Photography is Not a Crime

54 responses so far ↓

• 1 thebulldog // Jan 25, 2010 at 3:04 AM

  all hail Joel Chandler!!!!!!!!!

• 2 Jake Stichler // Jan 25, 2010 at 3:16 AM

  The first one was so ungodly polite it was absolutely hilarious. Almost makes one wonder if he’s been in trouble before with harassing photographers and walks on eggshells now to keep himself out of trouble. Nice guy, though.
  Jake Stichler´s last blog ..Cracking Down on Spending

• 3 Odin // Jan 25, 2010 at 3:41 AM

  Just my humble opinion:
  In the first video the officer seems like he is following a script that the “fps?” gave hem one that he has no choice to fallow (and may even know is bs)
  The officer is nice polite and not forceful abut info the camera guy dose not have to give up.

  The second video same way until “u guys don’t mined if i take your pic” then the right side officer starts making up stuff (in the vid they ever asked hem to not take pics) Then later the right officer dose a little on the job training to the left officer something to the effect Mr. camera guy can take your pic.
  Personally as soon as the officer told me i had to give hem my id i would have asked for his badge number.

• 4 Workingindust // Jan 25, 2010 at 4:46 AM

  I can’t see the vids (blocked out here) but it sounds like America needs more people like him.
  Workingindust´s last blog ..Cruzin

• 5 Eric // Jan 25, 2010 at 8:13 AM

  What video camera is he using?

• 6 Ray // Jan 25, 2010 at 8:23 AM

  Video 1, I almost feel bad for the officer. I think he realized fairly quickly that his ‘stop’ was going down the toilet and couldn’t quite recover

  Video 2, I think ‘Federal Officer’ 1 must have been a trainee and #2 was the supervisor. He doesnt seem to argue very much when #2 explains how it works to him

• 7 MacK // Jan 25, 2010 at 8:39 AM

  In the second, I love the big cop schooling the bald one on photographers rights in a public space.

  Also I would like to say kudos to Joel Chandler on a very good piece of video interaction with the cops. He played the game perfectly. He stated his rights at each affront to them, kept his video trained very well on them, kept the cops on guard at each step of the process, and stayed very cool the entire time.

  I do believe Joel was wrong in that during Terry Stop he would have to provide his ID. Some states have Stop & Identify laws, but you still only need to say your name, and possibly your address.

• 8 mepsipax // Jan 25, 2010 at 8:55 AM

  That is awesome…. if only everyone knew their rights. Also, Carlos, of course the cop doesn’t need to know what a Terry Stop is… they can harass most people at their whim.
  mepsipax´s last blog ..You guys scare me

• 9 Tom // Jan 25, 2010 at 10:23 AM

  I love the way he handled the situations. This should be a lesson to photographers that asserting rights in a nonviolent and civilized way can usually work better than a full-on assault. Maybe if the police departments realized that photographers knew their rights and refused to allow them to escalate encounters, they’d figure it’s not worth their time… well, we can dream…
  Tom´s last blog ..Brain Damage feed

• 10 Yizmo Gizmo // Jan 25, 2010 at 11:32 AM

  The beguiling catch-22 here for the officer
  is that if he arrests or harasses the photographer it goes on youtube since he’s violating the Constitution
  and thereby gets himself into more exposure/trouble/scrutiny than if he just left the guy alone to take some pictures.

• 11 Joel Chandler // Jan 25, 2010 at 12:45 PM

  Thanks for all of the positive feedback. I want to reply specifically to a few comments.

  Eric:

  In the encounter with ICE (daytime video) I was using an iPhone that I had mounted on a lanyard that was hanging around my neck. The iPhone is in an Otterbox case that has a holster with a belt clip. I used a piece of Velcro on the plug end of the earbuds that attached to the backside of the iPhone and the lanyard, so as to appear that the earbuds were plugged into the iPhone. The other end of the earbuds were slung around my neck. The over appearance is that it’s just a phone and not a video camera. I don’t think the ICE agents knew that I was shooting video.

  In the video from last night (nighttime video) I was using a Flip HD Ultra. I had it mounted on my chest using a nylon strap and an old (cheap) neoprene pistol holster. The strap and holster are black as was my t-shirt.

  MacK:

  Regarding the ID issue during a “Terry Stop”, here in Florida there is no “Stop and ID” law per say. However, there is a Prowl and Loitering Statute FS 856.021 (“P&L”) that allows LEOs to ascertain the identity of a suspicious person. The statue does not specifically address “papers” but simply identity (ID). Because of that, I make a point of not carrying ANYTHING in my pockets…no Drivers License, no pocket knife, no chewing gum, etc.

  As you probably know in Hiibel v Nevada the US Supreme Court upheld state statues that require a suspect to identify himself. The issue of producing papers is less clear. But there are no Florida Statutes that require a citizen to carry “travel documents” or “papers.” I can’t be compelled to produce something that I don’t have.

  In addition to advocating the right of citizens to photograph unmolested I expect at some point the issue of my not carrying “papers” will become a point of confrontation – an event that I would welcome since I don’t live in Nazi Germany or the USSR.

  Also, if my pockets are empty (I video tape that fact before I go out) then in the event of a “Terry Stop” there would be no legal basis for reaching into my pockets. A LEO is only authorized to do an exterior frisk to check for weapons (that is if he has a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed). The LEO may not reach into a pocket unless he feels something that might be a weapon. Since my pockets are empty that would be hard for a LEO to argue after the fact.

  Anyway, thanks again for the encouraging comments.

• 12 EdinMiami // Jan 25, 2010 at 1:09 PM

  Even though you might be making it harder for me to pay back my school loans; good job Joel!

  P.S. just don’t educate them toooooo fast, heh

• 13 Hazy // Jan 25, 2010 at 2:01 PM

  The only thing I would say is in the future do not ask the person if they mind that you film/photograph them.

  What is the point of asking this question if you know their answer is not going to change your behavior? What it WILL do is make them more aggressive towards you once they tell you to stop and you say no.

  If they ask you to stop, just calmly(like this photographer did) explain to them that we are in a public space and neither of you have an expectation of privacy.

• 14 Johnny Law // Jan 25, 2010 at 2:36 PM

  I think any rational person would agree that the police, especially federal, have the right to be interested in people taking pictures of their facilities. While it is certainly within someone’s rights to do so, it is also within the rights of the police to ask a few questions.

  If the police did nothing and the building was blown up, there would be many accusations of police not doing there job.

  I think the police in this video were polite and professional while trying to do their jobs. They are not evil men for trying to figure out why someone is walking around a federal building in a suspicious manner. They certainly didn’t violate any rights. I think Chandler was trying to provoke some type of police response and was hoping for something a bit more inflammatory.

  Let me pose a question to some of the readers here. We do know that terrorists, domestic and foreign, often scout out their targets prior to an attack and these scouts often take video and pictures. This is a real threat. How would you propose police reduce this threat without coming across to you as too heavy handed?

  I am not talking about the patrol officer who gets upset because you are videotaping their traffic stop. There is no danger from that and the officer just needs to deal with it. I am talking about the security of potential targets like federal and state government buildings. Surely you would agree that they have to take some security measures. What would be effective to identify potential threats without getting everyone here upset?

  Yes, yes, I know you can get pictures off Goggle Earth but those pictures are not always current and every good operation needs current intelligence and that is why someone would recon the spot for new information.

  Personally I think that police should be able to BRIEFLY stop and identify people taking photos of sensitive locations. I don’t think that pictures should be prohibited but I think there is enough public safety interest to justify some police involvement just to find out that person’s identity.
  Johnny Law´s last blog ..Learning to De-escalate

• 15 nuitnoel // Jan 25, 2010 at 3:05 PM

  I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow, I’ve learned a lot! Thanks!

• 16 LivingWithSmellyHippies // Jan 25, 2010 at 3:18 PM

  Johnny Law-
  You have watched way too many movies. Not once has it been shown in any report on terrorist operations that they in fact did ANY photo recon! Read the 911 commission report. Despite the excruciating detail, not one mention of photo recon. London? No recon! Madrid? No photo recon! Even in 30 years of of IRA bombings, photo recon never showed up in their playbook! It’s just something that makes for great cinema.

