Man Arrested For Shooting Photo Of Police Activity

Status
Not open for further replies.

BoxAlarm187

Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2003
Messages
1,512
Location
Old Dominion
Scott, in case you didn't read my earlier message, I am just letting it go, and hope that you will too. Nothing's going to come out of us bantering back-and-forth, and it certainly hijacked the thread from it's original purpose.

On a seperate note, I checked out the 58 images you have posted at UseFilm, and you certainly do nice work behind the lens. I use a range of Nikon equipment for my work, but I get focused on shooting stuff related to work, and rarely take the time to shoot the world around me.

Back on topic, some law enforcement officers will try to flex thier muscle when it comes to being documented. However, when you're shooting events that are occuring in plain view (event is in public and can be seen with the naked eye), there is generally very little than can be done to stop the photographer. The the train photography thread on this board for a similar discussion.
 

BoxAlarm187

Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2003
Messages
1,512
Location
Old Dominion
jparks29 said:
show me that law.......seriously... show it to me.....
Agreed. Lots of people have been lead to believe that in the interest of homeland security, it's illegal to take pictures of anything but your family pet, but no one can seem to produce a document that outlines what you CAN'T take pictures of.
 

STiMULi

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
1,581
Location
Tucson, Arizona
BoxAlarm187 said:
Scott, in case you didn't read my earlier message, I am just letting it go, and hope that you will too. Nothing's going to come out of us bantering back-and-forth, and it certainly hijacked the thread from it's original purpose.

On a seperate note, I checked out the 58 images you have posted at UseFilm, and you certainly do nice work behind the lens. I use a range of Nikon equipment for my work, but I get focused on shooting stuff related to work, and rarely take the time to shoot the world around me.

Back on topic, some law enforcement officers will try to flex thier muscle when it comes to being documented. However, when you're shooting events that are occuring in plain view (event is in public and can be seen with the naked eye), there is generally very little than can be done to stop the photographer. The the train photography thread on this board for a similar discussion.
OK, I retract all my previous sarcasm :)
 

blueline_308

Member
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
155
Location
Eastern, NC
I just want to add something to this discussion, something maybe someone hasn't considered. All you people who keep talking about all the pics that you take whenever you see Police activity...remember this. If that activity is part of a criminal investigation, which an arrest would be, and often times even activity where an arrest is not immediate would be, could possibly be evidence of a crime. Officers are OBLIGATED to gather all evedence, to whatever extent possible, wheteher it benifit the State or the Defendant. Officers CAN confiscate that evidence, and if exigent circumstances exist, like maybe a great likelyhood that the evidence will be destroyed or altered or not availible later if not immediately seized, then the need for a search warrant is waived. ( of course that would be decided by a judge during an evidence suppression hearing ). What I am saying is just because you don't think an officer's action is 'fair' or 'right' has nothing to do with it's legality.

Yes, you may win in court, but odds are that some legal eagle has instructed the officers on what and when to seize cameras. Every supreme court decision handed down in regards to search and seizure is as a result of an officer somewhere 'pushing the envelope' and it getting into the court system for a legal decision.

The only element that an officer in the USA need to fulfill for an arrest to be legal is that of probable cause, which is a different and lesser burden of proof than that required for a conviction in court. I think that most times officers more that fulfill that element before arresting...if not the jails would be more overflowing than they are. I suggest you politely question the officer for his reason for demanding the pics, but bottom line, you should probably comply...but thats totally up to you. It's your criminal history, not mine.

BL
73
 

cristisphoto

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2004
Messages
739
Well lets see other than the fact I almost got my self arrested after taking pics yeah
I learned the hard way..
SOOOOO
Ask ANy Federal Protective Service Officer//
Don't get mad at me I don;t make the laws I just try tpo undertsand them lol:roll:
 

cristisphoto

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2004
Messages
739
BoxAlarm187 said:
Agreed. Lots of people have been lead to believe that in the interest of homeland security, it's illegal to take pictures of anything but your family pet, but no one can seem to produce a document that outlines what you CAN'T take pictures of.
Oh I'm sure if you had the MONEY and time to hire good lawyer
then yeah you'd probaly win...
But if you are like me then well it's in your best interest to keep walkin lol
Cause honestly, I KNow I wouldn't last in jail or Prison
But Anyways,
If you all like to be those who get their butts kicked by tthe PD and the whine about it on the evening news lol
Be my guest
But DON"T say I didnt warn you ....
 

Signal3and2

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Messages
98
Location
Iowa
Well it is ILLEGAL to take ANY pictures of Federal property and or Federal Personell..
show me that law.......seriously... show it to me.....
And regardless of whether it's true or not, since when were municipal / county cops considered federal employees?
 

newbie

Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Messages
294
Location
St Clair, Michigan
cristisphoto said:
Well it is ILLEGAL to take ANY pictures of Federal property and or Federal Personell..

Especially after the Patriot Act was made law..
Sorry, wrong anwser....

Fwd from Lawyer and Photographer Bert Krages:

> Last December, a photographer in Portland, Oregon was stopped and > detained > by security guards for taking photographs of the old federal courthouse. > Margie Boule, a columnist with the Oregonian, wrote yesterday about his > experience and her interviews with federal officials in the Office of > Homeland Security, Federal Protective Service, and U.S. > Attorney's Office. > It is a well written column and shows what can happen when photographers > voice their complaints about mistreatment.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/margie_boule/index.ssf?/base/living/1074258241122040.xml

(you have to do a little zipcode and age thing)

A couple of quotes:

"You'd think it would be easy to find out if something was against the law in the United States. Either there's a law on the books or there isn't, right? But this week it took a lot of phone calls to get a definitive answer on whether it's illegal to photograph federal buildings in America....

Garrison Courtney, with the Federal Protective Service in the capitol, was certain "there is a law" banning the photographs. "What it is offhand I can't say, but you can be charged for taking pictures of federal buildings. I have seen people charged with it since I came here." But Garrison could not cite the law...

Finally Ken Spitzer, regional director for the Federal Protective Service of Homeland Security -- in other words, the big boss of the security guards who hassled Jeffrey Thorns last month -- had the facts. "It's not true" that it's illegal to photograph federal buildings, he said this week. "They misspoke. It's certainly not illegal. But when we see people in front of buildings taking photos we try to be as vigilant as we can.""
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top