Utah LF Photog Arrested, Harrassed, Loses Job

[removed account4]

It is funny, even before 9/11 the only place I was ever able to photograph without being hasseled was either Yellowstone or when I lived in Hawaii, I remember when I first moved to Montana about '97 and I set my 4x5 up outside our Library, which is also the builiding that the oldest School house in the area and wanted to take some shots, nice climbing plants on the build with increadable ambiance, and I was questioned by the local cops, took one shot and moved on, then went to the home of the founder of the city to take shots, and same thing...this was before homeland security or any other thing they like to say they are protecting now a days, it was really bizzare and I almost got thrown in Jail, cause I guess after the second time of being hassled, I got a bit smug with the cops and asked them if they thought I was James Bond and had a miniture nuke in the camera! LOL

So, this is not something new since 9/11, it has been happening for a while now..

Dave

i know exactly what you are talking about dave -
i have been hassled by the police since about 1982 - no cameras needed.
pulled over on the interstate + local roads, car searched in a parking lot, you name it ...

you're right, it has been happening for a long time ...

 

[c6h6o3]

The firing is irrelevant. In the absence of a warrant, a police officer must have probable cause to believe that a crime is either being committed or is about to be committed. The officer in question admitted at the scene that he had no probable cause. He therefore had no right to even ask her to identify herself. Arresting her is exceeding lawful authority and I'll bet her action will be successful. Any prior altercation with the law is also irrelevant.

For all their nastiness by virtue of the fact that they're incredibly overworked and underpaid, I have to hand it to the US Park Police. The last time they came up to question me on the C&O National Historical Park towpath, they at least knew the law. If you're a commercial photographer you have to have permit to photograph there. They asked me, "What do you do with the pictures you make?" I said I frame them and put them on the wall. "Do you sell them?" "Don't I wish!" I replied. They didn't like it, but they let me keep working. A universe apart from the rent-a-goons at the National Arboretum to whom tripod=commercial=pack it up, buddy.

 

[Donald Miller]

I think that the whole thing amounts to a further indication of the loss of our personal and civil liberties. This loss seems to have drastically escalated in the last four years.

 

[Eric Rose]

Hey what's new. Back in the 60's I was hassled constantly by cops for just having long hair.

 

[Alex Hawley]

Hey what's new. Back in the 60's I was hassled constantly by cops for just having long hair.

Yep-been there and got that. Nowadays, around here, having long hair indicates a probable meth lab - so that attracts the attention.

 

[Peter Williams]

Isn't this better suited to the soap box? This doesn't seem to have a lot to do with photography.

 

[Roger Krueger]

Given the facts that she got fired, and had several previous encounters with Law Enforcement, and seems to be "marked" by them, could it be that she has been needling them in some fashion, trying to provoke an incident?

It doesn't matter how much you "needle" the cops--it may be stupid, but unless it's illegal, they're still in the wrong, period.

Police wasting their time enforcing laws that don't exist, and eroding their already limited credibility, makes us less secure, not more.

Re: "Photography is not a Crime"--I remember when a similar slogan was adopted by skateborders. Thoughtful city fathers around the country remedied that oversight.

 

[nexus]

Isn't this better suited to the soap box? This doesn't seem to have a lot to do with photography.

It has plenty to do with photography and its becoming more frequent with people getting arrested or harassed by the police over taking photographs. The irony being just about everyone has a camera phone.

 

[127]

There may be a bozo cop involved; no shortage of them anywhere. The charges were tossed; didn't even make it to the Desk Sergeant. So what?

There is at least one situation I know of in US law where this makes a BIG difference. The US does not always presume innocent unless charged, much less innocent until proved gultiy.

I presume you're a US citizen so you've probably never filled in a US Visa Waiver application (the green forms they hand out on planes). One of the questions (aside from the somewhat humours ones) is "Have you ever been arrested?". Not have you ever been convicted, and not even have you ever been charged!!!

A friend of mine was arrested about 15 years ago. He never went to court. He was released without charge. As a result the US Visa he had was withdrawn, and he is no longer able to obtain a new one, or use the waiever scheme.

