|
Search this group's discussions
|
I was harassed by police AGAIN for taking photos in a PUBLIC place!!
|
OUTSIDE the bedford county courthouse and in the parking elevator which is labeled as "public elevator" NOTE! this video is what i was attempting to video, The camera did not even take the video i was trying to get tonite because it ran out of memory. but THIS is what i supposedly cant take pictures of without permission :(
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyXfwDOY1UI
Here is what happened, I started on the first floor of the parking garage which has a PUBLIC elevator, I videoed a ride (I thought) on the elevator. and when I was on my way walking back to my pickup 3 police cars pulled up and one officer on foot with the old man (that was taking a walk where I was taking pictures) that called 911 for me taking photos. saying "yeah thats him" then 5 officers surrounded me and demanded my ID and camera, he started looking thru my photos and while i tried to see what he was looking at, demanded i step back!!! upon finding no photos, he handed me back my camera and told me i am not to take photos of the courthouse ANYWERE on the grounds but ONLY from the sidewalk and then asked me what i was doing there after closing,
THERE ARE NO SIGNS that say the parking area is off limits after closing and as a matter of fact, the elevator is part of a walkway! (attached to the courthouse) I know photography is prohibited inside courthouses but as you can see in my older video i was NOT in the courthouse. (you have to go thru security to get in the courthouse) ALSO if it was closed after hours, why is there no sign that says "no trespassing between the hours of x:xx and x:xx??
ALSO why did the officer demand my camera? ONE MORE funny thing, He said if you are a photographer, why are you using this little point n shoot, most photographers have big cameras which makes this look even more suspicious!!.. after they ran my ID and looked at my pix they told me "i was free to go" I have posted a pic to the group and once it shows up you will see the courthouse and supposedly i am NOT allowed to take pictures from anywhere past the sidewalk.
i am going to call the police to voice my concerns, please advise me as to what i can say, i want to be polite but very firm about them violating my 1st and 4th ammendment.
Originally posted at 6:47PM, 27 January 2010 PDT
(permalink)
Diesel Ducy edited this topic 28 months ago.
|
|
Congratulations on your unlawful search and seizure.
Posted 28 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
EXACTLY!! it was UNLAWFUL and i am calling the police department to complain. they need to be educated on photographers rights, and ALSO 9/11 and terrorism was mentioned during my short encounter. It is the Bedford city VA police department.. and their business number is 540.587.6011
Originally posted 28 months ago.
(permalink)
Diesel Ducy edited this topic 28 months ago.
|
|
|
I spoke with the chief of police today and apparantely he does not know about the fourth ammendment either, he told me yes i can take photos but if they recieve a compalit of suspicious activity that his officers have every right to ask for my ID and camera, he said that since 9/11 officers have the right to look at cameras. anyway, he also told me that there were no trespassing signs in that parking garage, and informed him there weren't and he said, that within 2 weeks, he would have "no trespassing" signs put up. he also said that the officers have no right to be rude to me.. jheesh, i wish these police departments would learn about the constitution!! anyway, their number is 540-587-6011 if anybody else has concerns about bedford city and photography.. ALSO look at the sign in the right hand corner of 0:01 of this video which is an older one www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPAuZFaVks0
Originally posted 28 months ago.
(permalink)
Diesel Ducy edited this topic 28 months ago.
|
|
Diesel Ducy wrote "if it was closed after hours, why is there no sign that says "no trespassing between the hours of x:xx and x:xx??""
Perhaps because most people have some common sense and don't need to be told what looks suspicious. :/
Posted 28 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Arty Smokes People with common sense know a person is not suspicious just because they have a camera. And if being there at the hour he was, lacked common sense, maybe they should have looked at the guy that reported him, he apparently lacked common sense.
It is obvious that the issue was not that he was there, but rather that he was there, with a camera...
Edited for spelling
Originally posted 28 months ago.
(permalink)
Ryan, The Photohack Formerly Known As... edited this topic 28 months ago.
|
|
|
i just think it is silly, the courthouse grounds are public. i am free to take all the photos i want. my question. who do i go to now, obviously the chief of police thinks it is just fine for the police to demand to see my camera, what if i had naked pix of my wife. those would be private. so who do i need to speak with now in the city of Bedford VA??
Posted 28 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Send this post to your local media, bloggers etc.
Posted 28 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Cube, Just a little square DD goes round public and private buildings (some owned by the government) with a camera when no one else is around. He gets in elevators. He presses the alarm button. He's asking for trouble.
Sure, I know that having a camera doesn't make someone a terrorist, but if you were a security guard or something, wouldn't you be a little suspicious of this behaviour? Wouldn't an elevator shaft be the perfect place for a bomb? If you saw someone filming your own home, would you just think "Oh well, that's freedom of expression," or would you be a little concerned?
