Can you shoot the police?

InsuredDisaster

So today, after riding my motorcycle for about 12,000 miles since April with no expiration tags visible on it, I finally got pulled over. I've passed hundreds of cops, so I was trying to see if I could got an entire 12 months without ever putting my stickers on. Guess not.:dunno


Since I figured the answer would be no, I snapped a picture of the cop car before officer friendly got out and told me to put the camera away. Then he came back (no citation) and gave me back my license and all that jazz, and said "In the future, don't take pictures of us."



So, what is the law about this matter? I can understand that they probably don't want me throwing their pictures all over the net, but at the same time, I don't see how it could be an actual law in the USA against that. I understand also that my rights as a "civilian" being stopped are different than an AP photog shooting a riot.

Does anyone know?


FYI, it took place in Denver, CO, USA.

Thank you.

System

JMHO.....If I got stopped for not displaying an expiration tag and the officer said put the camera away...That is exactally what I'd do. Why push your luck. If the officer doesn't want his picture taken then who am I to take his picture...especially if he has the power to write me a citation...
Is there a law that says you can't photograph an officer? Not that I ever heard of. Again, why push it. Heck, if John Q. Public told/asked you not to take their picture why would you push that? Why not abide by their wishes?

Angelo

InsuredDisaster wrote:

So, what is the law about this matter?

there is NO law. You can shoot anything you want while out in public.

for more on this subject please visit the"law" & "photographer's rights" information posted in the PHOTOGS RESOURCES sticky thread located at the top of the MYOB forum.

also:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/laprotest/


http://discarted.wordpress.com/



.

Angelo

captain78 wrote:

Heck, if John Q. Public told/asked you not to take their picture why would you push that? Why not abide by their wishes?

gee, I hate to think of the magnificent, historical PJ shots we'd have missed out on.

InsuredDisaster

captain78 wrote:

JMHO.....If I got stopped for not displaying an expiration tag and the officer said put the camera away...That is exactally what I'd do. Why push your luck. If the officer doesn't want his picture taken then who am I to take his picture...especially if he has the power to write me a citation...
Is there a law that says you can't photograph an officer? Not that I ever heard of. Again, why push it. Heck, if John Q. Public told/asked you not to take their picture why would you push that?

Well basically, he said "no." I hate "no."


Seriously, though, if I get pulled over by the police, which has happens, on average, about every 12.4 years for me, then by golly, I want to frame each car that pulls me over, along with the warning, or citation or card or whatever it is that I get from them.

Cygnus Studios

There are a couple of stories on the internet about photographers being arrested for taking pics of cops, but most of the time it is for interfering with whatever the cop is doing.
Like anyone else, I normally ask if I can take their photo, and most have been happy to pose.

Richard

Angelo wrote:

there is NO law. You can shoot anything you want while out in public

Correct. OTOH, you should consider whether it is really worth it to assert your rights. Is what you are shooting important enough to risk being taken into custody and possibly needing legal representation to prevail? While I think that fear of photography has reached ridiculous levels--especially in the US--I think you need to take a pragmatic approach to the problem.

Angelo

...The spirit of liberty was indeed written on the hearts of the Patriots in the years leading up to 1776 and the Declaration (of Independence) was simply the recording of that spirit on parchment. The conclusion of Patrick Henry’s speech to the Virginia Delegation in March 1775 clearly makes this point. “Why stand we here idle...Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me give me liberty or give me death!” In the same time frame Benjamin Franklin, before the Pennsylvania Assembly had this to say, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” No parsing of words here!...

excerpted from:
Liberty or Freedom?
Published Thursday, July 02, 2009 11:29 AM
By John R. “Barney” Barnes CDR USN (R)
Summerville Journal Scene


Police officers are not above the law nor incapable of breaking it:

<div><iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/32202886#32202886&quot; frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 425px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">Breaking News</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507&quot; style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">World News</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072&quot; style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">News about the Economy</a></p></div>

angevin1

InsuredDisaster wrote:

So, what is the law about this matter? I can understand that they probably don't want me throwing their pictures all over the net, but at the same time, I don't see how it could be an actual law in the USA against that. I understand also that my rights as a "civilian" being stopped are different than an AP photog shooting a riot.

Does anyone know?


FYI, it took place in Denver, CO, USA.

Thank you.

Does there need to be a Law? Not for me.

Yes, you have all of your constitutional rights, but a traffic stop is a legal procedure. and While there is no law Per-Se against photographing the officer, One would think that prudence dictates not agitating the man. Your Officer Friendly must have been in a good mood. Turning and raising an item to point towards the officer might one day get you harmed.

And yes, you have the right to get a rock thrown at you, just like the AP Photogs do!

