Questioned by the FBI and Local Police

[david b]

Well, I was just as polite as they were. I gave them my ID without a hassle. They laughed when they saw the giant Afro I used to have (I now have a buzz cut). He asked for my contact number. I gave it to him.

At no point did he tell me I was doing some thing wrong.

Not a big deal but it did rattle me. And I just wanted this somewhere just in case.



A

 

[L Gebhardt]

Well, I was just as polite as they were. I gave them my ID without a hassle. They laughed when they saw the giant Afro I used to have (I now have a buzz cut). He asked for my contact number. I gave it to him.

At no point did he tell me I was doing some thing wrong.

Not a big deal but it did rattle me. And I just wanted this somewhere just in case.



A

To the best of my knowledge you do not need to give them your id. I wouldn't out of principle, though they could look at my license plate and figure it out.

It's hardly a free society if you need to produce papers when walking about in public.

 

[Chazzy]

"Terrorists use digital cameras".

Oh, I want that as a bumper sticker.

 

[pauliej]

I guess it would have been wrong to have responded "My name is Average Joe Citizen-TaxPayer, and I am minding my own business". I wonder how these 3 LEO's put this in their report - Hassled a suspicious street photographer for five minutes. Seriously, there may have been something going on, a political rally/speech, opening a new donut shop, etc. How many police are needed to question a man on the street? As many as we have at the time I think. Sorry, but I am cynical and cranky.

Yes, the police need to be vigilant, even since 9/11, but they need to have some common sense as well. And they need to watch a lot fewer super-cop cartoons/movies (ie, Stallone, Willis, Bronson, Eastwood, etal) too. Just my 2 cents, after taxes...

paulie

 

[DanielOB]

It seems in US everyone is scared from own shadow. Two hundred years ago it was pull the gun, now is pull the lens. Well here in Canada is not too far from the same. I had intention to get into Downtown to make some oil paintings, but changed my intention. Might be some guy will come with chains and ask me "do you make it for tererists? ..." I have impression that in whole North Am. if one just stop on the street he is potential terorist. And if he pull the camera, "God we got him, run". Well I would not live in US if Bush present me whole NewYorkCity.

 

[jeroldharter]

I don't see it that way. The problems begin when everyone is under suspicion. It doesn't matter how polite or 'professional.'

Some point to a 'new' reality after 9/11. Sadly that new reality is not one I think is necessary, effective or positive.

As Sean points out when will this end? If it is due to 9/11 and we are attacked again will the next step be a quick DNA sample or a trip to the station? ..and when we're attacked again, and again?

I'd rather be free and 'unsafe', then have my rights slowly removed and still be unsafe.

I agree with the last sentence.

However, if someone from law enforcement asks me some questions for a few minutes, he is not violating my rights.

What is law enforcement supposed to do if it sees someone around a populated area doing something with an unfamiliar looking device? Seems like asking the person some questions might be a safe start.

When I went fishing in Texas a couple of months ago we were near the border and had to stop at a security check. The guards were armed, checked out the back of our truck, asked us some questions, and took a lap around the vehicle with a dog. Took 30 seconds and we were on our way. My rights were not violated. The government should be vigilant. In fact, that is one of the few Constitutional functions of our government, to protect us.

If we want to get upset about an intrusive government, perhaps we should change the tax laws, scale back/eliminate entitlement programs, privatize non-essential government agencies, etc.

 

[Alex Hawley]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess (an "educated" guess - I work at a federal law enforcement agency) that there was something else going on. FBI agents don't just hang around bus stations. This doesn't explain why you were talked to, but this was likely not a normal day for them, either.

I tend to agree with the good Mr. Brown. There was a reason the agents were in the area and it may not have had anything to do with terrorism. Its quite possible they were keeping you from inadvertently getting into something you didn't want to get into.

Anyway, you handled it very well and that's good. Yeah, it kind of ruins the day, but then again, those agents were actually most likely doing you a great favor.

 

[Terence]

One more thing don't be a tough guy/girl and refuse to give proper ID--if you do that will be the fastest way to jail, LE has the right to ask for ID and also has the right to detain you until they figure out who you are.

They can ask, but you're NOT required to give them an ID if you're not driving.

See: http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14528res20040730.html

for some fairly well known advice.

