Police/security and photography.

[skieur]

I know this is somewhat covered in a couple different threads but I was figuring a more comprehensive approach might be had by having it's own thread. Like at what point would it be worthwhile to draw media attention if it was a police officer? Does it actually make any difference? Is telling the officer (obviously specific to police) that you will not delete your pictures going to cause any major difficulties perhaps legal action?

The media generally support the rights of photographers because that is what photojournalsim and television reporting is all about. I would also make civil rights and other organizations aware as well. If you were confronted by a police officer it depends what happened. In the worst case scenario, I would bring a lawyer and a member of the media with me to visit the prosecutor's office and lay charges against the police officer.
I would also lodge a complaint with whatever the civilian body is that oversees the police in the area. In Canada it is a Police Commission. Does bringing the media in, make a difference,..sure it makes the matter political with potential fallout for authorities and puts pressure on the prosecutor to lay charges against the police officer and on the body that oversees the actions of the police to act on the complaint. By worse case scenario, by the way, I mean if you were assaulted, treated roughly, finger printed, entered into a police database, interrogated, held for a period of time without your consent, your equipment taken or damaged and then simply let go.

To your second question, not deleting your photos cannot lead to any valid legal action.

Even in the worst case scenario, all you have lost so far is your time and perhaps the fee for having your lawyer with you at the prosecutor's office and more people have heard about your case.

The advantage to you is that if what you have set in motion works and charges are laid for example, then you are already part way to winning a lawsuit, before you have even started one, and with minimal expenditure.

To those that ask the question: "Is the photo worth it?" my response is "Are your rights worth defending or are you casually willing to give them up as a matter of convenience?" and "Are you willing to be treated like a criminal, for no reason and to allow others to be treated in the same manner by not objecting forcefully? The rhetoric about fighting for the freedom and the democratic rights of people in other lands becomes a joke if people won't even fight for their own rights and freedoms.

skieur

 

[skieur]

What if it's not a security guard or police officer - what if you're in a state park and it's a park ranger?

I was shooting engagement photos for some friends in a state park and about half-way through I was approached by a park ranger asking for a business card. I was really freaked out (this was 2.5 years ago, before I knew my rights and about TPF). I told him I didn't have one and that I was just shooting some engagement photos for my friends as a present. As soon as I implied that I was doing it for free (which I was, I just don't remember my exact wording to the guy), he nodded and basically said, "Carry on," and walked away.

So, a state park is technically public property in the US, right? Paid for by a trust and/or state funds and/or admission ($5 parking in this case). So even if I had been charging for the photos, would he have have been legally correct in saying that I couldn't do the photos?

There is a regulation in the parks of some states that requires a permit for large professional photographic ventures but what is meant is those with a truck, generator, large lighting boxes, cables, and a crew that practically takes over part of the park from regular users.

It sounds like the particular ranger was trying to imply that all professional photographers required a permit and that is definitely NOT what the regulation says. You may need to get a copy of it, if you plan to do future shooting in a state park.

skieur

 

[skieur]

Now if the officer does confiscate your equipment you can get it back right? Does anybody know what it takes to get your equipment back?

Sure lay a theft charge against the police. It was taken without your consent and it is not evidence of anything, particularly if you were not arrested for anything. Even if you were arrested, the equipment proves nothing so there was no legal reason for taking it.

skieur

 

[patrickt]

http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/theft/

Theft laws generally include the, "with the intent to deprive the owner...." clause. Merely taking without consent does not necessarily constitute theft. Hence, joyriding is taking without the intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property which would be auto theft.

Before you do anything stupid, talk to an attorney.

 

[mrodgers]

My question..... If you hand over your camera to an officer, how is that theft, or "taken without consent"? Unless it is forcefully taken from your hands, you handing over the camera I would imagine would be "giving with consent". I don't know anything about law like this, but I would imagine at this point, it would be a waste of time and money over it because you handed your camera over rather than it being taken.

 

[monkeykoder]

A police officer is a person of authority which if I'm not mistaken puts them in a different level of responsibility. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[RyanLilly]

I cannot imagine a circumstance in which a police officer would demand that you delete photos. If there is something illegal about the photos he might take the card with the photos as evidence.

This is correct.
Police will never take your property unless, as Patrickt has pointed out, in the rare case that your memory card contains evidence pertaining to a crime and you are about to throw your memory card into a river, a police officer does have probable cause for a search with out a warrant for the "preservation of evidence." This would be very, very rare.

If you are arrested for another offence or outstanding warent, they can take your stuff into evidence.

