Wrong Place, Wrong Time

bfjr

As I have mentioned here before, in all my street pursuits I have rarely if ever been questioned.

Well Yesterday that all changed!

I usually leave for work 45min or so early to allow for some street work.
There is a Guitar Center Store @ Pico/Westwood corner with huge billboards of musicans.
For a few months now I thought this area would be good for street.
So on Wednesday I parked my bike @ about 1345 up the street from the Pan Rest. and started
walking to check it out.

Light was OK but not much action at the bus stop in front of billboards. I rounded the corner
walking north on Westwood when I saw some teens waiting, one sitting on a fire plug. I took a couple
snaps, figuring if nothing else I would check my settings and then make another round around the block.

I continued back around but nothing seemed to move me so I headed back to my bike.
About that time I heard from close behind, "Excuse Me SIR", as I turned I was immediately
grabbed, handcuffed, frisked and taken over to the back of a parked Astro Van.
Badge was flashed in front of my eyes hanging from the neck of one Cop, while the other was aking,

Are you a registered Sex Offender!
Are you a Convicted Felon!
You have Gang Affiliation!
Have A Weapon!
Have drugs or on drugs!!!
Why are you taking pictures of KIDS!
There were more, but you get the picture.

My Answers:
NO
NO
NO
Pocket knife
NO
Taking pictures in public is not illegal is it ??
There response was that maybe it wasn't but they had to investigate.
I mean after all (and I quote) "A man of your age taking pictures of kids sure seems ODD!"

For more then 20min this went one. One Cop tried to glean information from me,
while the other made inquiries about Me on a Cell.
I did my best to keep my COOL and mostly silent.

After the truth was discovered at least for TODAY, one of the Cops said,
I was unhandcuffed and allowed to secure my camera and belongings.
One Cop inserted my pocket knife in my Jacket, and told me not to touch it till they were
gone, he said, "We fear for our safety!".

They made a last attempt to explain how of course they were just doing there jobs!
I told them to stay safe, and arrived at work at 1445.

I post this incident in my life so I can vent and warn our members/viewers to be
very careful out there.
I have always conducted myself and my endeavors as a free and good American on
safe and solid footing, I no longer feel that way.

The image which began this adventure is below:

rainbow

Wow! That is quite a story. I am surprised that they cuffed you first without just making their inquiries...

I hope you got their badge numbers. It may be worth making an inquiry with their bosses -- "just doing their job" has to correlate with "probable cause" somewhere, I would think.

Anyway, hope you are okay and that this does not cool down your passion for photography.

Moving Pictures

Your rights were violated. Complain to the cops, but even better - call your local media outlet. They love this sorta stuff. Talk about first amendment rights a whole lot.

Earache

Handcuffed? Are you shi**ing me?
Good on you Ben for keeping your cool - I doubt that I could have.
Anybody still think there isn't a reason to be concerned about Liberty and Civil Rights?

"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to office." Aesop, c. 550 B.C.

Demian

Sorry man, that blows. I've only been stopped once, and the most frustrating part was they were obviously unconcerned with the photography; They were just looking for something else to bust me on.

And I know it's frustrating, but there's not really much you can do. Unless their actions caused you actual damages (a conviction, getting beat up, etc) they likely won't care too much.

lizzard_nyc

Ben I am glad to hear you are physically ok and that you kept your cool, this could have gone south so easily. My head is spinning that you were cuffed. I can't imagine this won't have an impact on your street work. I hate that this happened to you man.
Don't even know what to say.

RSL

+1 Hang in there, Ben. As Stilwell used to say, "Illigitimi non carborundum."

RyanS

Moving Pictures wrote: »

Your rights were violated. Complain to the cops, but even better - call your local media outlet. They love this sorta stuff. Talk about first amendment rights a whole lot.

Perhaps you can explain which rights were violated? It sounds like he consented to a search and consented to talking to the police. The police didn't charge him with anything and let him go. I think he did the safe thing. Unless you can afford a lawyer it almost never works out if you try to assert your rights.

