Problems with Police

[Kevin Stecyk]

Out of curiousity, have others experienced problems with photographing police during their duties? If so, how have you handled it?

Why am I asking? Because of a fellow Flickr member's encounter. You can read more here and here.

Just curious as to your experiences and thoughts.

 

[John Angulat]

Hi Kevin,
We discussed this to some degree back in January, here's a link to the thread:
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10954

One of the greatest hinderences to discussion on this subject is the wide variety of laws.
Here in the U.S. what might be permitted (or tolerated) in one state or city may never be allowed for example, in Chicago or New York.
The same holds true in Europe. What may be acceptable in Denmark might (probably) cause you a problem in the U.K.

Personally, I try never to intentionally target the police in my images.
I shoot on the street but I'm not a photojournalist, so there's no need to exacerbate an already touchy situation.
Even so, I've been stopped, forbidden, harrassed and even detained. How often? I've lost count.
But then again, I shoot in New York City.

 

[Cedric MASSOULIER]

Hi,

It is currently quite hard to make pictures in some places of Paris, as "social guerilla" is still very strong and police a bit nervous

Regards,

Cedric.

 

[Kevin Stecyk]

Personally, I try never to intentionally target the police in my images.
I shoot on the street but I'm not a photojournalist, so there's no need to exacerbate an already touchy situation.
Even so, I've been stopped, forbidden, harrassed and even detained. How often? I've lost count.
But then again, I shoot in New York City.

Thank you for the link to the prior thread.

What are your coping mechanisms for dealing with the police when you are detained? Do you specifically ask them if you are being detained? And once you are released, are there any follow-up actions?

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi,

It is currently quite hard to make pictures in some places of Paris, as "social guerilla" is still very strong and police a bit nervous

Regards,

Cedric.

This is a great point! The police can get nervous. Sometimes they might feel empowered to bully the photographer. One has to sense how far one can go or else have the unfortunate occurrence of an officer losing it and being physically abusive.

In the USA, I'll take picture from a distance where cannot be accused of interference or obstruction.

In some countries I've been to, annoying the police, let alone arguing could mean you just get cained on the spot or else vanish for ever.

Asher

 

[John Angulat]

Kevin, Cedric, Asher -
Yes, the police are nervous. Considerinng what may await them in today's world, they have every right to be.
Can some be overly aggressive, push boundries, etc.?
Yes, but you'll find they represent a very, very small segment.
A little respect and communication more often than not helps.
For instance - if I'm shooting in Grand Central Terminal I'll always seek out a patrol officer.
I'll introduce myself and let him/her know I'll be wandering around taking candid images.
I offer a business card.
It's not necessary nor required, but the act is an ice-breaker and now they know my face.
The same holds true on the street.

Most individuals who have been "harassed" are shooting images of a police activity, action or other confrontation.
If you're not a member of the working press don't stick your nose into other people's (read: police) business.
Move on or shoot from a discreet distance.
What angers me most are the various "photo activists" and their websites lamenting the loss of liberties and freedoms.
More often than not they're shooting solely to provoke a confrontation.

Kevin, you asked "what are my coping mechanisms if detained?".
Again, politeness, an explanation of what I was doing, an offer to show all the images on my camera, etc.
Also, a certain amount of "tongue-in-cheek" humor helps.
I ask them "how any terrorists have you seen wearing a photography vest, dragging around a too-large Domke bag full of gear, pockets stuffed with business cards and crumpled model releases?"

Now for disclosure.
My father was a New York City police officer, as were two of my uncles.
Growing up, my next door neighbors (and my two best friend's fathers) were both police officers.
I know what they feel. I know what they expect.
Usually, it's just a little respect.

Sorry for the long ramble...

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Kevin, Cedric, Asher -
Yes, the police are nervous. Considerinng what may await them in today's world, they have every right to be.
Can some be overly aggressive, push boundries, etc.?
Yes, but you'll find they represent a very, very small segment.
A little respect and communication more often than not helps.

Hi John,

I fully agree. However, since we are on a slippery slope of diminishing civil liberties, we also need to make sure that the officers know their 'stuff' and we don't give up our rights without a 'fight'. Being aware of one's rights is a significant part of it, so we need to educate ourselves as much as the officials need to be.

For instance - if I'm shooting in Grand Central Terminal I'll always seek out a patrol officer.
I'll introduce myself and let him/her know I'll be wandering around taking candid images.
I offer a business card.

While a great way to defuse a situation before it gets out of hand, it should not get out of hand in the first place!

Kevin, you asked "what are my coping mechanisms if detained?".
Again, politeness, an explanation of what I was doing, an offer to show all the images on my camera, etc.

While understandable, you do realise that you are giving up your constitutional rights?

Say, as a thought experiment (so I'm going to exaggerate a bit, or do I), you accidentially/unintentionally got in one of your street images you are voluntarily showing the image of a child in a pose (it even doesn't need to be the main subject) that could (only by adults) be construed to be sexually offensive, you could now be prosecuted for ... . By waiving your rights, you may incriminate yourself in unforseen ways ...

The "don't talk to cops 1 and 2" YouTube videos should speak for themselves. You have nothing to gain, but everything to lose.

Let's not be paranoid, but certainly not naive either. We have more to lose than to gain, so be vigilant. Public outcry has caused some relief for innocent photographers, in the sense of more clear directives for law enforcement officers, but only because of the public outcry!

Cheers,
Bart

 

[Kevin Stecyk]

Can some be overly aggressive, push boundries, etc.?
Yes, but you'll find they represent a very, very small segment.
A little respect and communication more often than not helps.
For instance - if I'm shooting in Grand Central Terminal I'll always seek out a patrol officer.
I'll introduce myself and let him/her know I'll be wandering around taking candid images.
I offer a business card.
It's not necessary nor required, but the act is an ice-breaker and now they know my face.
The same holds true on the street.