The key word in the title of this thread is "AGAIN". DD sounds surprised he keeps getting questioned.
Maybe the police behaviour was unwarranted, and the officers don't know the finer points of the law, but it seems like basic common sense to me that if you want to go round filming elevators in buildings, you should perhaps let the owners know first.
Originally posted 28 months ago.
(permalink)
Arty Smokes (deaf mute) edited this topic 28 months ago.
|
|
I was harassed for collecting bottles.
Posted 28 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Arty Smokes that was not the point you made earlier, but to address this new point in this post, i will concede pushing the alarm bell is a little disconcerting, simply for the fact that it may end up being a waste of resources when the fire trucks come rolling up code 3.
Otherwise, it kind of sounds like you have been won over by the terrorists, if we all run around paranoid, yeah, the "new" common sense would be everyone is suspicious, everyone is an evil terror bomber looking for his or her next target.
Reality check, this is exactly what this group is about, fighting for the right of photographers to partake in a legal activity. I think a rather eloquent quote that goes well with this issue is "I am a photographer, not a terrorist!" not sure, but you may or may not have seen it around or used.
Yes, the word AGAIN comes up in the title, because his right to participate in a legal activity, namely photography, has been put into question AGAIN by the authorities.
What I am getting from this statement of yours is this, if I happened to be stopped and asked what I was doing by police while photographing friends kids at the fair, because a mother not related to said children complained that I had a camera to my eye and held it there for a couple of minutes. I would lack common sense to take pictures at the fair anymore?
No, I would not be concerned if I was a security guard, but it was not a security guard who called it in to the police, it was Joe public, has been caught up in the rampant paranoia about photographers and cameras in general.
No, I am not concerned when someone photographs my home, why should I be, if if they are so dull that the best thing they can find to photograph is the front of my home, with my beat up old pick-up and van in the driveway, and possibly a messy front yard, power to them. Now if they ventured onto my property, where there IS an expectation of privacy, unlike a parking garage or public building, without my permission, I would be all over them, regardless if they had a camera or not.
I accept the fact that when I am in public, I AM IN PUBLIC, and it is quite possibly that someone, unknowingly to me, might just take my photo, I may not like it, but that is my right, just as it is their right to take the picture, that is why I am so careful about when and where i pick my nose, or pull out a wedgie. well, ok, I am not really that careful about where I pick my nose.
Arty, you do allot of street photography, taking photos of people you don't know. I know it is legal and all because you are in a public place, and there is no expectation of privacy, but doesn't basic common sense say that you should ask them if it is alright first? They may not like you taking their picture even though it is legal. They might call the police AGAIN and you may have your rights violated AGAIN.
Do you see the double standard there?
unfortunately, common sense is not so common anymore, and the example i used for shooting at the fair actaly happened to me, i had written model releases for the people I was shooting, that fact was irrelevant because the police and the complainant had no way of knowing that I had releases.
I had the camera to my eye, standing in plain sight, composing a shot waiting for all the kids to turn my back to me at the hoop shooting booth. Even after I provided proof that i was doing the photography legally, and morally, the one officer still told me I could not take any more photos. long story short, I told him in no uncertain terms that he had no right to prevent me doing a legal activity in a public place, unless he had a court order preventing me. I also informed the officer present that i would be shooting at the following final 2 days of the fair, and did not expect to be harrased like i just had been. that the mother had the right to be paranoid if she wanted, but her rights did not trump my rights. I was not bothered for the rest of the fair.
Posted 28 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
the thing that really bothers me is that they demanded my camera and then the chief of police agrees that his officers legally can demand to see somebodys camera..
Posted 28 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Police can legally lie to you and they will.
They can't take or search your camera without a warrant.
If a police officer tell you that he is going to take your camera or look at it, tell them "not without a search warrant" and stand your ground.
Grow a pair and stand up to these guys.
Posted 28 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
wrote: the thing that really bothers me is that they demanded my camera and then the chief of police agrees that his officers legally can demand to see somebodys camera..
Have another chat with the police chief, and ask for the specific law that would allow his officers to review someone's photos? What are the officers looking for? What would happen if the person refused to show the officer the photos?
If he says the Patriot Act or Homeland Security Act, ask him for the section number, paragraph number. He won't be able to find it. Hopefully you might give him a lesson in photography rights and prevent others with cameras from getting hassled.
Originally posted 28 months ago.
