Law enforcement continues to crack down on photographers despite the law

[Brian R. VanCise]

It is hard to argue against the right to video tape and or photograph in public. While there may be individual laws in certain areas more than likely over time they will be overturned. However, law enforcement officers have a particularly demanding job that is dangerous and they do not need to be harassed while doing it. So there would be times when a photographer/videographer probably could over step their bounds.

Case in point shooting pictures of the white house or another sensitive place. I would hope that the Secret Service would intercept someone whom they were suspicious of and question what is going on.

Likewise if a photographer is interfering with an arrest then they too should be detained, etc. until it is sorted out.

I see this as a kind of common sense thing in that an LEO going about his job in a professional manner should have no issue being photographed/videotaped, etc. However, LEO's working undercover and doing a drug bust might not want to be video taped, etc. because it could blow their cover in the future.

I think over time the courts will sort this out so that photographing and videotaping in a public place will be the norm. Because it makes common sense!

 

[jks9199]

Let me hit a couple of points now that I'm a bit more rested.

First, generally speaking, I don't care if you take pictures of me on the job. Or videotape me. (There's a picture of me and a cruiser in a schoolroom in France, for example.) I do prefer you ask first -- because I may want to make sure that my fly is up or wipe the powdered sugar off my jacket. But there are times and activities that I'd prefer you not. For example, when I was in a specialty unit that did semi-dynamic entries, we weren't keen on having people record our vehicles or entry tactics. We'd prefer to keep that sort of thing more confidential for officer safety; surprise is a vital tool in those situations. Similarly, taking pictures in some locations (the White House or the Pentagon, for example) can raise concerns.

That leads me to the second situation I've run into problems with photographers. We do get the occasional calls about people taking pictures that seem suspicious to the callers. Or we notice it ourselves. Yeah, a lot of the people who raise those suspicions are Middle Eastern today -- but not all. Someone deciding to take pictures of the underside of a bridge, or supports of the water tower, or the employee entrances to courthouses or police departments are probably going to raise some questions, no? There are legitimate reasons to take those pictures (architecture or engineering students might be studying the bridge structure, for example) or they may be innocent coincidences (taking a picture of tree that happens to be by the employee entrance, for example). But it's kind of reasonable to have questions, right? Once investigated, the event can be dismissed -- or forwarded for proper investigation.

Then there are types of photography that might cause problems. You wouldn't a blame a cop stopping to find out what was up if he saw what appeared to be a group fighting, right -- even it was really a martial arts class. And a semi-nude, or even merely racy poses photography shoot on a playground is probably going to gather some attention. If the activity is causing a disruption, then the cops may have to respond. It may not be an illegal activity -- but it can still cause a problem. Toplessness is apparently legal in NY. But, y'know, going topless at the playground might well be a disruption. Again -- I'll compare it to the Open Carry idiots.

Open Carry stages events where they exercise their legal right to carry a firearm openly. They do this in places where they hope to get a reaction, leading to the police being called. And they hope that the officers will make a mistake, and do something wrong or illegal. It's idiocy because rather than support their right, they're pushing for a confrontation. And a woman walking around topless is idiocy, in our culture, too. It may be legal. The cultural issues may be silly. But they're there. And odds are good that the woman strolling through a Buffalo park topless is looking for a reaction.

 

[ballen0351]

Probably because the trash man isn't abusing their power. Now, dont misunderstand...I was raised to have the utmost respect for LEOs. My Grandfather retired as one, I have a number of friends that are, and I work with them daily. But, there are the proverbial bad apples, that ruin the image of the good ones. So Officer 1 beats the **** out of someone on a stop, and suddenly everyone is going to assume that it may happen to them.

And neither do 99% of Police Officers. I guess I see my jobs as rather boring and have no idea why you would be interested in taking my photos other then looking for the "Gotcha moment" when I do screw up something I am only a man so it happens. I think that why alot of police resent people that want to tape them or film them because in my mind I know then only reason your doing it is to try to "get me" if I do screw up.

Case in point. My 2nd year on the job I made a traffic stop guy was drunk I asked him to step out and to field tests. I didnt know at the time we were 3 houses down from his house. I had my back to the houses facing the street he was in front while I was giving him HGN test (the follow my pen with your eyes test). Now Im a big guy 6 ft 225lbs. The guy was smaller like 5'8 130 lbs(this is important later). As im doing the HGN test the guy swings at me so I scoop him up slam him on ground and cuff him.
1 month later I'm called into the commanders to be notified of an internal investigation for police brutality. Turned out the house we were in front of was his friends and he was taping the incident from his window. Now because my back was to the house and our size difference on his tape you cant see the guy swing at me in fact you cant even see him standing there at all except his feet and legs so it looks like were standing there and all of a sudden I slam him for no reason. They took the tape in to the internal affairs office and filed a complaint.
Thankfully for me I had a Dash Cam running also that showed him swing at me. Had I not had the dash cam Im pretty sure I would have been in trouble because his friends tape did look pretty bad.

Like I said in other posts I really dont care if I'm recorded but I can see why someone might. You would not want to be sitting at your desk at your job and some guy standing there filming everything you do. Plus for a cop the one time you pick your nose or start singing in you car it will end up all over You Tube.

 

[jks9199]

Then there are types of photography that might cause problems. You wouldn't a blame a cop stopping to find out what was up if he saw what appeared to be a group fighting, right -- even it was really a martial arts class. And a semi-nude, or even merely racy poses photography shoot on a playground is probably going to gather some attention. If the activity is causing a disruption, then the cops may have to respond. It may not be an illegal activity -- but it can still cause a problem. Toplessness is apparently legal in NY. But, y'know, going topless at the playground might well be a disruption. Again -- I'll compare it to the Open Carry idiots.

Open Carry stages events where they exercise their legal right to carry a firearm openly. They do this in places where they hope to get a reaction, leading to the police being called. And they hope that the officers will make a mistake, and do something wrong or illegal. It's idiocy because rather than support their right, they're pushing for a confrontation. And a woman walking around topless is idiocy, in our culture, too. It may be legal. The cultural issues may be silly. But they're there. And odds are good that the woman strolling through a Buffalo park topless is looking for a reaction.

One more set of examples of scenarios that cause problems...

A few years back, a local campus PD got a call about people with guns in the parking lot, abducting someone. Show up, gun-face the group, and find out the guns were props and the group was a bunch of knuckleheads working on a school video project.

Then, from personal experience... I respond to a call about someone being pushed into the trunk of a car. Find the car, stop 'em, get the person out of the trunk... and discover that it was another "video project." The "pushing in" was just some horseplay for the designated idiot who was going to videotape riding in the trunk...

Like I said... Some activities may be legal -- but still disruptive.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I never understood why you would even want to take pictures of cops in the first place? You dont take pictures of your trash man so why Police?

What does that have to do with anything?

I don't take photos of many things I have a perfect right to take photos of. Are you saying that if you don't 'understand' why I'd want to take a photo, I should not be allowed to do so?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

And neither do 99% of Police Officers. I guess I see my jobs as rather boring and have no idea why you would be interested in taking my photos other then looking for the "Gotcha moment" when I do screw up something I am only a man so it happens. I think that why alot of police resent people that want to tape them or film them because in my mind I know then only reason your doing it is to try to "get me" if I do screw up.

My employer can 'watch me' nonstop while I am at work, including reading my emails and searching both me and my property when I enter and leave. If they find me doing something in violation of company policy, I can be fired. If they find me in violation of the law, I can be turned over to the police for arrest.

As a public official, you work for the citizens of your community. If they want to watch you, they have that right. If they catch you doing something wrong, or apparently doing something wrong, that's life. Don't like it? Don't take our coin. As long as you wear our livery, your behavior at work is our business.

 

[ballen0351]

What does that have to do with anything?

I don't take photos of many things I have a perfect right to take photos of. Are you saying that if you don't 'understand' why I'd want to take a photo, I should not be allowed to do so?

I didnt say it had anything to do with the topic it was just a question sorry if it bothers you. Nobody ever feels the need to take photos of the walmart greeter I was just wondering why everyone wants to tape me I mean I know Im pretty but....

 

[ballen0351]

As a public official, you work for the citizens of your community. If they want to watch you, they have that right. If they catch you doing something wrong, or apparently doing something wrong, that's life. Don't like it? Don't take our coin. As long as you wear our livery, your behavior at work is our business.

