Pixiq

Why, WHY did she not switch her camera to video mode and record the whole thing? I’m starting to feel like innocent citizens must POSE as terrorists just to understand where the so-called protectors of freedom stand. I really find it odd that the Al Jazeera website (yes, I look over it regularly) does not have ONE SINGLE INCIDENT of American security forces even challenging any of them on American soil yet there are hundreds (on this site alone) of cases of police, ATF, Border Patrol, security guards and flatfoot beat cops challenging AMERICAN citizens about photography of Federal or private property from a public point of vantage.
Rob´s last blog ..The Gray Before The Storm

I think maybe she didn’t cause a scene because she is a normal citizen who understands that there is a need for the police to be vigilant now. Not everyone is so quick to be offended by the police doing their jobs. Some of the public actually appreciate the extra effort by law enforcement.

Go figure.

JL,

If she was such a normal citizen, why would the cop feel the need to write a report?

It wasn’t as if she was breaking the law or anything.

@Johnny Law… The “extra effort” produced by asking a woman why she took a picture of an American flag, ran her ID and generally bothered her stopped what crime from happening? What law did she break before, during or after taking the pic that warranted a reasonable cause for the inquiring officers? Johnny Law… What law is ever being broken by photographing ANYTHING from a public space?
Rob´s last blog ..La Mesa Police Station

…and troll Johnny Law just doesn’t get it, does he?

There’s no stop-and-identify law in Fairfax County, VA, and why do the police “need to be vigilant” of someone taking a picture of a flag, or a federal building visible from public property? If she isn’t trespassing or breaking any laws, why do police need to hassle her? What prima facie evidence of suspicious behavior is there?

But go right ahead building your straw men and blaming the victim, because you’ve proven time and again that you don’t really want to have a discussion here.

I’ve photographed federal buildings, both with and without police reprisals. In both cases I was perfectly within my rights, broke no laws, and wasn’t a threat.

Go figure.
Vidiot´s last blog ..Watching You At The Bus Stop

Hardly surprising. We *did* lose a federal building to a bomber. Criminals do case their intended targets. We have, collectively, decided safety outweighs freedom (witness the “patriot”act and its subsequent renewal). Patrick Henry might be spinning in his grave, but otherwise I doubt you can expect anything else in these times.

but the “safety vs. liberty” tradeoff is a canard and a false dichotomy (as security expert Bruce Schneier demonstrates. Part of our freedoms lie in things like the freedom to be left alone when one isn’t breaking the law.
Vidiot´s last blog ..Watching You At The Bus Stop

JL it astounds me how you can stick your head in the sand. She broke no laws and shouldn’t have been harassed. I like how you are trying to normalize citizens giving up their rights.
mepsipax´s last blog ..Hump Day hate

Johnny Law
Yes, the cops need to be vigilant. No, they don’t need to be stupid. And this was stupid.

JL,
Carlos asked,

“If she was such a normal citizen, why would the cop feel the need to write a report?

It wasn’t as if she was breaking the law or anything.”

I don’t know that department’s policies but mine requires we document every stop we make. This is because of claims of racial profiling by police and allows stop numbers to be examined. Most major departments have similar policies.

Carlos, first thanks for having a blog dedicated to these issues photographers face almost daily.

I recently decided to do a little investigating by calling the GSA headquarters in DC regarding photographing of Federal buildings. After finding the correct department “Law Department” I was given CFR §102-74.420 ( http://tinyurl.com/yehfoxa ) that is used by all law enforcement guarding any and all GSA buildings.

What is the policy concerning photographs for news, advertising or commercial purposes? |
| Except where security regulations, rules, orders, or directives apply or a Federal court order or rule prohibits it, persons |
| entering in or on Federal property may take photographs of— |
| (a) Space occupied by a tenant agency for non-commercial purposes only with the permission of the occupying agency concerned; |
| (b) Space occupied by a tenant agency for commercial purposes only with written permission of an authorized official of the |
| occupying agency concerned; and |
| (c) Building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums for news purposes.

