Can cops demand to take your photo?

[BetterSense]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92750

It seems to me that the real issue here is actually not about photography per-se. The man in the article was arrested because he refused to remove his hands from in front of his face so that the police could take his picture. He then spent 5 months in jail awaiting trial.

The real issue here is not the police photographing him but the police feeling that they can compel him to remove his hands from his face. Basically, they are saying that not only are they legally allowed to photograph you, but you are legally compelled to stand still, facing them, pose, and say cheese for it...without having committed any crime or anything. Of course they can arrest you and take your mug shot later, which exactly what they did.

It seems the shy subject got off with only 6 months in jail and a bunch of court fees...I guess he was lucky (sarcasm). But is there law in any other states about a citizen's requirement to comply with police's instructions on photography in particular? Sounds like it might be good to know.

 

[BrianShaw]

Field Identification (FI), from what I understand, is a well-established policing practice... asking for proof of ID like a drivers license or other "official" ID is common even when no crime or violation of law puts a citizen in contact with law enforcement. They "like to know who they are talking to" is often the rationale. Sometimes they write the information down and retain it even when one isn't suspected, arrested or charged with the alleged commission of a crime/violation. Since legal ID has a photo associated with it I wonder why the officer felt he had a compelling need to take his own photo. This certainly is an odd case with an even odder conclusion. What if one turned around and faced the other direction rather than holding hands, arms, or the daily newspaper in front of ones face.. would that violate the new rules and be considered "obstruction of justice"?

From the article:
For those not charged with a crime, however, the policy states, "Individuals may not be required to remove their hands, or anything they are using to cover their faces so as to avoid being photographed."

 

[BrianShaw]

He then spent 5 months in jail awaiting trial.

There must be something they are not telling us. That doesn't sound normal to me.

 

[BetterSense]

asking for proof of ID like a drivers license or other "official" ID is common even when no crime or violation of law puts a citizen in contact with law enforcement.

True. But are you required to show it? To the best of my knowledge, you aren't actually required to carry official ID with you. It's just that most people do anyway.

 

[nyoung]

True. But are you required to show it? To the best of my knowledge, you aren't actually required to carry official ID with you. It's just that most people do anyway.

This is common practice but legally a very questionable and "gray" area unless they are contemplating charging you with a crime.

SOP in Texas is that you must "identify yourself to an officer" however, that identification DOES NOT have to be substantiated by a document. Simply "politely" stating your name is all they can require you to do.

If you chose to identify yourself by something obviously untrue such a Donald Duck, you may be detained until your identity is established and possibly charged with "Failure to Identify" which IIRC can be a class B misdemeanor.

Because its a very marginal area constitutionally, lots of small time/ storefront lawyers are willing to fight the "Failure to Identify" charge.in county court and they are often successful.

 

[BrianShaw]

True. But are you required to show it? To the best of my knowledge, you aren't actually required to carry official ID with you. It's just that most people do anyway.

Good question. I've never asked the question, or refused to identify myself with the requested official ID. It doesn't seem like it would be worth the potential hassle. If one refuses to offer positive ID, can't they "take you downtown" until they can establish your identity? I think I've heard from TV shows. But you are right, there is no law (in our US) that seems to require that we carry ID.

 

[domaz]

He spent 5 months in jail because he didn't have money for bail?? Strange- almost anyone can go down to a bondsman and dig up the cash to get a loved one/friend out of jail. He most not have been well liked.

 

[BrianShaw]

That's what I was thinking.

 

[archphoto]

For those planning to travel to Holland and Europe: you are required to carry a proof of indentification (pasport, not a drivers licence) with you at all times when you are outside your house and show it to a police officer when requested.
You can de detained and fined if you can not do so.

Peter

 

[Sirius Glass]

Back in the 70's I was hitchhiking to work with my helmet and motorcycle jacket to work after I dropped off my motorcycle for repair work. The motorcycle cop wanted my driver's license. Since I was on foot and I did not want a ticket, I gave him my draft card. He was not happy because he could not write a ticket to a draft card. So he demanded my driver's license and said that the draft card was not a valid form of identification.

I pointed out that the back of the draft card stated that I could be fined $10,000 for not carrying it with me. The draft card was required by the US government. And that there is no requirement that one must have a driver's license in California. Finally, US laws are higher than California laws.

After he stewed for a couple of minutes, he gave me a lecture about hitchhiking and finished with a verbal warning.

Steve

 

[BrianShaw]

That's hilarious, Steve. You're right, of course, but I think a "valid goverment ID" is expected to have the following attributes: issued by a government organization, a current & clear photograph, and an expiration date.

 

[k_jupiter]

That's hilarious, Steve. You're right, of course, but I think a "valid goverment ID" is expected to have the following attributes: issued by a government organization, a current & clear photograph, and an expiration date.

Just remember, back in the 70's not all drivers licenses had photos. I drank in many a bar as an under aged indulger in California because my Maryland Drivers license had no photo and was totally incomprehensible without studying it for several minutes as to the age of the bearer.

Did I feel bad about breaking the law? Nope, I could legally drink in MD and couldn't figure out why a progressive state like CA wouldn't let us.

tim in san jose

 

[BobNewYork]

You go Stevie!!

I continue to be amazed at what the police get away with. There's no doubt it's easier to comply but then let's cut the crap about the constitution.

I'm amazed at the final comment in the article: "We're very pleased," Dye said, "that officers will now be able to do their job in a constitutionally correct way." Now be able? They've always been able - they just didn't!

As for the guy not posting bail, he took a flyer that he'd have a successful lawsuit - the damages would presumably be less had he been out on bail. Just shows that there's more than an ethics question here. We as taxpayers are required to pay for poor policing tactics.

Bob H

 

[BrianShaw]

I'm amazed at the final comment in the article: "We're very pleased," Dye said, "that officers will now be able to do their job in a constitutionally correct way." Now be able? They've always been able - they just didn't!

As for the guy not posting bail, he took a flyer that he'd have a successful lawsuit - the damages would presumably be less had he been out on bail.

I think you are right on both counts. But most cops, and their departments as well, wouldn't know "constitutionally correct" unless it bit them in the ass.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Just remember, back in the 70's not all drivers licenses had photos. I drank in many a bar as an under aged indulger in California because my Maryland Drivers license had no photo and was totally incomprehensible without studying it for several minutes as to the age of the bearer.

Did I feel bad about breaking the law? Nope, I could legally drink in MD and couldn't figure out why a progressive state like CA wouldn't let us.

tim in san jose

Or you could have driven to Washington DC and drank beer or wine at age 18 legally at that time.

I remember the yellow/orange on white Maryland drivers' licenses. Better than the white on black which was a photocopy of the application form that they used before that.

Steve

 

[k_jupiter]

Or you could have driven to Washington DC and drank beer or wine at age 18 legally at that time.

I remember the yellow/orange on white Maryland drivers' licenses. Better than the white on black which was a photocopy of the application form that they used before that.

Steve

Drive five miles downtown to my local bar... or 60 miles to DC. Music was often better in DC (Georgetown) but the beer was cheaper in Westminster.

tim in san jose

 

[Tim Boehm]

If that guy was an illegal, they would have bought him lunch.

 

[Moopheus]

There must be something they are not telling us. That doesn't sound normal to me.

A common reaction to worldnutdaily stories.