The Creeping Sovietization of America

[Oldgringo]

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

Talking out loud is one thing, whispering in public is a horse of a different color...don't you think?

[gigag04]

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.

[mamabearCali]

Lets take another hobby as innocuous as photography, running. Criminals sometimes use running as a means to get to and from a crime. So should the police be empowered to, without anything else to arouse their suspicion, stop and detain anyone they see jogging? Have them explain why they are running...it is really the same thing. People going about their everyday lives should be able to do so without contact from law enforcement so long as they are not breaking or appearing to break any laws.

[Ameer]

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

Talking out loud is one thing, whispering in public is a horse of a different color...don't you think?

Profound insight. The question is whether the police should question the people talking quietly because they're hiding something or question the people talking loudly because they're disturbing the peace. Maybe they should go after both groups to be safe.

[The Annoyed Man]

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

It's not being "testy" when you believe that your most basic rights under the Constitution are threatened. I'll talk to cops all day long. I enjoy their stories. I respect the job they do. 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.

I'm not inventing this. Those were his words in that article. They are indefensible. None of this would be happening if it weren't flowing downhill from somewhere. "Somewhere" is the DHS in DC, run by that toad Napolitano, who keeps finding ways to incrementally get us all under her thumb. By the above mentioned police chief's one words, that is where this stuff comes from. He's already a busy man, and his officers are already busy people. Harassing photographers is not something that would have been on their daily radar if a request to do so had not trickled down from DHS.

In other words, if police suspect I am committing a crime, fine. Arrest me. Charge me. Throw me in jail. I'll go peacefully. Otherwise, bugger off. This is not about privacy. You're right. I have no expectation of privacy in a public place. I DO have an expectation of being able to practice my first amendment right to take a picture without some minor bureaucrat with undersized beans and franks deciding if it is esthetically valuable and thus is protected speech or not. ART IS NOT A CRIME, even art that a provincial chief of police doesn't find esthetically pleasing, unless it is vandalizing someone else's property, such as graffiti. I am not vandalizing anything.

I just got back home 30 minutes ago, having spent most of the afternoon photographing industrial scenes around town, because they are fascinating sources of color and texture. I photographed railroad cars, both up close and far away. I photographed granary towers. I photographed a giant old tower clad in rusting corrugated steel because the patchwork colors of the rusting steel were incredible to shoot. A couple of the shots I took today would be similar esthetically to the picture that the Long Beach police chief found to be not esthetically acceptable. Well, I don't presume to tell him how best to manage his department. He has absolutely no business telling me how to take pictures. None. Zip. Nada. Zero. That idiot would have had me detained. He can go to hades.

[gigag04]

...[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.

[Medic624]

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.

Look bottom line is the SCOTUS says a LEO can approach any of us at any time for whatever reason under Reasonable Suspicion... It doesn't need to resultant from or be based on overt/covert criminal activity. Their words not mine. I was just as surprised as the next guy. Do I agree with it? No... is it case law? Yes.

They basically did an end run around the 4th Amendment with the Reasonable Suspicion law because Probable Cause needs some reason to perform a stop, search, and result in possibly seizure. 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).... Be it photography or whatever you can come up with.

How many times have you seen cops on TV simply stop someone on the street and initiate contact because of a suspicion of possible criminal activity and ask for an I.D. and where they're going, what they're doing? Hence, Reasonable Suspicion.

Don't like it... Then figure out a way to change the case law.

Sorry if you don't agree with it but that is how is is written.

[mamabearCali]

Medic624 I believe in the SCOTUS ruling it states that the reasonable suspicion must be able to be articulated and it must be concrete. Having a "gut feeling" or a "hunch" is specifically ruled against. Participating in a legal activity would not be grounds for reasonable suspicion. What might be grounds in a photography situation is that officer A had observed that subject A was appeared to be taking photographs of the security station as people entered and exited using the keypad. That might be grounds for reasonable suspicion--maybe, even that might be thin.

[gigag04]

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.

[mamabearCali]

You know I don't mind a police officer coming up and saying hello and commenting on the view. They are people too, and I will likely respond very kindly and talk with you about the weather and perhaps even how much I love the way the birds reflection glints up off the water. However if I have to go get my husband for a baseball game and they have nothing more than I am taking pictures of wildlife then they need to let me leave and not be legally entitled give me the 3rd degree on my pictures of sea gulls, as it seems this police chief thought they were.

[Medic624]

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.

Yes you are correct it is in the definition as such but to be honest I simply did not want to repost the whole of the law. 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. That, given the information gleaned from the contact may evolve into probable cause to charge them with some crime that may or may not have been overtly apparent as the LEO initially made the connections needed to use reasonable suspicion approach to make initial contact.

Bottom line as I tried to convey earlier it is based on an initial "hunch" that starts the ball rolling to make contact.

As far as it being okay for simply taking some photos... I still have a very hard time with this reason to initiate a consent contact... But that's what happens when SCOTUS is allowed to legislate from the bench!

[gigag04]

... 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?

[gigag04]

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]

... 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?

If photographers are not being permitted to leave with their pictures intact and are being questioned on the content of those pictures then yes I would call that the third degree.

[VMI77]

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

I agree with that.