[BrendanPK]

Its a good thing we had those fore-fathers who took time to think through and write the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence etc, and that we live in a free country where the government can now do anything to anyone under suspicion of terrorism.

Thank god we HAD such a great country. What happened? (And this has been going on for more than the past 8 years. People need to actually know what is going on in DC, and get out and VOTE)
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety"... Ben Franklin
"Give me photographs or give me death"... BrendanPK 2007

As for "If in doubt, police say, tourists should confine their photographs to marked tourists spots." I say that the government should than declare no photo zones and cover these areas from public view in something that is detouring to photographers, like concrete boxes and mirrors

[egordon99]

This actually happened to me in Phoenixville, PA! I was wandering around downtown snapping some pictures when a bunch (two?) of Police SUVs pull into the parking lot where I was shooting (pictures of an old Steel Foundry). They asked to see my ID, open my camera bag and even did a little pat down (I had a jacket on as it was quite brisk, even for April) They asked me some questions and I had no problems answering them.

Turns out one of the banks in town called the police when they saw me with my camera (the bank is in an old historic building).... So, the Police were just doing their job, and I was more aggravated with the bank. Once all was squared away, the police were very friendly, even asking about all my lenses and if the camera was digital, etc....

Now my main peeve is this - If I was scoping out the bank for a robbery, would I stand on the corner in broad daylight with a HUGE Lowepro backpack and a 300mm lens on a DLSR? NO! I would use my cellphone cam

Here's a photo from that day:

[MRRiley]

While I agree this person was likely not involved in any illegal activity, the events described do not fit the legal definitions of either "detained" or "searched."

Stewart...

He was stopped by police and I seriously doubt that they would have let him leave without answering their questions. In other words he was "detained". That detention simply did not escalate to his arrest. Being detained and being arrested or placed into custody are different things. No I am not a lawyer or police officer nor do I play either on TV so please forgive my loose but common use of the term.

As for being searched, he was searched. AKA his private property was examined. They essentially opened his camera and looked in. This is no different from them opening your trunk to see what is there or rifling through the drawers of your desk.

Laws addressing the photography of installations, buildings, and so on, have been on the books for many decades. For example, 42 USC Sec. 2278b states it is unlawful to photograph "any installation or equipment designated by the President ... offense is punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both." Doing so from a public place offers no defense whatsoever against this or similar laws.

stewart

I did say "With very few exceptions..." Also, I seriously doubt that the Indianapolis building the photographer was accused of shooting was "... designated by the President..."

Mike

[MRRiley]

Once ,on assignment in Mexico ,I had the Federales stop me at gunpoint, take the film out of my camera, toss it on the ground, and luckily ,turn me loose. Thats an outrage.

True ralph... that IS an OUTRAGE but so is the Indianapolis case. You do not enjoy any constitutional protections while in Mexico that I know of.

Are there any Mexican citizens around who could tell us if the Mexican constitution has any protections similar to ours in the US?

Personally we live in a country where that kind of thing rarely happens, at least up till now. Hope that's not changing...

Mike

[stewart_photo]

This quote from the statute seems to give some qualification ...

" It shall be an offense, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both -

(1) to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map or graphical representation, while present on property subject to the jurisdiction, administration or in the custody of the Commission,

Look under "Definitions" for the definition of each site (property) and you'll see the words "in the vicinity of such site" or something similar. For example, Sec. 2296a-3 includes those exact words under the definition of "active uranium or thorium processing site." As I said, this law was one example meant to show such laws have been on the books for many years (not necessarily a result of 9/11 or homeland security). In this case, this law addressed property belonging to the atomic energy commision. There are other laws addressing other government properties. Similar state laws address various state-owned properties.

stewart

[stewart_photo]

Okay, since one or two individuals didn't like my other example, try 18 USC Sec. 793 on for size.

"(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or
(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or... (snip)
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

Again, there are restrictions on photographing a wide range (not just "a very few exceptions") of government facilities, buildings, offices, and so on. The only way a police officer can determine if the intent is "the injury of the United States" is to question the photographer and view the images to see what was actually being photographed (as was done with Miller in Indianapolis). Again, these laws have been on the books for many years and are not the result of either 9/11 or homeland security.

stewart

[MRRiley]

Stewart...

