This policy is no surprise to me---It follows the law, taking pictures in not against the law and a camera is private property. Law Enforcement can't arbitrarily and capriciously take property with out cause. Now they really can push what probable cause is to arrest you then take it, but that is a whole different issue.
I think you mean that they may not -- but in fact, they do anyways in many cases, especially when the citizenry knows no better. This, of course, is why a clarification of the law is a welcome move by the police force.
I think you mean that they may not -- but in fact, they do anyways in many cases, especially when the citizenry knows no better. This, of course, is why a clarification of the law is a welcome move by the police force.
I did read it, but I still suspect that in many cases police would order photos destroyed even if they were entirely unwilling to actually arrest people. That is, they might not desire to arrest anyone, but would order people to stop shooting anyways.
I try to imagine that cops are not malicious enough to fabricate reasons for arrest, but are rather usually acting out of ignorance...
Many years ago in Oakland, CA, my old photo professor (a street photographer) was arrested and tossed in jail because he "accidently" photographed a policeman -- who just happened to be taking a bribe from a pimp at the time. Fortunately the professor used his one call to call a city official he knew and was released (without the film).
So guidelines or no guidelines, WYA (watch your a**).