As you may have noticed, it say May Take Photographs of- So I asked the law department then why are you stopping and harassing people from photographing a GSA building from a public sidewalk? The reply was, well, you know, with this day and age we live in you just cant be to safe. I said, I realize that but that doesn’t give any Federal Officer of Security Guard to stop and harass someone photographing a building from a public sidewalk does it? His reply was, no it doesnt.

So, I think if everyone that is photographing any GSA building from a “public sidewalk” being guarded can remember to keep there calm like Joel Chandler did, you’ve got it made. If you step on to a Federal Property that doesnt fall under public/private and is private, well then you might be up a creek…
Aaron Shootinnews´s last blog ..Helicopter power line maintenance

In a way, JL is right, but not in the way he probably means. She might have been a “normal citizen” by his definition.

JL uses the term “normal citizen” the way most other people use the term “good German” in reference to individuals 1) who enable pointless and invasive police vigilance by their own inaction; and 2) who are slow to be offended by illegal use of police authority to suppress civil rights.

So yes, there are plenty of people who meet JL definition of “normal citizen”. Maybe even most people meet that definition, but just because many, or even most, people will sleepwalk into authoritarianism doesn’t mean it’s right.

Or maybe I just don’t want another building to blow up and think that a 60 second inconvenience is worth dealing with to prevent such a thing.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..If only we could say this

I’m reminded of a cartoon of a Soviet cop asking a citizen, on a stop:
“WHY are your papers in order?!?”

I’m also reminded of the story of the man who burned down his house to kill the cockroaches…

From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35212549/ns/us_news-washington_post/ :

“Al-Qaeda maintains its intent to attack the homeland — preferably with a large-scale operation that would cause mass casualties, harm the U.S. economy or both,” Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair told the committee in a hearing convened to assess threats against the country.”

Asked by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), committee chairwoman, to assess the likelihood of an attempted terrorist attack on the United States within the next six months, Blair described it as “certain.” Each of the four other officials, asked the same question, agreed with Blair.”

Yep, no reason at all to be extra careful. It is more important that you not be inconvenienced for a few minutes by the evil police.

Seriously people, do you even read the headlines?
Johnny Law´s last blog ..If only we could say this

“Yep, no reason at all to be extra careful. It is more important that you not be inconvenienced for a few minutes by the evil police.”

or, in other words, “Better to harass thousands of random photographers and not catch one terrorist, than to not harass them, and not catch one terrorist”.

Once again I am amazed at your position that since it is difficult to catch a terrorist, we should not even bother to try. Why don’t we stop scanning cargo containers that come into the US? There are so many, the odds are small that we will intercept anyone. After all, it slows down transit and could be considered an inconvenience. Same rules for customs. The 9/11 hijackers slipped in the country and the Xmas bomber was able to get on a flight. Since it is hard to catch them and all that pesky screening is a bother, lets stop that too.

*shakes head*

If it catches one bomber or gives the feds a tiny bit of info that helps them put the pieces together, then it is all worth it.

Read “The Looming Tower” by Lawrence Wright. It talks about all the little pieces that could have tied the 911 plot together. I’ve done long term investigations as a detective and when I was in counter-intelligence in the Army (you know, COTINTEL-PRO). The little things are what put a case together. Especially in terrorist/espionage investigations. It could be as simple as a name put in a database as being observed in a certain place at a certain time.

These stops are important and they are more important than you not having to be bothered by the police for a few minutes. I understand that you probably don’t believe me because you don’t understand how these things work.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..If only we could say this

@Johnny Law
IF, (and I really am stressing the word “if”) a US Senator was told by Tony Blair that there was credible evidence that a police officer in the United States was going to commit an illegal act within the next 6 months, should police officers throughout the USA be subjected to multiple, random questioning? Should EVERY cop in EVERY state be subjected to 60 seconds of inconvenience multiple times a day, just like photographers?
Johnny Law, do you have ANY evidence of a beat cop thwarting a terrorist plot because he or she hassled and detained person taking pictures that turned out to be a terrorist?
Rob´s last blog ..San Diego Trolley Guards Prohibit Photography

Or maybe I just don’t want another building to blow up and think that a 60 second inconvenience is worth dealing with to prevent such a thing.

