Detained for Photography in Baltimore

[beemerman2k]

I very easily could have found myself in this same situation when I visited New York City in December of '09. I was in Time Square, setting up for a shot, when a NYC police officer informed me that since 9/11, tripod use is not permitted in that city without a permit (which I still find very difficult to beleive. No one in NYC owns a tripod?! Really?). Made no sense to me, but OK, fine, I'll just hand hold my camera, which I did for the rest of my time there.

 

Oh yeah, another officer later told me that only in Times Square are tripods not allowed without a permit, but it's not because of 9/11, instead it's because there is too much traffic there and tripods will only cause problems with the free flow of movement among other pedestrians -- an explanation that makes more sense to me.

 

So what does the law really state with respect to photography and public places? Is a permit ever really required? Can such laws be implemented on a local level or are they regarded as violating our Constitutional rights? In this video, who is right and who is wrong -- the Baltimore Transit Authority Police or the Photographer?

 

- Has 9/11 and/or the Patriot Act changed the rights of photographers in public places?

 

- Is identification required upon request by law enforcement officers?

 

- Do I have the right to take pictures in public places? Where does my taking a picture of a person in a park fall within my rights versus invade that person's freedom of privacy?

 

- Do I have the right to record an exchange with law enforcement? I do remember the story of that sport biker in Maryland who went through the ringer for having his helmet cam on when the State Trooper detained him. What was the outcome of that incident?

 

- Finally (and most importantly), what policy do you exercise when taking your camera out to photograph in a public place? Have you considered these potentially legal issues? How would you have handled this situation in Baltimore?

 

Oh, a follow up on the situation in Balimore here.

[Glenn Reed]

Beemerman,

 

The MTA Administrator followed up very quickly with a complete 180 from the officers position. See Here.

 

Complete and utter cock up as far as I am concerned, and I actually ride the Light Rail from time to time. Their security usually consists of officers who check to see if you have a valid ticket or pass for that trip (it's on the honor system other than the random checks). They do nothing about the people who are violating the posted rules, and then abuse the rights of innocent train buff photographers. Makes me real proud.

 

Then there was the

He was finally fired but it took three years.

 

Here's the followup from the sportbike incident you asked about.

 

Sorry for the hijack.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Is identification required upon request by law enforcement officers?

 

My understanding is that you are required to verbally identify yourself upon request by an officer, but you are not required to provide any kind official identification. Indeed, I don't believe there is any law that requires US citizens to carry ID with you when in public. (Resident aliens with green cards are required to carry their green card with them at all times; I don't know about foreign tourists or resident aliens with just a work visa.)

 

That doesn't mean an officer will react favorably when you refuse to show official ID. This is the second case I've heard of where officers have been troublesome because someone refused to show ID; this was the first.

 

I do remember the story of that sport biker in Maryland who went through the ringer for having his helmet cam on when the State Trooper detained him. What was the outcome of that incident?

 

Judge threw out the charges six months after the fact. Linky.

 

Finally (and most importantly), what policy do you exercise when taking your camera out to photograph in a public place? Have you considered these potentially legal issues? How would you have handled this situation in Baltimore?

 

Never worried about it before. I've seen many places that require a permit and/or a fee before you use a tripod; I always assumed it was about avoiding clogging pedestrian pathways with tripods, and/or extracting a fee from tripod users (who often are using the resulting photographs for commercial purposes, e.g. calendars).

 

As for taking pics without a tripod: like Fussell, I would probably begin by merrily taking pictures, and then if cops start hassling me, I would discuss it and assert my rights as amicably as possible (to the extent that I am confident in my knowledge of those rights). However, I'm not interested in taking a step that will result in my arrest, even if I believe that threat (of arrest) to be in violation of my rights; If the officer seems about to arrest me, I'd probably back down and then file a formal complaint agsinst him after the situation had been defused.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

They do nothing about the people who are violating the posted rules, and then abuse the rights of innocent train buff photographers. Makes me real proud.

 

I laughed during the video when he pointed out (and recorded) the woman stumbling across the train tracks..

[Rocer]

Is identification required upon request by law enforcement officers?

 

 

However, I'm not interested in taking a step that will result in my arrest, ...

 

Whew! That's good 'cause we spent all the bail money on farkles!

 

Beemerman, next time use a mono-pod and confuse them

[Glenn Reed]

They do nothing about the people who are violating the posted rules, and then abuse the rights of innocent train buff photographers. Makes me real proud.

 

I laughed during the video when he pointed out (and recorded) the woman stumbling across the train tracks..

 

That's exactly the kind of thing I was talking about!

 

Regarding the police and questioning, the Supreme Court has ruled that within certain constraints, it is acceptable to lie to the person being questioned. That, coupled with the fact that there are plenty of times when officers really do not know the law (as in this case), stacks the deck against the citizen in any such conversation.

[pbbeck]

I had the same tripod conversation with police twice... once on the streets outside our Capitol Building and again outside the White House. I had been carrying my tripod on my back. The minute I set it up I was swarmed by police. In both instances, I asked the officers why tripod use was prohibited and they both admitted they had no idea.

[ESokoloff]

.....

So what does the law really state with respect to photography and public places? Is a permit ever really required? Can such laws be implemented on a local level or are they regarded as violating our Constitutional rights? .......

 

- Do I have the right to take pictures in public places? Where does my taking a picture of a person in a park fall within my rights versus invade that person's freedom of privacy?.......

Link

Link

 

 

 

[beemerman2k]

Beemerman, next time use a mono-pod and confuse them

 

Well, it gets more complicated for me given that I am a black man. Us black men and the local police don't have the most stellar relationship to fall back on . Frankly, were I so questioned, I'd probably figure, "sheesh, all you want is id? Here ya go. Can't take pictures without a permit? Not a problem and have a great day", then I'd take it up with the management afterwards.

 

Hey, every brother in this country is thinking to himself, "OK, prime directive? Do NOT become the star in the next 'Rodney King' video!" Also, that Chris Rock video out on YouTube somewhere comes to mind as well. Chris Rocks advice can be summarized as Diffuse it or lose it!

 

Oh, the other point here is that I just bought a new Manfrotto tripod and ball head from B&H Photo, so I was eager to use it. Bummer that I couldn't

[ESokoloff]

I had the same tripod conversation with police twice... once on the streets outside our Capitol Building and again outside the White House. I had been carrying my tripod on my back. The minute I set it up I was swarmed by police. In both instances, I asked the officers why tripod use was prohibited and they both admitted they had no idea.

Your right not to be harassed or restricted in movement is limited by the state’s rights to public safety, prevent interference with traffic, pedestrian movement,.......

Link

[Glenn Reed]

Beemerman, next time use a mono-pod and confuse them

 

Well, it gets more complicated for me given that I am a black man. Us black men and the local police don't have the most stellar relationship to fall back on . Frankly, were I so questioned, I'd probably figure, "sheesh, all you want is id? Here ya go. Can't take pictures without a permit? Not a problem and have a great day", then I'd take it up with the management afterwards.

 

Hey, every brother in this country is thinking to himself, "OK, prime directive? Do NOT become the star in the next 'Rodney King' video!" Also, that Chris Rock video out on YouTube somewhere comes to mind as well. Chris Rocks advice can be summarized as Diffuse it or lose it!

 

Oh, the other point here is that I just bought a new Manfrotto tripod and ball head from B&H Photo, so I was eager to use it. Bummer that I couldn't

 

Being a middle aged white guy, I cannot truly appreciate what you go through, even now. I remember even Tony Dungy got pulled over for DWB when he was in Kansas City. Link

 

I was raised to treat everyone the same irrespective of our differences. We are trying to raise our boys in the same way, and so far. it's going well, at least in that regard.

[beemerman2k]

Being a middle aged white guy, I cannot truly appreciate what you go through, even now. I remember even Tony Dungy got pulled over for DWB when he was in Kansas City. Link

 

I was raised to treat everyone the same irrespective of our differences. We are trying to raise our boys in the same way, and so far. it's going well, at least in that regard.

 

Thank you. You and the vast majority of Americans are doing a marvelous job in this respect. This is already a different country than the one I was born into back in 1959.

 

I certainly do not begrudge the police, or America in general. "Camelot", which is my view of this place, doesn't come for free. Everyone has to pay a price to make it happen. Pressing our nations conscience to live up to its ideals with respect to civil rights has been an honor placed upon me and my ancestors. Great! Having said that, I also seek to pick my battles wisely as it may be the last battle I ever get to fight! Photographs ain't that battle :smirk:

[David]

I just do whatever I want. If it's handy, I go over to an official, show them my official badge, and beg for a brief exception. Most of the time, though, I just do it. And then get in trouble, usually by the police or even one time by a high ranking gov't official in Cuba. As soon as you speak their language and carefully hand them $20-100, all is good!

[beemerman2k]

David, you are who I was thinking of when I started this thread. You go to all sorts of foreign countries and engage in some wonderful street photography. I marvel at your guts!

 

Sometimes, I'll take my camera into Boston or Hartford with the intent on taking some candid pictures of interesting people like you do, but I have yet to muster up the guts! I keep envisioning a gang of people charging me and wanting to do me harm, or worse yet, wanting to damage my camera

 

So I am glad you chimed into this thread.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

...show them my official badge...

 

:confused:

 

Your official badge?

[ghaverkamp]

Is identification required upon request by law enforcement officers?

 

My understanding is that you are required to verbally identify yourself upon request by an officer, but you are not required to provide any kind official identification. Indeed, I don't believe there is any law that requires US citizens to carry ID with you when in public. (Resident aliens with green cards are required to carry their green card with them at all times; I don't know about foreign tourists or resident aliens with just a work visa.)

 

All aliens are required to carry their alien registration information at all times.

 

As for identifying yourself to an officer, that varies by state and the circumstances. Absent a law that says otherwise, there's no reason that a person must identify himself or herself to an officer simply upon request. That law must, of course, also be legal. The Supreme Court has not looked favorably on laws that required identification in the absence of a reasonable suspicion that a crime had been or was being committed. See Brown v. Texas.

 

That said, many (most? all?) states have laws that require people to identify themselves to police officers if an officer is conducting an investigation with reasonable suspicion. The Supreme Court did uphold such laws in Hiibel.

[beemerman2k]

That said, many (most? all?) states have laws that require people to identify themselves to police officers if an officer is conducting an investigation with reasonable suspicion. The Supreme Court did uphold such laws in Hiibel.

 

Then the gamble boils down to whether a judge or a jury (should one want to take it that far) would regard your actions as a photographer in that particular public place at that particular time to validate a reasonable suspicion in the eyes of law enforcement, correct? If I'm taking pictures at the Washington Mall at noon on a Saturday in the summertime, the police would probably lose that case. If I'm taking pictures of the rear of an important federal building in that same town at 3 AM (using a tripod, of course :smirk:), the legal tide turns in their favor.

 

Is that the idea here?

[David]

...show them my official badge...

 

:confused:

 

Your official badge?

 

http://www.aipress.com/indverify.html

[ghaverkamp]

That said, many (most? all?) states have laws that require people to identify themselves to police officers if an officer is conducting an investigation with reasonable suspicion. The Supreme Court did uphold such laws in Hiibel.

 

Then the gamble boils down to whether a judge or a jury (should one want to take it that far) would regard your actions as a photographer in that particular public place at that particular time to validate a reasonable suspicion in the eyes of law enforcement, correct? If I'm taking pictures at the Washington Mall at noon on a Saturday in the summertime, the police would probably lose that case. If I'm taking pictures of the rear of an important federal building in that same town at 3 AM (using a tripod, of course ), the legal tide turns in their favor.

 

Is that the idea here?

 

It's potentially worse than that. The states have different requirements to permit the stop and demand for identification. A jury is likely going to be presented with those requirements in their instructions instructions and aren't going to be asked to make an actual legal decision rising to the "reasonable suspicion" standard. That would have to be challenged separately.

 

As for the times of day, the standard is a reasonable suspicion that you're committing or have recently committed a crime. It's not just that find you suspicious generally. "Reasonable" is a term of art.

 

In the end, as with all of these things, the question is about how eager you are to exercise your rights and suffer the potential consequences. Even if you're right and there is no reasonable suspicion for you to be detained or questioned, you're unlikely to be compensated for the loss of time and stress you'd encounter.

[upflying]

Take a photo any time you want of anything in a public place.

Gray area happens when you take photos with upward facing lenses on the tip of your shoe or children when the intent is for sexual gratification.

Other gray areas have to do with national security such as military installations or taking pictures of employees outside the CIA building.

Cops get upset if they see people taking pictures of them but it's not illegal if done in public.

Some professional venues obviously don't want you recording or taking pictures if they could be used for profit.

Just go along and cooperate with a LEO if asked for ID. If the LEO violated your civil rights by detaining you without probable cause, seek an explanation from a supervisor. Often people misinterpret lawful police activity.

[Quinn]

So, what happens if I'm taking pictures of people coming out of the courthouse? Or people coming out of the police station? Children getting off a school bus? Is there an intimidation factor to consider?

 

Also, can I anounce that I'm going to record our conversation to the policeman and then proceed to do so?

 

-----

 

 

[ghaverkamp]

Also, can I anounce that I'm going to record our conversation to the policeman and then proceed to do so?

 

You should consider the circumstances, and you need to check the laws of the state you're in. I wouldn't do it in Illinois.

[DiggerJim]

You should consider the circumstances, and you need to check the laws of the state you're in. I wouldn't do it in Illinois.

So this ( linky) would be a no-go huh?

[Huzband]

Shoulda taken a picture of the cop. With a macro of his badge for bonus points.

[upflying]

So, what happens if I'm taking pictures of people coming out of the courthouse? Or people coming out of the police station? Children getting off a school bus? Is there an intimidation factor to consider?

 

Also, can I anounce that I'm going to record our conversation to the policeman and then proceed to do so?

 

-----

 

Any time I have a citizen contact, I do so with the expectation I am being recorded. In fact, I turn on my own recorder when I contact some citizens.

Taking pictures of people in a public place is legal. It gets iffy depending on what your intent is for taking the photos.

Some people may not want their photos taken so expect confrontations if you take a close up. Telephoto is your friend.

[ESokoloff]

[......

Some people may not want their photos taken so expect confrontations if you take a close up. Telephoto is your friend.

Ya think? (Warning: may be offensive)

 

[longjohn]

 

 

Taking pictures of people in a public place is legal. It gets iffy depending on what your intent is for taking the photos.

Some people may not want their photos taken so expect confrontations if you take a close up. Telephoto is your friend.

If you're on the beach in certain OC cities with a dslr, expect to be stopped, as they require permits because of the amount of weddings that happen there. With a pro-looking cam they figure you're a pro and should pay the license fee.

 

I wanted to take some bird pics on VA property recently and thought I would check into it first, and they require some paper work, but no fees.

 

I wouldn't take pics of the building at 11000 Wilshire.

[casticus]

Has to post the link to the Chris Rock video....Tried like heck to get our PIO to just use this when they were putting together video clips of examples of resist and obstruct a Police Officer but they wouldn't do it :-)

 

 

 

[beemerman2k]

Thank you, David. That was very helpful. I was careful to take good notes this time.

[Matts_12GS]

Well, it gets more complicated for me given that I am a black man. Us black men and the local police don't have the most stellar relationship to fall back on . Frankly, were I so questioned, I'd probably figure, "sheesh, all you want is id? Here ya go. Can't take pictures without a permit? Not a problem and have a great day", then I'd take it up with the management afterwards.

 

Being a person of pallor, I have used that very same approach for nearly 50 years. I wish everyone was possessed of such "common" sense.