Cops Target Photographers

[Aerosoul]

http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/3757/01ms6.jpg

With camera in hand, Momoko Sodu headed from her Schenley Park home to the Biltmore Hotel gym for her morning workout. It was June 10, and the sun was bursting through the clouds after an early-morning shower. The demure 39-year-old Japanese artist paid particular attention to the raindrops on the leaves. She planned to photograph them. Drawn by the picturesque entry into Coral Gables via Coral Way, she crossed Red Road and strolled along a sidewalk until she spotted a police officer sitting on his motorcycle talking on a cell phone. Thinking it a good image, she snapped a photo and continued walking. "Come here!" Ofcr. Nelson Rodriguez barked. Then he demanded her camera. Soon he deleted more than 150 photos. He ripped out the memory card and slammed it on the sidewalk.

"I was very upset," says Sodu, who stands five feet two inches talls and considers herself a passive person. "But I didn't want to say anything because he was very big and angry."

The incident is one of at least four that have occurred in Miami-Dade County over the past year in which photographers have ended up arrested, handcuffed, threatened, intimidated, or accused of being a terrorist. (I spent 16 hours in jail as a result of one of them.) Taken together, they raise the question of whether the First Amendment means anything anymore. "Officers do not have the right to seize cameras, look at the images, or delete the images," says Oregon attorney Bert Krages, who wrote The Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images.

Since the terrorist attacks in 2001, authorities across the United States have been cracking down on photographers — even though none of the 9/11 terrorists or others in recent cases is known to have snapped pictures. The past year has seen a particular increase. Among the cases:

In May, Russian photographer Stanislav Arkhipov was jailed four nights for trespassing after he shot pictures of a natural gas tank in Lynn, Massachusetts. A judge dropped all charges against Arkhipov, who said he simply enjoys taking photos of industrial sites.

Last month, a paparazzo was arrested for stalking after he photographed a pregnant Jamie Lynn Spears at a gas station in Louisiana. Edwin Merino was standing more than 200 feet from Britney's sister. The name of the town was Liberty. His case is still pending.

In November 2006, Bogdan Mohora was collared after he snapped photos of cops making an arrest in Seattle. He was standing across the street. Police, who kept him in a jail cell for an hour, eventually agreed to pay an $8,000 settlement and passed a new policy on dealing with photographers. And in the nation's capital, Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) recently announced she would hold hearings to discuss police harassment of tourists at the city's main train station. "No one [should be] forbidden from taking photos of the beautiful and historic Union Station," she stated in a letter to her constituents.

Unfortunately in Miami, no such advocate for photographers has stepped up. And it's much needed here. Consider the case of visual artist David Rohn, an eccentric 57-year-old gay man with a penchant for dressing up as females in the name of art. On June 15, Rohn ended up handcuffed for two hours after Miami Police saw him shooting pictures of himself dressed as a Muslim woman in a parking lot near Biscayne Boulevard and NE 79th Street.

After placing his camera on a tripod, Rohm took five photos. Then a female police officer pulled up and drew her gun. She ordered him to place his hands against his truck. Within minutes, several more cop cars appeared. They tried to decipher whether Rohn was a terrorist plotting his next attack. "They didn't tell me why they had handcuffed me," he says. "But they told me they had to wait for a special operations officer to come. When he arrived, I showed him pictures of me in different costumes and he realized I was just an artist."

Although police released Rohn, they warned him not to return. "They told me I needed a permit because I was doing commercial photography," he says. "But it wasn't commercial; it's artistic, and there's a difference." Regardless, he doesn't believe he should have been handcuffed for two hours for a simple permit violation.

And then there is the case of St. Thomas University adjunct English professor Lamont Missick, a soft-spoken man who was confronted by a Miami-Dade Police officer last year in the university parking lot as he was photographing a dent on his car. Ofcr. James Hanna approached and said he was on Homeland Security detail (which his boss, Sgt. Jose Lugo, later acknowledged was false). After Hanna reviewed Missick's license, he peppered him with questions and accusations and suggested he was a member of Al-Qaeda. "It was a very tense situation," Missick says. "He was somewhat imposing and very aggressive."

The professor demanded Hanna's name and badge number, which were covered by a patrol jacket, but the officer refused to divulge the information. So Missick snapped his picture. After the confrontation, he took his camera to a local precinct, where another officer identified the photo of Hanna.

The same day, Missick complained to police, but internal affairs investigated and didn't sustain the allegations. The professor appealed to the Miami-Dade Independent Review Panel, which confirmed Hanna refused to identify himself. The panel recommended that cops display their badges. No disciplinary action was taken against Hanna.

My own case was perhaps the most tendentious. I was arrested in February 2007, when on assignment for a now-defunct website called Category305 (which was started by two former New Times staffers). I was standing in a construction zone and decided to photograph five officers for a story about renovations and the reduction in crime along Biscayne Boulevard.

The cops immediately ordered me to leave the area. I replied I had every right to be there. A sergeant grabbed my arm and escorted me across the street. "Keep moving," several officers said at once. But I continued snapping photos, which I believed necessary to document the cops' behavior.

Several officers grabbed me from behind and tripped me so that I fell first onto my knees and then banged my head against the pavement. They handcuffed me and dragged me into a police car. I spent the next day in the main jail inside a cell with as many as 50 people. I was charged with nine counts, including disobeying a police officer, disorderly conduct, obstructing justice, and resisting arrest without violence.

Last month my case went to trial before Judge Jose L. Fernandez. During two days of testimony, one of the officers, Maykel Baluja, said he feared I would use my cameras as weapons against him. Another, Anthonius Kurver, claimed I got "violent" when I began snapping photos. But he was unable to explain why I was charged with resisting arrest without violence instead of with violence.

After two days, the jury chose to convict me only of resisting arrest without violence. I was sentenced to a year of probation and 100 hours of community service. I'm appealing.

Sodu, the Coral Gables woman, is also battling authorities. Less than an hour after the incident, she filed a complaint with the Coral Gables Police Department. Then she began writing about the incident on her website. On June 24, Gables Lt. Theresa Silverio informed her that Rodriguez had been reprimanded for his actions. Strangely, a memo from Gables Police Chief Michael Hammerschmidt to City Manager David Brown, dated June 26, alleges Sudo told Silverio she did not want to pursue the matter further.

Sudo denies saying such a thing. "They never even asked me for anything in writing," she says. "It's like they didn't want any evidence about what had happened." Now she plans to file a written complaint.

Meanwhile, she has retrieved most of the deleted photos with recovery software. Among them: the one of Officer Rodriguez sitting on his bike while chatting on a cell phone. "It's like he had something to hide," she says. "Because why else would he get so upset that I took his photo?"

Link (http://miaminewtimes.com/2008-07-10/news/cops-target-photographers/full).

[vinny_121_ND]

This could be bad for tourism.

[Aerosoul]

Yes, bad for tourism.
What, first amendment rights? False arrest? Harassment, assault? What? Oh yeah, tourist money.

[seraosha]

A very hysterical article, written by someone with a personal stake.

But beside that, something to be concerned about while vacationing in Miami.

[Calanen]

I had a fight with a security guard once who tried to take my camera. I took a picture of the building at work, and he said that the building management owned the copyright in my picture. 'Learn the law moron!' he said. 'I've learnt a bit of law...' said I. I didnt give him the camera, and challenged him to arrest me. And he just told me to get off the property. Which, seemed a bit odd given I worked there. But I was leaving, and just wanted a photo to say 'Here's where I worked.'

[Aerosoul]

I had a fight with a security guard once who tried to take my camera. I took a picture of the building at work, and he said that the building management owned the copyright in my picture. 'Learn the law moron!' he said. 'I've learnt a bit of law...' said I. I didnt give him the camera, and challenged him to arrest me. And he just told me to get off the property. Which, seemed a bit odd given I worked there. But I was leaving, and just wanted a photo to say 'Here's where I worked.'

This is the kind of stuff that's been going on for the last several years, and it only gets worse. Makes me rage.
Security and police trying to enforce laws that don't exist regarding photography.

I don't know about Australia, but in the US, so far as I know, anything in public is just that-public. Snap away....at least you're supposed to be able to.

[Calanen]

I don't know about Australia, but in the US, so far as I know, anything in public is just that-public. Snap away....at least you're supposed to be able to.

It was in America, San Diego. I said, that I owned the copyright. He could get me to leave, if that was what the owner wanted, it was their land. But he didnt own the copyright in the work, that was mine. And its not illegal to take a photo, especially, of a serviced office complex. Maybe if I was taking photos of Miramar I could understand their concern.

[Calanen]

As for Australia, you can take photos as well. However, there are broad sweeping powers brought in for Police here. They just recently made 'being annoying' an offence (yeah I'll be laying low for the next couple of weeks) for while the Pope is in town.

Anyone who is 'annoying', such as, hey, taking photos....could be arrested.

[Aerosoul]

Amazing. ....

[Macs.]

That "COP" is a ****head who sees him wearing a uniform as some special right for him, but his job is to protect and serve the people, not to think he is Don Juan Django. He is a total Homolord.



AS FOR ME. I today made photos of the armored S-Class of our state minister infront of the state parliament, and after not 1 minute a guy in a Mercedes pulled up and told me to stop taking pictures.

When he said this... I slowly turned around, looked deep into his eyes and said "Do you know what you are doing here ?". His eyes frooze up, and I lectured him about human rights, the 3rd Reich, and FREEDOM. After I was done, he was trying to arrest me, but I knocked him out with a swift kick into his jawbone, breaking his nose and making him blind for 4 minutes.



Well. Actually I just said "wat." and walked away. But I think he got the message...

[rwak9]

When he said this... I slowly turned around, looked deep into his eyes and said "Do you know what you are doing here ?". His eyes frooze up, and I lectured him about human rights, the 3rd Reich, and FREEDOM. After I was done, he was trying to arrest me, but I knocked him out with a swift kick into his jawbone, breaking his nose and making him blind for 4 minutes.



Well. Actually I just said "wat." and walked away. But I think he got the message...

I like the first version better. :woot

[Calanen]

Well. Actually I just said "wat." and walked away. But I think he got the message...


Pussy.........

[Macs.]

Pussy.........

Sometimes BEING QUITE TAKES ALOT MORE THAN BEING LOUD, OKAY ?

Also I was running out of parking time.

[vinny_121_ND]

If you're taking pictures of bridges, government facilities etc in a suspicious way, then I think the police have some right to question your purpose. Threat of arrest doesn't make any sense if you're a tourist taking photos of scenic backgrounds.

[markod]

The Photographer’s Right
Bert P. Krages II, Attorney at Law

About this Guide
Confrontations that impair the constitutional right to make images are becoming more common. To fight the abuse of your right to free expression, you need to know your rights to take photographs and the remedies available if your rights are infringed.

The General Rule
The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statute or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take photographs. Examples of places that are traditionally considered public are streets, sidewalks, and public parks. Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises but have no right to prohibit others from photographing their property from other locations. Whether you need permission from property owners to take photographs while on their premises depends on the circumstances. In most places, you may reasonably assume that taking photographs is allowed and that you do not need explicit permission. However, this is a judgment call and you should request permission when the circumstances suggest that the owner is likely to object. In any case, when a property owner tells you not to take photographs while on the premises, you are legally obligated to honor the request.

Some Exceptions to the Rule
There are some exceptions to the general rule. A significant one is that commanders of military installations can prohibit photographs of specific areas when they deem it necessary to protect national security. The U.S. Department of Energy can also prohibit photography of designated nuclear facilities although the publicly visible areas of nuclear facilities are usually not designated as such. Members of the public have a very limited scope of privacy rights when they are in public places. Basically, anyone can be photographed without their consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, and inside their homes.

Permissible Subjects
Despite misconceptions to the contrary, the following subjects can almost always be photographed lawfully from public places:

* accident and fire scenes

* children

* celebrities

* bridges and other infrastructure

* residential and commercial buildings

* industrial facilities and public utilities

* transportation facilities (e.g., airports)

* Superfund sites

* criminal activities

* law enforcement officers


Who Is Likely to Violate Your Rights
Most confrontations are started by security guards and employees of organizations who fear photography. The most common reason given is security but often such persons have no articulated reason. Security is rarely a legitimate reason for restricting photography. Taking a photograph is not a terrorist act nor can a business legitimately assert that taking a photograph of a subject in public view infringes on its trade secrets. On occasion, law enforcement officers may object to photography but most understand that people have the right to take photographs and do not interfere with photographers. They do have the right to keep you away from areas where you may impede their activities or endanger safety. However, they do not have the legal right to prohibit you from taking photographs from other locations. They Have Limited Rights to Bother, Question, or Detain You Although anyone has the right to approach a person in a public place and ask questions, persistent and unwanted conduct done without a legitimate purpose is a crime in many states if it causes serious annoyance. You are under no obligation to explain the purpose of your photography nor do you have to disclose your identity except in states that require it upon request by a law enforcement officer. If the conduct goes beyond mere questioning, all states have laws that make coercion and harassment criminal offenses. The specific elements vary among the states but in general it is unlawful for anyone to instill a fear that they may injure you, damage or take your property, or falsely accuse you of a crime just because you are taking photographs. Private parties have very limited rights to detain you against your will and may be subject to criminal and civil charges should they attempt to do so. Although the laws in most states authorize citizen’s arrests, such authority is very narrow. In general, citizen’s arrests can be made only for felonies or crimes committed in the person’s presence. Failure to abide by these requirements usually means that the person is liable for a tort such as false imprisonment.


They Have No Right to Confiscate Your Film
Sometimes agents acting for entities such as owners of industrial plants and shopping malls may ask you to hand over your film. Absent a court order, private parties have no right to confiscate your film. Taking your film directly or indirectly by threatening to use force or call a law enforcement agency can constitute criminal offenses such as theft and coercion. It can likewise constitute a civil tort such as conversion. Law enforcement officers may have the authority to seize film when making an arrest but otherwise must obtain a court order.

Your Legal Remedies If Harassed
If someone has threatened, intimidated, or detained you because you were taking photographs, they may be liable for crimes such as kidnapping, coercion, and theft. In such cases, you should report them to the police. You may also have civil remedies against such persons and their employers. The torts for which you may be entitled to compensation include assault, conversion, false imprisonment, and violation of your constitutional rights.

Other Remedies If Harassed
If you are disinclined to take legal action, there are still things you can do that contribute to protecting the right to take photographs.

* Call the local newspaper and see if they are interested in running a story. Many newspapers feel that civil liberties are worthy of serious coverage.

* Write to or call the supervisor of the person involved, or the legal or public relations department of the entity, and complain about the event.

* Make the event publicly known on an Internet forum that deals with photography or civil rights issues.


How to Handle Confrontations
Most confrontations can be defused by being courteous and respectful. If the party becomes pushy, combative, or unreasonably hostile, consider calling the police. Above all, use good judgment and don’t allow an event to escalate into violence. In the event you are threatened with detention or asked to surrender your film, asking the following questions can help ensure that you will have the evidence to enforce your legal rights:

1. What is the person’s name?
2. Who is their employer?
3. Are you free to leave? If not, how do they intend to stop you if you decide to leave? What legal basis do they assert for the detention?
4. Likewise, if they demand your film, what legal basis do they assert for the confiscation?

Disclaimer
This is a general education guide about the right to take photographs and is necessarily limited in scope. For more information about the laws that affect photography, I refer you to the second edition of my book, Legal Handbook for Photographers (Amherst Media, 2006). This guide is not intended to be legal advice nor does it create an attorney client relationship. Readers should seek the advice of a competent attorney when they need legal advice regarding a specific situation.

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

[gobdav]

As a photographer, I've been close to arrest while shooting buildings at night, particularly one state bldg. The cop comes up to me on his bicycle and proceeds to give me the whole authoritarian "you can't do that here" stuff. I understood it and didn't really fight back, because the guy wasn't deleting any of my pics and just let me go.

As far as I know, the law is a bit iffy on this stuff, because shooting a federal building is apparently against a law, but you can stand in any public place (i.e. a street) and take a picture of anything, so long as you're standing there. And NO ONE automatically owns your copyright, that goes to whoever took the pic, no matter who's camera, who's building, or who's cross-dressing Muslim picture you're taking.

[Aerosoul]

If you're taking pictures of bridges, government facilities etc in a suspicious way, then I think the police have some right to question your purpose. Threat of arrest doesn't make any sense if you're a tourist taking photos of scenic backgrounds.

What is "a suspicious way"? The photographers that get hassled by cops typically have pro or semi-pro gear. Meaning, a big DSLR, multiple lenses, a camera bag, tripod, etc. Wouldn't someone plotting an attack on a target want to be a little more discrete?

Funny that the only stories out there of photographers being hassled, arrested, what have you, are completely innocent victims of overzealous officers. You'd think if they ever busted someone taking pictures to plan a terror attack they'd want that story publicized. I don't recall hearing one.

It's all bullsh*t.

[Bia]

There's several pictures of me sitting in an F-4 Phantoms cockpit in Beaufort SC, I was 4 years old... My dad did a short stint there and we were visiting...so he put me in and snapped away.
That squadron had replaced the F4 with F18 a few years before.... otherwise.... that image would be illegal.

(Signs everywhere...no cameras in cockpit)
I can google pretty much any fighter cockpit image..... why is it illegal to snap one ourselves?

[Flagg]

There's several pictures of me sitting in an F-4 Phantoms cockpit in Beaufort SC, I was 4 years old... My dad did a short stint there and we were visiting...so he put me in and snapped away.
That squadron had replaced the F4 with F18 a few years before.... otherwise.... that image would be illegal.

(Signs everywhere...no cameras in cockpit)
I can google pretty much any fighter cockpit image..... why is it illegal to snap one ourselves?

I see that as one of the many often unenforced regulations/laws that exist in both the military and in public.....on the military side of the house...kinda like cell phones with cameras....you can't have them in camp...but everyone does?!?

[brainplay]

A very hysterical article, written by someone with a personal stake.

That about sums it up right there. Going over the cases presented they were either legit or LEO's surpassing overstepping authority. Nothing there was backed or substantiated by a government entity.

The article was sensationalist garbage. Markod's post was a 100% better read.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

As for Australia, you can take photos as well. However, there are broad sweeping powers brought in for Police here. They just recently made 'being annoying' an offence (yeah I'll be laying low for the next couple of weeks) for while the Pope is in town.

Anyone who is 'annoying', such as, hey, taking photos....could be arrested.

As far as phography goes Australia is pretty relaxed. The only place I know of where it's a no no is inside Government House Sydney though outside is ok provided your not using professional equipment.

http://www.4020.net/words/photorights.php

Has a good breakdown on the law in Australia. And despite what councils want you to believe you dont need permits for anything unless your obviousely going to cause disruptions.

I follow this pretty closely and is a pretty big concern especially since I'll be studying university in a few weeks with photography as a major and I'll be doing much much work.

I've been chatted a few times. More so from security guards and council rangers then police. Police don't normally give a **** provided your not causing a nuisence.

[PeterRJG]

It was in America, San Diego. I said, that I owned the copyright. He could get me to leave, if that was what the owner wanted, it was their land. But he didnt own the copyright in the work, that was mine. And its not illegal to take a photo, especially, of a serviced office complex. Maybe if I was taking photos of Miramar I could understand their concern.

Property doesn't have personality rights, does it?

[gilgoul]

Had the problem at a Tel Aviv mall, security guards bared me access to the premises on the charge that I was carrying my Dslr and a photo bag with me.
I answered that while I could somehow understand that taking photos inside could be forbidden, on the ground that a mall is privately owned, even if in this era of phone cameras it is quite ridiculous, they had no business not letting me inside.
Ensued a long and stupid argument with the team leader, the security officers manager and eventually I was granted access.

[usa320]

I think it really depends on the situation... A film student with a big telephoto lens taking pictures of urbanscapes or scenery isnt really a big deal... A couple of Achmeds driving around an airport hanging a camcorder out the window, maybe.

On top of that, legal or not, taking pictures of other peoples kids or crime/accident scenes is always gonna be looked down upon by authorities.

[NewsMan]

And NO ONE automatically owns your copyright, that goes to whoever took the pic, no matter who's camera, who's building, or who's cross-dressing Muslim picture you're taking.


Actually, believe it or not, certain images of buildings are copyright protected. I don't know all the particulars, but according to my distributer, G** Images, we have to be careful of said things. The Seattle space needle thing comes to mind.

Since my work involves destroyed governments with fledgling law, I don't pay too close attention.

DT

Edit - Here's an example: http://seattletrademarklawyer.com/blog/2007/6/17/is-the-space-needle-different-from-the-rock-and-roll-hall-of.html

The only time the infringement can occur is when the image is used for commercial purposes and sold as such. Other than that, ANYTHING taken from a public place and where a person's expectation of privacy is NOT in play, can be legally photographed.

[wildcat]

Carry a locking brief case, put the camera in the brief case when the police start approaching, lock the combination lock, now they need a court order to search the case, and for that they also need probable cause.

[Macs.]

Carry a locking brief case, put the camera in the brief case when the police start approaching, lock the combination lock, now they need a court order to search the case, and for that they also need probable cause.

Even if you only have a camera with you and making photos, what right does a Policeman have to search you or your camera ?

I don't know how it works in the US, but here in Germany the Police doesn't have that many rights actually. It's just that most people are so in fear when approached by the Police/People in uniform that they do anything they ask you for. If they are allowed to do it is a different question...

[wildcat]

Even if you only have a camera with you and making photos, what right does a Policeman have to search you or your camera ?

I don't know how it works in the US, but here in Germany the Police doesn't have that many rights actually. It's just that most people are so in fear when approached by the Police/People in uniform that they do anything they ask you for. If they are allowed to do it is a different question...

they don't here, it just stop them from taking the camera by force and easing it. Also you force them into a paper trail if they really want to wipe you pictures.

[wildcat]

I take pictures of transportation, I like trains, I have never been hassled by the police, or even the rail police, they are very polite and stop and talk to you. Only hassled once from a pissed of Union Pacific engineer (driver), I told him where to stick it, and invited him to make something more of the situation.

[Macs.]

I take pictures of transportation, I like trains, I have never been hassled by the police, or even the rail police, they are very polite and stop and talk to you. Only hassled once from a pissed of Union Pacific engineer (driver), I told him where to stick it, and invited him to make something more of the situation.

You know, it also depends on how you get apporached.

If for example I make photos of a "important" building or close ups of security bla bla, and a cop or security guard politely asks me to stop doing so, I would stop. But if they come off as if they are Gods brother on a mission from Dog, I am gonna continue. People are assholes.

[wildcat]

You know, it also depends on how you get apporached.

If for example I make photos of a "important" building or close ups of security bla bla, and a cop or security guard politely asks me to stop doing so, I would stop. But if they come off as if they are Gods brother on a mission from Dog, I am gonna continue. People are assholes.

He was rude, Politeness never has hurts, and most people who are not Assholes will oblige.

[Aerosoul]

http://youtube.com/v/1VM9CiywyTk

[Bia]

Carry a locking brief case, put the camera in the brief case when the police start approaching, lock the combination lock, now they need a court order to search the case, and for that they also need probable cause.
You watch too much TV

From where I come from the cops will break open the case....take your ****....then charge you with resisting. Who's a judge gonna believe..... the cops.

:P

[wildcat]

LOL, I love the part where she screams, "You are disrespecting the uniform", she was wear, I believe a rite aid uniform.

[wildcat]

You watch too much TV

From where I come from the cops will break open the case....take your ****....then charge you with resisting. Who's a judge gonna believe..... the cops.

:P

it's not from TV, read it in a book, to make you fill better, I stop reading books and now just watch TV.

[gobdav]

Actually, believe it or not, certain images of buildings are copyright protected. I don't know all the particulars, but according to my distributer, G** Images, we have to be careful of said things. The Seattle space needle thing comes to mind.

Since my work involves destroyed governments with fledgling law, I don't pay too close attention.

DT

Edit - Here's an example: http://seattletrademarklawyer.com/blog/2007/6/17/is-the-space-needle-different-from-the-rock-and-roll-hall-of.html

The only time the infringement can occur is when the image is used for commercial purposes and sold as such. Other than that, ANYTHING taken from a public place and where a person's expectation of privacy is NOT in play, can be legally photographed.


My bad, I should have explained just a bit further. Infringment occurs only if you publish the photo. I like to carry mini property-releases around if I'm shooting something where I've not already set things up.

[makavelli]

anyone wants to join me huting pope's bodyguard photos?

I hope there wont be any trouble.

[WarriorMonk]

I just finished a night photography class, and one dumb move I made was taking a picture of a security camera looking straight into its lenses. Yeah, dumb move. 2 cops busted out of the door in front of me and I got more than a "Hey what's up?" talk...turns out the building part I was photographing was part of the city court...

YES I KNOW IT WAS A DUMB MOVE...

thankfully the cops were familiar with our night photography class...

[gobdav]

I just finished a night photography class, and one dumb move I made was taking a picture of a security camera looking straight into its lenses. Yeah, dumb move. 2 cops busted out of the door in front of me and I got more than a "Hey what's up?" talk...turns out the building part I was photographing was part of the city court...

YES I KNOW IT WAS A DUMB MOVE...

thankfully the cops were familiar with our night photography class...


I've been doing night photography for years, and I've only had one cop be a jerk to me. Most of the time, if you state your purpose or let them know that you know they're watching you, you'll be ok, if that makes sense, lol. I did have one security guard pop up out of the bushes on me once, scared the bejezus out of me. :bash:

[Bia]

it's not from TV, read it in a book, to make you fill better, I stop reading books and now just watch TV.Of course it's in "books"

Everything in print MUST be true if YOU read it.


Ro..FL..Z