• 17 Uphold Rights // Jan 25, 2010 at 3:35 PM

  You know, I really think the fed from the first video seems like a nice guy. I do not see much wrong with either stop, in the end his rights where not trampled on, and everything ended up ok.

  I do think that seeing videos like these are important, and have great educational benefit to not only the public, but law enforcement as well.

  Keep it up Joel.
  Uphold Rights´s last blog ..upholdrights: Case of Contempt of Cop lands man beaten and jailed, for telling an off duty state cop he should not park in fire lane http://bit.ly/67fs3b

• 18 Hazy // Jan 25, 2010 at 3:50 PM

  To Johnny Law,

  First I’d like to say that although the guards in these films don’t seem to know constitutional law, they were polite and for the most part just trying to do their job.

  Yes, the police officers(or security guards in this case) are allowed to approach someone and try to ask what they are doing. But on the same hand a citizen does not have to answer any probing questions if s/he does not wish too.

  Where I disagree with you is that as long as the person is just photographing, there is no reasonable cause to conduct an investigation and therefore the security guards have no right to ask for ID.

  Also your hypothetical situation that you pose about how should law enforcement handle potential terrorism “casing” of a target. If I were a terrorist and I wanted to case a target, I would use inconspicuous cameras to do my filming so you wouldn’t even know I was recording anything. I would definitely not do it at night where there is more of a chance of being noticed by guards. There’s no way for law enforcement to stop casing, and any attempt to prevent it will 99% of the time be against innocent people.

• 19 torgeaux // Jan 25, 2010 at 4:05 PM

  Johnny: Two things. One, there’s very little evidence of photography preceding terrorist activity. Two, even if there were, the fact that someone uses a legal activity for an illegal goal doesn’t convert the activity into a suspicious one.

  Standing out in the open, and openly taking photographs of public buildings cannot be construed to be suspicious behavior, and police/security who act as if it is suspicious are the real problems here. I have more sympathy for the poor police officer called in by some asshole security guard or citizen screaming “suspicious activity!!!!!!”‘ and pointing at an 18 year old photography student. Those police have to respond, but the problem is, they don’t normally treat it like what it is, a ridiculous tin-hatter making unfounded accusations. Instead of saying, “Hey, I see you’re taking pictures, I’m just here because someone a bit too much on edge got a buzz in their panties. Getting any good shots tonight?” it inevitably becomes “hey, what are you doing/what are you taking pictures of? Show me that!” In response to the second instance, the most level-headed and reasonable photographer cannot be blamed for falling back on their “rights” and telling the police to go away.

  If police want respect and cooperation, they need to give it. The guys here (apparently, I can’t see the video at work) were at least polite.

• 20 Ariel // Jan 25, 2010 at 4:11 PM

  “We do know that terrorists, domestic and foreign, often scout out their targets prior to an attack and these scouts often take video and pictures.”

  The problem is that there is no actual evidence that the last portion of your statement is factually correct. Or even necessary. It wasn’t in the Japanese Racin(sp?) attack, the OK City bombing, the Spanish or London Train bombings, the Lockerbee plane downing, the Twin Towers, the USS Cole, or the Kenyan embassy bombing. There were photographs, IIRC, before Pearl Harbor, but the most useful was still verbal description of ship movement and placement by a single man.

  I have no problem with police asking for ID in a brief stop, as defined by the particular state statute. However, identifying a potential threat isn’t accomplished by asking a photo/videographer to ID himself, nothing is going to happen with that info, nothing. Certainly nothing is accomplished by unlawful intimidation or threat, except ego gratification. It’s pointless. Terrorists simply aren’t identified in that manner, or stopped.

  As for Chandler attempting to provoke, your assumption to “dirty” him so to speak, so what? Given the transcripts and videos he did nothing to provoke, unless asserting one’s lawful rights rather than shuffling off mumbling “yassah, mastah” is considered provocation by the particular LEO. If he hoped for a more inflammatory response, only the LEO would bear responsibility for providing it.

• 21 mepsipax // Jan 25, 2010 at 4:11 PM

  Johnny Law again you are wrong. There is no evidence of photo recon. Also, using that logic, police can stop and ask you to identify if you are walking down the street late at night. “What are you doing out so late. You are suspicious.” You have no right to stop somebody and ask for ID unless they are breaking the law. Period.
  mepsipax´s last blog ..You guys scare me

• 22 Hazy // Jan 25, 2010 at 4:16 PM

  “I have no problem with police asking for ID in a brief stop, as defined by the particular state statute.”

