I'm in the US - can anyone stop me from photographing?

[copake_ham]

Great so far...US folks. I liked the one about "short officers".

Now, Lesson 2 - Avoid Admission:

Let's move away from a photography situation for a bit and instead put ourselves in our automobiles.

You're driving down the road and suddenly see those dreaded "flashing lights" behind you. You glance at the speedometer and realize that perhaps, well just maybe, you are a "bit" over the speed limit.

You pull over and wait for the officer to approach you - now beginning to feel that damned "pit" in your gizzard while conjuring up "excuses" in your head etc. Perhaps you have presence of mind to already have opened the glove box and taken out the registration and are also pulling out your wallet to get out your license....

And now the traffic cop comes up to the window and says: "Do you know why I stopped you?"

You have to respond - it's a direct question. So what do you say?

"No officer, I don't."

He says: "Do you know you were going X+Y in a X speed zone?"

You say: "No, I was only doing the speed limit (i.e. X)."

And keep at it and at it and at it.

Never "admit" that "Well, yes, maybe I was going "with traffic" and it's a bit above the posted limit" - or "Well, officer, perhaps I was doing a bit over the limit - but only a few miles per hour." or something similar.

NEVER "ADMIT" TO BREAKING A LAW to any law enforcement officer. That doesn't mean you resist giving them the information to write you a citation much less resist being arrested etc.

Just NEVER "ADMIT". It's the classic situation when dealing with any law enforcement person (cop, DA, judge, etc.): "Anything you say can, and will, be used against you."

Remember:

1) Silence is Golden - it is always better to say nothing than the say anything but,

2) If you must say something - say "I did not do it."

The legal system is based on a presumption of innocence. They have to "prove" you did it. But if you "admit" you did something - that admission can be used against you and, ordinarily, once proffered, an admission cannot be "taken back".

 

[Bruce Osgood]

Great so far...US folks. I liked the one about "short officers".

Now, Lesson 2 - Avoid Admission:

Let's move away from a photography situation for a bit and instead put ourselves in our automobiles.

Let's not.
Let's stay on topic.

 

[removed account4]

breath mints, onions, gargling mouthwash ..
none of these things will get you off the hook
they de-bunked it all on mythbusters last week

 

[Sparky]

This is an EXCELLENT series of videos explaining common mistakes people make with L.E. (law enforcement) officers. Granted - it's mostly oriented to dumb college kids... but it seems pretty sound. There are three sketches - the middle one, I think, is most appropriate to our situation as photogs on the street...! Remember - police are under a LOT of pressure at times to issue tickets - and aren't the most honest people on the planet...! Be careful out there!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA&feature=user

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Gotta tell you, this was well thought out and worded and begs local research. I have never been so affronted but I think it shouldn't hurt in the least to do a little research. Thanks.

 

[Dinesh]

Yup, about as useless as arguing with an overweight lawyer. Attitude, pure attitude... and a very frustrating and unproductive discsussion.

ROTFLMAO! Well played Mr. Shaw!

 

[tim_walls]

Well, at least in the U.S., property owners have the right to make rules for the use of their real property. With respect, it isn't a matter of trespass. In simplified form, trespass is entry onto real property without right or invitation. But even if you are invited onto someone's property, you do so under license of the owner, who sets the rules for such use. For example, we've all been in places that announce that "bathrooms are for customers only." Likewise, private property owners have the right to bar photographs on their premises. (So in fact do public property owners. Think of the U.S. Army, or the Supreme Court.) This may seem unfair to you as a photographer, but if you look at it from the perspective of the property owner, you can perhaps sympathize a little. For example, imagine you run a museum with art that is damaged by flash pictures. -Laura

I'm interested to know whether you are correct on this or not ; you certainly wouldn't be in the UK, and I didn't think US law was that different.

If we ignore for the timebeing 'special' private property - military installations and the like, possibly even hospitals (as in the OP) - my understanding is this:

You are quite correct that a landowner can set whatever 'rules' they like on their property. But they cannot make laws. If I say you can only come onto my property if you jump on one leg at all times, if you walk in on both feet you are not breaking the Law Of Jumping On One Leg. What you are doing is committing trespass.

Or, to put it another way, if I have a big sign on my property saying "no photography but otherwise do what you like", then you are free to walk around my property at will. The instant you pick up your camera and take a photograph though, you are trespassing, and the landowner has a right to eject you from the premises, using reasonable force if necessary. (They do not under any circumstances have a right to seize possessions such as film, however.)


Does it not work like that in the US, then?

 

[juan]

Again speaking general rules - the law of property usage in the United States comes from the English common law principals of trespass. As I said in my initial post, your right to photograph comes from your right to be at a certain place. If on a public right of way or your own property, you can photography. If you are on a neighbor's property with permission, you can photograph. If a property owner restricts photography, hunting, etc. violating those rules is trespass. Just because property is owned by the government doesn't mean you have a right to be there, nor the right to photography.
juan

 

[Jerry Thirsty]

You're driving down the road and suddenly see those dreaded "flashing lights" behind you. You glance at the speedometer and realize that perhaps, well just maybe, you are a "bit" over the speed limit.

And now the traffic cop comes up to the window and says: "Do you know why I stopped you?"

You have to respond - it's a direct question. So what do you say?

"No officer, I don't."

He says: "Do you know you were going X+Y in a X speed zone?"

You say: "No, I was only doing the speed limit (i.e. X)."

I was under the impression that it is a crime to knowingly lie to a police officer, even if you're not under oath; couldn't you be charged with obstruction of justice? Wouldn't the best response be to say that you are exercising your Fifth Amendment rights (against self-incrimination), and leave it at that? Of course the cop may think you're getting all lawyerly on him and get ticked, but I don't know of a better strategy.

 

[patrickjames]

Then there is the emotional level of the police. Last year I was threatened with arrest after a car ran off the road, ran across my front yard, and slammed into a neighbor's car. After the police finished looking over the scene and had gathered around their cars to smoke, I got out my camera and started taking pictures for my insurance company and my neighbor's insurance company. I was in my yard taking photos of damage done to my yards. The cops had a fit. They tried to order me off my own property, to which I responded "It's my yard." They sputtered and fumed, and while they did, I walked inside. Then I photographed them goofing off from inside my house.

When dealing with cops, remember they have the guns.
juan

This brings up the question, can a cop trespass? Can you kick a cop off of your property if they have no right to be there? Does anyone know?

Patrick

 

[Sparky]

This brings up the question, can a cop trespass? Can you kick a cop off of your property if they have no right to be there? Does anyone know?

Patrick

check out the link i posted. that tells you EVERYTHING. Basically the answer is NO (they cannot trespass - but you likely will invite them in unless you know what you're doing). It also deals with the traffic interrogation question too.

 

[Nigel]

I was under the impression that it is a crime to knowingly lie to a police officer, even if you're not under oath; couldn't you be charged with obstruction of justice? Wouldn't the best response be to say that you are exercising your Fifth Amendment rights (against self-incrimination), and leave it at that? Of course the cop may think you're getting all lawyerly on him and get ticked, but I don't know of a better strategy.

I don't know that it is a crime to lie to the police, but it certainly is a bad idea if you have been stopped. But if the cop asks if you know why you have been stopped, of course it is not possible to know what is in the mind of the cop until he tells you. Telling a cop you don't know why you were stopped, even if the cop goes to the trouble of charging you with obstruction, will likely never see a court room. Prosecutors have more serious items to deal with.

 

[eddym]

I don't know that it is a crime to lie to the police, but it certainly is a bad idea if you have been stopped. But if the cop asks if you know why you have been stopped, of course it is not possible to know what is in the mind of the cop until he tells you. Telling a cop you don't know why you were stopped, even if the cop goes to the trouble of charging you with obstruction, will likely never see a court room. Prosecutors have more serious items to deal with.

My thoughts exactly. I'm not a mind reader. He might have stopped me because I was speeding, or it might be because I had a taillight out, and was unaware of it. "No," seems like a safe answer to me.

 

[pentaxuser]

I noted the "walk away and say nothing" strategy as a successful response. It might be OK if you already have the picture you need but if not then doing this is precisely what the security guard or police officer wants you to do. In a comedy sketch on U.K. television the householder asks the "suspect" police officer knocking on his door to identify himself by writing down the first thing that come into his head. The officer then pushes the note through the letterbox. It say:" Now come on and move along there". This being the instinctive response of those in such positions

At best the walk away strategys may allow you to go back and try again in a form of cat and mouse tactics with a figure of authority that is intent on exceeding his/her authority but if you are clearly within the law, it has the effect of wasting your time and making things unreasonably difficult which is precisely what it is designed to do. Eventually if enough "officers" can get away with this, it becomes the de facto law for the general public and allows the police chief who is called to respond to the media about such behaviour to ignore what he knows to be going on and appear on TV and repeat the actual law about freedom to take pictures as if he was reflecting "liberal reality".

No challenge equals no change. If the law enforcers are asses then the photographing public has to insist on the law being adhered to. Getting round the situation by strategic withdrawal might work once for one individual but at the expense of strengthening the hand of those who seek to enforce what the law says they cannot. It's called "divide and conquer". Authorities and powerful individuals have used this successfully since the dawn of time. Sometimes in recent centuries with chilling consequences.

This is not to advocate an unreasonable, offensive manner in those approached by an officer. Sweet reason in the hope of reciprocation is always worth a try but not at the expense of "being reasonable by doing it entirely their way" to borrow from the oft quoted joke.

pentaxuser

 

[dmr]

This is a very interesting thread. Old topic, but it seems like a lot of sane information has been appearing here ...

Now, Lesson 2 - Avoid Admission:

Overall, I agree, but I can cite one case where I think a naive admission of mine saved me from a ticket.

I was on my way back to work from lunch. I was late for a boring conference call, so I made a quick left on a very stale yellow, and as luck would have it a big whoop-whoop-flash-flash from behind me. Oh {s-bomb}!

Cop: That was a very poor move! You could have caused an accident!

Me: {blush} I'm sorry, you see, I was just, uh, well, uh {mumble} ...

Cop: License and insurance, please ...

So for the next 5 minutes or so I'm thinking things like I'm gonna be spending a Saturday in traffic school, and worrying about somebody with a similar name wanted for some capital offense somewhere, and he comes back ...

Cop: Ok, you said you were sorry so I'm not going to charge you!

He then went on and on about how many accidents they see from bad left turns and such, but I have a feeling that -- at least this time -- my naive admission may have saved me from a ticket.

 

[Sparky]

....

pentaxuser

Pentaxuser - that was a shockingly intelligent and insightful post! Thanks for that. And just that sort of behavior is precisely what needs to be addressed - in this country - and the world over. Indeed... complicity becomes consent becomes approval. What we do for ourselves in the short term is not necessarily a benefit for our future selves - nor for society at large. We gotta start thinking bigger...!