Can you fix the focus on a blurry photo after the fact?
The birth of Mirrorless Cameras
Choosing your first dSLR camera
New York City can be beautiful!
The Fujifilm Finepix X10, A Review
Choosing the Right Light Stand
Photojojo iPhone Telephoto Lens review — AudioCast
How To Buy Digital Photo Frames For An Exhibit - Part 2
Hey MAC users! A great source and an April Fool that is no joke
My week with Q
How To Become A Successful Photographer
"When the Wind Stopped" — poem with 4 photos
Tips for Textures 
Butterflies in Motion
Cast aways - saving those photographic memories
One Man Show: My 25 Years With Digital Photography
Studio, Flash, & Available Light — Three Books Reviewed
Portrait styling: dangerous pairings
Adobe Photoshop CS6 Product Managers Interview Audiocast
A gift of flowers: unfold your senses
On Set of "Love & Robots" the Film
Exhibiting With Digital Photo Frames (DPF) Part 1
Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk Inkjet Paper — Audiocast
Planning “National Geographic” style photo travel
Find Inner Peace and Beauty at San Jose, California, Airport
Wilderness Travel 1 Rainforests – Essential Gear
Backlighting Basics
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 3 of 3
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 2 Of 3
What Moves You?
FIGURES IN MOTION: Decades of Evolving Personal Imagery in Photography, Part 7
Lomography Store, Austin, Texas — GALLERY
GALLERY — Up to $1,000 Reward for Cattle Rustlers
Taking your Portraiture Higher
The "Bible" of Time-Lapse Photography
Interview with Harold Davis — Closeup Maestro of Flowers & Water Drops
Interview with Steve Caplin — Photoshop Digital Artist, Commercial Illustrator, & Author
Easy technique to select, edit and sequence keywords for web
How much should you charge for a photograph?Another Photographer Detained in Southern California
Possibly following LAPD's guidelines to treat photographers as suspicious
For the second time in a month, police in Long Beach, California detained a photographer for taking pictures in public.
And now it is becoming apparent that they are probably following guidelines issued by the Los Angeles Police Department that explicitly states that people taking photos are to be viewed as suspicious.
According to page 40 of the LAPD’s “Suspicious Activity Report,” published in June 2008:
Takes pictures or video footage (with no apparent esthetic value, i.e., camera angles, security equipment, security personnel, traffic lights, building entrances, etc.).
This gives police the green light to detain photographers who are doing nothing but taking photos.
The Suspicious Activity Report was highlighted in an article by Greggory Moore of the Long Beach Post, who was detained by Los Angeles County sheriff deputies for photographing a courthouse on June 2.
In the article, Moore writes about another incident involving his colleague, Sander Roscoe Wolff, who was detained on June 30 for photographing an oil refinery for artistic purposes.
Even though Wolff wasn’t breaking the law nor was he driving, Long Beach police officer Asif Kahn demanded his driver’s license.
According to Moore's article:
"I asked him if I had to show him my driver's license," says Wolff. "He said 'yes.' And at that point I did feel detained. Because if he was demanding that I identify myself, then I couldn't just walk away."
Wolff says Kahn apparently ran a check on Wolff's driver's license, then came back and said that everything was okay. "He said because of Homeland Security and new laws, [the police] have the authority to ask for my driver's license and run it when they feel that there's cause."
The cop then allowed him to continue taking photos.
Moore points out that while the Suspicious Activity Report supposedly applies only to LAPD cops, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence wants to make it a “national model.”
Although Special Order No. 11 applies only to the LAPD, as the American Civil Liberties Union points out, "Rather than criticize the LAPD efforts, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said the LAPD program 'should be a national model.' Not surprisingly, in June 2008 the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security teamed with the Major City [sic] Chiefs Association to issue a report recommending expanding the LAPD SAR program to other U.S. cities."2
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence is a federal agency that serves as “the principal advisor to the President, the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council for intelligence matters related to national security, according to Wikipedia.
Moore said he will continue looking into the matter for an upcoming article.
For Part 2 of this story, I will report on my efforts to continue this discussion by reaching out to the LBPD in general and Kahn in particular; to the City Attorney's Office; and to Councilman Steve Neal, in whose Ninth District Wolff found himself detained.
Comments
?Takes pictures or video footage (with no apparent esthetic value, i.e., camera angles, security equipment, security personnel, traffic lights, building entrances, etc.)."
I love this one. Just who is to determine if a certain photo is with no apparent esthetic value. Oh I know the cop on the street that has no art appreciation at all. Yeah that checks out. Not saying that all cops have no art appreciation. But they aren't even allowed to determine what is and isn't pornographic and we are going to depend on them to determine what is and isn't aesthetic.
That's what I snorted on also while reading this.