  I have a problem with these stop and identify statutes. They are fundamentally unconstitutional. The judges who put these these laws into effect need to be investigated and these laws need to be repelled.

• 23 Michaelk42 // Jan 25, 2010 at 4:55 PM

  @johnnylaw

  “We do know that terrorists, domestic and foreign, often scout out their targets prior to an attack and these scouts often take video and pictures. This is a real threat.”

  Allow me to add to the chorus of “no we don’t” and “no it isn’t.”

  Where do certain people keep getting this idea, and why do they keep repeating it?
  Michaelk42´s last blog ..Again with the cluelessness

• 24 torgeaux // Jan 25, 2010 at 5:02 PM

  Stop and identify isn’t unconstitutional. What’s your rationale to think it is? What part of the constitution does it violate? Just curious, really, as I see the “unconstitutional” word thrown around a lot when people don’t like something.

  mpsipax: Stop and ID isn’t predicated on someone breaking the law, unless you’re equating “suspicion” with breaking the law.

• 25 torgeaux // Jan 25, 2010 at 5:05 PM

  The BBC reported on an arrest of some guys who were photographing trains. They are then linked to a terrorist group, and later convicted of some charges. But, no charges related to terrorism, and the photography wasn’t linked to anything in particular, but the headline was, “Muslim men connected to terrorist group arrested while photographing trains!!!”

  That’s where you get it. And, of course, why else would anyone take pictures of iconic locations or trains?

• 26 Clark // Jan 25, 2010 at 5:46 PM

  Until the police stop everybody walking by and feel them up for 1/4″ cameras hidden in their pants looking out through their belt buckles, you’re not going to stop any “recon” operations even if they exist.

• 27 Johnny Law // Jan 25, 2010 at 6:02 PM

  Anyone with any military training knows that you must conduct surveillance of a target prior to conducting an operation. It boggles the mind that the folks here think that a terrorist doesn’t collect photos of targets to help identify approaches and weaknesses. It is simple tactics and just because we didn’t find surveillance photos of all these attacks does not mean that the terrorists forgo simple tradecraft.

  @ Michael42

  “Where do certain people keep getting this idea, and why do they keep repeating it?”

  From Time Magazine – http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,994864,00.html

  “The discovery of computer materials belonging to al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan led American officials to warn of threats to specific facilities inside the U.S. Several hard drives and 51 computer discs recovered in Pakistan provide evidence that al-Qaeda has conducted extensive surveillance of U.S. targets. Surveillance reports found on the computers contain some 500 photographs of targeted buildings and discussions about how to hit them.”

  From Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128084,00.html

  “The documents of surveillance of five U.S. financial institutions were found on the computers of two accused members of Usama bin Laden’s terror network arrested in Pakistan last month. Pakistani intelligence officials told The Associated Press the computers also held images of London’s Heathrow Airport (search) and that this information was passed to British officials.”

  “It was prompted by maps, photographs and other details of possible U.S. and British targets that were found on computers belonging to Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani (search) — a Tanzanian indicted for his role in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa — and a Pakistani computer expert, Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan, said two Pakistani officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.”

  DHS Bulletin listing possible indicators of Al-Qaeda surveillance: http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/DHS_AQSurveillIndicators.pdf