Going to the media won't really do anything. Worse has happened to them. The public is totally apathetic and it doesn't help sell newspapers. Google street photographer/photojournalist arrested and see how your research goes.

The question I have for Ben: Are you going to take pictures of teenagers on that street ever again?

lizzard_nyc

RyanS wrote: »

Perhaps you can explain which rights were violated? It sounds like he consented to a search and consented to talking to the police. The police didn't charge him with anything and let him go. I think he did the safe thing. Unless you can afford a lawyer it almost never works out if you try to assert your rights.

Going to the media won't really do anything. Worse has happened to them. The public is totally apathetic and it doesn't help sell newspapers. Google street photographer/photojournalist arrested and see how your research goes.

The question I have for Ben: Are you going to take pictures of teenagers on that street ever again?

I imagine "consented to asearch" is a stretch. I imagine it was more shocked into a search. And he likwely only consented because he didn't have anything illegal on him, but imagine if he did. Not to mention the unecessary humiliation and anger he must have felt.

And though the question was not directed at me, I will continue to take shots of everyone.
Though I agree that aside from us, no one will likely give a crap about Ben's ordeal.

Earache

RyanS wrote: »

Perhaps you can explain which rights were violated? It sounds like he consented to a search and consented to talking to the police. The police didn't charge him with anything and let him go. I think he did the safe thing. Unless you can afford a lawyer it almost never works out if you try to assert your rights.

Going to the media won't really do anything. Worse has happened to them. The public is totally apathetic and it doesn't help sell newspapers. Google street photographer/photojournalist arrested and see how your research goes.

The question I have for Ben: Are you going to take pictures of teenagers on that street ever again?

Ahhh.... the warm, soothing embrace of dismissive cynicism.

To quote you Ryan; "Please excuse my STRONG opinion on this point."
The act and fact of abuse of power is not contingent on the "consent" of a victim.
To me, your statement veers very close to blaming the victim.

Transpose your logic for a moment to the struggle for liberty and justice by another individual who played it "safe" until she couldn't: The question I have for you Ms. Parks: Are you going to try and sit in the front of the bus again? Doesn't sound quite right does it?

Abuse of, and denial of Liberty to, an individual, group, race, or nation is just a matter of scale - and it is unacceptable in any degree or form.

Ben's reaction(s) are his personal choice and I too can agree that this incident won't receive widespread notice and the most important thing is that he is (mostly) OK - however this doesn't obviate the bad acts by the police nor diminish the PRINCIPALS of Liberty this incident illuminates.

lensmole

Yes taking pictures of children can be a very delicate situation ,these days.
Sounds like the police over-reacted to the situation,your right's were violated,for sure. .I would definitely
file a complaint to the appropriate department about their conduct.

Demian

RyanS wrote: »

Perhaps you can explain which rights were violated? It sounds like he consented to a search and consented to talking to the police.

Regarding the search...

"Excuse Me SIR", as I turned I was immediately grabbed, handcuffed, frisked and taken over to the back of a parked Astro Van

Doesn't sound like he had much of a choice.

Regarding talking, he could have said "I refuse to answer any questions without an attorney." I'm guessing that probably would have given him a quick trip downtown and a wasted day for a largely symbolic defense of his rights. Consent via intimidation is no consent at all.

Edit:

Wanted to add one more thing: If you're never been busted by the cops, it's really scary. I'm well aware of my legal rights, but when two cops just jump on you out of nowhere and are in your face, it's easy to freak out, even if you know you didn't do anything wrong.

RyanS

You are right. I don't think I read Ben's statement very carefully. After another reading, this sounds like a routine "stop and frisk." I am guessing photography of minors qualifies as "reasonable suspicion" these days? Or, is this yet another example of the police performing a stop and frisk without reasonable suspicion at all? There doesn't seem to be any risk for the police in doing this. You could sue them, I guess, but you might have a really hard time winning.