All of your cites are, frankly, irrelevant in this case since they involve Federal US property and installations. Last time I checked, your average city building is not under the jurisdiction of the POTUS or federal government, nor do I think most city administrators would willingly grant such jurisdiction.

If you can show us one Indiana or Indianapolis statute that was in existence prior to 911 forbidding photography of the Indianapolis City County Building I will concede the point and follow the law. I’ll even concede the point and follow the law if the statute was written after 911. However I doubt such a statute exists. Even if it does it is vulnerable to being overturned as unconstitutionally infringing on several rights. Only the courts can decide this and that takes a test case to set precedence. Maybe “Mr. Miller vs. Indianapolis” will be that test case. Until then, as I said, I will comply with their law but that does not mean I have to like it or not try to have it changed or overturned.

My question is… how far we are willing to go to let the government protect us? When does that protection become oppression? I believe it is when our freedoms are eroded to the point where everyone is assumed to be a bad guy until proven otherwise. This violates a central tenet of our society and must be resisted. Don’t forget, the government works for us (assuming you are a US citizen in Germany for some reason). We are not its subjects.

Now, I am not claiming that our present government is evil or bent on taking unlawful control of our country but I am not so naïve to think it is not a possibility at some point in the future. I consider myself a patriot (retired USAF Senior NCO here) and believe it is my personal responsibility to resist any force which tends to erode our freedoms. Thus my passion on this issue. Suffice it to say that we just disagree on the appropriateness of the methods the government exercises to “protect” our society. I respect your views but simply think they are wrong as you most likely consider mine.

Mike

[raz-0]

stewart.. just because bad laws have been written before does not mean we should become any more tolerant of them simply due to quantity or the passage of time.

[PDL]

Okay, since one or two individuals didn't like my other example, try 18 USC Sec. 793 on for size.

"(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or... (snip)(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or... "(snip)

Again, there are restrictions on photographing a wide range (not just "a very few exceptions") of government facilities, buildings, offices, and so on. The only way a police officer can determine if the intent is "the injury of the United States" is to question the photographer and view the images to see what was actually being photographed (as was done with Miller in Indianapolis). Again, these laws have been on the books for many years and are not the result of either 9/11 or homeland security.

stewart

I don't remember the President instituting a National Emergency declaration nor did he designate the city of Indianapolis as vital to the national defence during the US F1 race. If that was so - there were thousands of people (100,000 attended the race and 100 million viewed it on TV) taking pictures all over the city. Was this the only incident - who turned him in - were there signs in this public space stating that photography was limited - what reason was given for the incident? There has to be more going on than was reported in the press.

PDL

[stewart_photo]

Stewart... All of your cites are, frankly, irrelevant in this case since they involve Federal US property and installations. Last time I checked, your average city building is not under the jurisdiction of the POTUS or federal government, nor do I think most city administrators would willingly grant such jurisdiction.

I never once claimed my cites were relevant to the Indianapolis case, Mike. Instead, I was simply responding to the issues you raised by saying "With very few exceptions, you used to be able to take photos of ANYTHING visible from a public place, to include private property, government building, military facilities, etc...." Note your reference to government buildings and military facilities. You then went on to connect that to homeland security when you said "...this is just a case of an over reaching, over zealous government violating personal freedoms in the name of "homeland security."

As a response to that and that alone, my cites were intended to show there have been laws on the books for many decades impacting where and what one can photograph, and that those laws existed long before 9/11 and the current concepts of homeland security created by that incident.

Suffice it to say that we just disagree on the appropriateness of the methods the government exercises to “protect” our society. I respect your views but simply think they are wrong as you most likely consider mine.

I've stated no views whatsoever regarding the appropriateness of government methods, government oppression, eroded freedoms, or whatever. Instead, other than one message about the news media and police (not addressed specifically to you), my responses to you have solely addressed your statements about photography (as noted above) which I feel are inaccurate. Please do not now attempt to twist those responses into an indictment of my unstated and unspecified political views.

stewart

[stewart_photo]

I don't remember the President instituting a National Emergency declaration nor did he designate the city of Indianapolis as vital to the national defence during the US F1 race. (snip)

Never once said that was the case, PDL. For clarification, please read the my response to Mike directly above.