  “Al-Qaeda operations have been characterized by meticulous planning, a focus on inflicting mass casualties, and multiple, simultaneous suicide attacks. Operatives are highly trained in basic and sophisticated surveillance techniques, posing challenges for counterterrorism and security forces in identifying terrorist surveillance. Recent information and analysis point to surveillance practices that traditionally have been utilized by Al-Qaeda-affliliated operatives. While not exhaustive, the following list suggests possible indicators of terrorist surveillance.
  –Unusual or prolonged interest in security measures or personnel, entry points and access controls, or perimeter barriers such as fences or walls.
  –Unusual behavior such as starting or quickly looking away from personnel or vehicles entering or leaving designated facilities or parking areas.
  –Observation of security reaction drills or procedures.
  –Increase in anonymous telephone or e-mail threats to facilities in conjunction with suspected surveillance incidents-indicating possible surveillance of threat reaction procedures.
  –Foot surveillance involving two or three individuals working together.
  –Mobile surveillance using bicycles, scooters, motorcycles, cars, trucks, sport utility vehicles, boats, or small aircraft.
  –Prolonged static surveillance using operatives disguised as panhandlers, demonstrators, shoe shiners, food or flower vendors, news agents, or street sweepers not previously seen in the area.
  –Discreet use of still cameras, video recorders or note taking at non-tourist type locations.
  –Use of multiple sets of clothing, identifications, or the use of sketching materials (paper, pencils, etc.).
  –Questioning of security or facility personnel.
  General information”
  Johnny Law´s last blog ..Learning to De-escalate

• 28 EdinMiami // Jan 25, 2010 at 6:11 PM

  Can’t we all agree that a brief stop should be a legitimate tool for police to use when confronting citizens who may or may not be conspiring to act in a criminal manner? It’s just a brief stop!

  Sure they might not find that much criminal activity afoot but even if they only found one person in a hundred who had a warrant or had a bit of dope on them think how much better we would all be if that one criminal was taken off the street. OK sure the ninety-nine other people have been delayed, but what patriotic citizen would complain about being briefly inconvenienced when the benefit of taking another criminal off the street is weighed against such minuscule considerations?

  As citizens, we should do our part and allow police the freedom to do their jobs to the extent and degree that they see fit. Who are we to determine how they do their job. You don’t tell a butcher how to cut meat do you?

  Anyway, it seems obvious that the more freedom we give police to do their job the more safety we get in return.

• 29 Johnny Law // Jan 25, 2010 at 6:12 PM

  @ Hazy

  “There’s no way for law enforcement to stop casing, and any attempt to prevent it will 99% of the time be against innocent people.”

  We can’t stop robberies, murders, or car accidents but we do the best we can. I am not talking about arresting people for taking pictures. It’s not illegal to take photos of buildings and of course it shouldn’t be made illegal.

  However, it’s also not illegal for a couple Saudi nationals to take flying lessons. It’s not illegal for someone buy several tons of fertilizer and rent a Ryder truck. It’s not illegal for a Muslim major in the US Army to post things on Islamic sites advocating jihad.

  Despite the legality of these things, a little more investigation by the police may have prevented tragic attacks. I am saying the same thing about being vigilant when you get suspicious behavior around govt buildings.

  The way I envision things being done is if an officer sees someone he thinks is suspicious, he has that person identify himself and his purpose for taking photos. The person goes on his way with his photos with minimal delay. If the officer thinks something is hinky about the whole deal, the person’s name gets submitted to the local JTTF. If it sends up any alarms due to being affiliated with an terrorist watch lists, then FBI agents go knock on that person’s door for an interview.

  I know this will probably spin heads here but I have no problem with that whatsoever. If it can help prevent another Oklahoma City bombing I think it is worth it.
  Johnny Law´s last blog ..Learning to De-escalate

• 30 Johnny Law // Jan 25, 2010 at 6:15 PM

  @ Ed

  Cmon Ed. You know what I am talking about here. No need to be snarky. I’m not talking about random stop and searches. I’m talking about someone possibly casing a potential terrorist target location being asked their name by the police. We are not talking about dope or searches or even looking at the photos on their camera.
  Johnny Law´s last blog ..Learning to De-escalate

• 31 Joel Chandler // Jan 25, 2010 at 6:27 PM

  What else might have prevented the Oklahoma City Bombing?

• 32 Hazy // Jan 25, 2010 at 9:31 PM

  JL: “Despite the legality of these things, a little more investigation by the police may have prevented tragic attacks. I am saying the same thing about being vigilant when you get suspicious behavior around govt buildings.”

  You cannot stop people who wish to commit crime, there’s just no way around that. All you can do is catch them after the fact. Anything before hand is a statistical game where the innocent citizens of this country are the losers.

  torgeaux: “Stop and identify isn’t unconstitutional. What’s your rationale to think it is? What part of the constitution does it violate? Just curious, really, as I see the “unconstitutional” word thrown around a lot when people don’t like something.”

