Questioned by the FBI and Local Police

[JBrunner]

I take it all back...

just this morning I found three terrorists in my bran flakes.

 

[Wayne]

I saw them in the toilet bowl. They got away.


Wayne

 

[Akki14]

And the flip side of the coin...

a little story of how easily manipulated people can be.

I was visiting a popular tourist attraction, one that did those cheesy photos-in-front-of-backdrop-fake-attraction before you went and visited the actual attraction. They then try to flog the photo to you for money afterwards.

My parents and I don't particularly like our photos taken especially as we know we're not going to purchase the end product anyway. So we said No to the man taking the pictures. He said we had to. I said No again. He then said "We need to take it for security reasons" I took at the back of my ticket, reading the small print and point out that no where on the ticket says I have to be subjected to this. He very grumpily muttered "fine you can go" finally :rolleyes: How to make a quick buck out of the resulting terrorist paranoia...

I find that quite insulting really, to the people who died in terrorist attacks, that someone uses a tragedy to make a buck out of someone's cheesy tourist attraction. And there were proper real CCTV cameras after the forced photographing session anyway :rolleyes:

 

[mark]

I am surprised this happened in ABQ. It is a pretty liberal place. Something else had to be going on.

 

[PhotoJim]

People keep mentioning that in a free country you shouldn't be questioned. I don't agree. In a free country you're free to do things. The original poster wasn't told to stop photographing. I think he was handled quite politely (and I like that he was).

I don't mind telling the authorities who I am and what I'm doing, if I'm comfortable that it's being done for an appropriate reason. Perhaps because I'm a Canadian I'm a little less distrustful of government, but ultimately, I and they want the same things. If I have confidence that the institutions are being run correctly and reasonably, then providing my identity doesn't harm me a bit. I want the authorities to know what's going on, because it ultimately serves my need to be protected.

 

[arigram]

People keep mentioning that in a free country you shouldn't be questioned. I don't agree. In a free country you're free to do things. The original poster wasn't told to stop photographing. I think he was handled quite politely (and I like that he was).

I don't mind telling the authorities who I am and what I'm doing, if I'm comfortable that it's being done for an appropriate reason. Perhaps because I'm a Canadian I'm a little less distrustful of government, but ultimately, I and they want the same things. If I have confidence that the institutions are being run correctly and reasonably, then providing my identity doesn't harm me a bit. I want the authorities to know what's going on, because it ultimately serves my need to be protected.

...it starts like this...

Why don't you install a GPS/RFID chip inside your skull so we can track you with Google Earth, CCDs in your bedroom and bathroom so we can all watch, post all of your private letters so we can all read them...
Oh, right, you wouldn't trust total strangers, unless they are part of the "Goverment" thing.
So, I only need a civil servant's job in Canada and some pop corn to enjoy a reality show of your life?

The problem is not the goverment or any authority.
By definition they are going to be as totalitarian as they can.
Or maybe as much as people let them.
The problem is not the goverment but people that let them.

Maybe you don't understand what democracy means.
Its ok. Most people don't.

 

[JBrunner]

People keep mentioning that in a free country you shouldn't be questioned. I don't agree. In a free country you're free to do things. The original poster wasn't told to stop photographing. I think he was handled quite politely (and I like that he was).

I don't mind telling the authorities who I am and what I'm doing, if I'm comfortable that it's being done for an appropriate reason. Perhaps because I'm a Canadian I'm a little less distrustful of government, but ultimately, I and they want the same things. If I have confidence that the institutions are being run correctly and reasonably, then providing my identity doesn't harm me a bit. I want the authorities to know what's going on, because it ultimately serves my need to be protected.

Wow.

 

[Early Riser]

Roosevelt was right when he said,"we have nothing to fear but fear itself". Fear makes you stupid. it makes you do things without thought or reason. Like Iraq, 3000+ dead there, tens of thousands of dead Iraqis and 400 billion dollars and growing of national treasure spent there. The government has been using fear since 9/11 to take away our rights, such as habeas corpus, protection from illegal search and seizure and our right to privacy. They also use it to feather the beds of their biggest financial contributors like Halliburton. For nearly every protective measure that the government employs that comes at the expense of it's citizenry, the terrorist can ultimately come up with a simple counter measure. And even long after the terrorists have circumvented those precautions, the rest of the citizenry have to live with the loss of rights and the inconveniences and expenses of those now useless precautions.

To get on a plane you need to arrive 1 1/2-3 hours early, all of your possessions are x-rayed, ct scanned, and possibly hand searched. You remove all liquids from your bags, remove your shoes, remove your jacket, take your computer out of the case, hand your film off for a hand inspection, then you pass through a metal detector, and in some cases are also physically patted down. To travel overseas may require that you be fingerprinted, photographed and even retinal scanned. And on return to the US, customs can require that you turn over your laptop, cell phone, iPod, and memory cards so that they can be copied and their contents examined. If someone determines, without judicial approval or warrant, that you are a threat to national security, you can be arrested and held indefinitely without charge, bail or legal representation.

