Photographing within a police state -- is accommodation with authorities possible?

Aggie · Dec 10, 2005

Curt said:
It's not what you are doing but what you are perceived to be doing.

It would be interesting to see a Social Science experiment by dressing for the shoot. First dress down, with old clothes etc.. Second dress with suit and tie. Third put on a road workers jacket or a red flag safety gear like surveyors wear and a yellow hat. Fourth security guard coat and pants with an obvious badge hanging around the neck that says "Official Fine Arts Photographer" on it.

Anyway you get the picture, or maybe not!

or strip and do nude photography

df cardwell · Dec 10, 2005

Satinsnow said:
DF,

There is a hell of alot of levels of want to be bosses between the commander in chief and the cop in the field, you might want to fire some of the go betweens before you start the rhetoric about the commander in chief..

I myself don't seem to have a problem anywhere I shoot, and alot of it, I think comes down to the attitude shown the officer in the field.

Dave

Yes.

Daniel Lawton · Dec 11, 2005

I've been questioned a handful of times when out shooting (by cops and concerned citizens.) I've found that a respectful and friendly explanation of what you are doing goes a long way towards diffusing the situation. I've even let a few people take a look through the viewfinder which usually leads to pleasantries being exchanged and the whole matter gets dropped. Getting defensive and carrying on about one's constitutional rights only makes matters worse even if you are correct.

Tanya · Dec 11, 2005

Shelf Life for feeling this way.

So sorry to hear about your incident- I've tried all kinds of things. At one point I took to carrying around a laminated copy of the statute that says when and what one can photo. This did more harm than good.

People just don't want to hear that another has rights, when they, themselves are trying to "enforce" laws that don't exist.

It is a very horrible feeling to be accused or questioned for using the art of our right, photography. It is sort of a strange almost "guilt" like you did do something criminal, because these are people who are in some twisted authority, in which THEY ,of all people, should be a good judge of situations and character. In reality they are often trained to assume the worst , so most are terrible judges. These days being "presumed guility" seems to be "protecting the public". I disagree.

Did you know that many cities are only using a single cop per car and per duty now? The reason for this being that the more police there are together, the more likely a bad decision will be made. ...interesting.

Of course, I would like to hear that you didn't HAVE to explain yourself, because there wasn't resonable cause? You did explain yourself as a courtesy to them, right?That's what I did, but they pushed it further and further....

Hope this doesn't keep you indoors, (it sure did me) feeling a bit paralyzed, for months on end. You did NOTHING wrong, they suspended you!!

Wishing you Happy Holidays!!!!
Tanya

PS- Once in Layton, Utah I saw a police officer and told him I would be shooting in the area he responded with anger "What are you telling me for, you can shoot anything you want, this IS America". Then the convenience store clerk also got a giggle out of it.

Poco · Dec 11, 2005

Thanks for the input, Tanya.

So much of your post rings true, but I have to disagree about most cops being terrible judges. By and large I think they're pretty reasonable people and able to size up a situation well. The problem comes when you draw a large group of them, because one or two are bound to be hard-asses and can affect the entire group. When I launch into my idiot-grinned rhapsody about the light, color, contrast of what I was shooting I pay particular attention to make good eye contact with both the nicest and meanest cop in the bunch -- completely win over the one and make headway with the other and it seems you're in the clear.

As far as rights go, I don't think any of these guys want to be lectured or badgered. but it's all in the phrasing. I always say, "Jeeze, I thought it was legal to photograph from a public street, was I trespassing?" Then they have to admit I wasn't trespassing and gets them in the direction of conceding which laws I hadn't broken and that I had, in fact, broken none.

This was my sixth major run-in with cops and they've all turned out okay eventually. I was just wondering whether there was a way of getting past the initial "I could die if I make the wrong move" stage more quickly. I've decided to print up some "Michael Veit -- Photographer" cards so I can pass one along with my license first thing. Seems like it couldn't hurt.

-Michael

bjorke · Dec 11, 2005

Michael, what sort of interaction did you have with the cops themselves?

Poco · Dec 11, 2005

The interaction wasn't overly antagonistic past the first few minutes. Since there were six of 'em questioning me at different times I did my "Jeez, wasn't I on a public road?" bit more than once and always got a "no, you can take pictures, but things are different after 9/11" response. I sensed some embarrassment when they said that.

