" in his state? I am not a lawyer, and, if I understand correctly, you are not either. I don't think either of us can make an assessment of what the police-officers at the time determined to be 'reasonable'.

This isn't Nazi Germany.

Please tell me that this statement was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Comparing a modern-day policeman in the US asking someone what they're doing on a bridge late at night to Nazi-era Germany is ludicrous. I would suggest that you head down a local retirement home and see if you can find someone who might have lived in Berlin, Dresden, Hamburg, or other large city and have them describe for you what life was like!

Legally, unless you are driving a car, you are not required to carry ID in Canada or in the US. I would venture to say that any state laws to the contrary would violate the American Constitution. Since you are not required to carry ID, you are not required to show it. I was once stopped by provincial police in a car full of people that was driving up the highway sideways in what the police would have considered to be suspicious circumstances. They impounded the car but the only ID they asked for was the license, ownership, and insurance of the driver.

If they arrest you they can ask for ID, but even then it can be a "John Doe warrant" but without a charge the arrest won't hold, since taking photos is not illegal.

If more people stood up for their rights like the photographer in the film, there would be LESS harassment of photographers by the police.

skieur

A post from Skieur that I agree with! Nice!

 

[12sndsgood]

its his attitude. regardless of wether its legal or not. cop "why are you taking photos" guy" because i can" sorry but thats just a snotty remark.

 

[jake337]

its his attitude. regardless of wether its legal or not. cop "why are you taking photos" guy" because i can" sorry but thats just a snotty remark.

Your missing the point. Your attitude should not matter to the officer. He's there to asses the situation not you as a person.

 

[12sndsgood]

Really? What is the definition of "probable cause" in his state? I am not a lawyer, and, if I understand correctly, you are not either. I don't think either of us can make an assessment of what the police-officers at the time determined to be 'reasonable'.

Please tell me that this statement was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Comparing a modern-day policeman in the US asking someone what they're doing on a bridge late at night to Nazi-era Germany is ludicrous. I would suggest that you head down a local retirement home and see if you can find someone who might have lived in Berlin, Dresden, Hamburg, or other large city and have them describe for you what life was like!

Legally, unless you are driving a car, you are not required to carry ID in Canada or in the US. I would venture to say that any state laws to the contrary would violate the American Constitution. Since you are not required to carry ID, you are not required to show it. I was once stopped by provincial police in a car full of people that was driving up the highway sideways in what the police would have considered to be suspicious circumstances. They impounded the car but the only ID they asked for was the license, ownership, and insurance of the driver.

If they arrest you they can ask for ID, but even then it can be a "John Doe warrant" but without a charge the arrest won't hold, since taking photos is not illegal.

If more people stood up for their rights like the photographer in the film, there would be LESS harassment of photographers by the police.

skieur

A post from Skieur that I agree with! Nice!

without a charge the arrest wont hold. but most of us prefer not to spend the night in jail wether were right or wrong. you guys may be fine with not showing your id and beign arrested and then later let go. i prefer to just be nice, let them see my i.d. and keep shooting photos. heck, ive even gone to a cop and had him move his car because he was in the way of my shot. treat the police nice and you get treated nice in return.

 

[o hey tyler]

its his attitude. regardless of wether its legal or not. cop "why are you taking photos" guy" because i can" sorry but thats just a snotty remark.

Well, it's an accurate remark. He IS taking photos 'because he can' and shouldn't have to worry about the police coming up to him and asking for his papers.

 

[jake337]

Legally, unless you are driving a car, you are not required to carry ID in Canada or in the US. I would venture to say that any state laws to the contrary would violate the American Constitution. Since you are not required to carry ID, you are not required to show it. I was once stopped by provincial police in a car full of people that was driving up the highway sideways in what the police would have considered to be suspicious circumstances. They impounded the car but the only ID they asked for was the license, ownership, and insurance of the driver.

If they arrest you they can ask for ID, but even then it can be a "John Doe warrant" but without a charge the arrest won't hold, since taking photos is not illegal.

If more people stood up for their rights like the photographer in the film, there would be LESS harassment of photographers by the police.

skieur

A post from Skieur that I agree with! Nice!

without a charge the arrest wont hold. but most of us prefer not to spend the night in jail wether were right or wrong. you guys may be fine with not showing your id and beign arrested and then later let go. i prefer to just be nice, let them see my i.d. and keep shooting photos. heck, ive even gone to a cop and had him move his car because he was in the way of my shot. treat the police nice and you get treated nice in return.

Well of course you want to be treated as you treat others. But if I feel I am being stood on, I'll defend my rights.

 

[12sndsgood]

its his attitude. regardless of wether its legal or not. cop "why are you taking photos" guy" because i can" sorry but thats just a snotty remark.

Your missing the point. Your attitude should not matter to the officer. He's there to asses the situation not you as a person.

attitude matters to everyone. wether your a cop, a store clerk, a customer service agent. should not and does not are two diffrent things. you shouldn't speed. but how many of us do that. this is reality. if im an officer and your being an ass and refusing to show me your i.d. im wondering what you are hiding.

 

[o hey tyler]

Legally, unless you are driving a car, you are not required to carry ID in Canada or in the US. I would venture to say that any state laws to the contrary would violate the American Constitution. Since you are not required to carry ID, you are not required to show it. I was once stopped by provincial police in a car full of people that was driving up the highway sideways in what the police would have considered to be suspicious circumstances. They impounded the car but the only ID they asked for was the license, ownership, and insurance of the driver.

If they arrest you they can ask for ID, but even then it can be a "John Doe warrant" but without a charge the arrest won't hold, since taking photos is not illegal.

If more people stood up for their rights like the photographer in the film, there would be LESS harassment of photographers by the police.

skieur

A post from Skieur that I agree with! Nice!

without a charge the arrest wont hold. but most of us prefer not to spend the night in jail wether were right or wrong. you guys may be fine with not showing your id and beign arrested and then later let go. i prefer to just be nice, let them see my i.d. and keep shooting photos. heck, ive even gone to a cop and had him move his car because he was in the way of my shot. treat the police nice and you get treated nice in return.

I would much rather spend a night in jail for not committing a crime, then contacting the ACLU upon my release and getting the officer fired or at the very least reprimanded.