That's an interesting approach. But I like the ability to be anonymous and not having to feel as though I need to identify myself. I don't like the idea of having my name thrown in some police database somewhere.

Most individuals who have been "harassed" are shooting images of a police activity, action or other confrontation.
If you're not a member of the working press don't stick your nose into other people's (read: police) business.
Move on or shoot from a discreet distance.
What angers me most are the various "photo activists" and their websites lamenting the loss of liberties and freedoms.
More often than not they're shooting solely to provoke a confrontation.

While that might be true, I am certainly not seeking to confront the police or get in their way. That said, we have all seen newsclips of where authorities overstepped their authority.

In Canada, the RCMP repeatedly tasered Robert Dziekanski, a new immigrant to Canada. He died while not understanding why the police were acting so aggressively. Had some citizen not captured the scene on his cell phone video, the RCMP's story would have prevailed.

This one episode taught me that one should be vigilant. It doesn't mean all cops are bad. I am sure most of them were equally horrified by what transpired.

Kevin, you asked "what are my coping mechanisms if detained?".
Again, politeness, an explanation of what I was doing, an offer to show all the images on my camera, etc.
Also, a certain amount of "tongue-in-cheek" humor helps.
I ask them "how any terrorists have you seen wearing a photography vest, dragging around a too-large Domke bag full of gear, pockets stuffed with business cards and crumpled model releases?"

While I admire your professionalism and willingness to be kind, it still bothers me that innocent people must go out of their way to prove their innocence. In the referenced links in my initial post, the photographer took photos from a public vantage point. I have difficulty comprehending why the police even bothered to speak with him. He's within his right--so whatever.

I do agree with you that if approached, politeness and an explanation can go along way. I'd never show attitude. People are already on edge with plenty of adrenalin flowing.

Though I do not like the idea of showing my images, it's something to consider. Is the showing of my images worth diffusing uncertainty and anger?

I guess my concern might be if I were asked to delete my images. Then what?

Now for disclosure.
My father was a New York City police officer, as were two of my uncles.
Growing up, my next door neighbors (and my two best friend's fathers) were both police officers.
I know what they feel. I know what they expect.
Usually, it's just a little respect.

Again, I agree with the respect and drop the attitude long before things escalate.

Thank you John for responding to my question. You've given me food for thought.

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I guess my concern might be if I were asked to delete my images. Then what?

In my book that's an escaleded situation already (because someone is overstepping their authority). That is assuming it takes place in public space, not on private property.

From there on, the only sensible thing to say seems to be:
"Are you detaining me officer, or am I free to go now?" Only police officers could consider doing that, not security personnel.

This forces a decision on the officer. When he/she in in doubt, the situation will not be pushed, when the officers errs, things may escalate, but without legal consequences for you.

When things potentially escalate, you respond with "I don't consent to any searches (, officer)". This will raise the stake for them. The moment they then do search your property, let alone destroy evidence(!), they've lost.

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. I've only been stopped by security personnel so far, not law enforcement officers (a polite greeting by me, and a smile(!), from a distance tends to avoid that), let alone be detained (although I wouldn't mind it if I had the time to ride it out, they cannot win unless I was deliberately obstructing their work, which they first should warn me about).

 

[Kevin Stecyk]

Bart,

Good response. My concern is that the police might seize your camera for evidence and then suddenly your pictures go missing.

Quoting from the first linked page on my first post in this thread (see here):

Q: Is threat to keep a camera for a year consistent with CPS policy?

A: It is not unusual for a camera or recording device to be kept until trial if the device itself was evidence in a case and the case took a year to proceed through the courts.

Q: If photos are only on a removable flash card, can the photographer keep and hold onto the camera?

A: Only officers trained to access and obtain this data can complete this task. Electronic data is very sensitive and generally speaking quite easy to accidently delete. This data needs to be accessed, retrieved and stored by a qualified technician to ensure the integrity of the evidence being sought.

Q: If police do delete an image that’s illegal to possess, is it policy to always first preserve a copy for evidence (in case the deletion is disputed in court)?

A: If someone had an image that was illegal to possess (ie child pornography), it would be incumbent of the investigating officer to preserve that image as it would establish the basis of the offence (in this case…possessing child pornography).

Q: If/when a police officer is attempting to destroy evidence that could be used in a court of law, and I'm trying to keep it, I want to know what I'm supposed to do, which allows preservation of the evidence, but doesn't get my arrested, or physically harmed. As you may have read, I wanted to provide a copy of all the images to the police, and to date, I haven't any idea of what I could have done differently, that would have let me keep my property and allowed the police to collected evidence for the courts.

A: An officer cannot force you to delete an image. If an officer has requested a person to delete an image, they could inform him that they would not. There is no risk to this person, other than potentially getting their camera seized, but this would only occur in cases where images were being requested and not for the purpose of being deleted.

[emphasis added]

If I were to have a disagreement with a police officer over shots taken, the last thing I want to do is turn over my camera and its images. I have zero confidence that the pictures would be maintained. Again, the RCMP debacle made a strong impression.

Once your camera and its data are gone, then it becomes a "he said, she said" argument. My ~guess~ is that the courts are generally sympathetic to police.

There doesn't seem to be easy answers.

 

[Kevin Stecyk]

Here's an interesting blog post about surrendering your identification: Don’t Hand Over That ID!

Please note that the opening image in the blog post is not safe for work (NSFW).