The only other way that I can think of to have probable cause would be "emergency circumstances." example: you take pictures of a kidnapping in action, a the police could potentially need to take your card so they could use the photos of ID the suspect and Vehicle Identification, so they could track them down and save the victim. Again very improbable.

Police Know they cannot take your property, and they won't. I got pulled over yesterday and the police officer made a point of saying "Here is your property." when he handed me my insurance card and ID. This a a very basic rule.

Look up the forth amendment, probable cause for unwarranted search and seizure:

1)Consent
2)Plain View (a dead guy or bag of crack on you car seat)
3)Emergency Circumstance (some ones life is in eminent danger)
4)Preservation of evidence (burning documents in your trash can)
5)incident to arrest (you are being arrested for a crime, the police can search the room or car that you are arrested in)

I think thats it.

 

[skieur]

A police officer is a person of authority which if I'm not mistaken puts them in a different level of responsibility. Correct me if I'm wrong.

No you are right. Causing someone to hand over their property without their freely given consent due to intimidation and perhaps a threatening manner constitutes theft or extorsion and an authority figure already has a perceived level of intimidation for many people and can adopt a very threatening manner, so their responsibility in that area is greater.

skieur

 

[monkeykoder]

That is correct. I should add as well that for example the definition of assault goes beyond hitting someone. Intentionally blocking someone's movement in a threatening manner can constitute assault. Handing your property to someone else because of intimidation or threat can constitute theft or extortion depending on the circumstances. False arrest would certainly apply to any charges for taking pictures, since such action is not illegal. Any action related to property in a false arrest would be equally illegal. Even police cannot seize property for no legal reason or for that matter secure it through intimidation. Unlawful confinement applies to being kept in a location without your consent by either force or intimidation. If you reverse the concept you cannot be lawfully confined for an offence that does not exist, so if security guards tell you to remain until the police arrive and you do so because of intimidation that would certainly seem to be unlawful confinement. If the police hold you, fingerprint you, and put your name in a database without a valid legal reason, charges, or an arrest, and taking pictures is definitely not one, then your rights have been violated in several areas and several illegal acts have taken place. So instead of being a victim, lay charges.

I would think that if you handed your property to a policeman some intimidation was felt by you regarding his position as an authority figure.
Because of that, as you say he has a greater responsibility to ensure that his actions with regard to your property are completely legal and above board.

skieur

Thank you you stated what I was trying to much more succinctly.

 

[MACollum]

No you are right. Causing someone to hand over their property without their freely given consent due to intimidation and perhaps a threatening manner constitutes theft or extorsion and an authority figure already has a perceived level of intimidation for many people and can adopt a very threatening manner, so their responsibility in that area is greater.

skieur

That stated above is what I was wondering about. Many people do not realize exactly what their rights are. Some in positions of authority may exploit this by intimidating someone, then claiming that they handed over their property willingly, when in reality they may have handed it over simply because they thought they had to.

 

[THORHAMMER]

if the cops searching you, without warant , (and its not just for weapon check)
Tell him you do not consent to the search,
ask for a state cop to be called in because you feel this is illegal. Call 911. This is illegal search.

In the end youll be searched, and you can sue, just its prob not worth going to jail for a few hours for, but hey so far a lot of guys got a lot of money back by suing the city. one guy got 8K

 

[Snyder]

Maybe this info may help some people. For all Military bases even if you are on public property taking photos of the base, most importantly the flightline if caught you will loose your film/cf cards maybe even worse. However if you are a working professional for a newspaper/magazine you can go through the proper channels (Public Affairs) and get escorted around to take photos.

 

[skieur]

if the cops searching you, without warant , (and its not just for weapon check)

...just its prob not worth going to jail for a few hours for, but hey so far a lot of guys got a lot of money back by suing the city. one guy got 8K

Then again, perhaps it is, if you add "unlawful confinement" and "false arrest" to your lawsuit.

skieur

 

[skieur]

Maybe this info may help some people. For all Military bases even if you are on public property taking photos of the base, most importantly the flightline if caught you will loose your film/cf cards maybe even worse. However if you are a working professional for a newspaper/magazine you can go through the proper channels (Public Affairs) and get escorted around to take photos.

Yes, definitely to be avoided, unless you go through the proper channels.

skieur

 

[nagoshua]

I dont know if it's me or not but i permanently get hassled for taking pictures by police and security. Just tonight i was with a friend looking for some new photo opportunities in a pretty bad area known for hookers and i got stopped by police for curb crawling and then hassled for 20 mins. I think a lot of police get off on a power trip.