Pixiq

I don’t understand your reference to “stop and identify” laws, since they were ruled unconstitutional in 1979 in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0443_0047_ZO.html

Never.

Ever.

EVER.

Talk to the police.
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

Why did the person in question never ask for a lawyer.
Also why would you ever give them info on who you doped off you know they will be questioned.

I almost always upload pictures I take on my phone directly to Twitter or Facebook after I take them. I don’t know if I can do the same with video. I sure would be for doing that though.

“The man says he is a lawyer so I’m wondering what’s taking him so long to file a lawsuit.”

I highly doubt that he is a lawyer judging by the answers he gave. Something just doesn’t sound right about his story.

For the 2nd story, I wonder why Vachon didn’t refuse to delete the photos? The TSA has no authority whatsoever.

Ever heard of tax lawyers? or IP lawyers? Not every lawyer has the training for this type of law.

@1 Dan

Wow, good case. Do you think other stop&id statutes in other states can be law suited into oblivion with this case precedent? If so Hiibel V. Nevada was illegally held and all stop&id statutes need to be taken off the law books.

Photography at airports has never been allowed, once got into trouble coz of that. Funnily enough at Madrid Airport, next to the passport control booth they have a sign with a picture of a camera icon and the forbidden sign on that. Funnily enough they forgot to remove the Shutterstock watermark from it!

This is the thing, it is not unlawful to take pictures inside an airport. The TSA has even stated on their website that they do not prohibit photography at checkpoints. Per website: http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/taking_pictures.shtm

What the officers did who took the camera was theft and possibly larceny.

You want take photos at the airport, but you dont allow it.By the way i know few countries, which allow do photos inside airport.

the problem is “suspicious behavior” includes not answering questions asked by a TSA agent or a police officer.

it’s a catch-22. That’s why it’s better to not answer anything, and request a consult with your attorney.

I wonder if it has ever occurred to them that each time they pull one of these ‘swarm and intimidate’ deals that there could be REAL terrorists standing in the shadows taking notes.?

TSA Rule(s) regarding photography, from TSA’s own Blog @ http://blog.tsa.gov/2009/03/can-i-take-photos-at-checkpoint-and.html

Anymore, I make sure I have copies of rules, regs, laws, authorizations, etc., on me when snappin pix.

Having a low B.S. Threshold, it’s nice to be able to say to the overcaffinated : “Here, it’s yours to read. I have many copies. And if I’m not being legally detained right now, I’ll be on my merry way. Have a very nice day.”
Porcupine Picayune recently posted..Everything But The Girl – Missing TGIFF!

If you’re detained, there is literally no good that can come from speaking with the police. Anything that harms your case can be admitted against you as either a statement against interest or an admission by a party opponent, while anything you say that is exculpatory is excluded as hearsay.

As far as I’m concerned, the only wise thing to do when being detained is to ask “am I free to go?” If the answer is no, I would say “I’m exercising my 5th Amd. right to an attorney and will not answer any questions without him/her present.”

Once you do that, you force the police into a classic S. or get off the pot moment. They can charge you, release you, or continue to detain you. Options 1 and 3 could bring with them the risk of a lawsuit, so you’ll probably be released unless they have something substantial.

As others have said, never ever talk to the police. Ever.

It might be true that the guy was a lawyer, because lawyers tend to have massive egos and believe that they can talk their way out of anything. What they don’t realize is that talking to the police only hurts you.

The guy should’ve said NOTHING except, “Am I being lawfully detained? And if so I am exercising my right to remain silent.” Jeff is right, the cops have no grounds to detain a person like that and they especially do not have grounds to seize his camera without a warrant if they did not arrest him at the time.

He should sue, since he’ll win. But his talking to them was his first mistake. People have to learn that cops are not there to help you, they’re there to hurt you. The days of Officer Friendly are long, long gone. Now, you have to realize you’re dealing with Officer Mafia.