Still, I was told to exit the car, they looked though all the windows, got jumpy whenever I moved, questioned all the bulges in my clothes and spotmeter hanging off my neck and even when things had cooled down considerably, said they'd like to take my information down. I said I'd be happy to give them any info they wanted if it helped the next time, since I intended to continue taking pictures. They didn't say anything to that. The whole thing lasted about 15-20 minutes.

By now I'm familiar with the routine and can't say I've ever felt unduly harrassed (beyond the obvious) or ill-treated. But it does ruin your day.

Kimberly Anderson · Dec 11, 2005

I am doing a lot of photography around the airport here in Salt Lake City. The first time I went out, I was met after 40 minutes of shooting by an airport worker driving an official airport truck out checking fences where farmers are grazing cattle. I had parked my car in front of a gate that I thought would be unused, and he was coming out.

I saw him approaching the gate, went over to meet him, and had a nice conversation. He approached me with great suspicion until I explained to him what I was doing, asked for his advice and sugggestions, and convinced him I was legitimate and generally a decent guy.

H said that he would have to report me to the tower duty officer, and he did, and suggested that I call the same number and check in.

I generally get along well with 'figures of authority'...I've worked shooting news for newspapers and magazines, shooting all kinds of police activity, riots, been around the FBI and presidential candidates and the like...etc., so I know how they like to be treated.

In a nutshell, treat them with respect and like real people, and they will treat you well in return.

I called the duty officer, explained to her what I was doing, and asked for suggestions from her.

Now my name is on a note taped above the telephone with instructions to let me photograph anywhere on airport property I'd like. I just need to check in with the duty officer on call and tell them I'm there. This avoids any conflicts with over-zealous airport or city police officers who are looking for something to make their name with.

I'm also going to do some photography of firefighting training and techniques, and of the glycol recycling that's part of airport operations as well.

The moral of the story is, try to get along with 'officials'. Most of they time they are just doing their job and would rather avoid headaches. Most of the time they can actually help you get the images you want.

Problem is, most of the time isn't ALL of the time. You need to use your best judgement and asses each instance on it's own merit.

Good luck.

moose10101 · Dec 11, 2005

Tanya said:
Did you know that many cities are only using a single cop per car and per duty now? The reason for this being that the more police there are together, the more likely a bad decision will be made. ...interesting.

Can you provide documentation for that assertion? One officer per car is standard here because of pure economics; extra vehicles cost a lot less than extra people. And the officers I know feel a lot more vulnerable working alone, which makes them a lot more likely to be ultra-defensive.

I've seen it suggested by others who have been in this situation to take along a couple examples of your photos; a print is a lot less threatening than a large camera.

Photo Engineer · Dec 11, 2005

Many years ago, in another life, I was asked to take pictures of an operation involving nuclear weapons. (yes, this is a factual account)

I had to have proper passes and had to register my intent and assignment with the local security and then I went out with a Nikon F and Telezoom lens. Next thing I know was having a bayonet in the kidneys attached to an M1. The statement to me was "drop the camera".

My reply was "of course, but you pay for it".

The answer was "well hold it and show your permit", which I did, but then they called it in and found no correspoinding permit on file, so they assumed it to be a forgery as their files were 'perfect'.

I spent the afternoon locked up under close surveillance until the cheif of security was contacted (while on vacation) and they found the permit filed under his blotter on his desk. He said it was so important he wanted to put it where it wouldn't get lost.

They drove me back to the site late in the day, much too late to finish picture taking and anyhow the operation was over. They left me off at my office right in front of the drainiage ditch that ran along the driveway.

Being so harried and carrying all that equipment finally returned to me, I stepped out of the jeep and fell about 15 feet into the muddy ditch on my back while holding the camera and case over my head to keep it from sinking with me in the mud.

The driver of the jeep saluted, and I returned it as best I could, and he wished me a 'nice day' and drove off.

Oh, the pictures I did get were just great. I'm lucky that they didn't open up the camera. They had enough sense to know that if they were wrong, there would be big trouble if I lost all of my work through their error.

And that is the only difference in the military and civilian chains of command. In the military, someone would have been held responsible if it turned into a total fiasco. I see all too many civilian events like this where no one is made to 'pay' for their egregious errors.

PE

c6h6o3 · Dec 11, 2005

"Photographing within a police state -- is accommodation with authorities possible?"