Again with the straw man and poor argument technique. As I said above, security vs. freedom is a false dichotomy.

Can you articulate a rational basis for stopping someone who isn’t acting suspiciously and breaking no laws? Especially when ID is taken and the cruisers block her car, which would argue against the person’s presumption that they could leave? Even a Terry stop requires reasonable suspicion of criminality, and I don’t see anything in the situation as presented here that rises to that level.

Again: if she isn’t trespassing or breaking any laws, why do police need to hassle her? What prima facie evidence of suspicious behavior is there?

And yes, terrorists have cased their targets and taken pictures of them. It’s many, many times more likely, however, that a photographer is simply a hobbyist, and it’s not like terrorists can’t find detailed maps and pictures of just about any building out there. (and no, before you go there, that’s not an argument for prior restraint on publication of images of public buildings.)

I understand that you probably don’t believe me because you don’t understand how these things work.

ah, I was wondering when you would assert the SEEKRIT KNOWLEDGE that you have that the rest of us don’t, because you are Mr. Big LEO and the rest of us are just citizens.

Simply put, you don’t know a damn thing about me and what I know. Nor do you know the same about anybody else on this board or anyone you encounter while on patrol. Guess that won’t stop you from lording it over us, though.

And it is a minor inconvenience, though when police are intimidating or lie to me about the law, it’s far more of an issue to me. But what I think is especially egregious in the case under discussion was that police took the information on her ID. (Yes, I know, you said that cops have to write a report. Big deal. Fairfax County doesn’t have a stop-and-identify law, and the original poster couldn’t be compelled to produce ID. Doubt the cops told her that, though.)

There are many reasons I don’t want my name in a police database, but they tend to boil down to this: I don’t tend to trust the police, on balance. (I say this despite having many positive encounters with police and having family members who are currently police officers.) And the macho “you must do what we tell you to, even though you’re not doing anything wrong and you have rights that enable you to legally refuse” attitude evidenced here and elsewhere by cops who have hair-trigger authority issues does a lot to stoke that distrust.

But I’m sure you’ll gloss all this over and talk about how you know what’s best for me and “next time something happens, call a cop” and spew more poorly sourced garbage about how your procedures trump my Constitutional rights.
Vidiot´s last blog ..Watching You At The Bus Stop

@Vidiot
Your last comment was very well stated. Beat cops watch the evening news just like the rest of us. I have no doubt that stupid stops like what happened to this woman photographing an American flag came about because of what a cop saw on TV or at the movies, and NOT because they were briefed that morning about photographers.
Personal politics sway a cops day to day interactions just as much as departmental policies do.
Rob´s last blog ..San Diego Trolley Guards Prohibit Photography

“…you’ve proven time and again that you don’t really want to have a discussion here.”

And how have I proven that? Is it because I don’t agree with you? I think I have gone out of my way to have a discussion here even after so many posters here feel the need to fall back on insults and personal attacks that have nothing to do with the subject matter.

I am sorry if views from the other side of the aisle bother you.

“Once again I am amazed at your position that since it is difficult to catch a terrorist, we should not even bother to try. ”

Go ahead and be amazed at a position you assigned to me, rather than understand what I write. Since you didn’t get it, I’ll use smaller words:
Stopping all obvious tourists and hobbyists to (not-, since they will lie to you) catch a secretive, cautious, careful terrorist is less useful than stopping randomly selected drivers who are obeying the law, at 10:00 AM, in hopes of catching a drunk driver. At least in the second case, the drunk couldn’t hide from a breathalyzer.

The main reason you can’t get away with the random DUI stops at 120:00 AM is because you wouldn’t be harassing a few hobbyist, but the general population, instead.

Actually, since you have embraced the “we can interrogate anyone using a camera, for no better reason than they are using a camera” mentality, I doubt I can talk you out of it. You’re a cop, and from your posts, you seem to believe that whatever you feel is needed to do your job /must/ be Constitutional, rather than tailoring your behavior to /follow/ the Constitution. Still, it’s not a waste of effort, since this illustration will better describe my position to others reading here.

Still, in the end, you want photographers to give up an essential liberty for a little safety. I believe a Founding Father said something about that.

I have to wonder what that Founding Father would say if he lived in a time of mass murder and global terrorism.

I understand you perfectly. I just disagree completely with your conclusions. Nothing new there.

Either way, we both obviously have different views on this subject and place very different values on security. Guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..If only we could say this

Yep. We are all so influenced by Die Hard. Nothing at all to do with intel briefings from DHS, the JTTF or anything like that.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..If only we could say this

How does any of this keep a building from being blown up?

See, I have less problem with police asking these questions, so long as they do the whole thing within the framework of the law. Here, no one did anything illegal…what’s troubling is more that someone thought the act of taking those pictures was somehow suspicious. But, once called, the policeman has fewer options. However, blocking her car, asking for her license, too much for me. Instead, “Hello, ma’am, sorry to bother you, but someone reported you were acting suspiciously. Can you tell me why you’re here today?” “Sure, I was paying a bill, and decided to take a quick picture of the flag since the sky was pretty.” “Thanks ma’am, have a nice day.”

The incident begs the question, what would the policeman have done if she’d stood mute, or declined to provide ID, or said she didn’t have any? That’s my question for J.Law, too. What SHOULD the policeman do then? You acknowledge that her actions aren’t illegal, and she says, “I don’t have to give you any ID.” What do you think should happen then?

Ok johnny law, what’s going to happen when a terrorist cases a building using a quarter-inch PCB camera hidden behind their belt buckle, and the surveillance video shows them doing nothing but walking past? Or just going inside to pay their bill? Are you now going to say that everyone on every public sidewalk should be stopped and the police reach down their pants in case they have one of these small cameras?

“I have to wonder what that Founding Father would say if he lived in a time of mass murder and global terrorism. ”

I suspect “Why are you letting the terrorists win? Why are you giving up all those freedoms we fought and died for away, and why are you letting the cops help them?”
Michaelk42´s last blog ..Ruin the kids to save them

While I agree completely with Vidiot’s point about the false dichotomy of security and freedom; I think it’s worth exploring the dichotomy a little because the positions of posters herein seem to hinge on this concept.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of individuals I know (and probably in this forum) would agree that other people bought the freedoms we enjoy with their lives.

Today, I’m confronted with people who would sell that freedom and claim to be offering me more security in exchange…

It seems to me that this is where JL and I (and others) part ways. He buys it: he says it’s a small price to pay to protect American lives. I say that price is WAAYYY too steep.

The proposed exchange of freedom for security (false or not) disgraces the sacrifice of lives others made to buy that freedom. They acted in a way consistent with the position that freedom for all is worth *more* than the (innocent) American lives sacrificed in pursuit thereof.

I may die tomorrow in a terrorist attack, but I’ll lived my entire life in freedom, thank you very much.

They were men who would rather die than submit to petty tyranny. And I quote:
“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

Jefferson had his go-’round with muslims bent on blackmail as well, IIRC.

True but those muslims were not threatening American soil or capable of such mass destruction as the present. Bit of apples and oranges there.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..If only we could say this

The rhetoric sure gets heavy here. Those statements are sure dramatic but I don’t think a brief encounter with someone taking photos of a potential terrorist target will cause the fall of the Republic.

Clark, once again I reject the position that simply because it is hard to catch a terrorist we shouldn’t try. Sure someone may go James Bond and have a fancy undetectable camera. People can stick plastic knives up their anus but we still use metal detectors at the airport. You don’t stop trying just because something is difficult.

capn_amurka,

Very noble to be willing to die to prevent someone from being inconvenienced briefly by the police. While you may want to be a martyr for the Constitution, I doubt all the others killed in your attack would feel the same way.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..If only we could say this

Actually torgeaux, I agree with your above post 100%. I think that blocking her in was too much and that he should have approached her as you said. If she wasn’t in violation of anything and refused to give him any info, then he should let her walk away. No problem with that.

However if I were on the scene and she refused to answer and walked away, I would watch to see if she did anything I could legally stop her for. Did she step into the street but not in a crosswalk? Did the sign say Don’t Walk when she crossed? Did she litter or fail to signal when she drove off?

If any of these happened, then I would have a legal reason to stop her and she would be legally obligated to identify herself to me. If none of those happened, then I would watch her drive away and then go back and check her license plate. I would then see if I could match her to the name of the plate or anyone else associated to the vehicle.

I would then write an information report and forward it to the JTTF. They can handle it from there.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..If only we could say this

The rhetoric sure gets heavy here. Those statements are sure dramatic but I don’t think a brief encounter with someone taking photos of a potential terrorist target will cause the fall of the Republic.

Clark, once again I reject the position that simply because it is hard to catch a terrorist we shouldn’t try. Sure someone may go James Bond and have a fancy undetectable camera. People can stick plastic knives up their anus but we still use metal detectors at the airport. You don’t stop trying just because something is difficult.

capn_amurka,

Very noble to be willing to die to prevent someone from being inconvenienced briefly by the police. While you may want to be a martyr for the Constitution, I doubt all the others killed in your attack would feel the same way.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..If only we could say this

So you’re saying we should ignore the threat small cameras pose, and just go after the people with big cameras? Cause it’d be difficult to stop everyone and grope them in case they had a small camera , but according to you, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
And the cameras are NOT “fancy” they cost less than some point and shoots.

Woodbridge, New Jersey: I photographing a historic marker – for the Woodbridge Township Historical Association – in the parking lot at Woodbridge Township Town Hall (PD is co-located there), and some plainsclothes guy came out and took down my license plate.

…”simply because it is hard to catch a terrorist we shouldn’t try to do things that might actually catch one.”

There, fixed that for you.

Unless you have sekrit knowledge that tells you terrorists will call off an attack if they’re harassed for taking pictures of the target. They sure would hate for someone to remember after an attack that they took pictures of it before, they might get blamed for it.

“We can never blow that building up now! We won’t know what it looks like!”

See, like police SWAT teams, terrorists can’t find the right building to hit just by an address.

But unlike police SWAT teams, terrorists would actually care if they hit the wrong building.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..Ruin the kids to save them

I can’t help but notice that Johnny Law keeps ducking my questions. But then again, as I noted, his posts make it abundantly clear that he’s not really interested in having a rational debate, rather scoring cheap points based on straw men and misstatements of others’ positions.
Vidiot´s last blog ..Watching You At The Bus Stop

There is no need to research an individual state’s stop and identify laws, since this issue is covered by a federal constitutional standard, which is the same in all 50 states. In Brown v. Texas, the Supreme Court established that a police officer may not require a citizen to identify himself unless the officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that the individual is involved in criminal activity and can therefore make a lawful Terry stop. In other words, if the officer does not have the right to detain the individual in the first place, he cannot require identification. (The recent Hiibel case, incidentally, did not change this rule, since Hiibel involved an officer who had the right to stop the individual in the first place.) So, bottom line, if a police officer does not reasonably suspect you of a crime, he cannot lawfully require you to identify yourself, in any of the 50 states.
Dan Grossman´s last blog ..Eagle Eight Trial Rescheduled for March 11th