Once again posting this video where a law school professor explains why you should never talk to the police, EVER, even if you’re the innocent victim of a crime:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik&feature=related

However, it would not be uncommon for officers, who are on the lookout for suspicious behavior, to talk with a photographer to find out why he or she was taking pictures.

I love how they word it so that it’s just a friendly conversation, and not active harassment and intimidation.

Notice again that the police officer asked for ID, instead of asking for the man’s name. But even in a stop-and-identify state, providing identity means providing your name, and not physically handing over your driver’s license. If you have to provide identification, GIVE YOUR NAME. Don’t hand them anything like a driver’s licence, because then you cannot really leave unless they give it back to you. Give your name only if you’re legally obligated, but do not give them your driver’s license.

People make mistakes like this all the time. You basically have to treat the police as if they were the Gestapo when they ask for “paperz, pleasz!”

@genewitch:
“the problem is ‘suspicious behavior’ includes not answering questions asked by a TSA agent or a police officer.”

No, not in the relevant way.

“Reasonable suspicion” refers to “reasonable suspicion of a crime”, not to suspicion in the abstract. Not answering question may be “suspicious” generally, but it doesn’t make reasonable people suspect a crime.

@Bob Yes, though that type of stuff is still covered in 1st year law school. It doesn’t matter what specialization he is in, law school still covers your rights.

@Dan

He was being detain which means it would fall under the Terry Stop rules not a “Stop and Identify” law. Which is worse for the officers because they would have to show that they had reasonable suspicion that he either, was about to, or had committed a crime.

@ Alex J:

There is no difference between a Terry stop and a “Stop and Identify”: The “stop” in a “Stop and Identify” IS a Terry stop.

The holding of Brown v. Texas is that police may not require an individual to identify himself unless they have grounds for a valid Terry stop. (And a lawful Terry stop requires Particularized Reasonable Articulable Suspicion of criminal activity… in other words, specific facts, which can be articulated, and which would lead a reasonable officer to suspect criminal activity).

In the absence of Particularized Reasonable Articulable Suspicion of criminal activity, a law enforcement officer may not lawfully require an individual to identify himself (and no state law can change that, since it is a protection under the Fourth Amendment of the federal Constitution.)

The Hiibel, case, BTW, did not in any way change the holding of Brown v. Texas, since the officer in Hiibel had Particularized Reasonable Articulable Suspicion to stop the individual in the first place.
Dan recently posted..Citizen Review Board Finds Police Misconduct at Eagle

Hiibel v. Nevada was an extension of Terry v. Ohio.

Rance, you are totally wrong in thinking that the guy isn’t likely a lawyer because of his behavior. Of the hundred plus attorneys I went to law school with, less than a dozen practice criminal law, and of the rest, only another dozen or two are interested enough to know/remember these rules.

Saying “it was covered in 1L so they should know” is like saying defeasable fees or judgement n.o.v. were covered. I’m sure most of my classmates wouldn’t be able to give good explanations of any concepts/rules of first year courses that they don’t use in their day to day practice.
Scott recently posted..Zombie Cash

@Dan, That Brown V Texas court case did not overturn the stop and identify laws of states.
It only determined that the law as it was applied to that guys situation didn’t apply. As he was not lawfully stopped. There wasn’t a valid reasonable suspicion. The law still stands. He did not sue for a declaration, he sued to reverse his conviction. From what I gather.

The identification requirement was considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), which held that the identification requirement did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.

While you are 100% correct to say that you should never talk to the police there is an exception that is particularly important in the context of this incident. If your intent is to show how clueless the police are and to allow them plenty of rope to hang themselves then indeed let them. Answering their questions by challenging them to show you how they can legally detain you is a valid way of making your case. In fact in this case it is the police who should have remianed quiet and asked for a lawyer

@Pinandpuller
If your using an android phone check out PicPush and buy a license, instant upload of all image and video files to multiple different services.
James recently posted..Brittanty Boudoir

This so makes me want to take photos at the airport
Lisa recently posted..Chihuly Art