Of course it's possible. Just do as the police tell you. But if there's any conflict between what you want to do and their opinion as to what should be allowed, their opinion trumps the law. That's what makes it a police state.

doughowk · Dec 11, 2005

In our current, police-state of affairs, its best to avoid photographing anything that a terrorist might also be interested in photographing. Anything that might in someone's wildest imagination be considered a target is therefore suspect subject matter. Some obvious subjects: Infrastructure items or other structures that might contain large numbers of people; Landmarks (their destruction might demoralize us); and most other architectural subjects. Following the same line of reasoning, its best to avoid subject matter that might also be photographed by those suffering various perversions. Avoid taking pictures of children, even your own, for fear of being labelled a child-molestor.

As for me, I do driftwood, tombstones & other hopefully viewed innocuous subject matter ;-) After all, Josef Sudek survived both Nazi & Communist control of his homeland.

photobackpacker · Dec 11, 2005

Michael, I carry a photography business card and a portfolio box in my car. I have used both of these to demonstrate the benign nature of my presence. (I have found nothing makes people disappear faster than to ask them if they want to look at my portfolio!)

IMHO, in encounters with the police, attitude is everything. You can't make them go away but you can definitely motivate them to stick around.

firecracker · Dec 11, 2005

Maybe there was a secret weapon manufacturing factory nearby or a military science lab where some experiments were being conducted on a captured alien from from another planet.

Otherwise, I wouldn't worry about taking pictures in public space. If you get harrassed again, the next step is to contact lawyers and/or human rights groups for asking advice on legal protection.

WarEaglemtn · Dec 11, 2005

No.

You photograph what you can, when you can and protect yourself at all times. A good friend has a nice collection of work given him by a Russian Camera Club from before the break-up. He had to hide a lot of it in getting it out of the country. Many images of the citizens hanging from the statues, war memorials and making fun of the government. If the government guys had seen them some of the photographers would be dead as a result. This didn't stop them making the photos and finding ways to get them out of the country.

eclarke · Dec 12, 2005

Poco said:
This morning I had another run-in with the law. Apparently a teutonic looking guy on crutches with a camera looked very much like a terrorist to a passing vigilante motorist and it wasn't more than a few minutes later that I was forced to explain myself to six cops. Going into more detail would be boring.

My question is, has anyone found a successful strategy for making these encounters go more smoothly ...like getting your name on file with cops ahead of time so they only need to call in to check on you? It takes so damned long to talk 'em down from their urge to shoot something. Any ideas? I realize there have been threads on this before, but I want to make sure I'm not missing any smart, new ideas.

-Michael

HI,
Just vote against everybody who is now in office, especially the executive branch administration...EC

Tanya · Dec 13, 2005

Documentation

moose10101 said:
Can you provide documentation for that assertion? One officer per car is standard here because of pure economics; extra vehicles cost a lot less than extra people. And the officers I know feel a lot more vulnerable working alone, which makes them a lot more likely to be ultra-defensive.

Yes, here is some documentation:
Carlene Wilson. "Research on One-and Two-Person Patrols: Distinguishing Fact from Fiction." South Australia: Australasian Centre for Policing Research. 1991.
Scott H. Decker and Allen E. Wagner. "The Impact of Patrol Staffing on Police-Citizen Injuries and Dispositions." Journal of Criminal Justice. 1982. Vol. 10. p. 375-382.
Journal of Criminal Justice:
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/366/description#description

Statistics.... well, I am as skeptical as they get on statistics.
The Journal seems to have the most information on the psychological implications of this phenomenon.
I had heard of this years ago, but dismissed it, not because I didn't believe it but out of ignorance of the fact that it may one day have some bearing in my life. The next I read of it was in Malcolm Gladwell's book "Blink" (which I highly recommend), this was after I had been arrested but before my DHS /FBI interrogation so, naturally, paid attention.
I am going to try to find the exact cities that are enforcing this here, as I have heard which ones they are (in my readings) but have not made contact myself.
I would have to agree that in that line of work you would think one would feel safer working with another person. Lets just say these stats are true...could it also be that less mistakes are made because one would be more passive, in otherwords, inaction? Therefore, not being defensive enough?
Hope this Helps,
Tanya

Christopher Nisperos · Dec 14, 2005

blansky said:
Or get four guys in hard hats standing around you and it would look like a city public works job.
Michael

. . . or a Village People concert (Perfect. Add one guy in a police uniform!).

nc5p · Dec 25, 2005

Hi,
I'm brand new here. I was out of photography for a long time but this year got back into it. I actually got into it with the police many years ago while a teenager. Seems the businesses don't like people taking pictures around their locations. This was way before 9-11 and they were still paranoid. I got thrown out of the mall for photography. Also anywhere near the base can cause problems. 9-11 has only made things worse, they were already that way in certain places. Police often think people are casing places to commit burglaries or robberies by photographing them.