(permalink)
Ms. Redenn edited this topic 28 months ago.
|
|
|
i will call them back and yall can call them too i figure if they get bombarded with phone calls, they will think again about violating 4th ammendment rights.. 540-587-6011 is the number for the bedford city police. it is a small town with a population of 6300 people. anyway. he told me since 9/11 his officers are allowed to search and look at cameras if they feel the need also im trying to find out if va is a state where i have to show id to a police officer if not in a motor vehicle.
Originally posted 28 months ago.
(permalink)
Diesel Ducy edited this topic 28 months ago.
|
|
|
They are lying
Posted 28 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
cops lying, the hell you say.
Posted 28 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Arty, Illegal search and seizure is not a 'finer point' of American law that any officer would have any excuse to be unaware of. It's pretty much day-one training material. It's the fourth amendment to the constitution, the basis of all American law
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "
Posted 28 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Maybe the person who called 911 doesn't understand why 2 fully grown men choose to go into an elevator with a camera, to film, and give an audio commentary on the make and model of the lift, visit each floor, then press the emergency button, just for fun.
Hell, I don't understand it either.
Posted 28 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Yes, if the person who saw them didn't understand what they saw, and they were alarmed, they should call the police. And the police, receiving a call about suspicious individuals, should respond and investigate. And coming upon two individuals matching the description of the original call they should stop them and ask them what they are doing. And those individuals being stopped by the police should identify themselves and let the officer(s) know what they are doing. And the officer(s) having seen that no laws were broken or were about to be broken should depart.
Originally posted 28 months ago.
(permalink)
SteelToad edited this topic 28 months ago.
|
|
|
Cube, Just a little square wrote "Doesn't basic common sense say that you should ask [random people on the street] if it is alright first?"
No. If someone complains, or threatens me, I'll phone the police myself if they don't take kindly to my behaviour or accept my explanation. (I'd delete the photo, where possible, if anyone actually asked me. So far they never have, and I've taken about 10,000. One person just called the police, but even the officer didn't ask me to delete the "suspicious" photo).
Taking photos of people in broad daylight on a busy day might be construed as "suspicious" to some people, but I don't think the police would use anti-terror legislation in discussions with me. (Indeed Section 44 wasn't mentioned when I was stopped by police).
The anti-terror laws are mostly concerned with the photography of buildings. Maybe one day I'll get stopped because an "iconic" landmark just happens to be in the background of one of my street candids. If I'm going out specifically to take photos of an "iconic" building, I'd most likely go in and give my credentials to the security guard/owner so as to gain permission first. I'd rather be told firmly "no" before I start than have the hassle of being stopped and searched afterwards. Even though it's legal to take photos of (most) buildings in the UK, I'd try and plan ahead when shooting, so as to save the time of the police who might get called later.
You can call it capitulation if you like (and it particularly annoys me that I can't freely hang about taking photos in a privately owned shopping centre) but I prefer to stay on the right side of the law.
The day that the freedom to take street photography (of people) comes into question is the day I start getting very angry. Right now, I'm pretty much free to do it.
Posted 28 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Arty Smokes I think you may have missed my point, I used the example of your street photography (and I do not have a single problem with it) to try and show you the similarities between what DD was doing though legal, is seen as lacking common sense, and how your street photography can be seen by others as lacking common sense, mainly because they d not understand it.
Many people have the opinion, that street photographers lack common sense because of people complaining, or they think it in some way violates their privacy, though it is perfectly legal. I was not trying to give you a hard time or dissuade you from street photography in any way, just using it as an example you would understand.
I myself do allot of "weird" things with my photography, shooting freshly fallen snow in the night with no tracks init, shooting lightening during thunderstorms at ungodly hours, same thing for trains, sunrises ad various other things. I also get regular visits from police while doing so, but never have I actually had my camera seized or photos deleted, usually, as soon as they see my truck, they don't even bother to stop,, they know who it is, and that I am no danger, often if they are bored or lack interesting things to do, they will get out and come see if I got any cool shots. I once even had an officer bring me a cup of coffee from Tim Hortons, they received a call about a suspicious vehicle parked on a street over looking the valley from an elderly lady in the middle of the night during a thunderstorm, she gave them a license plate number, they checked it, it came back to me, the officer happened to know me, and knew they had to be seen checking it out, so he stopped at the coffee shop on the way and came to see me, told me I was crazy and to try not to get myself struck by lightening, gave me the cup of coffee, and went on his way.
The point I am trying to make here is regardless if people understand what we do, and regardless if what we do concerns them to the point of calling the police, it is legal for us to do it. the police have the right, and responsibility at times to check it out, but when they establish that we are ding a legal activity, that is where it needs to end.
I know I am lucky that I live in a small "city" of 12,000 ( a small town by many standards) so the police have gotten to know me and that I am harmless, but in bigger centers, the police have to know when to say, "ok, he is not a problem, lets move on..."
