TexasCHLforum.com

Actually there a few subject matters that are against the law. Think children...

Medic624 wrote:If ya boil it down simplistically the LEO sees something that piques their interest they make contact based on the totality of the circumstance (insert situation) and that is now a reasonable suspicion stop.

Maybe...but restricting someone's liberty, even if during an investigative detention (not free to leave) must be based on more than something catching the officer's interest. This person matched the specific description of a suspect in a crime, or this person is doing XYZ which is consistent with [insert crime], and they are in an area known for [said crime] and the circumstances appear that [said crime] may be occurring, based on facts known by the officer. Reasonable suspicion is very dependent on the reasonable-ness of the officer's articulation. Very much a gray area, and another reason we have courts.

mamabearCali wrote:... not be legally entitled give me the 3rd degree on my pictures of sea gulls, as it seems this police chief thought they were.

What's this "3rd degree" that you speak of? Did that occur in the original story or is this a hypothetical scenario that has not yet occurred?

Medic624 wrote:Reasonable Suspicion only needs the suspicion of the Prudent Officer to have a "HUNCH" and in the process of acting on their assumption of nefarious activity can thus act on it and stop you and ask to search you (superficially)

Not so fast. Courts have further held that reasonable suspicion is more than a mere hunch, but a set of articulable facts based on the officers training, experience, and the totality of the circumstances surrounding the information the officer had available AT THAT TIME.

For example, courts have held that an individual passed out in a drive through, with the vehicle running, sitting in the driver's seat, at 0230 hours, is a suspicious place, as far as a reasonable suspicion allowing a detention (for all the obvious reasons).

Now, for me, contacting someone taking pictures of critical infrastructure would more take the shape of a consent contact. While I have training on issue, I have very little experience that I would like to stand on in court, for proving up a history of investigating terrorism. Consent contacts are a great tool for LE, and I have made very large cases just by walking up and talking to someone.

The Annoyed Man wrote:...[snip]... But I resent that my free exercise of a constitutional right is seen as suspicious and in need of investigation, up to and including my personal detention until some police chief who has no eye for esthetics can determine if my work has any esthetic value. That is an absolutely absurd assertion on the part of the police chief in the article. He does not get paid to assess whether art has any esthetic value. He simply doesn't. And gigag, with all due respect to your expertise, you cannot make a cogent argument in defense of a police chief's authority to decide what has esthetic value, and what doesn't. It simply isn't his area of expertise...[snip]

TAM - I agree that the wording of the policy is poor, and misses the point of that officers investigation. The training I have received, both state, and federal, is more concerned with the subject matter being tied to, or classified as critical infrastructure. Whether or not the picture has aesthetic value is irrelevant. I think a brief contact is all that is merited in such a case (taking pictures of said subject), which is all that occurred. I think the article does shed light on a poorly worded policy, but I do not feel this individual officer, or many of those with LAPD, are gestapo like, or looking for ways to take rights away from citizens.

As an aside (not directed at you TAM), an overly significant majority of LEOs have prior military service, many in combat arms. To say these same individuals are acting to take away the rights of citizens and violating the constitution is brash. Today's LE profession receives more training than any of his or her predecessors, is held to a higher standard of integrity and ethical behavior that the cops of previous days, and is more closely monitored than many other professions. Having grown up in communist russia (actually USSR at the time), I have seen first hand what an oppressive, soviet, government can do.

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

Wow. Profound insight indeed.

Re:VMI. Police can talk to whomever they want. The only difference is the ability of the individual to reject the contact.

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

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.

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.

Not a big deal really.