Our rights have disintegrated in more ways than just taking pictures. We are helpless in today’s society. We are lied to by government officials on a constant in order to help progress their cause, all the while surrendering the very foundation upon which this country was built: Freedom. We are not free– we are simply told we are. The most effective way of controlling a people is by leading them to believe they are free when they are not. Not to preach, but c’mon. This cop was digging for trouble just as much as the photographer. Let him learn his lesson.

I agree that you don’t have to explain what you’re doing. My point is that a simple and polite response might not be required by law, but it is by manners. The officer seemed respectful enough (to me) at the onset. If he’d led off by being a prick my response would be quite different.

It’s legal for me to take a photo of your house. If you came out and asked me why I was doing so it would seem reasonable for me to give you some assurance that I was not up to no good. Although I have my rights, giving you a little peace of mind costs me nothing, so what the hell. There is a legal issue here to be sure, but there is also an issue of manners. It’s best not to loose sight of either.

well said and perfectly summed up in one short sentence

In Seattle the first thing that might get you is a $150 fine for not having a permit to make commercial photos in a park or on a street.

It is perfectly legal to make pictures for yourself for no money almost any place you can think of. There is no need for justification.

In Washington you do not have to provide ID for any reason other than you are operating a motor vehicle. Not true in other states as per state law.

Recently, because Seattle police have lost every battle that has gone to the courts over restricting photography they went through a little retraining. I suppose this happened because the city got tired of paying out tens of thousands of dollars in awards.

The training says you can expect to be photographed doing your job any time. any place. And to leave photographers alone.

Lack of civility doesn’t further anyone’s agenda, and certainly not that of the photographic community at large. How many times does the officer say “I’m trying to determine if you are committing a crime”. Poorly worded yes, but a big difference from saying “you are committing a crime”.

There definitely are times when a photographer is unjustly prevented from taking photos. This isn’t one of them.

Rosa Parks? Oh please! The officer here was simply investigating what was going on, which is exactly what he is charged with doing. He even said ‘if you would simply explain that you like the mosaics… everyone would simply go on doing what they were doing’ (paraphrased).

Personal note: I was out on a country road at midnight in the winter. It was drizzling and foggy and I felt it was a great opportunity to make a photograph of the general store. Naturally the only cop in town pulls up just as I’m about to make an exposure. As his window goes down I say “just another crazy photographer shooting pictures in the dark, freezing his ass off”. He breaks out laughing, waves and drives away.

seems like the police were well within their power to demand ID and ask questions. they didn’t arrest him.

the photographer got all hung up about being detained and the request for ID, and he should have just handed them a printout on the subway’s rules.

yes, they weren’t 100% professional with the FBI references, nd they didn’t have 100% information, but that’s the way the world works.

no reason to pick a fight.

seems like the police were well within their power to demand ID and ask questions. they didn’t arrest him or stop him from taking photos, did they? nope. they just asked a few questions.

yes, they weren’t 100% professional, and they didn’t have 100% information, but that’s the way the world works.

next time, the photographer should have a handout on the subway rules.

He was riding the Metro home from Hollywood/Highland, one of the major tourist/shopping spots in Hollywood (directly above a Metro station), which must have been an amazing photo op on Halloween, even the Metro employees were wearing costumes.

He wasn’t planning a confrontation, he wears a clip on Vievu camera in plain sight and lets it run while doing street photography. He got off at the Hollywood/Western station because he lives a few blocks away. He was EXITING the station and the video shows he raised his camera and snapped 2 photos of the newly installed turnstiles (a topic of interest/debate in LA right now) all wrapped up in caution tape, when the deputies came from somewhere behind him and shouted no photography was allowed. He didn’t see them prior to that.

Missing from the shorter video is Shawn explaining he shoots a photos for an eventual book (which he also explains is why he shoots film). I suppose some people will criticize him for not blurting that out at the beginning as an explanation for taking the shots, but I think the point was that he was doing something legal and allowed by Metro rules and short any other behavior that might be deemed suspicious or criminal, he shouldn’t have to justify his photography, especially to an officer who is basically stating he has no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and wants to go on a fishing trip to find some.

1) Cops makeup the law as they go… And they just can’t stand it when the actual law doesn’t support their inquiry.
Basically, if it’s legal to stand some place it’s legal to take pictures. The military and department of energy have made it illegal to stand some places around their playfrounds.

2) The pseudo government agencies (transit, parks, highway departments) have made it “illegal” by administrative code (not statute) to be in a transit station (that taxpayers paid for) without having a paid for a ticket to ride. So if you buy a ticket it’s legal to stand in a train station. (Marginal constitutional violation here… putting a quid pro quo on your first amendment rights.) Once it’s legal to stand there it’s legal to photograph…

Same thing with the idea that you have to have “permits” to engage in constitutionally protected activities.

3) Creating “reasonable suspicion” or “probable cause” out of thin air when the observed activity is inherently NOT illegal. This is called “jumping to conclusions” and police are trained to NOT do this…. But they do it all the time. I don’t know what the solution to this is because a “gut feeling” can payoff a lot of times in nabbing a real criminal…. But they are NOT supposed to do this.

Additionally, cops are not the finders of fact. Even if the photos were for a terrorist group that is not within the police department’s ability to determine. Nor is it their legal right to inquire. Since the underlying activity is NOT illegal the case can never go to court which IS the proper place to find fact.

Photographing people in public has been part of the photographer’s arsenal for over 125 years. The “terrorism” bug that has been up this nation’s ass since 9/11 has provided an excuse to employ thousands of security badge wearing goons to enforce a sense of security in every location from public libraries to train stations. Most of these very bored officers have nothing to do all day, and they seem to relish the excitement of exerting their authority and making innocent people feel powerless. In the end, nobody is actually any safer, and our civil liberties and right to freely roam and create pictures is hampered and harassed.

In reality, photography is one of the best ways to defuse terror because it opens up understanding and communications between people all over the world. Flickr is where the Israeli photographer befriends the Pakistani photographer. Photography only puts fear at risk.

PS. I thought killing whales and dolphins was illegal ;)

That leaves c30,000 terrorists out there.

I was refused entry into the Naval Academy Annapolis because I was a member of the media, unless I had an escort. Meanwhile, visitors from overseas with passports were allowed through the pass gate with their cameras hanging from their necks. And that could surely be considered more of a “terrorist target” than the L.A. subway. If the subways are such a threat to national security, drag in more jersey walls and conduct personal searches before you board the next train.

Why answer their questions at all?

Anything you say WILL be held against you; not may, but WILL.

As soon as you answer questions you automatically consent and submit to their authority; you go into a contract with the police.

NEVER go into contract with the police, as then you are always in the ’spider web’.

Keep your mouth SHUT.

Here are some food for thought:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE8rfefPQ24

If I was lawfully taking pictures on public property, I think it would be in my best interest to answer an officer’s questions about what was doing. I’d be as polite, cooperative, and diplomatic about it as possible, even if what I was doing was perfectly legal.

I think we can all learn from David’s experience:
http://davidbram.blogspot.com/2008/02/questioned-by-fbi-and-police.html

And as far as suspicion is concerned… Believe it or not, I have been pulled over while driving late a night without having violated any law. This has happened at least a few times. Each time, the officers admitted that I had not done anything wrong, but they just wanted to check me out to make sure that I wasn’t doing anything suspicious. Sometimes, they never know if unless they ask questions. I just see it as a part of their job.

I did like the idea of having the website handy on the phone.