Given the nature of his work he's certainly lost 10's of thousands of pounds of work as a result of being arrested. NOT charged, and NOT convicted.

Getting arrested can be a big deal. If the US government can legally treat you badly as a result, them some local company can do whatever they want.

Ian

 

[Sparky]

Police wasting their time enforcing laws that don't exist, and eroding their already limited credibility, makes us less secure, not more.

While I'm sure glad we have police - and the "idea of police", in practice it is rarely so "black and white" (my god - that could nearly have been a DOUBLE pun!). At any rate - you really have to look at the individuals who choose to become police officers. Oftentimes the motivation is for cheap power. I hate to say it – but it's kind of true, don't you think? And, of course, people DO tend to be petty and DO want to be looked up to. So of COURSE they're going to abuse the power invested in them by 'higher-ups' at the service of their ego. I mean - well ALL do to SOME degree. Though I really think that cops should be taking some pretty serious courses in ego management. It's kind of the ultimate responsibility.

 

[haris]

I think you're only seeing the side of the story you want to see.

1. There may be a bozo cop involved; no shortage of them anywhere. The charges were tossed; didn't even make it to the Desk Sergeant. So what? Move on. If she wants to sue them, then fine, that's also her right. Go for it, but don't expect public reimbursement of her legal fees unless the court determines they are warranted.

2. But when someone gets fired, that tells me her boss was fed up with her for one reason or another.

1. Well, untill it happens to others, why should I care...

In 1930es in Germany you know what started same way. NO, I don't saying it is same as wrongly arresting one individual, but same thinking: "Untill it doesn't happens to me it is not my problem" made one of foundations for raise of worst human behaviour in history of human kind. There is one old saying which tells something like "For evil to win it is enough that good people do nothing"

2. Exactly!

Maybe she didn't want to have sex with her boss, so boss (he or she) made a way for revenge without fear of being sued for sexual harassment...

 

[c6h6o3]

It has plenty to do with photography and its becoming more frequent with people getting arrested or harassed by the police over taking photographs. The irony being just about everyone has a camera phone.

I urge everyone interested in this topic to go to Kevin Bjorke's PhotoPermit.org site and download the memo recently commissioned by the National Press Photographer's Association. It was prepared by perhaps the most prestigious law firm in Washington, DC.

 

[MikeS]

In the town (they call it a city, I call it a town, or maybe just a village) I live in, 5 years ago they decided that they should do criminal background checks, and require drivers licenses of all NEW police officers! (they didn't mention current officers!) Now if they didn't bother doing criminal checks on their own police, how much training do you think they give them? "Here's your gun & badge, go patrol"

-Mike

 

[Alex Hawley]

It doesn't matter how much you "needle" the cops--it may be stupid, but unless it's illegal, they're still in the wrong, period.

It matters very much about how much someone needles them. Police officers are human, just like everyone else. And you are right, unless there is something illegal happening, the police are wrong. But how "right" is it to take advantage of the legality, provoking incidents just because the provoker will always be in the "right". It only leads to useless trouble-and as others have pointed out, detracts from more worthwhile activities.

 

[mark]

But how "right" is it to take advantage of the legality, provoking incidents just because the provoker will always be in the "right".

This is so illogical that I swore you meant it as a joke.

If something is legal, how can doing it provoke any incident at all.

 

[inthedark]

Hmm, this is very discouraging, here I was about to finally leave the darkroom and take a trip around town to get some film of my own to print. . .timing. . . sucks....
Maybe I could just put one of the body tent signs on with "Photography Student at Work! Please do not feed or harrrass." on it.

But seriously, this is really getting out of hand. Seems like the police are just plain idiots, they should be more concerned with the all the "clandestine" forms of photography not the huge blaring announcements of photography like an LF set up.

 

[BradS]

Hey what's new. Back in the 60's I was hassled constantly by cops for just having long hair.

I still do and still am.

 

[Dave Parker]

I still do and still am.

Yup the redneck cops around here don't like my long flowing hair to much either, one of the bad things about living in a farming community! LOL

Dave

 

[Flotsam]

Hey what's new. Back in the 60's I was hassled constantly by cops for just having long hair.

I'm still letting my freak flag fly

 

[noblebeast]

I've told you many times before, Neal - zip up your pants!

 

[avandesande]

I think that he was saying that there are plenty of legal things you can do that are morally wrong. I bet there is someone out there that could provoke you without actually doing something illegal.

This is so illogical that I swore you meant it as a joke.

If something is legal, how can doing it provoke any incident at all.

 

[joeyk49]

What I read is that she is suing, based on her Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Her detention represents a seizure of her person, which she deems to be unreasonable based on the circumstances. Based solely on what I read, so far, I concur...

The officer appears to have greatly overstepped his bounds. When faced with resistance from the photographer over the identification issue, he decided that he could not or would not back down. For this, the officer stands to lose both his house and pension in punitive damages. There is also the prospect of federal prison time for a violation of a person's civil rights. No, there's no malpractice insurance for police officers...

What interests me in the senario is the photographer's motivation to resist in the manner in which she did. Yes, she may have been right in this situation. But what was the harm in complying with his initial request for identification? The interaction would have taken all of about 1 minute; not enough time to lose her light. Produce ID, explain your purpose and the satisfied officer feels that they have done their job and move on to the next possible evil doer...

The people that make the argument that 'She was using LF gear'..., meaning, 'Terrorists would ever use LF gear to achieve their cover' are short sighted. Yes it would be unlikely that a terrorist would use LF photography as a ploy to avoid detection, but they will go to great lengths to achieve their purpose. They spend YEARS attempting to blend into a community/location/role. Why do we think that none would dream of posing as a photographer?

In times of great crisis, we must sometimes tighten our personal liberties for the greater security of our nation. In the past we have seen it in the form of rationing of resources to curfews, etc. When the crisis subsides, the restrictions loosen. The constitution has proven, time and again, a dynamic instrument by which we govern ourselves. This case will resolve itself, where it should, in the courts. I just wish that more people (in this case photographer and cop) would consider their course, before committing to it.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

In times of great crisis, we must sometimes tighten our personal liberties for the greater security of our nation. In the past we have seen it in the form of rationing of resources to curfews, etc. When the crisis subsides, the restrictions loosen. The constitution has proven, time and again, a dynamic instrument by which we govern ourselves. This case will resolve itself, where it should, in the courts. I just wish that more people (in this case photographer and cop) would consider their course, before committing to it.

We should NEVER allow our constitutionally given rights to be subsumed "temporarily" in the name of "security". Once taken away, they are very hard to get back. Look at simple things like the income tax, social welfare entitlements. Many of those were intended as temporary measures, and we're still paying for them on an ever-expanding, never-ending basis. Look what happened to Nazi Germany - it started off as a diminishment of the rights of a small portion of the citizenry. It ended up requiring a World War and 30 million dead to undo.

By giving away your rights, you give someone else power over you. Once you've given them power, why do you think they'd ever give it back when you come to them and say, "ok, I don't think you need it any more, and I'd like it back now, please"?

 

[phfitz]

Hi there,

Sorry I can not read all these posts, late for work. I did click the links but the news story is no longer there. I think everyone missed 1 point; the cop asked for I.D. and her SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER???

I would not be suing over the 4th amendment, this is racial profiling isn't it? Why else would a cop ask for a S.S. card?

Just a thought.

 

[inthedark]

I just tried to go to the story, and it is no longer avaiable. I would have to say that IF that what you say is true, phfitz; that doesn't change my opinion because though I would have produced ID, I would have thought it wrong to be asked in the first place. BUT to give my SSN?!?!! I would've assumed that the cop was a fake, and that if I gave him that info; I would next be on TV explaining how humiliated I was for having my identity stolen in a scam wherein someone posed as a cop asking for SSNs which we all know they don't do! I mean have you ever been asked that when you were pulled over for speeding or doing anything else that you knew was wrong and got caught? I've had a few tickets, I've been beaten in a public place, I've had a child with brief misdeamenor, NEVER has a SSN been asked for.