By the way, while you're at it, also read the quote of 18 USC Sec. 793 again. It does not require a Presidential declaration of war or national emergency. In fact, the only mention of the President in that is "...or any prohibited place so designated by the President..."

stewart

[MRRiley]

I never once claimed my cites were relevant to the Indianapolis case, Mike. Instead, I was simply responding to the issues you raised by saying "With very few exceptions, you used to be able to take photos of ANYTHING visible from a public place, to include private property, government building, military facilities, etc...." Note your reference to government buildings and military facilities. You then went on to connect that to homeland security when you said "...this is just a case of an over reaching, over zealous government violating personal freedoms in the name of "homeland security."

As a response to that and that alone, my cites were intended to show there have been laws on the books for many decades impacting where and what one can photograph, and that those laws existed long before 9/11 and the current concepts of homeland security created by that incident.

True enough Stewart… You never cited them as justification for the officer’s actions in Indianapolis but just to counter my assertion that “With very few exceptions, you used to be able to take photos of ANYTHING visible from a public place… <snip>”. You are correct that prohibitions have been in place for “many decades” prior to 911 that criminalize photography of military installations and government buildings.

Therefore I will amend my statement as follows…

With certain exceptions, you used to be able to take photos of ALMOST ANYTHING visible from a public place, to include private property, most government buildings, many military facilities (in certain circumstances), etc, as long as YOU the photographer stayed in that public space and did not trespass onto private or government property. …<snip>

In general the “off limits” areas were/are clearly posted and in that case the government has compelling justification for detaining you, searching you or even arresting you if you violate the restriction.

It’s perfectly understandable that you should NOT take photos of flight lines and troop encampments or ship departures or defenses around nuclear plants. However, municipal government buildings and other public architecture are historically common photography subjects. Are they possible targets, sure… Even the post office in Moose Lick, MN (my apologies to Moose Lick if you actually exist) is a potential target.

However this is where the crux of the matter lies. As common and publicly accessible public property, many of the buildings where photography is now being restricted are not clearly identified. Word of mouth or “word of cop” is not really sufficient. Signage citing the particular law or ordinance should be required to declare an area or building “off limits to photography” not as the officers in Indianapolis seem to claim, that it’s only ok to shoot in “marked tourist spots.”

Will I honor such signs? Yes! Will I continue to think they are ridiculous in many cases? Yes! Why? Because the terrorists will not honor the signs any more than they honor laws against hijacking or murder. They will obtain the imagery they want surreptitiously or by simply going to the library and checking out “The History of Moose Lick, MN” and looking up the photo of the post office on page 27. For approach and escape routes they will consult Google Earth and know not to go south since that goes right by the sheriff’s office (and his 2 cruisers).

I've stated no views whatsoever regarding the appropriateness of government methods, government oppression, eroded freedoms, or whatever. Instead, other than one message about the news media and police (not addressed specifically to you), my responses to you have solely addressed your statements about photography (as noted above) which I feel are inaccurate. Please do not now attempt to twist those responses into an indictment of my unstated and unspecified political views.

Very true, you are right you haven’t stated any specific view or political positions. You have simply stated the existence of laws restricting photograph of certain subjects. My apologies for inferring that this meant you supported those laws. Whether you do or don’t or I do or don’t is irrelevant. They do exist so until/unless they are changed we have to live with them. And it is important for photographers to know there are lines we should not cross as defined by the laws you cited. So, thank you for providing them.

So…. Photographers beware. There are certain government buildings and facilities that your government does not want you to photograph. In certain cases they are clearly marked and it is clearly illegal to do so and you can be arrested for it. In others it is less obvious so it is in your best interests to do your research and find out if the building you want to shoot (pictures of) is off limits. I still say that the government should make it very very obvious that you are forbidden to take pictures in any restricted location, but as the old saying goes… “Ignorance of the law is no excuse!”

You have been warned!

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. To be safe consult a licensed lawyer or 3 for specific legal guidance and advise.