Mike Bishop

I would have taken photos of them the moment they opened their mouth to question me. Evidence for court. Next step would to talk to their boss about the situation to see how this could be handled before arranging meeting with a prosecuting attorney to find out if it is worth pursuing a lawsuit.

No, normally I would not start making a big deal about it in most cases but the moment a cop ask if you are a registered sex offender, it's time to go full defense.

Richard

What an awful way to start a day. It's a good thing you weren't trying to take pictures of cows or you might be in jail. I doubt there's much you can do about it, at least not without incurring considerable expense and effort. The handcuffs certainly seem excessive, but I'm sure the cops can and would invent some justification if there were an investigation. Bummer.

Flowerman

Victim rights
I agree with most of what has been said above with one major exception.
What about the rights of the youngster sitting on the fire plug? His image is for ALL to see and manipulate. He has the RIGHT to saftey, that is what the police officers were doing. A rule for street photography that I follow is NEVER take a shot of a youngster that can be recognized. It is extremely important to protect them at ANY cost.
Sorry you were treated roughly, however I would have demanded your card be destroyed right on the spot and be over with it.
Chaulk this experience up as a costly learning one - and keep on posting great Street Photos.

P.S. I have not posted in the past year because of being house bound - but love to see what others are doing.

lizzard_nyc

Flowerman wrote: »

Sorry you were treated roughly, however I would have demanded your card be destroyed right on the spot and be over with it.

It's a good thing you aren't a cop then. You can't demand that, well you could I guess, cops can demand a lot of things they shouldn't.

Benjamin I appreciate the post and the warning to take heed. Almost a "photograph at your own risk".

I see this both ways. If I was in the playground and I saw a random male photographing my little girl or even my son, I would likely have an issue with it. I can't lie, it would freak me out.
I would want police to investigate, however immediately cuffing him before any questions etc. I think is a gross overreaction. What if I was with my kids let's say and I we went to the park and I was taking photos of other peoples kids (street shooting in the park while my kids played, which I have done before). I can't imagine a cop immediately cuffing me, infront of my kids! Couldn't they just have approached Ben and asked first?


I'm really kind of torn up about this.

RSL

Me too, Liz. I've been doing street shooting most of my life and I've never been accosted by a real cop, though I've been accosted by rent-a-cops more than once. I got a 13 stitch slash on my hand last summer when a guy slashed my camera strap, and I was happy to see the cop when he came around. The guy's still in jail.

But I'm torn between the liberty to shoot in public places, which I don't want to see degraded in any way, and the cops' point of view. I'm pretty sure the cuffing was the same kind of thing as the last statement the he made about "we fear for our safety." There are all sorts of nuts out there, and if I were a cop on the street I'd fear for my safety to the extent that I'd probably have cuffed Ben until I was sure he wasn't going to pull a knife or a gun on me. The other thing they could have done for their safety was brace him against a wall and pat him down. That probably would have been even worse.

But then you get to the question whether or not it's reasonable to accost a guy who's shooting kids in public. There have been so damned many cases of kid molestation and even murder in the past twenty years that I can understand why there's a lot of concern.

It's a tough question.

bdcolen

Earache wrote: »

Ahhh.... the warm, soothing embrace of dismissive cynicism.

Transpose your logic for a moment to the struggle for liberty and justice by another individual who played it "safe" until she couldn't: The question I have for you Ms. Parks: Are you going to try and sit in the front of the bus again? Doesn't sound quite right does it?
.

EXCELLENT!clapclap

bdcolen

First off, I am glad to hear that you are okay, Ben - that could have gone very far south very quickly. You played it very well indeed. As I point out to my students, you have the right to photograph anything in a public place, but cops have sticks, pepper spray, guns, badges, handcuffs, and arrest powers, and they can and do use any and all of them on a whim. If you are stopped, politely state your case and your rights, and then shut up and decide afterwards what legal steps if any you want and need to take.

Further, I warn my students about the inherent risks they run in photographing children. I say that the young women - Liz - can generally get away with shooting kids because when people see a female they think Mom. But for my male students it is far more problematic. Male stranger photographing children = pervert in the minds of far too many people.

That said, you have the right to take the photo you took. And the harassment of photographers, for that is what it is, is becoming a real problem for anyone shooting in public.

Richard

bdcolen wrote: »

Male stranger photographing children = pervert in the minds of far too many people.

This seems to be an especially American obsession. I wonder though, is there any evidence at all to support it? I don't mean evidence that child molesters exist, I mean that somehow they are using photography on the street as a tool of their trade.

RyanS

RyanS wrote: »

The question I have for Ben: Are you going to take pictures of teenagers on that street ever again?

I admit that one of my weaknesses is being able to communicate effectively using words. It is not a skill I have, but I am trying to improve. At the risk of futility banging my head against the wall, let me try again.

Here is how I might restate this question:
* Are you going to let the police intimidate you by never taking pictures of teenagers on that street again?
* Did the police stop and frisk discourage you from wanting to try to take pictures on that street again, especially of minors?
* Will the actions of the police modify your behavior when you are pursuing photography in the future?

What I meant is contained somewhere in there. I'd appreciate any help you folks can offer as I learn how to communicate more clearly. If I say something that seems really off-the-wall, please feel free to ask: "Ryan, I interpret what you said to mean X, is what what you meant to say?" That would really help. Thank you.

lensmole

Richard wrote: »

This seems to be an especially American obsession. I wonder though, is there any evidence at all to support it? I don't mean evidence that child molesters exist, I mean that somehow they are using photography on the street as a tool of their trade.

Check this out!

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-08/justice/dating.game.killer_1_rodney-alcala-dating-game-three-bachelors?_s=PM:CRIME

bfjr

RyanS wrote: »

I admit that one of my weaknesses is being able to communicate effectively using words. It is not a skill I have, but I am trying to improve. At the risk of futility banging my head against the wall, let me try again.

Here is how I might restate this question:
* Are you going to let the police intimidate you by never taking pictures of teenagers on that street again?
* Did the police stop and frisk discourage you from wanting to try to take pictures on that street again, especially of minors?
* Will the actions of the police modify your behavior when you are pursuing photography in the future?

What I meant is contained somewhere in there. I'd appreciate any help you folks can offer as I learn how to communicate more clearly. If I say something that seems really off-the-wall, please feel free to ask: "Ryan, I interpret what you said to mean X, is what what you meant to say?" That would really help. Thank you.

Not a problem Ryan, I understand your question and how you meant it.
Kinda like, if you get thrown from the horse, are you (and it's best you do) get back on?

The short answer is, YES but with some new caveats.

Although this is just a snippet of my life, it seems to be an important one.
One that I'm trying to wrap my head around. I am actively reading this thread as an aid,
Thank you.

I will tell you that the incident has given me pause and I have not taken an image since!

lizzard_nyc

bfjr wrote: »

Not a problem Ryan, I understand your question and how you meant it.
Kinda like, if you get thrown from the horse, are you (and it's best you do) get back on?

The short answer is, YES but with some new caveats.

Although this is just a snippet of my life, it seems to be an important one.
One that I'm trying to wrap my head around. I am actively reading this thread as an aid,
Thank you.

I will tell you that the incident has given me pause and I have not taken an image since!

AS it should.
However I have no doubt, none, that you will come back stronger than ever and maybe even with more purpose.

novicesnapper

Haha, he just forgot to check in with the cops, before he was to go take some pictures. It MUST have been you're own fault lmao. It's probably a good thing you weren't on a medium, taking time lapse images of kids. Sorry this happened to you, but reinforces that cameras are now synonymous with evil deeds.
Here's a wiki on the evil habit and some laws
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law

If you think there isn't harassment going on, enlighten youreself here.
http://www.pixiq.com/article/parents-forbidden-from-photographing-their-own-kids-at-pool
http://www.pixiq.com/article/accosted-by-miami-dade-metrorail-security-guards

An amateur photographer is set to lobby his local MP after camera club members were banned from taking photos which include children at the Winter Wonderland fair in Hyde Park.
Chris Lafbury said club members were made to feel like 'paedophiles' when security guards told them they needed a permit to take pictures.
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Photographer_alerts_cabinet_minister_to_Hyde_Park_photo_ban_news_310634.html

But seriously educate you'reself, because even the cops don't know the laws.

Demian

Flowerman wrote: »

It is extremely important to protect them at ANY cost.
Sorry you were treated roughly, however I would have demanded your card be destroyed right on the spot and be over with it.

lizzard_nyc wrote: »

I would want police to investigate.

Not even sure what to say here. I doubt pedophiles are going to be interested in regular shots of kids wearing street clothes. It's pure insanity to throw away our civil rights on such baseless fears...

Richard wrote: »

This seems to be an especially American obsession. I wonder though, is there any evidence at all to support it? I don't mean evidence that child molesters exist, I mean that somehow they are using photography on the street as a tool of their trade.

None whatsoever. If they were, Google Images would be way easier

What I find the most frustrating is that it's been shown repeatedly that children are most often abused by those close to them, but we Americans still chase the myth of the rapist in the bushes...

RyanS

I explained what happened to Ben to two non-photographer friends (didn't use any names, no relation). I tried to represent the facts as best as I could with the information posted. I was careful not to put my opinions out there first, I wanted to hear what their untainted opinion was.

Friend #1: She is a mother. She felt strongly that the photographer was in the wrong. She thought it was illegal to take pictures of minors without permission, even in public. She said if she saw a photographer taking pictures of her children she would call the police. I asked her "What if I took pictures of your children?" She said, "That's okay, because I know you." I then explained the photographer has a right to photograph anyone in public as long as it isn't indecent or used for commercial gain. She replied, "With children it should be illegal."

Friend #2: A father. He felt that the photographer was possibly within his legal rights, but violated some sensitives by taking pictures of minors without parental permission. He thinks the police should have investigated, but felt the use of handcuffs was far too aggressive. He wouldn't call the police, but would instead approach the photographer and ask him to stop.

I'm curious what your friends who are not photographers think. Ask them and please report back. I'm curious what other members of the "general public" think.

RSL

There's a world of misinformation and ignorance of the law out there, Ryan, not just about photography. Last summer I talked to a woman who thought shooting kids on the street was illegal. I explained that there was no such law. She then told me that the school board had passed that law.

But I can understand your friends' point of view. Any parent's first responsibility is to protect the kids -- no matter what it takes to do that.

novicesnapper

I'm with you're #2 friend. I think a certain amount of discretion needs to be used, not to mention common sense. Asking permission is a high priority to me. I have 7 grandkids, and I would expect that same consideration from another photographer myself. If they don't ask beforehand, I will make sure he knows he should have. But also things are going wayyy overboard on this on several levels.I can't help but wonder, after cities and states losing momentum on control of photographers at events, OWS is one example, if this isn't being touted now as "it's for the children's safety"?

Sam

Benjamin,

Disclaimer: Assuming all happened they way you tell it, you handled it far better than I would have!

If politely questioned by police I will absolutely cooperate and answer most (reasonable /pertinent) questions. They have a job to do.

If however I was grabbed, handcuffed, etc. I would only identify myself, inform them I will not consent to any searches, ask if I am under arrest, what the charges are, ask if I am free to go. I will not answer questions or respond positively to intimidation. I won't physically resist or get into a physical confrontation.

I will however assert my rights as we all should.

I really hope you peruse this further. If the police respond in a positive manner and correct this behavior everybody wins. If you and I ignore this type of behavior it will only get worse.

Sam