About our Rights: Photographing transit systems in the US

MattKing · Jun 6, 2011

I am trained as a lawyer (currently not practising).

Any lawyer who advises, categorically, that one should never speak with police is not a very good lawyer.

It is, however, always a good idea to ask a lawyer for advice!

JBrunner · Jun 6, 2011

MattKing said:
I am trained as a lawyer (currently not practising).

Any lawyer who advises, categorically, that one should never speak with police is not a very good lawyer.

It is, however, always a good idea to ask a lawyer for advice!

There is a difference in being cooperative, and answering questions. Most people talk themselves right into trouble, through idiocy or obstination. Generally, being cooperative and cordial will get you through most encounters, however, make positively sure not actually tell them a damn thing, other than who you are. Most of the time they are simply fishing for some nebulous probable cause. Keep in mind that in the US at least the majority of their job is to gather enough information to justify an arrest, in order for the quasi-private criminal justice system and the lawyers to collect a nice pile of money from you. Aside from actual criminals and criminal activity, of which they do only a fair job at interdicting at best, LE in the US is simply a way to collect more revenue and feed people into the privately run for profit section of the system.

Neanderman · Jun 6, 2011

While photographing a railroad depot in Atlanta, I had a policeman stop to tell me I should make a trip to a small town north of Atlanta that had a depot. I was totally stunned.

This was quite a few years before any of the terrorist attacks, so I have no idea if the same policeman would do the same thing or not, but, in general, MOST (but not all...) of my conversations with the police about making pictures have been very cordial. I know, however, that this is not always the case...

Ed

MattKing · Jun 6, 2011

JBrunner said:
There is a difference in being cooperative, and answering questions. Most people talk themselves right into trouble, through idiocy or obstination. Generally, being cooperative and cordial will get you through most encounters, however, make positively sure not actually tell them a damn thing, other than who you are. Most of the time they are simply fishing for some nebulous probable cause.

Careful with this advice. At least up here in Canada, and as far as I am aware in England as well, there are a few situations where "telling them nothing" can create more problems.

One that comes to mind is in regard to a possession of stolen property allegation. If you acquire property innocently, and it turns out to have been stolen, an unwillingness to communicate can really hurt your ability to later argue a "good faith acquisition" defence.

Alibi defences are another example.

brucemuir · Jun 6, 2011

MattKing said:
Careful with this advice. At least up here in Canada, and as far as I am aware in England as well, there are a few situations where "telling them nothing" can create more problems.

One that comes to mind is in regard to a possession of stolen property allegation. If you acquire property innocently, and it turns out to have been stolen, an unwillingness to communicate can really hurt your ability to later argue a "good faith acquisition" defence.

Alibi defences are another example.

I don't volunteer anything other than my name without an attorney present.

I agree with JB that police are trying to gather evidence of a crime and it doesn't help to make a "spontaneous utterance" which are admissible in court here in the US.

It can be difficult to keep your mouth shut sometimes

Allen Friday · Jun 6, 2011

JS MD:

It is an old maxim: "Never say never." Are there times you shouldn't talk to police? Abso-f-in-lutely. But "never talk to the police?" Absurd.

Diapositivo · Jun 6, 2011

My life experience is that there are "several" policemen, and the persons in this video seem and sound to belong to this category, that - whether they do it consciously or not - basically approach people with a hidden desire to satisfy their need to feel they are exercising "power" rather than out of a sincere will to do their job properly. It's a benign and common form of sadism. We cannot know if we would show that ourselves in the same position, so I am not fingerpointing more than strictly necessary here, it's human nature at work. Exercising some form, any form of power might bring out the worse of a man. His mind will "justify" his conduct with laws, and "societal needs", but his inner self is pursuing a different agenda.

I do agree that if the photographer had been "collaborative" the thing would have ended with a nice chat, not out of the sincere desire of the policemen to ascertain the lack of public danger (although they probably manage to convince themselves it is so) but out of the basic subconscious "satisfaction" the policeman had in seeing that he is exercising a form of power.

I have also learned, when stopped by a policeman for a road infraction, that admitting my fault openly and immediately invariably causes the policeman to let me go without any fine. Deep inside the policeman wants the satisfaction to be told he's right, and he's content with that.

I only viewed the initial part of the video. The voice of the policeman clearly gave me the impression that he was playing - in his mind - cat and mice. The way he talks to the photographer, since the very first words, is only "superficially" polite, while sounding to my ears clearly provoking in fact. The policeman thought he had the "power" to behave so and was clearly enjoying the situation IMO thinking he was playing from a safe position.

M. Lointain · Jun 6, 2011

Allen Friday said:
I am an attorney and I disagree.

The one time I was approached by the police regarding photography, I ended up in a nice discussion with the officer about shooting large format cameras and creating wet plates. He was concerned that if I moved forward, I might block the sidewalk with my tripod. I told him I would be careful not to. We then went on to discuss our mutual interest in photography. You definitely overstate the "never" talk to police part.

You are of course correct because I was over generalizing, but having a conversation with a cop about photography is different than if a cop is questioning you and you don't know why because you are doing nothing wrong. How are you supposed to know why he approached you? Maybe someone fitting your description just mugged someone.

Justice Robert Jackson who had a long and distinguished career ending with being an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court said, "any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to the police under any circumstances."

I think I will go with the advice of a Supreme Court Justice. By definition if you say nothing you can't say something that will get you in trouble.

I should state that I am always nice to police. There is never any reason to be rude to them even if they are being rude to you. Just like there is never any reason to be rude to anyone.