Mike

[stewart_photo]

True enough Stewart… You never cited them as justification for the officer’s actions in Indianapolis (snip)

(snip) Very true, you are right you haven’t stated any specific view or political positions. (snip)

Thank you for those clarifications, Mike. With that out of the way, we can now move on to your other comments - of which I will now post viewpoints.

Some government officials (local, state, and federal) are attempting to use laws like to 18 USC Sec. 793 to justify restrictions on photography. It is true that terrorists attacks are injurious to the United States and photography of buildings & infastructure which might facilitate such attacks could be "used to the injury of the United States" as stated in 18 USC Sec. 793. In other words, government has a valid argument up to a point.

The real question is how far this should all go. Like you, I have no problem with such restrictions when it comes to certain military installations, high-risk facilities (nuclear power plants, etc), and so on. I don't even have a problem with such restrictions for lessor locations when a clear and present danger exists to justify temporary restrictions. But should such restrictions exist for the casual tourist with a camera, or any other photographer, when it comes to lessor locations (public views of city buildings, for example) where no clear and present danger exists and no evidence suggests that camera poses a threat? I think not. Indeed, I think government is grossly over-reaching when it attempts to apply such restrictions to these situations (buildings & other structures, factories & other business, trains & other public transportation, bridges & other infastructure, unclassified military facilities & equipment, conventional power plants & other low-risk facilities, and so on).

In the situation you raised in Indianapolis, we don't have the whole story. The police officers have not said why they felt justified to approach this individual (Miller). And they are not likely to say, even if fully justified (his actions were indeed suspicious), since doing so could be injurious to Miller (raising the possibility of a lawsuit). So, as far as they're concerned, they did their job, allowed Miller to move on (with his pictures) following the discussion, and the situation is over unless Miller wishes to pursue the matter further.

According to the news article, police said tourists should confine their photographs to marked tourists spots if in doubt. That is probably good advice if there are doubts about the current status of the object being photographed and the person never wants to be approached by police. I, on the other hand, and here is where you and I might disagree, don't mind occasionally being asked by police about my activities if they have doubts and will gladly show my pictures (without even being asked). Since I'm not harmed in any way, we'll have a nice conversation, the police will move on, and I'll continue.

The only problem I see with the Indianapolis case is police asking Miller to move on ("you can't be taking pictures around here"). If that was truely said and done, the police officers do have some explaining to do. If they were attempting to apply the laws mention above, they were grossly over-reaching and citizens should be bothered by that. However, the conflict isn't with the police. Citizens should be talking to their political representatives instead, demanding actual, reasonable, rules concerning these situations. In my opinion, wide-ranging restrictions on photography are not reasonable.

Now you have my views on the subject, Mike. I suspect they are somewhat different than you may have envisioned. If not, please feel free to comment.

stewart

[PDL]

From the news article
"IMPD officials say law enforcement is concerned about pictures of federal office buildings, military installations, major bridges and other infrastructure that could be considered a terrorists target."

1. The picture in question which was under question did not include was not of a Federal building. Although Miller had take images of the Federal Court building and was not confronted. What about the image in the article? Was that Miller's or channel 13 - and where were the cops when the photographer in question took that one?

2. From the above quote - you can not take an image of the Brooklyn Bridge, UN building or Central Park in NYC? As all the "statutes" quoted are Federal - not Local - this statute would apply to any such structure within the entire US. Not just in the "heartland".

3. "If in doubt, police say, tourists should confine their photographs to marked tourists spots." Just what in the H*ll are 'marked tourists spots' how are they marked, how is it communicated that the site is/is not a "tourist spot".

This whole thing sounds like someone over reacting to something they do not understand. Did the cops do this on their own, or did someone "turn Miller in" - if he was turned in - then the cops need to "detain" that person for possibly filing a false report. Miller could have refused to show the cops the images - then the cops would have had to "detain" him for real and justify what lead to their actions - declare their probable cause. Due process – innocent until “proven” guilty – all that other stuff in the constitution. (Remember we are the government) My favorite quote from “V for Vendetta” ‘The people should not be afraid of the government – the government should be afraid of The People”. The preamble to the US Constitution starts with "We the People of the United States” – not “Us the government of the United States”.
LII: Constitution
Pay particular attention to the 4th Amendment.
LII: Constitution

I think it is interesting to note that since a Jeep was used to ram the airport terminal in Scotland last week, the US is randomly searching cars at US airports - and only SUV's. As if terrorists are so stupid to realize that you could not put a lot of "stuff that goes bang" in a 68 Caddy or a station wagon for that matter. Knee jerk reaction is running rampant around here. I have no problems with random searching - but this type of reaction to last weeks terrorist methods is just getting ridiculous. Besides, I think a few more BMW's should be stopped just for the heck of it.