What do you think the framers of the constitution would think of that?

The terrorists have already won because they have irrevocably changed the lives, for the worse, of the entire western world.

 

[c6h6o3]

If I have confidence that the institutions are being run correctly and reasonably, then providing my identity doesn't harm me a bit. I want the authorities to know what's going on, because it ultimately serves my need to be protected.

I think that in this country such knowledge ultimately only serves their need to control you. And the very notion of any DHS agency being run "correctly and reasonably" has me laughing so hard I may have to go out and buy a truss.

 

[jd callow]

never mind...

 

[thebanana]

Roosevelt was right when he said,"we have nothing to fear but fear itself". Fear makes you stupid. it makes you do things without thought or reason. Like Iraq, 3000+ dead there, tens of thousands of dead Iraqis and 400 billion dollars and growing of national treasure spent there.

According to a story in this week's Rolling Stone it's closer to 3 Trillion. But that's another topic I guess.

 

[Doubrovsky]

I don't mind telling the authorities who I am and what I'm doing, if I'm comfortable that it's being done for an appropriate reason. Perhaps because I'm a Canadian I'm a little less distrustful of government, but ultimately, I and they want the same things. If I have confidence that the institutions are being run correctly and reasonably, then providing my identity doesn't harm me a bit. I want the authorities to know what's going on, because it ultimately serves my need to be protected.

Canadian stuff! I moved to Canada from Russia and found it hard to adjust to that kind of mentality. They don't realise how little by little that "protection" turns into Orwellian nightmare.

Somewhat similar situation but in a different environment:
I was taking pictures of Stalin era architecture in Moscow. I tried to take a picture of a 4-meter high brick stucco fence and huge gates decorated with the period symbols. Then a small door besides the gates opens, a person in military uniform comes up to me and requests the passport (you'd better carry your passport on Moscow streets). I gave him the passport and he disappeared behind the door. I was with my 12-year old son. I gave him all my money, camera and stuff, and instructed how to get back home in case I am interrogated. Then we waited. In about two hours the man appeared again and said: "You are not supposed to take pictures of a forbidden object". I said: "How can I know it is forbidden - there are no signs?" He replied: "Stupid! Who puts a sign on a forbidden object?!" I got my passport back.

 

[eddym]

I am surprised this happened in ABQ. It is a pretty liberal place. Something else had to be going on.

Maybe they were planning to round up all those dangerous liberals...

 

[arigram]

"In Soviet Russia the building photographs you!"

It hasn't been a joke for quite some time...

 

[copake_ham]

People keep mentioning that in a free country you shouldn't be questioned. I don't agree. In a free country you're free to do things. The original poster wasn't told to stop photographing. I think he was handled quite politely (and I like that he was).

I don't mind telling the authorities who I am and what I'm doing, if I'm comfortable that it's being done for an appropriate reason. Perhaps because I'm a Canadian I'm a little less distrustful of government, but ultimately, I and they want the same things. If I have confidence that the institutions are being run correctly and reasonably, then providing my identity doesn't harm me a bit. I want the authorities to know what's going on, because it ultimately serves my need to be protected.

Jim,

I can only speak to US law - but I would imagine things are similar up your way.

In the US - unless you are specifically placed "under arrest" - you do not have to answer anyone's questions and you have the right to freely walk away from the questioner*. That is the law.

However, most folk are accomodating sorts and consider it impolite to just stay silent and walk away when queried - so they start engaging in discussion with the questioner.

Even then, you retain the right to walk away unless you are being officially detained. But, people being people, most tend to stay and eventually the "discussion" elevates to something more confrontational. At that point, if the questioner is a person of authority - she/he can now arrest you for interfering with law enforcement (and perhaps other charges).

So, if one is found in the situation the OP was - the best (though not easiest) course of action is to just silently walk away. If the questioner pursues you should keep walking away and say nothing more than: "Are you arresting me, officer?"

Now, some cops may take that as a challenge and do so - and you will likely prevail in a court of law arguing it was an unlawful arrest. But it will be a real PIA dealing with. But sometimes, defending your rights is a PIA worth undertaking.

*And, if you are arrested you retain the right to remain silent until you are provided with an attorney to represent you.

 

[MattKing]

I'm in agreement with PhotoJim, and it really is a function of an "in Canada" approach.

I think though that you have to appreciate the full spectrum of the expectations we have of government, and our particular system of checks and balances before you can decide whether this is a good approach to take.

We have a very strong rule of law system here, and it both enables and constrains the authorities.

Most of the police that I have had dealings with here take very seriously rights of personal freedom. Those who don't are usually taken to task.

Matt

 

[c6h6o3]

Now, some cops may take that as a challenge and do so - and you will likely prevail in a court of law arguing it was an unlawful arrest. But it will be a real PIA dealing with. But sometimes, defending your rights is a PIA worth undertaking.

I don't feel that my right to point a camera at something is worth all the PIA. My right to keep and bear arms? Yes. Peaceably assemble? Petition the government for redress of grievances? Be secure from unlawful search and seizure? Sure.

But why have your day ruined when you can just walk away and point the camera at something else? In my experience I usually find a better image at the new place anyway.

 

[JBrunner]

I don't feel that my right to point a camera at something is worth all the PIA. My right to keep and bear arms? Yes. Peaceably assemble? Petition the government for redress of grievances? Be secure from unlawful search and seizure? Sure.

But why have your day ruined when you can just walk away and point the camera at something else? In my experience I usually find a better image at the new place anyway.

Sadly, your right to be secure against unlawful search and seizure was quietly abolished, as was your access to a writ of habeus corpus should you be detained.

 

[jd callow]

Sadly, your right to be secure against unlawful search and seizure was quietly abolished, as was your access to a writ of habeus corpus should you be detained.

If I remeber the 'law' correctly, only if you are deemed an 'Enemy Combatant' -- whatever that is.

 

[JBrunner]

If I remeber the 'law' correctly, only if you are deemed an 'Enemy Combatant' -- whatever that is.

On January 17, 2007, Attorney General Gonzales asserted in Senate testimony that while habeas corpus is "one of our most cherished rights," the United States Constitution does not expressly guarantee habeas rights to United States residents or citizens. As such, the Military Commisions Act of 2006 could be extended to U.S. citizens.

Protection against search and seizure went quietly out the window with the "Patriot Act". A Orwellian document right down to the doublespeak name.

 

[c6h6o3]

Sadly, your right to be secure against unlawful search and seizure was quietly abolished, as was your access to a writ of habeus corpus should you be detained.

No, neither of these has been abolished. The Constitution is still the law of the land. I'll grant you that law enforcement is wont to act as if they had been abolished, but the rights are, in Jefferson's words, "inalienable". That's why they're worth defending.

Abuse of these principles in my case is probably a remote possibility anyway. I'm not likely to be considered an enemy combatant or even a sufficiently hostile dissident to warrant detention without probable cause.

My Sikh and Pakistani friends, however, have cause to worry IMHO.

 

[PhotoJim]

I'm in agreement with PhotoJim, and it really is a function of an "in Canada" approach.

Perhaps it is. I know few Canadians who distrust the government. They may think that it's terribly inefficient and flawed, but they think it's trustworthy.

Lest our American friends think I believe our government is perfect, I do not. I just happen to believe that it is fair.

The judicial system here is very independent of the government. Supreme Court justices may be chosen by the government of the day, but there is an effort to keep representation balanced regionally and politically. The courts can, and have, told the various levels of governments many times that they have exceeded their bounds.

The interesting thing is that in my 40 years on the planet, I've only been asked for identification once while photographing (and I was near a prison so that was understandable). I think police and the military here take their jobs pretty seriously and understand that questioning people can make them uncomfortable. They do it where it's appropriate.

In short, I'm far less worried about being questioned than Americans seem to be, but I'm also far less likely to actually be questioned. Interesting dichotomy, isn't it?

 

[JBrunner]

No, neither of these has been abolished. The Constitution is still the law of the land. I'll grant you that law enforcement is wont to act as if they had been abolished, but the rights are, in Jefferson's words, "inalienable". That's why they're worth defending.

Abuse of these principles in my case is probably a remote possibility anyway. I'm not likely to be considered an enemy combatant or even a sufficiently hostile dissident to warrant detention without probable cause.

My Sikh and Pakistani friends, however, have cause to worry IMHO.

Wrong. And yes, it probably won't affect you until it is too late to do anything, because the people who speak up will be gone first.
Here is a look at one kind of search and seizure (these involving so called "secret warrants," there are other provisions in the act for excepting warrants in general) before and after the "Patriot Act."

http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/37patriot.html

Here is a link to a story on the NSA's new authority:

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/09/71778

The ad hoc coverage and vague language has basically removed due process, if they feel you shouldn't get it.

 

[ilya1963]

The following quote was written about 50 years ago:

"A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny."

Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Russian author & dissident in US (1918 - )

 

[patrickjames]

I believe you have to stand up for your rights or you lose them. I don't think police have the right to question you for doing something legal. George has given great advice already in regards to this. Remember knowledge is power. Don't be one of the stupid ones. There is nothing wrong with questioning authority. It is your obligation in a free society.

Patrick