Easy big fella I didnt know I was not allowed to post my thought with out the "I pay your salary" bit coming out. I was just making conversation about the topic.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Easy big fella I didnt know I was not allowed to post my thought with out the "I pay your salary" bit coming out. I was just making conversation about the topic.

Is it not true that public servants are accountable to their employer?

People often use the "I pay your salary" statement to try to argue their way out of a ticket, or demand special treatment or to demand favors from police officers. I get that.

However, just as I am accountable to my employer, so you are to yours. I am not that fond of having my employer look in my computer bag when I enter or leave certain areas, or to watch me on closed-circuit TV, or to read my emails sent from or received on company networks, but I have a choice. So do you.

 

[granfire]

I didnt say it had anything to do with the topic it was just a question sorry if it bothers you. Nobody ever feels the need to take photos of the walmart greeter I was just wondering why everyone wants to tape me I mean I know Im pretty but....

Well, Walmart greeters have very limited powers. I don't think they can do a whole lot even to those idiots that can't park.

I think the 'need' to tape police while they commit their job stems from those lovely incidents a la Rodney King (yes, I know, I know) when a handful of people just lose their minds for a moment (It does not take a long time)

Naturally I can see the element of helplessness. And a good helping of instigatorship and the desire to make the next viral youtube hit.

The way I see it, if police goes by the book, there should be no reason to get upset when the cameras roll. Who knows, it could aid their case (though I doubt the footage would surface then)

But yes (not along the 'we pay your salary' line though) when you are a servant of the public you have to take the public interest into consideration.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I didnt say it had anything to do with the topic it was just a question sorry if it bothers you. Nobody ever feels the need to take photos of the walmart greeter I was just wondering why everyone wants to tape me I mean I know Im pretty but....

Why would anyone want to use legal tools to ensure that those charged with enforcing the law are obeying it themselves? I have no idea. That seems so strange to me. I mean, once we place a group of people in the position of enforcing our laws and give them the authority to make arrests, investigate crimes, and pursue wrong-doers, we should probably just trust them and let them do whatever they think is right. After all, they would never betray our trust.

 

[ballen0351]

I am not that fond of having my employer look in my computer bag when I enter or leave certain areas, or to watch me on closed-circuit TV, or to read my emails sent from or received on company networks, but I have a choice. So do you.

Difference is you know your being watched we don't always know until it shows up on You Tube. Difference is you don't always know what your looking at when police are doing something and what you see may not be reality yet you record it and put it on the internet could endanger someones life. I work undercover and there are times Ill go into bad areas have cops stop me lock me up and rough me up a little. Now I do this every so often in different areas. if perhaps someone saw that recorded it and then someone sees it on you tube and realizes hey that same thing happened to that same guy in my area 2 months ago he I bet hes a cop. next time I go into his area to buy drugs he puts a gun to my head. Now I know thats outrageous example.
I'm not saying I against recording police and I see the value of it but you cant expect us to be happy about it you said yourself your not fond of being watched.

 

[ballen0351]

Why would anyone want to use legal tools to ensure that those charged with enforcing the law are obeying it themselves? I have no idea. That seems so strange to me. I mean, once we place a group of people in the position of enforcing our laws and give them the authority to make arrests, investigate crimes, and pursue wrong-doers, we should probably just trust them and let them do whatever they think is right. After all, they would never betray our trust.

I guess I don't see the world as dark as you do. I think for the most part most Police are good people and do the best they can.

 

[jks9199]

Why would anyone want to use legal tools to ensure that those charged with enforcing the law are obeying it themselves? I have no idea. That seems so strange to me. I mean, once we place a group of people in the position of enforcing our laws and give them the authority to make arrests, investigate crimes, and pursue wrong-doers, we should probably just trust them and let them do whatever they think is right. After all, they would never betray our trust.

Bill, I think you're taking this in a different direction than was intended.

I don't quite get why some of the people who've taken my picture wanted a picture. I'm just a guy doing my job. (OK, the French school teachers? They're school is in one of those exchange programs where they have a sister school in my jurisdiction. So I get that one. But the woman last month who wanted a picture of her grandson with me? Don't get that one at all...)

Most of the time, filming or watching me work would be boring as all heck... I mean, watching me run radar or do some other form of traffic enforcement, or take a larceny report or work a crash? Really, you wanna watch that? OK... That Walmart greeter might be more interesting. Might at least be some pretty girls walking in the door!