Because of the negative things that happened back then I am a lot more careful where I photograph and what I photograph now. I generally don't take photographs inside the city limits unless I am on open space or city park lands, city cops don't care in those places. I live outside the city here in the far north valley so I shoot a lot around here. The sheriff doesn't seem to care, they haven't even questioned me once. I also go to national forest and blm properties nearby. The rangers actually tell me about good places to photograph.

It is indeed very sad about the harassment but since this locale has a big air force base, a national nuclear lab, and a huge stockpile of nuclear warheads there is no point in antagonizing the authorities. There's too much to photograph in this state to mess with areas where we aren't wanted.

Doug

Curt · Dec 25, 2005

Too bad indeed, all the places I would photograph are well documented beyond what I would do anyway. When I went to Brooks I was told not to photograph in "Malls". The setups are protected by the owners/artists. Seems they are like set designers?
The only way to combat the situation is to get out there and photograph. I think there should be a World Wide Photography Day where everyone gets their cameras out and take pictures throughout the day.

moose10101 · Dec 26, 2005

nc5p said:
I got thrown out of the mall for photography.

A mall is private property. They can, within limits, place restrictions on your activities within the property. Photography in public places is a completely different matter.

nc5p · Dec 26, 2005

A mall is private property. They can, within limits, place restrictions on your activities within the property. Photography in public places is a completely different matter.

You are absolutely correct. I was 17 years old at the time and didn't know better. The funny thing was the other mall (Winrock) didn't really care, I talked to the managers of both. I was told at Winrock no tripods, flash, or "bothering shoppers or shop keepers." Wouldn't even try that now.

Doug

BrianShaw · Dec 26, 2005

bjorke said:
"What Would Zeus Do?"QUOTE]

Maybe we should all give up big cameras and start using a Minox to be incospicuous!

WWJBD? What would James Bond Do?

joeyk49 · Dec 27, 2005

Aggie said:
or strip and do nude photography

In my case that would be a crime!

After causinig the blindness of everyone within miles, much like viewing the flash from a nuclear explosion, I'd probably wind up in the Hague, charged with a crime against humanity...

mgphoto · Dec 28, 2005

Ok, funny story...
I'm out doing an assignment for USA Today of this local guy who had invented some new kind of turn signal (seriously!). It's the middle of the day and we agree to meet on a lightly used overpass over I-35. The idea was to get a nice compressed long lens shot of the guy with the traffic streaming on behind him. We meet and I quickly setup a strobe and a ladder (everything was out of the traffic lanes, by the way). While I'm setting up, I joke with the guy and say "don't be surprised if a cop shows up to see what we're up to". Not ten minutes later, I'm up on the ladder and out of the corner of my eye, I see three cop cars racing up the overpass. Once they saw us, they slowed, pulled over and the officer from the lead car calmly approached us. immediately, he gave the other guys a hand signal to stand down or something. The cops were actually really nice about it and after giving them the specifics, the lead guy explains that someone called in and reported that there was a guy on the overpass brandishing a gun! He chuckles and says something to his buddy about how anybody could mistake a camera and big lens for an AK-47. He then turns to me and says "Glad it turned out this way cuz we were about to go all SWAT on your ass". We all had a good laugh, they left, and we got back to work. About ten minutes later (I'm not kidding), I see a (city) cop driving up the overpass. This time it turns out that we were "taggers", up there defacing the bridge. The amazing part in all of this is that whatever good citizens reported these heinous deeds, saw us from below, for a split second, while going 70 MPH.

I've fortunately had very few problems with law enforcement in the post 9-11 years. Having press credentials certainly helps, but there are certainly things you can do to avoid such unpleasantness. Most importantly: I learned a long time ago, that if you look and act like you're supposed to be there, most people will assume that YOU ARE supposed to be there.
If all else fails, I hear the weather's pretty nice at Gitmo.

-Mark

Photographing within a police state -- is accommodation with authorities possible?

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency