The Creeping Sovietization of America

[DEB]

Not sure how a friendly, casual, and professional investigative contact got spun into Gestapo making arrests...

Are you guys for real? This officer wasn't a jerk, and didn't arrest anyone. What he did was his job, something peaked his curiosity and he checked it out. No rights were violated. I have caught house burglars and crack dealers the same way - something caught my attention and I made contact. The photography of critical infrastructure will always set off some (even low level) alarms with LEOs as this type of surveillance is conducted by terrorists. So, we are tasked with the job of checking it out. Thats literally all that occurred.

Also a temporary detention, or even consensual contact (which is more what it seemed like) is not an arrest.

Temporary detention? Doesn't that mean I cannot leave and am kept from doing so through the power of the Law? Also, didn't I read where the police officer took his identification and ran it? What would have occurred if he didn't have identification or if he refused to be Id'd? Also, what exactly is consensual contact, especially between L.E. and non-L.E? Being free, at least to me, requires some danger to my safety and well being as well as the safety of my Nation. I really dislike being told that the reason I must loose rights that I once had, is for the safety of (fill in the blank). I know that this can be picked apart, but hopefully my intent is understood. Being able to keep and bear arms also means that there will always be bad guys who will do the same. Me being able to discuss my politics means that even communists will be able to discuss theirs, I understand and am willing to accept these premises, as removing these rights to discuss politics openly will probably mean at least a semi-dictatorship and the loss of my ability to have firearms means I am less free to effect my own destiny/safety. But that said, Kudos to all police officers, their's is a tough and demanding profession, especially in a free society.

[Slowplay]

I've not found many working in "enforcement" or "security administration" positions that believe new SOPs (that us "subjects" might find a bit too intrusive) to be much of a big deal. Rather, new and more pervasive activities are mostly welcomed as necessary tools to address new threats. Unless, of course, they deal with enforcing existing immigration laws - those are often viewed as "extreme."

[VMI77]

The photography of critical infrastructure will always set off some (even low level) alarms with LEOs as this type of surveillance is conducted by terrorists. So, we are tasked with the job of checking it out. Thats literally all that occurred.

This is the claim frequently made to justify questioning photographers. I've never seen any evidence to substantiate this claim, and if defies logic. None of the terrorist attacks in the US needed photos to occur. Maybe there is some terrorist attack somewhere that relied on photos --if so, can you please provide a reference? If a terrorist does need photos and can't get them on the internet, he can take them surreptitiously, and the police will be none the wiser. Americans openly taking photos of refineries aren't "terrorists." Furthermore, the same rationale has been used to question people taking photos of things like hog farms. If hog farms are "critical infrastructure" then everything is. Critical infrastructure is another vague and largely meaningless term.

Terrorists don't generally attack things like refineries --they attack soft targets rich in potential victims. But you don't need a photo to drive a truck bomb into a refinery even if they did. What kind of attack suits a terrorist's purpose better, and is much easier to stage: damaging a refinery and maybe killing a few refinery workers, or walking into a school or shopping mall with AK-47's and shooting everyone they see? Refineries blow themselves up with some regularity --does it have any effect on the country has a whole? Terrorists don't have the logistical capability or the inclination to target infrastructure, and it makes no sense to do so when it's easier to hit a soft target and will produce a greater effect on the targeted population. If they blow up a refinery the only people who will notice the increased security are the people who work at refineries, if they shoot up a school or a mall, something like x-ray machines at the mall will be noticed by just about everyone.

The objective of terrorism is to create terror because terrorists don't have the resources to destroy enough infrastructure to achieve their objectives.

There's more to the Gestapo than actually arresting people --what people are alluding to here is an environment where you're not free to go about your business without having to answer questions from the authorities --IOW, we don't want a "your papers please" society. Philosophically, if I'm legally taking photos it's none of your business, and I shouldn't have to answer your questions or show you my photos so you won't arrest me. As a practical matter, if the police ask me such questions I will answer, and I will show them my photos, because I don't want to be arrested or have a confrontation when I've done nothing wrong. That's not freedom.

BTW, you no doubt have arrested burglars because you saw something suspicious --but where are all the terrorist photographer arrests? How many "terrorists" have been arrested by police questioning Americans taking photos? When I do an internet search I find incident after incident of stopping and questioning photographers both here and in the UK, but don't see any terrorists being arrested as a result.

Then there's this:

According to security expert Bruce Schneier, head of security technology for British Telecom, terrorists don't typically photograph targets in advance. "Look at the 9/11 attacks, the Moscow and London subway bombings, the Fort Hood shooting--no photos," he says. "I'm not seeing a whole lot of plots that hinge on photography." On his blog, Schneier advises: "If you're harassed, it's almost certainly a law enforcement official, public or private, acting way beyond his authority."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... ck=main_sr

[PUCKER]

It reminds me of the phrase: "Your papers, please"....now where have I heard that??? Is there a head-scratching icon?

[Dave2]

It reminds me of the phrase: "Your papers, please"....now where have I heard that??? Is there a head-scratching icon?

[G26ster]

Please explain the hypocrisy, because like TAM, I don't call the police on people because they asked me for a ride or told me a story trying to get money. I'm creeping up there in years now and have never called the police to report "suspicious" activity. Like TAM, the consequences of someone not passing my personal smell test may be for me to say no to giving them a ride, or to drive away as a precaution --I don't call the police. If I see someone committing, or about to commit a crime, like entering a stop-and-rob wearing a mask and pointing an AK-47, I'll call the police. I don't call the police because someone is not doing anything illegal but I don't like their looks and think they might. And if everyone calls the police whenever they think something is suspicious, usually out of their own ignorance (including mine, which is why I don't do it), the police will spend most of their time chasing phantoms.

I used the term "you" in the sense of "us vs. them." Not trying to be person specific. You and I are in complete agreement, as I pointed to threads on this forum when I said, "It was most members opinion that the posters was/would be correct in calling 911, and to let the law sort it out." The posters suggested this as the correct action because "they" were suspicious, and not because someone broke the law. My point is that, if their actions were correct, but they took offense to others questioning their activities (photographing a refinery, etc.), that would be hypocrisy.

[Medic624]

See... Now THIS is a nice debate and interesting to read...

But, given the article and supposition of intent to commit a crime(at some future time) based soley on suspicion arising from the photographed object, place, that can be loosely determined as part of some "infrastructure" then we're all in trouble. This coupled with the "determined to have no aesthetic value" aspect allows for way too much latitude on the part of whatever governmental entity is given authority to make the determination to unlawfully detain me with no probable cause other than a "well sir you were taking a picture!"

Where does it end?

This is simply a large mass of the general populous sitting by mindlessly nodding their heads and wringing their hands parroting the so called leaders when they stand at the podium spouting rhetoric screaming safety and promoting fear!

"WE NEED TO KEEP YOU SAFE! WE WILL STOP THESE TERRORISTS BEFORE THEY HAVE A CHANCE TO HARM YOU"

Sheeple..."Yes, yes we will be safer and you will stop them..."

This way of life and thinking can and has previously devolved to complete loss of freedom and total governmental control.

Rights are not taken in one fell swoop they are incrementally chipped away under the guise of safety and what is determined to be needed for the collective. The reality of it is this is simply a means to undermine the freedoms of the people until so many rights have been eroded that we allow a single entity to control ANY and ALL aspects of life because we are SAFER that way! Sadly, the people who then speak out and maybe even rise up are labeled as subversives and a threat and are dealt with accordingly! Ie...Iran, Syria, Iraq (under Saadam), Pol Pot... Hitler...

It's not a far walk...and it is done surreptitiously and without fanfare until a tipping point and some catalyst allows Marshal Law and then who knows... History has proven this many times and yet the playbook never changes.
Anyone report their neighbor to the White House website?!? Or seen the new DHS video on "Who can be a terrorist?"

But... Thank God we will ALL be safer!

Just better not go on vacation and take a picture of Hoover Dam or the White House... But if ya do use a disposable camera so if they confiscate it it's not too much of a loss...

[Heartland Patriot]

Not sure how a friendly, casual, and professional investigative contact got spun into Gestapo making arrests...

Are you guys for real? This officer wasn't a jerk, and didn't arrest anyone. What he did was his job, something peaked his curiosity and he checked it out. No rights were violated. I have caught house burglars and crack dealers the same way - something caught my attention and I made contact. The photography of critical infrastructure will always set off some (even low level) alarms with LEOs as this type of surveillance is conducted by terrorists. So, we are tasked with the job of checking it out. Thats literally all that occurred.

Also a temporary detention, or even consensual contact (which is more what it seemed like) is not an arrest.

For ME personally, I think the difference in all of this is whether YOU as an LEO are making use of YOUR personal investigative training as a normal part of your job versus some overarching, enshrined-in-policy plan to limit the rights of citizens on a systematic basis as part of "just in case". I have very little bad to say against LEOs in general. I WANT you folks out there catching murderers, rapists, thieves and other assort bad guys. What I do NOT want is some Federal level policy, even if unwritten, that says that all photographers (the current point of this discussion) MUST be searched or SHOULD be searched or MUST be questioned or SHOULD be questioned. And I also understand how policies that SUGGEST that you do something becomes you MUST do something. In the USAF, a general might suggest something, a colonel would say probably should, and so on and so forth, and by the time it was down at unit level, you darned well better or its your hide...THAT is the sort of stuff I don't want going on. And the evidence that it was intended as such in this case is the filling out of that form...if they want it down on paper, they want to track it and ensure it is being complied with...I hope you can see the difference between what you are talking about and what we are talking about in regards to the original post.

[gigag04]

Probable cause isn't necessary for detention.

Photographs have been used to recon targets. They've been found in apartments in suburbia, and in the caves of A-Stan.

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when you're out shooting photos in a public place.

All the actions of the officer and dept that are mentioned here are within constitutional boundaries per SCOTUS. TAM - I may appear way off base, and I don't intend to get cross ways with you. I'm rather informed and up to date on these issues. Working in an area with a major university, and airport, and a nuclear installation, I've had a good bit of training regarding site security. I also balance that with keeping tabs on my arrest, search, and siezure case law. This isn't a hobby for me, or an interest to interact about online, this is my working life.

I respect the complaints from the photography community. We both have jobs to do, and a little professionalism from both sides goes a long way to dispell bad feelings.

[Oldgringo]

My Heavens! Aren't we testy today? It must be the heat...or something?

[Medic624]

Probable cause isn't necessary for detention.

Huh, look I applaud and am very grateful for the mostly thankless job you do daily. that being said, I don't profess to know spit about law or police work and I'm not saying you don't know your job but in this type of instance and after some research I believe there is a distinct difference between this being a "Probable Cause" stop as opposed to a "Reasonable Suspicion" stop.

So, for others who are not a LEO who (like me) didn't know the difference...

By definition Probable Cause according to Lectric Law Library it is "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime".

And or, information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)"

I do not believe simply standing outside a fence taking pictures constitutes "Probable Cause" under the definition and if used solely is an infraction of my 4th amendment rights... But, see...this has been addressed and possibly taken care of by the definition of "Reasonable Suspicion" if by the totality of evidence may provide a rational "hunch" that some crime is taking place.

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' "; it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts".

Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such a detention is known as a Terry stop.

If police additionally have reasonable suspicion that a person so detained may be armed, they may "frisk" the person for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; it depends upon the totality of circumstances, and can result from a combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous.

In Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person can be stopped and briefly detained by a peace officer based on a reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime. If the officer additionally has reasonable suspicion that the person is armed, the officer may perform a search of the person's outer garments for weapons. Such a detention does not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizure, though it must be brief. Reasonable suspicion does not provide grounds for arrest; however, an arrest can be made if facts discovered during the detention provide probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime.

Good, bad or indifferent SCOTUS says we can be stopped, BRIEFLY detained and SUPERFICIALLY searched based solely on suspicion that we MAY be committing a crime by simply standing around taking pics.

[gigag04]

Medic - thank you for taking time to post all that out!

[VMI77]

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' "; it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts".

Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such a detention is known as a Terry stop.

If police additionally have reasonable suspicion that a person so detained may be armed, they may "frisk" the person for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; it depends upon the totality of circumstances, and can result from a combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous.

In Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person can be stopped and briefly detained by a peace officer based on a reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime. If the officer additionally has reasonable suspicion that the person is armed, the officer may perform a search of the person's outer garments for weapons. Such a detention does not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizure, though it must be brief. Reasonable suspicion does not provide grounds for arrest; however, an arrest can be made if facts discovered during the detention provide probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime.

Good, bad or indifferent SCOTUS says we can be stopped, BRIEFLY detained and SUPERFICIALLY searched based solely on suspicion that we MAY be committing a crime by simply standing around taking pics.

I disagree with your interpretation. Note, in every single case you cite here "suspicion" goes together with "crime." The suspicion is to related to possible criminal activity. Taking photos is not a crime, and there is no reasonable way to draw a conclusion, solely based on the fact that someone is taking photographs in a public place, that such a person is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity. Looking through binoculars is not a crime either, nor is drawing pictures or taking notes, so by the standard you relate here, there is no basis for detaining people for any of these activities.

[VMI77]

Photographs have been used to recon targets. They've been found in apartments in suburbia, and in the caves of A-Stan.

Some Muslim guys that got caught in an FBI sting may have photos in their apartment --that's not the issue. The first relevant question is this: how were these photos obtained? Were they downloaded off the internet, taken surreptitiously, or did they openly stand out in public taking photos with DSLR's? The next question is, how many times, out of all the times American citizens have been stopped and questioned about openly taking photographs, has a "terrorist" been arrested as a result of public photography? I can't find any mention of such arrests in internet searches. I'd be happy to see some evidence for them.

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when you're out shooting photos in a public place.

I don't understand the relevance of this statement, except for the fact that it is the major reason why taking photographs in public places is legal. However, you seem to be suggesting that "no reasonable expectation of privacy" translates into police power to question or detail people for any reason whatsoever, without regard to whether or not they are engaged in "suspicious" activity.

[Ameer]

Talking has been used to plan crimes. Are they questioning everyone talking in public too?