Posted 28 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
But WHY push the emergencey bell~? i still don't understand that, unless its just a childish, adolescent thing ?
It's like calling the fire brigade, or any other emergencey service, "for a laugh"
Surely they don't know whether its a real emergencey or not, until they attend , possibly wasting resources and risking lack of service at a genuine emergencey?
This is totally separate of your desires to photograph whatever you choose and fight improper actions of the authorites.
Posted 28 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Kebab Eater, The question of why he pushed the button is irrelevant, it's not illegal, and if you read the OP, that is not what summoned the police to the location. I'm sure officers do not respond instantly any time somebody's little child on the elevator accidentally presses the button. Alarm buttons in most elevators only ring a bell in the immediate area and aren't connected to any emergency systems for just that reason.
Posted 28 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
it was for demonstrative purposes, and the amount of time i rang it for would lead anybody within earshot to believe that i pushed the wrong button!
Posted 28 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The alarm buttons in the elevators in my university are all connected to the emergency response center and will result in a first-aid team being dispatched to the elevator almost immediately. They also ring a bell locally as well.
Originally posted 28 months ago.
(permalink)
halphaoiii edited this topic 28 months ago.
|
|
|
some are, i wish that was the case in my college and for that matter the roanoke parking garages, i have been stuck several times, i had to ring the bell for an hour before somebody finally complained it was keeping them awake and filed a noise compalint.
Posted 28 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Diesel Ducy You've been stuck in lifts several times and had to press the alarm button? How ironic. ;)
Posted 28 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Truer words have rarely been spoken in these halls! *lol*
Posted 28 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
DD, I'm sorry, but Arty does have a funny point :)
Posted 28 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
you nailed that one!
Posted 28 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Arty Smokes wrote ...
The day that the freedom to take street photography (of people) comes into question is the day I start getting very angry. Right now, I'm pretty much free to do it.
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out.
-Martin Niemöller
If the plight of other photographers really doesn't concern you, why are you posting here?
If everyone is only willing to stand up for hisher own little issue, the bigger issues will never be solved. The paranoid and freedom haters win. End game.
Posted 28 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Sounds like smalltown Virginia cops at their finest. If you'd been in Roanoke they would have also given you a flashlight shampoo.
Posted 28 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Dave Emerson I was expecting the famous Niemoller quote to come up, and I don't really have an answer to it, except to say that I WILL speak up for "urban landscape" photographers IF they use common sense. People that appear to continually get in trouble with the cops are generally NOT helping to improve the rights of all photographers. They are making it seem like all photographers are troublemakers. I don't want my right to take street candids to be taken away because of a few people that didn't use their brains and ask for permission to shoot in "dodgy" locations. If people keep sneaking around to take photos of elevator shafts or government buildings, then maybe the authorities WILL just ban all photography. That's the last thing we need.
Just as a further anecdote, I once got stuck in an elevator with my friend when we were kids. We were a bit scared about pressing the alarm button for one reason. The elevator stopped in the middle of the shaft because we forced the door open. Of course we lied and said "It just stopped" when the fire service finally rescued us.
I've seen videos in which Diesel Ducy opens the doors of elevators between floors. If he gets stuck (or worse still, falls down the shaft) he has no one to blame but himself. If I'm going to be doing something potentially dangerous, I tell someone first. Elevator photography is almost as stupid as taking photos of live railway tracks. You've got to get permission.
Posted 28 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
Photography is not a crime /
Discuss
Diesel Ducy wrote "if it was closed after hours, why is there no sign that says "no trespassing between the hours of x:xx and x:xx??""
Arty Smokes People with common sense know a person is not suspicious just because they have a camera. And if being there at the hour he was, lacked common sense, maybe they should have looked at the guy that reported him, he apparently lacked common sense.
Cube, Just a little square DD goes round public and private buildings (some owned by the government) with a camera when no one else is around. He gets in elevators. He presses the alarm button. He's asking for trouble.
Dave Emerson I was expecting the famous Niemoller quote to come up, and I don't really have an answer to it, except to say that I WILL speak up for "urban landscape" photographers IF they use common sense. People that appear to continually get in trouble with the cops are generally NOT helping to improve the rights of all photographers. They are making it seem like all photographers are troublemakers. I don't want my right to take street candids to be taken away because of a few people that didn't use their brains and ask for permission to shoot in "dodgy" locations. If people keep sneaking around to take photos of elevator shafts or government buildings, then maybe the authorities WILL just ban all photography. That's the last thing we need.
Feed – Subscribe to Photography is not a crime discussion threads