Detaining Photographers

[Rentham]

Via A Photo Editor:

“If an officer sees someone taking pictures of something like a refinery,” says McDonnell, “it is incumbent upon the officer to make contact with the individual.” McDonnell went on to say that whether said contact becomes detainment depends on the circumstances the officer encounters.

McDonnell says that while there is no police training specific to determining whether a photographer’s subject has “apparent esthetic value,” officers make such judgments “based on their overall training and experience” and will generally approach photographers not engaging in “regular tourist behavior.”

Detaining photographers for taking pictures “with no apparent esthetic value” is within Long Beach Police Department policy

Scary.

[dlambert]

Yikes. When the cops start telling us what's got esthetic value, I think we're in trouble.

[CurlyCorry]

Originally Posted by dlambert

Yikes. When the cops start telling us what's got esthetic value, I think we're in trouble.

BIG trouble.....

[Jim Bryant]

Now ask yourself, why in the world would anybody want to take pictures of a restricted area?

[Izzy]

Originally Posted by Jim Bryant

Now ask yourself, why in the world would anybody want to take pictures of a restricted area?

I do it all the time.

[jdepould]

Originally Posted by Jim Bryant

Now ask yourself, why in the world would anybody want to take pictures of a restricted area?

To make all the cops and homeland security people freak out.

[dlambert]

Originally Posted by Jim Bryant

Now ask yourself, why in the world would anybody want to take pictures of a restricted area?

Who's deciding if an area is restricted, and where is that information posted?

If there's a good reason to restrict access to an area, I've got no problem with that. The part that starts making me twitchy is when self-appointed civil servants start making up rules on the fly and using a policy like this to justify it.

I'm not sure what the actual LBPD policy means, but when I read "something like a refinery", that seems pretty broad, and it allows for a pretty alarming amount of paranoid behavior on the part of its officers. On top of that, the "not engaging in “regular tourist behavior" seems pretty suspect, too, because an awful lot of serious photographers *aren't* going to be acting like regular tourists.

Again, if there's a reason to restrict access, then restrict it and post it. Much like a "no trespassing" sign, if I then choose to push my luck, I'll at least have the benefit of being forewarned that someone's going to take issue with my presence, and I'll know that I'm not being singled out because someone's feeling a little nervous today.

[ldenne]

Originally Posted by jdepould

To make all the cops and homeland security people freak out.

i 2nd that - course had to answer to my dh about why i took a pic of a military bird flying over the car - guess he did think i should either though i had my 18-55 lens on so the shot is supper small and really noisy when cropped

[Jim Bryant]

Those self-appointed civil servants have to answer to Homeland Security. What would you do?

[Doug Sundseth]

Originally Posted by Jim Bryant

Those self-appointed civil servants have to answer to Homeland Security. What would you do?

Sue them jointly and severally for violation of well-established constitutional rights.

"Law" enforcement officials like to say that "You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride." They use arrest as informal punishment.

Well, you might be able beat the law suit, but you can't beat the hassle of defending it. (And, frankly, the law suit is not even slightly frivolous, as other PDs have found out to their cost.)