I fully agree with being polite and cooperating, and almost always do. But some LE need to learn that respect is earned, not demanded. I will show them courtesy, but some feel hellbent on proving they don't deserve my respect. That's when I start defending my rights. I've ended up at the station twice, but it's always ended in my favor.

It may surprise some, but I've found NYPD to be some the BEST LE to deal with. They usually have their priorities straight, and I'm guessing they're almost immune to strange behavior like photographing old doors, etc.

 

[23mjm]

<edit>

Terence----You might want to reread the ACLU page, there is a little read between the lines there. If LE approaches you and questions you about what you are doing, LE has a duty/right ascertain your ID. Just because you give a name doesn't mean they have to take it at face value, they can request proof of ID and if you don't/can't provide it LE can detain/arrest you until they have verified who you are. When david b was taking pictures someone alerted LE they went to investigate, they could have detained him until they properly IDed him. If you don't believe me try it someday----let me know how it goes when you finally get access to a computer.

 

[thebanana]

I don't see the connection between what happened to David and 9/11. As i recall, the bad guys flew airplanes into the buildings...they weren't taking pictures of them with film cameras.

 

[c6h6o3]

Or what if you'd excercised your constitutional rights and said "I'm doing nothing illegal, buzz off, or at least let me consult my lawyer before I give you any information."

That may play well on the Silver Screen (I'll bet Will Smith would be terrific delivering those lines!) but I don't think it's too good an idea in practice. No matter how noble your cause or Constitutionally girded your loins, these Deputy Dawgs can make your life a living hell with impunity.

We may yet get our Republic back, but not for a while if ever.

At Union Station in Washington, DC, where I disembark every morning to go to my office, the roving packs of TSA goons have dogs. It's like something out of Pentimento.

 

[KenR]

Terrorists

I think the problem is that while there are a lot of bad people in the world who would like to destroy our institutions, we all intuitively know that they are not about to stand out by using a giant 6x9 film camera in front of a public building that they are planning to bomb. And why should they, when the views are freely available by other means. I have been politely asked not to take pictures of the Federal Courthouse in Boston (an architectural gem) several weeks after a spread on it appeared in the newspaper. When I got home I searched for it on Google Earth and could clearly see most details of the building, including its exact geographic coordinates. So I think that we have to rethink these restrictions as they make no sense - we either remove all photos of potential targets from all media so that it is impossible to find a picture of the Albuquerque bus station, or we allow anyone to take their own photo, whether "close up", or "from the street". Our present system of allowing some forms of information gathering while restricting others that are really no different, needs to be redone.

 

[copake_ham]

I dunno, maybe the OP really had a bad time of it today.

But since I wasn't there, I can only guess that it all really happened.

 

[david b]

Do a google image search for "albuquerque bus station". plenty available.

 

[Paul Goutiere]

As we take these measures to "protect" ourselves we are exposing our fear, and the enemy has in someway one a battle.

 

[Chuck_P]

As we take these measures to "protect" ourselves we are exposing our fear, and the enemy has in someway one a battle.

I see what you are saying, but reacting to fear can be a good thing too. I believe people who have no fear wind up dead sooner than most while holding all other things equal, of course.

As for the OP's experience today, that's just part of the world we live in today. I believe also the earlier post from Mr. Brown that perhaps something additional was going on that gave them a reason to confront the photographer.

 

[Terence]

<edit>

Terence----You might want to reread the ACLU page, there is a little read between the lines there. If LE approaches you and questions you about what you are doing, LE has a duty/right ascertain your ID. Just because you give a name doesn't mean they have to take it at face value, they can request proof of ID and if you don't/can't provide it LE can detain/arrest you until they have verified who you are. When david b was taking pictures someone alerted LE they went to investigate, they could have detained him until they properly IDed him. If you don't believe me try it someday----let me know how it goes when you finally get access to a computer.