Like Eddie Murphy "What are you a f***ing art critic?"
I'm sure most of us have taken a lot of pictures that someone would think has no aesthetic value but turned out pretty interesting.
Oh, LAPD, it's "AESTHETIC" not "ESTHETIC" Buy a vowel, wouldya.
I'm not trying to be combative or say your point is invalid based on the mistake, but esthetic is a valid variant of aesthetic. A similar comparison would be the spellings of gray and grey.
Damn, good thing he had a Driver's License.
Imagine some weirdo out there taking photos with
no Driver's License.
Yes, and in California your not required to carry ID with you or provide anything other than your name when detained.
In situations such as this, if I thought I might get hassled by the cops, I probably wouldn't carry ID on my person. And not carrying ID does not give cops carte blanche to detain someone who is otherwise not breaking any laws.
Unless I'm driving, I do not carry ID anymore.
Since then I've been stopped once by DHS and detained once by LAPD. I walked away from the DHS officer because I was not detained. But two LAPD cops and an LAPD supervisor told me it was illegal to not carry ID, and the cops searched the code book trying to find the law to cite me during my detainment (I was actually handcuffed and put in the patrol unit).
I was let go and not cited.
I was also told that it was illegal not to carry ID by LAPD. He must have known better because when I challenged his ignorance he dropped it. Now I just say "Yes, I do have ID. No, you can't see it."
That'd pretty much confirm that he's a TERRORIST!!!!!
I think it means esthetic to the average reasonable person. For example why would a normal average adult be taking a picture of a city bus, or a train or a parking structure. Most people would find that kind of activity suspicious.
You mean most authoritarians. Us Americans have no problems with people exercising Constitutional rights.
I think most people would find your responses kind of suspicious.
It's completely normal to take pictures of your environment, whether it's buses, trains, parking structures or anything other sort of structure. Studying art and architecture, I was even required for classes to do so, but I shouldn't be the exception to the rule. These types of stories are sad because there's probably real work cops could be doing instead of being "hallway monitors."
Superhans, are you serious, you think a picture of a train is exciting. That is your right to think that and it is my right to find it suspicious.
Bart Keppel,
I suspect you've never heard of O. Winston Link.
http://www.linkmuseum.org/
Check that out before making such a statement about photographing trains.
Unfortunately, many of the photos in that collection, if you try shooting similar ones today, will likely get you hassled by a cop or security guard, even though you'd be doing nothing illegal (unless you were trespassing on railroad property to get the shot). After all, they not only show the trains, they also show infrastructure like stations, trestles, and other potential "targets." Unfortunate, but true.
I went down to the tracks here in Riverbank(CA)and spent a good deal of time photographing trains in the HOPES some cop would arrest me so I could collect a big payday from the city (or county) but ALAS! I guess they were just not into protecting America that day!!
A couple of relevant postings from one organization I am a long-time member of.
http://nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2009/01/amtrak02.html
http://nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2009/02/trains.html
Apparently lots of people like pictures of trains:
http://www.glancytrains.com/php-cgi/gallery/main.php/v/album05/
http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/dynoGall2.asp?catID=248
http://www.terragalleria.com/pictures-subjects/trains-and-railroad/
and plenty more.
OMG. Shocking. Maybe you should start a crusade and engage and detain everyone who uploaded those train pictures, since you find them so suspicious.
It's your right to find it suspicious, and your right to not consider it aesthetically pleasing, but it's not your right to harass and detain someone without just cause.
You really ought to consider relocating to China or North Korea. They love people like you.
Bart said..
"Superhans, are you serious, you think a picture of a train is exciting. That is your right to think that and it is my right to find it suspicious."
God.. You're dumber that I thought you were. At least before I gave you some credit for having sense, but with a statement like what you said above.. it removed ALL doubt from my mind!
Rail Car Fan
Why is a Johnny Law sock puppet even posting on a photography blog. Socks can't even hold a camera.
Dumb-ass sock puppet.
However it's not your right to unlawfully detain, harass, jail, or interrogate someone because YOU think it's suspicious.
And if you're so hung up on "suspicious activity", then you should focus your attention on cell phone users since cell phones (unlike cameras) have actually been used in terrorist attacks.
Better yet, start reporting people wearing backpacks, driving Ryder trucks, parking cars in high density areas, or your neighbors who are former US military. All of which, have direct links to terrorism.
Most people would find that kind of activity suspicious.
Most people who are cops, or cop A**-kissers, would find almost ANYTHING suspicious and cause for a citizen to be detained and searched at will by government thugs.
I'm sure that you, and people like you, would find at least half the pix I take to be without "esthetic" merit. If you think that means I'm going to bend over for some cop, think again.
Bart said in part..
"For example why would a normal average adult be taking a picture of a train..?"
Once again Bart is talking out his you know what. I love taking photo's of all sorts of railroad/train type things.
Why? Because I'm a "Railfan Enthusiast"! In fact, I'm active in my local "Railroad Museum" that just happens to have many pieces of operational rolling stock.. which includes a number of engines! There are thousands and thousands of us all over the world who're into the same thing.
You need to get more educated when it comes to things like that.. so here's a link to further your education. It sounds like you really need it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railfan
Rail Car Fan
Rail fan said in part, "There are thousands of us all over the world"
But there are billions of people all over the world so it is pretty rare to come across a "Railfan Enthusiast" so when you see one it can be suspicious and worth checking out.
Bart's above answer just proved my point that I made in one of my previous posts!
Rail Car Fan
Why don't you go down to the Fullerton, CA train station some time. I can almost guarantee you there will be a dozen or so railfans hanging out there watching and photographing trains. Not so rare.
I also find someone posting anti-first amendment garbage on a blog post to be suspicious even though it's a protected first amendment activity. I think I might report you bart.
(are you the same bart over on Flyertalk that can't accept that dhs can do any wrong and once said that the insta-porn machines were safe because "you said so?")
Go ahead and report me. When the authorities come knocking I have nothing to hide. If they want to ask me questions I won't run to a blog and cry about being violated.
So a dozen people out of billions is not considered rare?
Well why don't you just do that, Bart?!! Check it out buddy, check it out until your little heart is content! I suspect you'll soon grow bored with the whole project when it becomes obvious there's nothing to worry about.
Bart Keppel offers: "Most people would find that kind of activity suspicious."
Interesting. Why would they find it suspicious?
Can it be that America's wars for "MORE!" have led to the loss of your previous freedoms to actually do as you wish, as long as it didn't interfere with or pose potential harm to others?
If so, isn't time for millions of Americans to REFUSE (In keeping with your lawful duty.) to aid, abet, fund or otherwise support, in any manner whatsoever, a society that would be party to mass murder for political purposes?
How else will you reclaim your now lost freedoms?
"The tax Refusal"
http://www.TaxRefusal.com
The police have a right to engage people in consensual conversations. They do not have the authority to detain people who are not breaking the law. I would look up the local definition of harassment.I know what that is in my town. IN my case I would Tell the officer that I do not consent to a conversation and wish to be left alone. If he continues without reasonable suspicion that I have committed a crime in other words no lawfull purpose. I would tell him that I am remaining silent I wish to be left alone if Mr date rape does not know what consensual means. I would then demand to speak to his supervisor, and file charges of harassment against the officer. Video is like a Rubber. I do not leave my home without the ability to protect myself.
Even if you don't want to talk back to him he can still talk to you as long as he wants.
Even if you don't want to talk back to him he can still talk to you as long as he wants.
Really??! As long as he wants, even after you inform him you wish to be left alone? Is that a privilege that all citizens enjoy, or only that ultra-special subset of humanity known as "cops"?
(Hint: a citizen may NOT engage in attempted conversation with another "as long as he wants" after the other asks to be left alone. It's called "harassment". But of course nothing a cop does could ever be called "harassment")
Yes if you are out in public you have no expectation of privacy. So if I, a store clerk, a cop, or anybody else wants to walk up to you and talk it is not against the law.
If a cop arrested somebody simply for talking to him you people would be crying about it and don't deny it.
It's funny, talking to somebody against their wishes is illegal but taking their picture of somebody against their wishes is not illegal. If one is harassment than so is the other.
I suppose you would consider reporters who try talking to people who obviously don't want to give an interview as criminal harassers, or are they exempt because they have a camera?
So ... you're trying to equate someone walking up to you and saying (for several minutes), "Bart. Bart! Hey man, I have a bridge to sell you. It's a bargain, so help me. Bart!" vs. someone standing for several minutes, not breathing a word, taking in his surroundings and photographing them as the fancy strikes him?
Will everybody who thinks these are equivalent please raise your hand. Yes, Bart, I already counted you. Anybody else?
As for conversing, are you being deliberately obtuse in going from my language, "as long as he wants after the other asks to be left alone", to just a general walking up to someone and talking to them? If the distinction is unclear, try walking up to a woman and doing the former while a cop is standing nearby.
So how many times can somebody say my name before I can have them arrested?
I would much rather have somebody talking to me against my wishes than standing next to me taking a picture or video of me against my wishes. Even though both actions are annoying they are perfectly legal.
So your saying it is legal for you to walk up to me and take all the pictures you want. If I ask you what your doing and you respond that you don't want me talking to you I have to stop talking to you but you can keep taking pictures. If I continue to ask you what your doing you can have me arrested.
You and the cops can talk all you want, but the other person is under no obligation to respond or even to listen. If a cop persists in trying to engage you in conversation, simply ask, "Am I being detained?" If the answer is no, ask "Am I free to go?" If the answer is no, you are being detained by definition. If the answer is yes, you are free to disengage and leave or ignore the cop. Regardless of the cop's answer, you are under no obligation whatsoever to respond to his comments or questions.
I agree with you that you don't have to answer and you are free to leave. JdL is claiming that if your in public it is illegal to talk to somebody who doesn't want to be talked to.
What he is claiming is that once a person asks you to stop talking to them, if you continue to try to talk to them, you are harassing them. Thus, to answer your earlier question, someone can shout "BART" at you a million times. But if you ask him to stop, it only takes one time to make it illegal.
G, If that is the case then once you tell a person to stop photographing you and they continue they are harassing you.
Should it be illegal to harass somebody like that, yes but is it illegal, no. So if you ever see me in the street and you want to say Bart Bart Bart a million times or take my picture a million times you can. I would love to have you arrested for it but I can't.
According to you I can have the fan of an opposing team arrested if they trash talking to me and I tell them to stop and they don't. Next time the Patriots are killing the Bills and the fan in front of me keeps talking shit I will have him arrested, of course I will tell him to stop first. Officer I told this man I didn't want him to talk to me anymore and after the Patriots scored another touchdown he turned around and told me the Bills suck. Please arrest him for harassing me.
I suppose if I owned an abortion clinic and I had protesters I could have them all arrested as long as I asked them to stop saying things to me first.
Don't you find it odd that none of your camera groupie buddies are defending you?
I heard a former NFL player tried that last week and was shot in the back twice and killed for his troubles.
Maybe we should replace their guns with a rolled-up newspaper.
Bart wrote: "Yes if you are out in public you have no expectation of privacy. So if I, a store clerk, a cop, or anybody else wants to walk up to you and talk it is not against the law."
What we have here is living proof that 50% of the American people are below average in intelligence!
"Even if you don't want to talk back to him he can still talk to you as long as he wants."
And unless actually being detained you can simply walk away.
I choose to stay where I am, and continue to exercise my constitutional rights. I choose to have a long conversation with the officers supervisor explaining to him what harassment is and that he is not exempt from the law. I am alarmed I am in fear for my safety by an armed man who is not leaving me be. I want to file a complaint against the officer and I want a investigation of his actions. OF course the police who police themselves will claim that it does not rise to the level of criminal conduct. However I will have that officer on the carpet in front of his supervisor. I will have the Chief explaining why his officers harass law abiding citizens at the next town hall meeting.
Thank you Bart you are correct I should have stated that I wish to remain silent I want a attorney once you ask for an attorney, the police, under the 6th Amendment of the United States Constitution are prohibited from asking you any additional questions until your attorney is present. So he would not only be harassing me he would then be guilty of official oppression.
They are prohibited from interrogating you in a custodial setting. However if they are in a public place and you are free to leave, Miranda does not apply.
Are you serious?
The right to legal counsel and the right to not incriminate yourself only works some of the time? Our Constitutional Rights are switched on and off based on our location? Or type of illegal police detainment?
You are the worst cop impersonator in the history of psychotic cop impersonators. I mean Jesus. At least take a gander at the Constitution before you post your trash. Have you no pride at all?
hhamlet, you actually need to shut your mouth in order to exercise your right against self-incrimination. You can't just name the amendment and be protected from prosecution for stupid shit you might say.
JL is talking about a person who is not detained. It's not an interrogation if you can leave at any time. I think you misunderstand the amendment.
Yah, I know how it works.
"Not detained" "can leave at any time"
I think you haven't done your homework.
Through personal experience and about 10,000 videos showing cop illegally detaining citizens we who follow this blog know how it goes.
"Sir, what are you doing here?"
"Am I under arrest?"
"Sir, let me see some ID"
"Am I free to go?"
"No."
"Am I under arrest?"
"Sir, we are just having a conversation. What are you trying to hide? Let me see your ID."
"Am I being detained?"
"Sir. What are you doing with that camera?"
"Can I go now?"
(calls for backup)
"Sir, it is illegal to take pictures in public. You need to show me some ID right now."
Continue for the next 45 minutes.
I have to agree with the others hammy, you don't know what the hell you are talking about, you sound more like a sidewalk attorney every time you open your keyboard.
Yes location does matter. If you are in a police station not free to leave that is what they call in custody. When you are in custody certain rights kick in.
If you want to know if your in custody or not just ask yourself am I free to leave. If the answer is no your most likely in custody, if the answer is yes you are not in custody. It's pretty basic stuff, I'm surprised you don't know that.
Post new comment