Las Vegas Cop Detains Man For Taking Photos
A Las Vegas police officer detained a man for refusing to walk away after taking a photo of a movie set that was completely visible to the public.
The man video recorded his interaction, which doesn’t show the officer’s face or name, but allows us to clearly hear him trying to justify giving the photographeran unlawful order.
The photographer whose username is 1willwanders on Youtube, held his ground, asking the officer to cite him the law that would allow him to single out a person for taking photos on a public street, ordering him to walk away while countless other people are allowed to remain because they are not taking photos.
The officer was unable to do so. The photographer was allowed to walk away after more than two minutes of debating with the cop.
This is how he described it on Youtube.
I take pictures of things that interest me on Fremont Street in Las Vegas. As I am walking west bound I see in the middle of the Fremont Street Experience a movie being shot. So as I walk up I take out my camera. A security guard tell me that pictures are not allowed and blocks my shot. So I continue west walking around the blocked off area. I attempt to take another picture and again a security officer say pictures are not allowed. I respond that I can take picture in public. Then a police office point east and say go that way. I explain that I want to go west and he again tell me to go east. So not wanting to argue with the police I enter a casino walk west in the casino around the movie shoot, come out of the casino past the site. As I walk out three police officers run at me and this is what happens.
Olympus' Micro Four Thirds 75mm prime
Can you fix the focus on a blurry photo after the fact?
The birth of Mirrorless Cameras
The Joy Of Winning A Photo Contest
Choosing your first dSLR camera
New York City can be beautiful!
Choosing the Right Light Stand
Photojojo iPhone Telephoto Lens review — AudioCast
My week with Q
How To Become A Successful Photographer
"When the Wind Stopped" — poem with 4 photos
Creating The New Family Portrait
Tips for Textures
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
No-Brainer Setup For A Digital Photo Frame Exhibit - Part 3











Planning “National Geographic” style photo travel
Wilderness Travel 1 Rainforests – Essential Gear
Backlighting Basics
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
25% off on photography eBooks
eyePhone: The eBook for iPhone Photographers
Interview with Harold Davis — Closeup Maestro of Flowers & Water Drops
Interview with Steve Caplin — Photoshop Digital Artist, Commercial Illustrator, & Author
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 3 of 3
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 2 Of 3
Easy technique to select, edit and sequence keywords for web
How much should you charge for a photograph?




























Comments
I hope he got the names of those pigs. Detaining a citizen without probable cause. Sue the hell out of them.
Detaining a person requires "reasonable suspicion", "probably cause" is required to make an arrest.
The tone of this encounter is set by the Officer who is clearly agitated and aggressive.
Officer: "You're about to get yourself in a whole lot of trouble mister. Do you understand me? I don't care how big you think you are."
But this exchange just infuriates me:
Photographer: "what's the legal basis for you asking me to leave?"
Officer: "Because you were being disrespectful towards someone that asked you to do something".
AND THERE IT IS, THE TRUTH. CONTEMPT OF COP!
Isn't this really the issue for most of these unlawful stops? He should have NEVER been detained by these Officers and they should be reprimanded for their conduct.
Just because a private security guard directs a Citizen on public property to do something doesn't mean compliance is mandatory. Indeed, contrary to the Officer's flawed understanding of the criminal code, the Citizen's reply need not be "respectful".
What's disrespectful is the behavior of the Officer who's detaining this man. The Officer knows full well that he has NO LEGAL BASIS to direct the man to go a specific direction, or to move along, or to stop taking pictures. He's a bully, plain and simple and probably always has been.
There are of course many scenarios where it makes sense for the Police to move pedestrians along. This wasn't one of them and at least a Supervisor was present to end the incident. An incident completely created by law enforcement. No camera running during the stop? Likely a different outcome.
I was going to comment on this video until I read Jim B's comment. I think he summed it up wonderfully,and much better than I could.
Only point I would add is.... What happened when we entered 2012? Did we fall through some sort of worm hole and travel back to 2006? Do we have to start all over again? Sheesh!
The police (and the pseudo-police) seem to be under the impression that we--the public--work for them.
We do not!
Simply because they give us an order does not mean we are under any obligation to follow it. And, if we choose to be disrespectful to them, that is our call and there is NOTHING they can do about it. If they can't take it, I suggest they find another job, something that is less taxing to their sensitive mindsets.
Unless, of course, we are actually living under a fascist dictatorship. Are we?
I saw this video a couple days ago..
I was asking the same questions, exactly what is the legal basis for the order and the subsequent arrest..
I smell lawsuit..
Elliott, I agree. It sounds like the police officer overstepped his bounds. He didn't have a legal authority to tell him to leave. This officer needs retraining.
Retraining an asshole to not be such an asshole is like telling an orange to quit being an orange. I understand where you're coming from, but I highly doubt retraining will do any good.
He needs to be locked in supermax, then be fired, then be bankrupted IN THAT ORDER! These thugs aren't going to go away until they start seeing that there are real consequences to their actions.
At this point, I'm not sure standing these kind of cops in front of a pock-marked wall would get the message across.
Power-trippers can't be retrained any more than I can change the color of my eyes. Getting their rocks off by ordering people around is engrained in their DNA.
JL
I hope by retraining you mean some sort of attitude adjustment.
LVPD officer Derek Colling was just fired last month for beating up a man who was standing in his own driveway recording police activity at his neighbor's house.
Didn't they issue an internal memo?
That would assume these cops can read above a 5th grade level.
Objection! Witness stating facts not in evidence.
PHOTOG: "You can't make up facts that aren't true."
COP: "Yeah. It is true."
Obviously, because you're a cop.
My favorite part...
PHOTOG: "You've got some statute or law that says I can't do it, cite it for me."
[PAUSE]
Cop: "You know what..."
PHOTOG: "Just cite it for me, tell me--"
Cop: "That's not the point. We asked you nicely."
Ahhh. The 'we asked you nicely' tactic. Well played.
Seriously?
My favorite Irish drinking song comes to mind.
"Bugger off, ya bastards, buggger off..."
Unfortunately, I have a big mouth, and in the same circumstances might have let slip "the fuck you did" at that point. Maybe it is as well I don't get into these conflicts.
That was a textbook way to deal with that situation! He stood his ground, was firm but relatively polite and completely shut the cop down with the photographer's better knowledge of the law. Also, he continuously asserted his desire to leave. Best part is he recorded the whole thing.
I'm not sure I like the nicer word of "detain."
ANY TIME a law enforcement officer acting under color of law "detains" anyone (defined as that person is NOT free to leave) THAT is an arrest per the US Supreme Court. Even though that person may be eventually let go, left alone and no record maintained an arrest has occurred---and if the arrest lacked sufficient reasonable suspicion . . . the appropriate jurisdiction should be sued for allowing their thugs to arrest people willie nillie.
Just good luck finding an lawyer willing to do it.
ARREST...
"...deprived of one's ability to move about, freely, from place to place."
FALSE ARREST...
"An arrest made without proper legal authority. (see False Imprisonment)"
MALICIOUS ARREST...
"An arrest made without probable cause and for an improper purpose; malicious arrest can be grounds for an action for either false imprisonment or malicious prosecution."
SOURCE:
Black's Law Dictionary: West Publishing Co., ISBN 0-314-06690-X
Suggestion: Have on hand, preprinted "business cards" that read as follows:
"I appreciate your criticism....
Fuck you very much."
\\\
That part of Fremont Street may not be public property. It used to be a street but they have the LG light show over it and now it's a large walking area.
Perhaps the casinos own it jointly and it's considered private property. If the movie was leasing out the space then they can control it as if it were the interior of a casino. In that case they can demand a person to leave if they did not want him photographing the area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fremont_Street_Experience
"The Fremont Street Experience was conceived in the 1990s as a way to draw more people to the ailing downtown gambling area, which had been losing business to the casinos and resorts of the Strip. FSE, LLC is a cooperative venture, owned and operated by a group of downtown hotel/casino companies (comprising 10 hotel/casinos) as a separate corporation, responsible for financing, developing, and managing the Fremont Street Experience."
So the casinos around that area cooperatively own that street and therefore it is quasi public at best. This is the way the police should have explained it to the pedestrian photographer, but perhaps they themselves are unaware of the property rights in that area.
While I think it is unusual to ban photography on a set, that is their right to do if they have leased the space out from the casinos.
"While I think it is unusual to ban photography on a set"
I don't think its unusual at all. However, the couple of times I've seen a set in a public area efforts are made to block the public's view as much as possible, as well as posted signs stating that no photography is allowed.
The reality of these "no-photos on set" edicts is that they really do want a few public shots to leak out as free promotion. I toured Paramount once. They don't officially allow photography. So I didn't bring mine because there is no way I would be able to keep it in my bag. Turned out that the no photo ban was on a "wink, wink" basis. What the tour guides don't see you shoot doesn't matter. The only time they emphasized the rule was walking past a live outdoor set. Even then people were sneaking shots and the guides just turned away when this was occurring.
I think what they are really worried about is video taping. Of course, with most new digital cameras, one can record video without any effort.
It is the film set's right to ban photography in a space they are leasing. The cops were right in this case, even though they could not articulate the reason properly.
Help me out here. Is 'disrespect' a felony or a misdemeanor? I can't seem to find it in the city or state code and I've looked all over.
Post new comment