Actually, the Supreme Court has decided several times that the ONLY thing police have to do is enforce the laws. They have no "duty/right" to ascertain my identity unless I am suspected of having broken the law. You might want to check out some rulings by the 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court ruling that " not only upholds the right to refuse to provide identification to an officer before arrest, but has specifically found Nev. Rev. Stat. § 171.123(3) unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. The dissent opinion criticized the majority for "reflexively reasoning that the public interest in police safety outweighs Hiibel's interest in refusing to identify himself," noting that no evidence exists that an officer is safer for knowing a person's identity. "What the majority fails to recognize," the dissenting opinion continued, "is that it is the observable conduct, not the identity, of a person, upon which an officer must legally rely when investigating crimes and enforcing the law." " The Supreme Court later decided that stating your name was sufficient to identify you. (For more, see : http://epic.org/privacy/hiibel/default.html).

I agree that it is generally a good idea to cooperate with police. And with police who are courteous, I do. Police who are overbearing, rude, officious or who start out with threats get the minimum required from me. Like children, allowing their bad behavior only encourages it. As I mentioned, assuming I have the free time, I am willing to take it back to a higher-up or police station when I know I am in the right and the cop is wrong. I have yet to find a captain, etc who will support incorrect behavior by a subordinate when you start mentioning false arrest, unlawful arrest, unlawful imprisonment, etc. I have yet to even need to call a lawyer.

 

[23mjm]

Terence--

May be I am reading this wrong "Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Arrest for Refusal to Identify" But it would seam that you can be arested for refusing to give your name/ID.


All I am saying is if you are taking pictures and LE comes up to and ask why/what you are doing you don't want to end up in the station because you failed to answer their questions, they are a lot of things they could charge you with and they may or may not stick, but thats a raod you don't not want to go down.

 

[bdial]

Yeah their doing their job, yes, it's a good idea to be cooperative, as it can save you a lot of hassle, if for no other reason.

But, do we live in a free society if every time you look through your camera you need to look out for authorities wanting to know what you're up to?
The way it seems to be going, they don't need to make laws against photographing buildings, or anything else, people will be unwilling to go through the confrontations.

barry

 

[Trevor Crone]

I think you handled the situation really well David.

These are indeed worrying times when you're challenged for doing street photography. I've had it here in London, not by the police (yet) but by security personnel, being told that I can't photograph a particular building. Using a 4x5 on a tripod really winds them up. Twice now they've threatened to call the police unless I move on.

Have a nice day!

Trevor.

 

[RobC]

so whats it like living in a police state where everyone is in a state of fear and paranoia? Where there are so many "Government agents" on every street corner, that as soon as you whip out your camera someone jumps on you.
It'll be be interesting to see if "Change" actually happens. Somehow I doubt it as that would mean releasing the control and influence of fear and paranoia...
You are being had by your own government but then aren't we all...

 

[Barry S]

Sometimes it's just depressing trying to exercise basic legal rights while trying to take a photo. You know why photographers get stopped? Because we're low hanging fruit. Easy to fill up the incident logs that justify jobs and resources. Most people mean well, but many security and law enforcement personnel are poorly trained to deal with photographers going about their business. But I guess it's all top down, so this is the kind of atmosphere we end up with.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Maybe I should move to Canada?

Pfsah! You'll see the same problems happening in no time the more we get involved in Afghanistan with a Conservative government...

 

[haris]

It is not problem when police politely ask question, problem is nexte sentence:

...He also made a comment about me doing half the work (photographing) for possible terrorists...

If you make photographs of anything except what!?, you MUST BE doing it for terrorists. This paranoid thinking is what is problem...

 

[JBrunner]

When somebody going is about everyday business, such as photography, there is no cause to detain them from that activity, unless they do something unlawful. Being stopped and questioned about perfectly legal activity is an affront to freedom, even though the authority was polite and professional.

If there is really a problem with photography, the laws would need to be changed to reflect that. That hasn't and likely won't happen, so in most cases there is no reasonable cause to question a photographer plying his trade.

Military installations etc. have clear instructions regarding photography, for good reasons. The bus station is fair game, at least from a public vantage place.

The patenly absurd suggestion that a guy with a big camera and tripod photographing the bus station in I'lbequirky New Mexico is doing pre production work for a terrorist organization, and the fact that there are people who are like "hey, good job for the street interrogation, I feel safer" just shows how far fear is being promoted, propagated, and exploited by government, for it's own purposes, and swallowed by the gullible, and that it has risen to the ridiculous, proves it has nothing to do with your personal safety or security.

"New post 911 world" my a$$, it's just the same stuff from clear back in the the 30's packaged in a new wrapper.