Cygnus Studios

Richard wrote:

Correct. OTOH, you should consider whether it is really worth it to assert your rights. Is what you are shooting important enough to risk being taken into custody and possibly needing legal representation to prevail? While I think that fear of photography has reached ridiculous levels--especially in the US--I think you need to take a pragmatic approach to the problem.

The problem that arises most of the time is arguing with the police. Whether you are right or wrong at the time is really not the point at that moment.
I highly doubt that the cop on the scene is going to thank you for explaining the law to them on the spot.
If you are in the right, it would be better to bring it up afterward to an official at the police station, city hall, or someplace other than at the scene.
It isn't about giving up your rights. The choice of where to stand your ground is just as important as to when to stand your ground.

kdog

I can't think of a better way to turn a traffic warning into an actual ticket than annoying the cop by taking his picture. But hey, it's your right. Go for it!

Cheers,
-joel

Tee Why

I believe that as long as your activity does not impede the police from doing their work, it's ok in public settings.

I suspect police do not like having pics taken candidly as they work as they may be concerned that it can be used to accuse them of wrong doing. So they tell people to not take their pictures. I surely wouldn't like strangers coming to my work and taking pics of me while working, so I can understand their point of view.

I think asking is a nice friendly was of taking their pics. Not exactly Photojournalism but if you are a PJ, you have a press ID and generally don't need to ask and they probably won't bother you either.

I think the Police also have the right to detain and question any "suspicious" persons though.

Everyone has rights but one often has to be judicious in practicing their rights IMO.

David_S85

InsuredDisaster wrote:

Can you shoot the police?

You probably shouldn't, but they can shoot you. Sorry, someone had to say it.

I'm trying to dig up an old post & photo by evil eggplant of his rear view mirror with a cop in it writing him a ticket behind the car. Its hilarious.

davev

So, it's OK for the police to point radar guns at us, turn on the video cameras while driving behind us,
record every word that we say to use against us at some later date, but you don't want to take their picture because you might get a ticket.

Geez, grow some balls.

I took a photo just a couple of weeks back with the cop writing me a ticket.

Angelo

davev wrote:

Geez, grow some balls.

.

mercphoto

Angelo wrote:

.

Think of it this way. You do not have to incriminate yourself, and yet every officer will always ask "do you know why I pulled you over". Because any answer you give is, well, incriminating yourself, and admission of guilt. They know you don't have to answer. They know its not in your best interest to answer. Yet they still ask the question. Why? BECAUSE IT IS IN THEIR BEST INTEREST. Ditto for not being photographed. You can do it, they will tell you not to, hoping you either don't know better or will be intimidated into submission.

You can photograph them. Just don't expect them to appreciate it.

Angelo

mercphoto wrote:

Think of it this way. You do not have to incriminate yourself, and yet every officer will always ask "do you know why I pulled you over". Because any answer you give is, well, incriminating yourself, and admission of guilt. They know you don't have to answer. They know its not in your best interest to answer. Yet they still ask the question. Why? BECAUSE IT IS IN THEIR BEST INTEREST. Ditto for not being photographed. You can do it, they will tell you not to, hoping you either don't know better or will be intimidated into submission.

You can photograph them. Just don't expect them to appreciate it.

Precisely why everyone should be aware of their rights and willing to protect them. I'm troubled by how easily folks are willing to roll over just because a cop says so.

I don't advocate disrespect for the police, quite the contrary but I'll be damned if I'm going to NOT do something I'm perfectly, legally, entitled to do just because a cop says so. And I'm no hippy, liberal activist.


.

Art Scott

mercphoto wrote:

Think of it this way. You do not have to incriminate yourself, and yet every officer will always ask "do you know why I pulled you over". Because any answer you give is, well, incriminating yourself, and admission of guilt. They know you don't have to answer. They know its not in your best interest to answer. Yet they still ask the question. Why? BECAUSE IT IS IN THEIR BEST INTEREST. Ditto for not being photographed. You can do it, they will tell you not to, hoping you either don't know better or will be intimidated into submission.

You can photograph them. Just don't expect them to appreciate it.

REMEMBER also that they have your information to be spread around among friends which probably they have more than you do and theirs can cause you alot of grief in a short period of time..... is it legal for them to harass you...no...........but they have their ways around that .........my DAD was a cop( until his death) and my brother still is....so yes they can cause you a world of grief just for being a stupid jerk and not doing as they wish.......no one drives perfectly and we all break a few rules of the road every day.....and if you are followed enuff your nerves will get the best of you and you'll screw up.....as for following....they don't follow they just happen to be going the same way as you..............

bdcolen

angevin1 wrote:

Does there need to be a Law? Not for me.

Yes, you have all of your constitutional rights, but a traffic stop is a legal procedure. and While there is no law Per-Se against photographing the officer, One would think that prudence dictates not agitating the man. Your Officer Friendly must have been in a good mood. Turning and raising an item to point towards the officer might one day get you harmed.

And yes, you have the right to get a rock thrown at you, just like the AP Photogs do!

First off, as several people have noted, there is no law in the United States that says you can't photograph police -

Second, Richard is right - is the photo worth the grief?

Third, the real problem here is that the "grief" you'd get could be an arrest - an illegal arrest; a bogus arrest; a very real macing or beating - though, again, undoubtedly illegal.

Not wanting to stir this up, but - these questions are essentially the same as those raised by "Gatesgate" - the arrest for "disorderly conduct" of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates in his own home in Cambridge, MA. Gates did not break any law - but he did give a cop lip. And many cops work on the assumption that their word is law, and if you don't like it, you will be arrested for something.

In the U.S. you have a right to take photos of anyone, at any time, in a public place. Add to that the fact that the police are your employees, and you are on even firmer ground.

But that photo better be worth the hassle you may encounter. Remember, that cop's 9 mm trumps your 50 mm every time.

bdcolen

Art Scott wrote:

REMEMBER also that they have your information to be spread around among friends which probably they have more than you do and theirs can cause you alot of grief in a short period of time..... is it legal for them to harass you...no...........but they have their ways around that .........my DAD was a cop( until his death) and my brother still is....so yes they can cause you a world of grief just for being a stupid jerk and not doing as they wish.......no one drives perfectly and we all break a few rules of the road every day.....and if you are followed enuff your nerves will get the best of you and you'll screw up.....as for following....they don't follow they just happen to be going the same way as you..............

And the reality is that every cop who behaves this way is, quite literally, a criminal with utter disregard for his or her job, for the oath they took to uphold the law, and for the Constitution on which the laws are based. And any cop who behaves this way should be fired. A police badge should not be a license to bully.

But you're right - this happens all the time.

Cygnus Studios

Angelo wrote:

Precisely why everyone should be aware of their rights and willing to protect them. I'm troubled by how easily folks are willing to roll over just because a cop says so.

I am not sure why you think folks are so easy to roll over? Picking the time and place to fight the battle has nothing to do with rolling over. There is no way to win an argument with the cop on the scene. Both you and the cop will have made up your minds and neither will change it on the spot. You could easily argue the point, but to what end? Do you expect the cop to change his mind? Do you expect the cop to thank you for explaining the law to them?

I know a lot of cops, and none that I know of wake up in the morning with the idea of harassing someone for the sake of it. When they arrive to a scene, they just want to stop whatever is going on and go about their day.

If you choose to fight in the proper place and time, you increase your odds of winning. If you simply choose to fight because a battle is possible, you risk losing more than just that battle.

Angelo

Cygnus Studios wrote:

I am not sure why you think folks are so easy to roll over? Picking the time and place to fight the battle has nothing to do with rolling over. There is no way to win an argument with the cop on the scene. Both you and the cop will have made up your minds and neither will change it on the spot. You could easily argue the point, but to what end? Do you expect the cop to change his mind? Do you expect the cop to thank you for explaining the law to them?

I know a lot of cops, and none that I know of wake up in the morning with the idea of harassing someone for the sake of it. When they arrive to a scene, they just want to stop whatever is going on and go about their day.

If you choose to fight in the proper place and time, you increase your odds of winning. If you simply choose to fight because a battle is possible, you risk losing more than just that battle.

In my book not defending one's rights at the time they are being infringed upon is akin to "rolling over"

I never accused cops of hitting the streets looking to harass people but there are a greater majority of cops who hit the streets thinking they have ultimate authority to enforce laws and behavior as they see fit based on personal interpretation, especially in this post 9/11 - Patriot Act environment and the number of documented cases is staggering and growing.

I have only been approached twice and in each case I argued my point with intelligence and respect and was left alone both times. So I don't fight simply because a battle is possible.

You and I will just have to agree to disagree on this matter.

Cygnus Studios

Angelo wrote:

In my book not defending one's rights at the time they are being infringed upon is akin to "rolling over"

I have only been approached twice and in each case I argued my point with intelligence and respect and was left alone both times.

I believe that you are probably the exception rather than the rule. Most people when confronted will not act with respect, nor a calm attitude. I am pretty sure that we have all seen plenty of instances where this happens.

In my opinion, I would rather take the fight to the proper place (as it relates to general photography).

There are exceptions to the rule of course, but for general shots where money is not on the line, or something that will not catapult my name into the history books, I will gladly come back for the shot rather than argue with the local civil servant.

mercphoto

Cygnus Studios wrote:

I believe that you are probably the exception rather than the rule. Most people when confronted will not act with respect, nor a calm attitude. I am pretty sure that we have all seen plenty of instances where this happens.

That is the key, however. If you are going to argue your point with the police, be respectful about it. If you don't treat them with respect, guess what.... In my not so humble opinion this is that Professor's Gates big mistake. Sorry, but they guy was rude and disrepectful. Treat me like that I'll treat you like that. Funny how the media doesn't see it that way... I mention this just to illustrate the point. Don't roll over, but don't be rude about it either.

Vertigo2020

Art Scott wrote:

REMEMBER also that they have your information to be spread around among friends which probably they have more than you do and theirs can cause you alot of grief in a short period of time..... is it legal for them to harass you...no...........but they have their ways around that .........my DAD was a cop( until his death) and my brother still is....so yes they can cause you a world of grief just for being a stupid jerk and not doing as they wish.......no one drives perfectly and we all break a few rules of the road every day.....and if you are followed enuff your nerves will get the best of you and you'll screw up.....as for following....they don't follow they just happen to be going the same way as you..............

Wow..you essentially just admitted that your Father and Brother are/were involved in a conspircy to violate civil rights under Tile 42 Section 1985. You also inferred that it's the policy of the agency they work/worked for to tolerate this type of behavior.

Vertigo2020

Angelo wrote:

In my book not defending one's rights at the time they are being infringed upon is akin to "rolling over"

I never accused cops of hitting the streets looking to harass people but there are a greater majority of cops who hit the streets thinking they have ultimate authority to enforce laws and behavior as they see fit based on personal interpretation, especially in this post 9/11 - Patriot Act environment and the number of documented cases is staggering and growing.

I have only been approached twice and in each case I argued my point with intelligence and respect and was left alone both times. So I don't fight simply because a battle is possible.

You and I will just have to agree to disagree on this matter.

I'm inclined to agree with your observation of growing number of civil rights violations cases. The hard truth is the vast majority of this litigation will never see the light of day. The judicial paradigm has been to make it exceedingly difficult to recover any damages for a 1983 or 1985 violation by invoking "qualified immunity". The courts haved moved to a test of "specificity of the act" in clearly established law as a predicator of culpabilty. That is to say, if the accused Officer can show in their pleadings that the act has not been established in prior precedent he is immune from liability. This standard has to be one of the most onerous ever seen in US judicial history. It would appear that a law enforcement officer is only contained by his/her lack of imagination. I'm reminded of a case in Washington state in which a cop shot an unarmed citizen in the back through the driver's side car seat. The officer was found to be immune since this specific act had never been ajudicated as a violation of clearly established law.

In essence, if you're the first to go there..good luck!

The sad truth is your Constitutional rights and recovery of damages are little more than theory. The only thing worse in this country than Qualified Immunity is Absolute Judicial Immunity, trust me, you don't want to know how vunerable you really are!

David_S85

Interesting stuff, all... but I think we had better try to stick to the question posed by the OP - which is photography related.

Vertigo2020

David_S85 wrote:

Interesting stuff, all... but I think we had better try to stick to the question posed by the OP - which is photography related.

I'll try to stick to the legal question posed by the OP and not offend the sensibilites of the Moderator.

You have the absolute right to film a police officer during the performace of his/her duties under the First Amendment.

Here is a link to the ruling by the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania re: Robinson v Fetterman, et al

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D0847P.pdf

Do not interfere with the officer and try to maintain your distance. If you are arrested quote this case to the officer and demand your release. Then call an attorney with Title 42 Section 1983 experience.

ian408

Hey Vertigo. Why not fill out your profile so we know a bit more about you and your interest in photography.

Interesting topic. And I appreciate your insight into the matter.

angevin1

Vertigo2020 wrote:

I'll try to stick to the legal question posed by the OP and not offend the sensibilites of the Moderator.

You have the absolute right to film a police officer during the performace of his/her duties under the First Amendment.

Here is a link to the ruling by the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania re: Robinson v Fetterman, et al

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D0847P.pdf

Do not interfere with the officer and try to maintain your distance. If you are arrested quote this case to the officer and demand your release. Then call an attorney with Title 42 Section 1983 experience.

This...is an interesting read, no doubt. This fella obviously was a concerned citizen making an attempt to aid the public at large. And while the decision does mention this fact, it harbors no added goodwill for the effort. The plaintiff mentioned did go 'above and beyond' the call to vouchsafe his person and rights, yet he was still arrested twice, harassed, and reviewed by a Justice of the District unfamiliar with Constitutional Law at best, or the Constitution at worst. Or, as I personally suspect; Justice #1 just figured he'd keep the cops happy and convict the fella.

Based on the Decision (as read) I think it raises more questions than it answers though for the average Joe. Especially the average Joe pulled over by a traffic cop. The above case is irrelevant in that light.

One interesting thing of note though, the second time around, The Plaintiff had representation!

Great discourse~

ed_h

Is it a crime to take a picture
From today, anyone taking a photograph of a police officer could be deemed to have committed a criminal offence.
That is because of a new law - Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act - which has come into force.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7888301.stm
Photographers staged a mass photo call in protest at the law
At New Scotland Yard

Cheers, Ed