 

[ballen0351]

Bill, I think you're taking this in a different direction than was intended.

I don't quite get why some of the people who've taken my picture wanted a picture. I'm just a guy doing my job. (OK, the French school teachers? They're school is in one of those exchange programs where they have a sister school in my jurisdiction. So I get that one. But the woman last month who wanted a picture of her grandson with me? Don't get that one at all...)

For some reason we get a large number of Brazilian tourists here more then any other country that Ive noticed. They always want pictures taken with us. Since most are very attractive woman I dont mind so much

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I guess I don't see the world as dark as you do. I think for the most part most Police are good people and do the best they can.

I think they absolutely are mostly good and decent people doing the best they can. You haven't been around here long enough to see me defend law and order as well as those who put their lives on the line to protect us and enforce our laws. I've worked in law enforcement and I overwhelmingly give the police the benefit of the doubt whenever questions arise regarding anything they might be accused of doing.

That does not mean that I think they should not be photographed, watched, and monitored by every legal means. Those to whom we give great authority are not immune to scrutiny. It goes with the job.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill, I think you're taking this in a different direction than was intended.

I don't quite get why some of the people who've taken my picture wanted a picture. I'm just a guy doing my job.

Sorry if it wasn't intended, but I'm trying to answer the question. It's the same question as gun-grabbers who say "I don't get why you need X number of guns." The answer is, it's not a valid question. It is no more their business how many guns I own than it is anyone's business why I want to take a photo of a police officer and not a sanitation worker. The answer is (politely) 'none of your business'. You don't need to know, it's not an appropriate question to ask. I take photographs that I want to take. I need no justification if it's otherwise legal. I know you don't get it. You don't have to.

From a photographer's point of view, the very question implies that there are reasons why a person should not take a photo of a police officer.

We live in the most heavily-surveilled society of all time; we're constantly being photographed, in public and private places, by governments and businesses. We do not object when we're photographed by traffic cameras and ATM machines and security cameras left right and center; but let a photographer raise a camera to his eye and point it at us, and it's "why do you want to take a photo of me?" So the watchers get watched once in a while. Good, says I.

 

[ballen0351]

I think they absolutely are mostly good and decent people doing the best they can. You haven't been around here long enough to see me defend law and order as well as those who put their lives on the line to protect us and enforce our laws. I've worked in law enforcement and I overwhelmingly give the police the benefit of the doubt whenever questions arise regarding anything they might be accused of doing.

That does not mean that I think they should not be photographed, watched, and monitored by every legal means. Those to whom we give great authority are not immune to scrutiny. It goes with the job.

I understand that but it still does not mean we like it. I dont think anyone police, docs, lawyers, gas station attendants would like to be filmed. Esp when you have no control on what happens after its recorded, how its edited and after its edited how its distributed to the masses. At least when your boss is doing it you have a reasonable expectation that it will be treated in a professional manner and used in a professional capacity. When any college film student with a grudge against the police and a brand new laptop with the latest editing software can destroy your career, and your life you can see why we would be a little unhappy with the whole thing. Not everyone has such noble intentions as you do.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I understand that but it still does not mean we like it. I dont think anyone police, docs, lawyers, gas station attendants would like to be filmed. Esp when you have no control on what happens after its recorded, how its edited and after its edited how its distributed to the masses. At least when your boss is doing it you have a reasonable expectation that it will be treated in a professional manner and used in a professional capacity. When any college film student with a grudge against the police and a brand new laptop with the latest editing software can destroy your career, and your life you can see why we would be a little unhappy with the whole thing. Not everyone has such noble intentions as you do.

You don't have to like it, and I can understand why you don't.

 

[Carol]

I understand that but it still does not mean we like it. I dont think anyone police, docs, lawyers, gas station attendants would like to be filmed. Esp when you have no control on what happens after its recorded, how its edited and after its edited how its distributed to the masses. At least when your boss is doing it you have a reasonable expectation that it will be treated in a professional manner and used in a professional capacity. When any college film student with a grudge against the police and a brand new laptop with the latest editing software can destroy your career, and your life you can see why we would be a little unhappy with the whole thing. Not everyone has such noble intentions as you do.

This isn't a matter of "like". When in public, one has no reasonable expectation of privacy -- which makes public videotaping legal.