Humm illegal Pic Taking I guess.....

[RLucas]

Check United States v.
United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297, 322 (1972)
The Supreme court ruled a difference in probable cause between suspected terrorism vs criminal activity, and how it is applied to the 4th amendment.
Remember, this ruling was made in 1972. 40 years ago, so it's nothing new. We just notice it being applied more now.
From what I read, the police are well within their rights to question based on what they deem "suspicion", if it falls in to the realm of intelligence gathering, and not run of the mill criminal activity.
I still may sort of disagree with it, but being nice has always paid off for me. So there's that. lol!

[mikoyan]

I haven't been questioned by the police yet but there have been a couple of instances where some people were uncomfortable with me. One guy was about to kick my behind I think because he thought I was taking pictures of him and his girlfriend or something. Turns out, I was taking pictures of planes and I could show him that. Then there was the time I was taking pictures of ships on the Detroit River while there was a search/rescue operation going on. One of the people with the family of the guy being searched for asked me to move to a different part of the park. Which I did.....

I'm surprised I haven't been questioned by the Border Patrol as I'm taking pictures of the Ambassador Bridge and ships going down the river....but I suspect my picture is in a file somewhere. And if they ask, I have no problems telling them what I'm up to and why I'm up to it. And if I have my phone with me, I can even show them my blog....

[kirbinster]

Originally Posted by RLucas

Check United States v.
United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297, 322 (1972)
The Supreme court ruled a difference in probable cause between suspected terrorism vs criminal activity, and how it is applied to the 4th amendment.
Remember, this ruling was made in 1972. 40 years ago, so it's nothing new. We just notice it being applied more now.
From what I read, the police are well within their rights to question based on what they deem "suspicion", if it falls in to the realm of intelligence gathering, and not run of the mill criminal activity.
I still may sort of disagree with it, but being nice has always paid off for me. So there's that. lol!

This is the exact slippery slope I am talking about. Rights are being eroded with decisions such as the one sighted. The police can always claim that some is suspicious, thus effectively the police can stop any- and everone for anything claiming they were suspicious. For such a ruling to withstand challenge there would need to be a specific definition of what constitutes suspicion. This is very scary indeed.

I would expect this to only hold in the district in which it was litigated, which is not indicated here.

[Optikal iLLusion]

Originally Posted by RLucas

I still may sort of disagree with it, but being nice has always paid off for me. So there's that. lol!

Being respectful goes a loooooong way. A lot further than most people think. If you take a step back and look at the situation for what it most likely is (law enforcement just doing their job) instead of defaulting to unnecessary defense and arguing or insulting your way into a hole it will turn out fine in most cases.

While I'll agree in part that there are people in law enforcement out there that seem to have a power trip problem, because someone picked on him/her when they were kids and now its payback time b!tches!, they aren't all that way. And sadly its what makes many people have the view of law enforcement that they do.. just one bad run in on a bad day for you or the cop/border patrol/customs agent etc.

[RLucas]

Originally Posted by kirbinster

This is the exact slippery slope I am talking about. Rights are being eroded with decisions such as the one sighted. The police can always claim that some is suspicious, thus effectively the police can stop any- and everone for anything claiming they were suspicious. For such a ruling to withstand challenge there would need to be a specific definition of what constitutes suspicion. This is very scary indeed.

I would expect this to only hold in the district in which it was litigated, which is not indicated here.

I'm pretty sure it applies to all 50 states, since it was US vs US Supreme Court.

Edit: I thought I linked the pdf in the original reply. Here it is. Have a read for yourself.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m013006.pdf

[kirbinster]

Originally Posted by RLucas

I'm pretty sure it applies to all 50 states, since it was US vs US Supreme Court.

Edit: I thought I linked the pdf in the original reply. Here it is. Have a read for yourself.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m013006.pdf

Very interesting, but it is written in conjunction with FISA which is an entirely different animal. While I only play a lawyer on TV, there seem to be a lot of limitations to this ruling. One example is that check points near a border are allowed, but not one 200 miles away. I would interpret this that you might be subject to questioning if taking pictures by a "sensitive" location, but not of plants or birds in a public park.

[Doug Sundseth]

The police, as citizens, are just as allowed to ask questions as I am. You are allowed to not answer the questions except in specific circumstances. (In some states, that can mean that you are required to identify yourself when asked.

The rules change if you're detained. But you can always ask if you're free to leave. If the answer is yes, walk away (or close the door). If the answer is no, request a lawyer.

FWIW, there is much that Kirbinster says that I agree with. Police do use intimidation as a normal tactic against everyone but other cops, and it's commonly a first resort, not a last resort.

Further, the TSA is almost entirely engaged in security theater, not security. They aren't actually preventing any loss of life, but they allow the Gov. to pretend that it cares deeply. And that's good for votes ... apparently.

Further, the number of hours lost to standing in "security" lines every year vastly exceeds the lifespan of every victim of terrorism in the last century. Even if we were trading freedom for security, the exchange rate is really poor.

All that said, it's well to start by acting as if the person talking to you is actually a decent human being. If it's true, you won't alienate him instantly. And if it isn't, you won't lose much and you'll retain the moral high ground.

[kirbinster]

Doug -- Very well put.

I don't think I ever suggested being nasty at the outset. I am just very opposed to giving up constitutional rights in the name of theater as you very well put it.

[andrewdt]

Originally Posted by kirbinster

The same should apply to people standing on the street with dSLR cameras versus those standing on the street with no camera, just a cellphone, or a PS camera.

As much as I say that police are just doing their jobs and lets suck it up, I do strongly agree with what you have said here. I wish the same rules applied to everybody. (Just to clarify - not in a communist dictatorship kind of way...)