I agree with JBrunner too. The police in almost every case are on a fishing expedition. Don't give them any bait. And if you don't know what he is talking about when he says that the judicial system is quasi private, you should go do a little investigating yourself and open your eyes. Things do not happen the way you were told in grade school! Why do you think the US incarcerates more people than anywhere else on earth. Even more than in Communist China. It is a big business.

brucemuir · Jun 6, 2011

US justice system is most definitely about money.

Try this, come to court indigent with a court appointed "public defender".
Now come with a privately retained attorney. (exact same circumstances regarding arrest etc)

In almost every case you will fare much better with the paid attorney.
Why, because you are feeding the system, judges were attorneys before they got elected.
You make the connection. These same judges may be practicing law again if they don't get re elected.

US jurisprudence is not blind when it comes to many things.

Jim Jones · Jun 7, 2011

JBrunner said:
. . . Most of the time they are simply fishing for some nebulous probable cause. Keep in mind that in the US at least the majority of their job is to gather enough information to justify an arrest, in order for the quasi-private criminal justice system and the lawyers to collect a nice pile of money from you. Aside from actual criminals and criminal activity, of which they do only a fair job at interdicting at best, LE in the US is simply a way to collect more revenue and feed people into the privately run for profit section of the system.

Absolutely contrary to my knowledge, although antagonistic civilians may provoke responses that suggest this. We should place little credence to opinions of such complainants.

Steve Smith · Jun 7, 2011

brucemuir said:
Try this, come to court indigent with a court appointed "public defender".
Now come with a privately retained attorney. (exact same circumstances regarding arrest etc)

In almost every case you will fare much better with the paid attorney.

What about self representation?

In England, judges will generally take time to listen to people representing themselves and try to get the facts out of them whilst ignoring the word twisting of the other party's lawyer.

Steve.

brucemuir · Jun 7, 2011

Steve Smith said:
What about self representation?

In England, judges will generally take time to listen to people representing themselves and try to get the facts out of them whilst ignoring the word twisting of the other party's lawyer.

Steve.

Unfortunately here in the states everyone including the judge will try to convince you to get counsel. This is generally a good idea.

There is a saying that goes something like "a defendant representing himself has a fool for a client".

The US system will look at you more like you don't want to contribute money to the "circle" than any competence you may have representing the facts.

Steve Smith · Jun 7, 2011

brucemuir said:
There is a saying that goes something like "a defendant representing himself has a fool for a client".

Which was modified splendidly in the film The Addams Family where Gomez stated "They say a man who represents himself has a fool for a client. Well, with God as my witness, I am that fool!".

Steve.

michaelbsc · Jun 7, 2011

brucemuir said:
The US system will look at you more like you don't want to contribute money to the "circle" than any competence you may have representing the facts.

+1

Remember that Perry Mason was a TV program. Not reality.

JBrunner · Jun 7, 2011

MattKing said:
Careful with this advice. At least up here in Canada, and as far as I am aware in England as well, there are a few situations where "telling them nothing" can create more problems.

One that comes to mind is in regard to a possession of stolen property allegation. If you acquire property innocently, and it turns out to have been stolen, an unwillingness to communicate can really hurt your ability to later argue a "good faith acquisition" defence.

Alibi defences are another example.

Maybe that flies in Canada, but here "anything you say can and will be used against you". Much better to shut the hell up, and if arrested let a lawyer speak for you. The most successful defenses here rely on the accused never having said a damned thing. The first thing a layer here will ask you is "what did you tell them?". If you say "nothing" he'll say "good boy". There is even a card you can get here that says 1: your name and address, and 2: I'm not telling you a damned thing.

If you have an alibi defense, that would assume there has been probable cause to arrest you in the first place. Your alibi will come out in court. It will do you no good with the police as far as arresting you in the first place, and you could quite possibly bugger it up by saying the wrong thing.

JBrunner · Jun 7, 2011

Jim Jones said:
Absolutely contrary to my knowledge, although antagonistic civilians may provoke responses that suggest this. We should place little credence to opinions of such complainants.

I'm guessing you don't live in a city.

brucemuir · Jun 7, 2011

JBrunner said:
I'm guessing you don't live in a city.

I'm guessing he has some connection to law enforcement

JBrunner · Jun 7, 2011

JBrunner said:
I'm guessing you don't live in a city.

Also, I am jaded by living in a state that works LE from a revenue angle almost exclusively, and that has a code about one step up from Sharia.

michaelbsc · Jun 7, 2011

JBrunner said:
JBrunner said:

I\'m guessing you don\'t live in a city.

Click to expand...

Also, I am jaded by living in a state that works LE from a revenue angle almost exclusively, and that has a code about one step up from Sharia.

Careful. The thought police will accuse you of Intolerance.

Jim Jones · Jun 8, 2011

JBrunner said:
I'm guessing you don't live in a city.

True. The nearest municipal police are in a town of 9000, ten miles away. The sheriff's department has 538 sq. miles to patrol. I have no connection with either, and rarely see them. Only a few area residents may have adversarial relations with area law enforcement. I consider that to usually be more of a deficiency in those individuals than in law enforcement. Here in the boondocks we may not have big city advantages, but life is good.

About our Rights: Photographing transit systems in the US

MattKing

Moderator

JBrunner

Moderator

Neanderman

MattKing

Moderator

brucemuir

Allen Friday

Diapositivo

M. Lointain

brucemuir

Jim Jones

Steve Smith

brucemuir

Steve Smith

michaelbsc

JBrunner

Moderator

JBrunner

Moderator

brucemuir

JBrunner

Moderator

michaelbsc

Jim Jones

About our Rights: Photographing transit systems in the US

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency