Questioned by the FBI and Local Police

[MP_Wayne]

I was escorted away from a place I was photographing once, and even had to climb a tree because the dude looked so unpredictable. That'll be the last time I ever have a battle of wills with a teenage Moose

Murray - was that teenage moose wearing an Al Qaeda T-Shirt? If so, you should have reported him to your local RCMP office. It is clear he might have been scouting that location for a future attack.

 

[Andy K]

Murray - was that teenage moose wearing an Al Qaeda T-Shirt? If so, you should have reported him to your local RCMP office. It is clear he might have been scouting that location for a future attack.

Actually it's Elk'aeda.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Nope. He wanted to eat what I was photographing. Everything is pretty simple around here

Murray

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Actually it's Elk'aeda.

GROAN!

 

[JBrunner]

I have to ask you a question and I really want to know the answer. I am not trying to be disrespectful but I feel I need to ask.

Can you read? Did you read my post? Or did you read what you wanted to read with no regard for what was actually written?

No where did I say "special times" or anything as such. I checked my record collection the "special times" wasn't in there. Sorry--

What I was trying to say is that things evolve through time we can not stay stagnate our law will evolve also they have to. So please read then comment and not comment on what you wanted me to say because it fits in to you argument.

Again no disrespect intended but I feel you are disrespecting me by miss quoting me so it fits you argument.

Oh gee, you're right. Sorry about that.

 

[Trevor Crone]

You guys in the States could get a 'lucky' break if Hillary Clinton becomes president. I remember reading some years ago when her husband was president that she was a keen photographer. So she may just be sympathetic to you guys standing around taking photographs?

 

[MP_Wayne]

You guys in the States could get a 'lucky' break if Hillary Clinton becomes president. I remember reading some years ago when her husband was president that she was a keen photographer. So she may just be sympathetic to you guys standing around taking photographs?

Yes, she may be sympathetic to photographers, but based on recent rhetoric, she wants to reopen NAFTA. SO, Hillary wants to smack us "terrorist harbouring" Canadians 'cuz we have been so bad doing 70% of our trade with the USA (and buying all those oranges). I guess Canadians travelling and photographing places in the USA will now be really watched as Al Qaeda operatives too... ;-)

 

[snegron]

23mjm, we'll have to agree to disagree and move on.

Being questioned by police whilst doing something legal is, in Canadian law, "unreasonable search and seizure", at least it was before 9/11 and subsequent dilution of that provision. Now, in the age of paranoia, any questioning or slight pushback gets one immediately identified as a troublemaker or worse.

QUOTE]



Here it is called "reasonable suspicion" if the person is acting in a manor in which might be considered as suspicious, and contact by law enforcement is pefectly legal!

Law enforcement regards it as a citizen contact and consider it to be the same as any person walking up to another person and asking how they are doing or what they are doing. If the person is not doing anything illegal and the officer is not conducting a criminal investigation, the person can simply refuse to answer any questions. He or she can not get arrested in that case.

Again, legitimate law enforcement officers (not part time rent a cops) will not harrass someone for no particular reason. I have had worse experience with really unprofessional TSA agents, even more than with security guards, but that is a different story...

 

[23mjm]

23mjm, we'll have to agree to disagree and move on.

Being questioned by police whilst doing something legal is, in Canadian law, "unreasonable search and seizure", at least it was before 9/11 and subsequent dilution of that provision. Now, in the age of paranoia, any questioning or slight pushback gets one immediately identified as a troublemaker or worse.

QUOTE]



Here it is called "reasonable suspicion" if the person is acting in a manor in which might be considered as suspicious, and contact by law enforcement is pefectly legal!

Law enforcement regards it as a citizen contact and consider it to be the same as any person walking up to another person and asking how they are doing or what they are doing. If the person is not doing anything illegal and the officer is not conducting a criminal investigation, the person can simply refuse to answer any questions. He or she can not get arrested in that case.

Again, legitimate law enforcement officers (not part time rent a cops) will not harrass someone for no particular reason. I have had worse experience with really unprofessional TSA agents, even more than with security guards, but that is a different story...

Well now there are 2 of us who understand the law in the USA.

 

[firecracker]

"Taxi to the Darkside" was aired here on TV last night, and I taped it. It's a TV cut, but I'm assuming it's still as good as the original movie one.

Has anyone heard of this new documentary? It sort of touchs the subject we've been talking about here. Or maybe not...

 

[walter23]

I remain convinced that our freedoms are being eroded by sloppy and intrusive police work encouraged by draconian legislation changes driven by keeping an ignorant public amped up with unnecessary fear. Unfortunately, we photographers, by virtue of the curse of the visibility of our tripods, are an EASY and ACCESSIBLE first-order target for this type of harassment and intrusion. We should be Ghandi-like in our non-violent resistance to this unwarranted harassment when engaging in a perfectly legal pursuit in a so-called "free" society.

Great post Wayne - well put.

 

[MattKing]

Being questioned by police whilst doing something legal is, in Canadian law, "unreasonable search and seizure", at least it was before 9/11 and subsequent dilution of that provision.

To the best of my knowledge, this is incorrect.

The police in Canada can ask any question they wish. Whether or not they are entitled to an answer, or whether or not there is any consequence to refusing to cooperate or answer, is entirely a different question, and depends entirely on the circumstances.

Some types of questioning can also constitute detention as well. Then the tests are much more rigorous.

We need some perspective on these issues. Police don't have a good understanding of what many of us do. Film based photography, especially that which involves larger cameras, is a much rarer thing today then we would like. !n the 1970s or 1980s it may have been different.

Just for example, what do you think the reaction would have been 20-25 years ago if a police officer had observed someone talking on a cel phone? What is the likely reaction now?

Interest and concern and even suspicion from a police officer does not restrict our liberties. Detention and restriction of our liberties does.

Matt

 

[nsurit]

Guess, life tends to occur as we say it does. One person might see the actions of those in law inforcement as being an intrusion on their sacred rights to privacy, while another might view it as just someone who is doing their job of trying to create a safer place for all of us. Rather than being offended by their actions this person might have a geniune feeling of gratitude that these people are doing the job they are asked to do each day. It is absolutely ones choice as to how they see the situation.

For any who are willing to put what they know to be "true" about those in law enforcement to the test, rather than remaining stuck in their truth, give one or all of these a try.

Next time you see a police officer in public, who is not actively occupied to doing their job, walk up, shake their hand and thank them for doing the job (a pretty thankless one) they do.

When you are at you favorite lunch spot and see a table of officers, pick up their lunch check and tell them it is just your way of thanking them for doing their job.

If your local department lets civilians ride with a patrol officer, you might give that a try.

The response one would get from any of these, I say, will create a positive shift in how one views law enforcement (and perhaps their world.)

No, I'm not in law enforcement and never have been. Yes, I have bought a few meals and shook a few hands. The first time I was questioned about what I was doing with a camera was inside the terminal at a relatively new Houston Intercontinental Airport. I had a 4X5 view camera and a tripod set up in the walkway to the gates. It was 1969 or 70. Bill Barber

 

[firecracker]

Next time you see a police officer in public, who is not actively occupied to doing their job, walk up, shake their hand and thank them for doing the job (a pretty thankless one) they do.

You mean, when they are not busy eating donuts? Oh, that won't happen!

 

[walter23]

Next time you see a police officer in public, who is not actively occupied to doing their job, walk up, shake their hand and thank them for doing the job (a pretty thankless one) they do.

That's a very smiley & happy idea in principle, but in fact I don't feel comfortable walking up to shake the hand of someone who puts their firing hand on their gun holster the moment I'm seen approaching.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

That's a very smiley & happy idea in principle, but in fact I don't feel comfortable walking up to shake the hand of someone who puts their firing hand on their gun holster the moment I'm seen approaching.

In Calgary?

Murray

 

[Andrey]

Next time you see a police officer in public, who is not actively occupied to doing their job, walk up, shake their hand and thank them for doing the job (a pretty thankless one) they do.

That's a creepy thing to do.

They're trained to keep the distance at all times and you'll push them out of the comfort level.

 

[Curt]

Ever heard of the term "Officer Presence"? From my years in the military I have learned not to trust everyone, specifically uniformed individuals. I can't recall the California University but the setup was cops and inmates. Students were chosen at random which role they were to play and the cops got totally out of control as cops and it had to be shut down. Put a uniform on a person and give them some tools and authority and see where it leads. Granted we have a need for law enforcement and the vast majority are doing a dangerous job but the few that get in and end up in a situation were there are several of them verses one of us, you can guess where it can go. In the past it was "hit him were it won't show" not it's don't get caught on video. Anyone out there ever wore a uniform and a side arm? Makes you feel a little taller doesn't it?

 

[Nigel]

I can't recall the California University but the setup was cops and inmates.

The Zimbardo experiment, Stanford University, 1971 but more interesting is the Milgram experiment at Yale in 1963.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_Experiment

 

[Andrey]

Ever heard of the term "Officer Presence"? From my years in the military I have learned not to trust everyone, specifically uniformed individuals. I can't recall the California University but the setup was cops and inmates. Students were chosen at random which role they were to play and the cops got totally out of control as cops and it had to be shut down. Put a uniform on a person and give them some tools and authority and see where it leads. Granted we have a need for law enforcement and the vast majority are doing a dangerous job but the few that get in and end up in a situation were there are several of them verses one of us, you can guess where it can go. In the past it was "hit him were it won't show" not it's don't get caught on video. Anyone out there ever wore a uniform and a side arm? Makes you feel a little taller doesn't it?

I was a cop in "the centinel". I had a current uniform of a toronto LEO and it was being shot downtown. There was lots of fake cops and it was interesting to watch how people behaved.

I had impulses to shout stuff like: "Freeze!"
"On the ground! Spread it!"
"Sir! Let me see your ID please!"
And of course: "You're under arrest!"

 

[snegron]

Guess, life tends to occur as we say it does. One person might see the actions of those in law inforcement as being an intrusion on their sacred rights to privacy, while another might view it as just someone who is doing their job of trying to create a safer place for all of us. Rather than being offended by their actions this person might have a geniune feeling of gratitude that these people are doing the job they are asked to do each day. It is absolutely ones choice as to how they see the situation.

For any who are willing to put what they know to be "true" about those in law enforcement to the test, rather than remaining stuck in their truth, give one or all of these a try.

Next time you see a police officer in public, who is not actively occupied to doing their job, walk up, shake their hand and thank them for doing the job (a pretty thankless one) they do.

When you are at you favorite lunch spot and see a table of officers, pick up their lunch check and tell them it is just your way of thanking them for doing their job.

If your local department lets civilians ride with a patrol officer, you might give that a try.

The response one would get from any of these, I say, will create a positive shift in how one views law enforcement (and perhaps their world.)

No, I'm not in law enforcement and never have been. Yes, I have bought a few meals and shook a few hands. The first time I was questioned about what I was doing with a camera was inside the terminal at a relatively new Houston Intercontinental Airport. I had a 4X5 view camera and a tripod set up in the walkway to the gates. It was 1969 or 70. Bill Barber

I agree with you 100%. Police officers are not the bad guys. They are the ones that protect us from the bad guys. When someone steals your stuff who do you call? When someone abuses your loved one who do you call? When some lunatic decides he wants to molest your child who do you call? Answser to all the above: Police.

People fear what they don't understand. Most people don't know what police really do on a daily basis. All they know is that they were given a speeding ticket by a cop several years ago, so all cops must be evil. How many of us stop to think that maybe that speeding served as a future deterent to a life-ending accident in the future? Maybe we slow down a bit for fear of another ticket. Maybe by slowing down we won't run over that kid crossing the street or are able to react in time to avoid that bozo that just drove into our lane because he was on a cell phone.

Cops risk their lives every single day for us. Every time they pull over a speeder who might have a felony warrant and swears he won't go back to prison alive. Every time a cop directs traffic (for our convenience so we can get to the supermarket a few minutes early) he is subject to getting run over by a careless teenager driving while on the phone or by grandma whose oxygen tank tube is pinched under her seatbelt.

Just think about this for a minute when a the cop is asking you about your intentions while you are standing on a street corner with your expensive gear. Would you preffer that this "evil" cop be a robber instead who politely steals your equipment? It wouldn't be that bad if someone stole your equipment I guess because ,after all, we are a society that glorifies the bad guys and villifies the cops. Don't believe me? Try this little test. Think to yourself how many bad guys are familiar famous names (Al Capone, Charles Manson, etc.). Now think about three cops who are as famous as these bad guys, or at least have names that everyone has heard of. How many of the famous bad guys saved the lives of a choking toddler? How many famous bad guys ever showed any compassion toward society?

We may not understand why cops make contact with us and ask us about our intentions when they see us doing things that the majority of average citizens don't do, but that doesn't make them evil. As Bill mentioned above, try to get to know your local police force. Most of them do offer ride along programs for citizens. You will be surprised at how you will see your neighborhood from a different perspective once you have seen it from the point of view of those who are trying to protect us. Who knows? Maybe once you have met a cop or two and treat them like human beings, they might even ask or give suggestions about lighting and lens choices and better perspective angles. Who knows? Maybe that cop loves photography too when he is off duty. ( We can use all the film followers we can get in order to keep our shrinking community alive)

p.s. I have shot several weddings for law enforcement officers and they all seemed like genuinely good people to me. On at least three ocassions I have given equipment purchasing suggestions to cops. Two of them went digital, the other went with medium format. Last I heard they were all happy with their new hobby!

 

[arigram]

I will make one last comment.
Society cannot be held together by violence.
Laws and their enforcement tools are violent
A society that is violently bound will violently
explode when its binds are too tight.
Violence breeds violence.
The more rotten a society is, the more violence is present.
Problem is that most people stick to their
basic instincts like babies: they like to be bound as to feel secure.

Its not the police or laws that protect me from "bad guys" its a
well functioning and caring society.

 

[MP_Wayne]

Quote: Originally Posted by MP_Wayne
Being questioned by police whilst doing something legal is, in Canadian law, "unreasonable search and seizure", at least it was before 9/11 and subsequent dilution of that provision.

To the best of my knowledge, this is incorrect. The police in Canada can ask any question they wish. Whether or not they are entitled to an answer, or whether or not there is any consequence to refusing to cooperate or answer, is entirely a different question, and depends entirely on the circumstances. Some types of questioning can also constitute detention as well. Then the tests are much more rigorous. Matt

Matt, your point is correct and I should have elaborated further. Simply being questioned by police is not "unreasonable search and seizure" and I should have been more explicit. Operating a motor vehicle, we can be stopped (in Canada) by a roadside spot check for Driving While Intoxicated. There is initial basis for the stop (like a broken tail light, weaving) in this special case. If the officer, when questioning the driver observes intoxication or suspicious behaviour, then as I am operating a motor vehicle on a public road, he is within his powers to detain me for further investigations (again based on the secondary observed evidence of smell of alcohol, seeing an open container, etc.). But, the initial stop is one of the few exceptions for stopping without a "probable cause" type reason.

In my incident, photographing on a street corner, far from any buildings (therefore no peeping Tom issues) or private homes, was not sufficient for them to do anything other than approach me to ask what I was doing. Again, in agreement with several posters, I am not unreasonable about that type of initial discussion, although I don't like it.

After answering the questions with fully plausible story (pointing to the store from which I borrowed the lens for testing), they demanded ID. I asked why they needed to see my ID and they answered because of "increased terrorist threat and awareness" to which I answered "you've got to be kidding". They were not. With my LE experience, I admit I tried to trap them in a lie, but my next questions were also legitimate:
[1] ME: What I have done that is illegal?
POL: Nothing yet, we want to check out "unusual" behaviour in these times of heightened terrorist concern.
ME: But I told you what I was doing.
POL: We want to see your ID.
[2] ME: Are you looking for someone who fits my description for some other incident?
POL: No.
[3] ME: Has someone called in a complaint about my activities?
POL: No, not yet.

All of the [1] to [3] were intended to obtain the justification for the ID demand, especially when I was doing nothing illegal - even by their own admission! I was also attempting to see if there was anything (out of my knowledge sphere) causing this search ( 2 or 3 above), because I would later verify if that was the case and if it was a lie, we would all be in front of the Police Commission after my complaint.

As I wrote earlier, my questions caused a positioning of one of two officers more behind me and in my peripheral vision, I saw him unbuckle his handcuff pouch. I know, from my own LE training, if I had tensed at that moment, they would have sprung (as I was trained to do in my last life).

I did not have the time to go through a detention and hassle for the afternoon (with a borrowed lens no less) in order to "right fight".

THAT second part of the demand for ID was illegal search and seizure, not the initial questioning and my providing of answers.

I hope this clarifies my earlier points, as random spot check demands for IDs is the France of today (but with a Napoleanic legal code) and Germany of the 1930s and 1940s. We do not want to be there. I am not anti-law enforcement - far from it - but I will not abide by sloppy, abusive police work when observation and reasonable discourse handles most situations. An unwarranted ID check is NOT in keeping with a so-called "free" society.

 

[MP_Wayne]

Its not the police or laws that protect me from "bad guys" its a well functioning and caring society.

Arigram, this is a very true statement. We seem to be in an era of destroying the middle class (especially in the manufacturing sector), pushing the mentally ill out of institutions and into homelessness, suppressing minimum wages to create a class of working poor (some who are homeless too), and denying people adequate medical insurance (more in the US than in Canada), it is little wonder there seems to be a growing desperation, stress and anger in many citizens.

Putting more police on the streets and building more prisons will not solve the longer standing issues that "maintain order". And the police are but a "thin blue line" - if social order deteriorates, they cannot control it (witness the Rodney King riots as an example).

If a society does not care for its less capable citizens with compassion and patience, then the rest of the citizenry will not be able to sleep as easily at night. I am not a socialist - so don't start a flaming, labelling attack. There is a simple maxim that has held up over and over in history:

Poverty breeds desperation which breeds unrest.

Say no more...

 

[nsurit]

Without wading through this entire thread, the question which occurs for me about a photographer being stopped by not one, not two, but three law enforcement offices, at least one of which is FBI, is, "What was going on that there would be these three out there to see the guy with the camera and check him out." Any who think this is the usual mode of operation for law enforcement have not thought this one through very thoroughly. Bill Barber