  It violates the 4th amendment for unreasonable search and seizure. A lot of these laws are being phased in by these NWO judges, that’s a big deal.

• 33 Nathan J // Jan 25, 2010 at 9:38 PM

  @ Johnny Law: so if terrorists have been trained in recon, as you say, would it not occur to them to perhaps utilize smaller, more concealed cameras for such an operation?
  It is a trivial matter to obtain the necessary hardware and knowledge to fabricate a small camera that can be concealed in a baseball cap… It’s much cheaper than a DSLR, and because there is no obvious camera, a security guard/cop would be very hard-pressed to detect the subterfuge even in close quarters.
  In my younger days (well before 9/11 or even OKC), I did this very thing. total cost: $26, and 2 hours of my time. the picture quality was good enough for any type of recon a terrorist might want, and the several cops I interacted with while wearing the device were completely unaware of its presence. I even asked a couple of them, after the fact. (got sh*t for that, but it was part of the experiment)
  In your vision for how things would go down, such reconnaissance wouldn’t even get to the part where the police/security notice a suspicious person! Here’s how it would really work: terrorist operative (w/ camera in baseball cap) walks down street, looks up at federal building, making sure to get everything in the frame his superiors might need to plan the operation. terrorist continues walking along, past the security guard who is harassing a photographer holding his DSLR, and goes back to HQ to plan the operation.

• 34 Hazy // Jan 25, 2010 at 9:44 PM

  Yup, you won’t be able to catch a terrorist who is careful about being inconspicuous. Already a point I keep trying to make to JL, but he doesn’t seem to have a counter argument for it.

• 35 Ariel // Jan 25, 2010 at 9:50 PM

  JL,

  Good back up to your point, though in the incidents I pointed out simple personal surveillance would suffice. As 9 out of 10 listed indicators showed.

  Notice though that they considered “discrete” aka surreptitious use of photograph or video, as well as note taking and sketching as indicators. Most cases here do not fit that description.

  These guys are internet savvy, and any photographs found could have easily been drawn off the net. Timeliness is inconsequential. Photos would have to be constantly updated.

• 36 Ariel // Jan 25, 2010 at 9:58 PM

  I agree with this philosophically, so long as unlawful threats or intimidation are left out, but doubt that it will ever effectively preclude a terrorist attack. I do have a problem if every photographer is viewed as suspicious.

  If you can find a case of one already prevented because a cop stopped a photographer and felt the hinky, I’ll concede the point.

• 37 Ariel // Jan 25, 2010 at 10:07 PM

  torgeaux is dead on. The only issue is what constitutes “suspicious”, an undercurrent in the current argument. If you have any black male friends, ask if they have been stopped and ID’d for walking in a white neighborhood, which is of course “suspicious”. Less so these days…

• 38 Johnny Law // Jan 25, 2010 at 10:59 PM

  @Nathan and Hazy

  So you are saying that since it is difficult to detect, we shouldn’t even try? Gotcha. That’s an interesting approach to security.

  I don’t have a counter argument for it because it is ridiculous. Many terrorist plots have been foiled because the bad guys screwed up. Breaks are made in cases all the time based on the smallest details. Who is to say what would cause us to stop another one? You are simply dismissing another investigative/preventive tool for what reason?

• 39 Theywantyoufired // Jan 25, 2010 at 11:06 PM

  So you wish to take our rights away because there is terrorism. The worst terrorism today are the police. I do not know anyone who has been a victim of terrorism, but do know many people personally who are victims of the police.

• 40 Carlos Miller // Jan 25, 2010 at 11:10 PM

  What they are saying is that it is fruitless to go after the guy with the SLR making it obvious he is taking pictures because I would imagine terrorists would be a little more sneaky about it.

  Furthermore, this whole thing about demanding to know why they are taking pictures is comical because do they really expect a terrorist to just come out and admit they are taking photos in order to destroy the building?

• 41 EdinMiami // Jan 25, 2010 at 11:37 PM

  JL, I’m on your side on this one. Why are you breaking my balls? I agree that all we really need is a concise law which states simply and plainly that officers have the authority to briefly stop anyone they believe might be involved in criminal activity in the present or future.

  My contention is simply that nationwide we spend exorbitant amounts of money training police (and by extension; security officers) officers how to recognize when violations of the law are about to be committed. Why not harness that training and put that collective knowledge to use? It makes absolutely no sense to restrain officers from the very job and responsibilities for which we have spent so much money and for which the underlying laws of this country obviously allow.

  Who knows the law? Police
  Who is in the best position to keep us safe? Police
  Even the Supreme Court recognizes the new professionalism inherent in police work.

  That there are a few instances where citizens may or may not have been abused only proves that police have not been given enough latitude in determining how best to apply the authority they rightfully possess.

  I’m not sure why your are fighting me on this as I am sure that together, you and I can reeducate the few (unpatriotic) people who might not understand the necessity of restraining a few meaningless freedoms, which have become outdated, in order to gain the safety which the police can gift to us.

• 42 torgeaux // Jan 26, 2010 at 7:59 AM

  First, nothing in your links indicates that the photographs in question were from any source other than the internet, that is, it’s far from clear that someone went out and took pictures of these locations.

  Your comment is dead on, that they may well “collect photos.” That’s not the point of this blog, or this story, though, is it? Taking photographs isn’t illegal, or suspicious, when done openly and in public. Your central thesis would lead to the police being given the right to stop and question every visitor to a national landmark because terrorists are known to conduct surveillance.

  But here, here you go into the land of the police state for sure:
  “That there are a few instances where citizens may or may not have been abused only proves that police have not been given enough latitude in determining how best to apply the authority they rightfully possess.

  I’m not sure why your are fighting me on this as I am sure that together, you and I can reeducate the few (unpatriotic) people who might not understand the necessity of restraining a few meaningless freedoms, which have become outdated, in order to gain the safety which the police can gift to us.”

  First, police do NOT rightfully possess the authority harass photographers. Again, and again, it’s been made clear, they have to have suspicion, and photography ALONE does not provide that.

  Second, don’t question the patriotism of those with whom you disagree. I’ll put my 21 years in the army up against any service for this country you might have performed. There are no meaningless freedoms. A patriot would know that the founding fathers would rather die than give up their liberties.

  Thomas Jefferson: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

  Benjamin Franklin: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

• 43 I don't have a darn name // Jan 26, 2010 at 12:01 PM

  The next time you think you see a terrorist, call HLS or the FBI. Let’s say the guy really is a terrorist, going about perfectly legal activities in preparation for illegal ones. What are you personally going to be able do about it besides screw things up? This isn’t a movie and you’re not Bruce Willis.

• 44 torgeaux // Jan 26, 2010 at 4:13 PM

  Hazy: Stop and ID no more violates the constitution than do Terry stops. The 4th amendment says, in pertinent part, “against unreasonable searches and seizures”. Stop and ID isn’t unreasonable, or hasn’t been held to be so in any event. I’m sure there have been more onerous versions, that required picture id, or didn’t require any suspicion, but as a rule, they seem to pass muster.

• 45 Joel Chandler // Jan 26, 2010 at 4:23 PM

  One of the issues that does not seem to get much attention is “good will.” I live in a county with more than 500,000 residents. There are 614 Deputy Sheriffs. By using simple logic it easy to see that by developing “good will” between LEOs and private citizens, law enforcement agencies can exponentially expand the number of eyes and ears on the street.

  Conversely, if the conduct of LEOs serves to alienate law abiding citizens then even the most intense efforts of LE will be futile.

  At the risk of sounding simplistic, I am reminded of the Norman Rockwell image of the policeman sitting next to the young runaway at a lunch counter. If I believe that LEO is my friend and that I will be treated fairly, legally and respectfully then I don’t mind engaging with them.

  If, however, I fear being treated with disrespect, contempt and possibly a lot worse then I will cross the street when I see Officer Friendly heading my way. Assuming I don’t have my camera ready.

• 46 Michaelk42 // Jan 26, 2010 at 5:07 PM

  Well, Ariel and Torgeaux already took care of most of that.

  Under your logic, shutting down Flickr and Google image searches would be more conducive to stopping terrorism… except I still don’t see where photos were linked to any actual attacks.