Anyway, this activity by the IMPD was not justified, Were Miller’s rights violated? – no – All of our rights were violated.

PDL

[stewart_photo]

1. The picture in question which was under question did not include was not of a Federal building. Although Miller had take images of the Federal Court building and was not confronted. What about the image in the article? Was that Miller's or channel 13 - and where were the cops when the photographer in question took that one?

I'm going to speculate a little here, PDL. Do remember this is just speculation. Anyway, I suspect what most in government and law enforcement are concerned about are images which could benefit terrorists (images of the building layout, entrances and exits, alternative entrances and exits, security, routes in and out of the area, and so on), not images of the overall building facade. Of course, the only possible way to determine the content of the images is to view them. Once that was done in the Indianapolis incident, and it was clear the images and Miller were not threatening, Miller was no longer "a person of interest," as they say, to the police.

2. From the above quote - you can not take an image of the Brooklyn Bridge, UN building or Central Park in NYC? As all the "statutes" quoted are Federal - not Local - this statute would apply to any such structure within the entire US. Not just in the "heartland".

You misunderstand. The code I posted (18 USC Sec. 793) is no threat to you unless your images threaten the national defense or are otherwise injurious to the United States. To be found guilty under this law, the police would first need to view your images to determine if they could pose of threat, and courtroom proceedings would have to prove the images were intended to threaten or cause injury. That courtroom proof is a major obstacle which cannot be overcome with simple pictures of a building facade, bridge, or whatever. As such, you can take such pictures without concern. While doing so, the most you should ever experience is an occasional encounter with police when questions about your images exist.

3. "If in doubt, police say, tourists should confine their photographs to marked tourists spots." Just what in the H*ll are 'marked tourists spots' how are they marked, how is it communicated that the site is/is not a "tourist spot".

State and federal historical sites are well marked (you can see signs for these entering most cities), as are most other major tourists attractions. But that doesn't really matter since the key to that phrase is "if in doubt." And it is probably a good idea to severely limit photography to bloody obvious tourists sites if there are any doubts about what can or cannot be legally photographed.

(snip) if he was turned in - then the cops need to "detain" that person for possibly filing a false report.

Of course, if a person did call the police in this incident, you know that calling police to report a suspicious person is not filing a false report.

Miller could have refused to show the cops the images - then the cops would have had to "detain" him for real and justify what lead to their actions - declare their probable cause. Due process – innocent until “proven” guilty – all that other stuff in the constitution.

Absolutely. However, in this case, Miller very wisely (in my opinion) gave them permission to view the photographs, ending any possibility of this incident escalating into something much more than it warranted.

I think it is interesting to note that since a Jeep was used to ram the airport terminal in Scotland last week, the US is randomly searching cars at US airports - and only SUV's. As if terrorists are so stupid to realize that you could not put a lot of "stuff that goes bang" in a 68 Caddy or a station wagon for that matter. Knee jerk reaction is running rampant around here. I have no problems with random searching - but this type of reaction to last weeks terrorist methods is just getting ridiculous. (snip)

Every experienced police officer knows that copycats are very common following a widely reported incident like this. As such, if a particular vehicle is used in such a crime, and the vehicle type is notably identified, it is very possible another incident will occur shortly afterwards using a similar vehicle. This is not stupidity, but instead good, fundamental, police work.

Anyway, this activity by the IMPD was not justified, Were Miller’s rights violated? – no – All of our rights were violated.

I certainly do not feel my rights were violated. Instead, at the very most, mistakes were perhaps made which need to be corrected (assuming we have the actual facts). To feel anything more would, in my opinion, be grossly overstating the situation.

stewart