  If they can still just pull pictures of a site off the internet at any time, harassing random photographers is still a massive, stupid waste of time.
  Michaelk42´s last blog ..Again with the cluelessness

• 47 discarted // Jan 27, 2010 at 6:04 PM

  @ johnny law-

  “We do know that terrorists, domestic and foreign, often scout out their targets prior to an attack and these scouts often take video and pictures. ”

  a lot of us on this site and in this country would like to see actual evidence supporting this claim

• 48 discarted // Jan 27, 2010 at 6:19 PM

  @edinmiami

  “I agree that all we really need is a concise law which states simply and plainly that officers have the authority to briefly stop anyone they believe might be involved in criminal activity in the present or future.”

  i was detained by LA Count Sheriffs and accused of being a terrorist and in cahoots with al qaeda. the sheriffs also threatened to put me on the “FBI’s hit list”. Would you like to know what the Sheriffs uncovered by detaining me for 25 minutes? Absolutely nothing! The only thing they accomplished was violating my rights and determining that I didn’t have any warrants.

• 49 discarted // Jan 27, 2010 at 6:22 PM

  @edinmiami-

  Who knows the law? Police
  Who is in the best position to keep us safe? Police

  These claims aren’t true 100% of the time and it has been proven repeatedly through videos that keep appearing on the internet showcasing arrogant cops who do not know the law, or criminal cops violating the law.

• 50 Neil Hanawalt // Jan 28, 2010 at 4:16 PM

  As a photographer I am annoyed by the baiting and challenging nature of what was done by the photographer.

• 51 Joel Chandler // Jan 28, 2010 at 7:10 PM

  Was Martin Luther King correct when he wrote:

  “We who in engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive.”

  Or was he “baiting” the Alabama State Police that day as he walked on a public sidewalk across the Edmund Pettus Bridge?

• 52 Sean // Feb 2, 2010 at 7:57 PM

  F***ing Sweet!

  Keep up the good work, make them sweat.

• 53 BambiB // Feb 11, 2010 at 3:19 PM

  Seems pretty clear to me that as soon as you ask, “Is this a Terry Stop?” the cops start to figure out that there’s a rather large pile of goo into which you are inviting them to step.

  To their credit, the cops in both cases declined the invitation. In fact, I’m surprised at the level of civility of the cops. Certainly they had to be frustrated with such a smart-ass yanking their chain.

  On the other hand, such video taping is an extremely valuable service in support of civil rights. It clearly serves as a “canary in the coal mine”.

  I wonder how the results would be different if, when challenged, you responded, “I am doing nothing illegal and while not wishing to insult or offend you, I am busy and choose not to answer any more of your questions. Have a nice day.”?

  Without the warning “Terry Stop” language or questions about whether the conversation is official or “casual”, you become just another dumb American who chooses to ignore police banter. Absent the warning (which is about the as subtle as bright color markings on poisonous creatures in nature!) do the cops push the issue? If you exhibited less knowledge about the law and your rights – would they go beyond legal actions to assault? Battery? Arrest? Would they become hostile?

  As for those who think that harassing photographers is legitimate in the name of “security” – consider that photographing with hidden equipment is easy, that software exists to stitch all the pix into a 3D model, and that if planning some sort of attack is the goal, it can be done, with or without photos whether or not cops harass innocent photographers. “Terrorism” will be used to justify all manner of nonsense: From groping women at airports, to monitoring your spending habits, to monitoring every email and phone call you make. Those dangerous to liberty are not the terrorists, but those who would have us believe they are “saving” us.

• 54 Drayke Larson // Feb 16, 2010 at 6:56 AM

  “We do know that terrorists, domestic and foreign, often scout out their targets prior to an attack and these scouts often take video and pictures. This is a real threat. ”

  There is extremely little evidence to support this claim. If you have references, I would love to see the links please.

  And this argument is ridiculous on its face. We also know that many terrorists drive cars as evidenced by the many car bombs used around the world, or closer to home in the Oklahoma Federal Building bombing, so would you say that it’s well within the rights of the police to stop and search anyone who drives? We know that terrorists, foreign and domestic often drive cars prior to an attack. Let’s take it one further and say that We know that terrorists, foreign and domestic, often live in houses. So it’s perfectly okay for the police to search all homes, right?

Leave a Comment

Name

Mail

Website

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.