Stopped by the Police ...

Hi all

Yesterday while I was taking photographs in London (see thread in Critique called 'My Summer Project') I got stopped by the police!

It was all very strange. I took some pics in Trafalgar Square (a big city square where tens of thousands of pics must be taken every single day) and then walked down towards the River Thames. About half a mile away from the alleged offence, I was stopped by two police officers (which meant they must have followed me) who flashed their warrant cards and told me I was being stopped under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. They were very correct and polite at all times, so no complaints there (we even shook hands after it was all over). As they were really rather pleasant about it, I offered to show them the material on my memory card, which they looked at and declared there was nothing illegal there, and they let me go after showing them some ID and waiting for them to fill in a form recording the 'stop and search'.

However, even that is somewhat annoying as my name is now recorded somewhere as having been stopped and searched as a potential terrorist. Not only that, but they radioed my name and DOB through so their computer presumably has recorded a police enquiry against my name.

They did say that they often stopped photographers on hot days in Trafalgar Square in case they were taking inappropriate pictures of kids - fair enough I suppose, though what that has to do with terrorism I don't know! In any case, I don't recall any little kids in the Square at all.

What a world we live in these days!

Cheers
Mike the Photographer who is not a Terrorist :cool:

I hear ya, Mike. While on vacation in Washington, DC in May, I was taking pictures at Arlington Nat'l Cemetery, and was approached by a security guard at the gates of Ft. Myer. He wanted to know if I'd taken any pictures of the front gate. I told him no, and showed him what I had. It was a rather pleasant exhchange. Since 9/11, especially in D.C., things have changed as far as photographers' freedom of movement, I guess. I don't have a problem with it, as long as people are nice about it. This has been my only experience so far, but I'm always aware that for any reason, I could be stopped.
John

Don't know what to say! Makes me glad I'm a country boy though some rednecks can get belligerant.
Don't know why the gate to Arlington can't be photographed, John.

The part that concerns me the most is that you're expected to show them the photos on your memory card. I'm wondering how they would react if I asked them to give me a few hours while I develop my film?

Paul

Just to be clear: they did not ask to see the photos - I offered as I thought it was the quickest way to deal with it and be on my (legal) way. All they did was take me up on my offer. I should also say that this is the first time this has happened in hundreds, maybe thousands, of hours of shooting in central London. I wouldn't want to blow it out of proportion.

Cheers
Mike

It has happen to me as well. Once stopped thinking I was a burglar casing to place for a break in, and followed by security around a power plant on another outing. I thought about fixing up a small porfolio to carry with me to show the police just in case I was to get stopped in the future.

I seriously have given up shooting certain events now because of all the issues with kids and photos, in fact even when parents ask I won't shoot their kids unless I know the family really well.
And there are certain places and buildings I won't shoot either just because of all the nervous trigger happy cops.

This thread reminds me of one in another forum where a ham radio operator was at a park with his son and a woman went spastic because he was talking into a radio and she threatened to call the law and told him he wasn't allowed to own or operate a two way radio because he wasn't a police officer :confused: I guess she never heard of amature radio or CB radios :eek: and she at one point accused him of being a pervert. I wonder what she'd have said to me if I'd have been there with my 2 meter ham radio my scanner blaring police fire and ambulance calls and my camera! :rolleyes: I know she wouldn't have liked my response! :p

As for the officers radioing your information in be glad we don't have to wear tracking devices or have have tatoos they scan on our arms......talk about big brother!

JS

I have yet to have a run in with anyone when it comes to photography, but I won't be surprised when I do. This weekend, I took some pics of some kids playing in some fountains in Chicago. I did think twice about taking any pics of the kids because I didn't want to upset any parents, but I did go ahead with my photos anyway. Nobody seemed to mind.

I wonder, do women photographers have these same types of thoughts about not shooting kids, or run ins with parents? Is it a "perverted men" thing? I don't have any kids yet, but I don't think I would give it a second thought if I saw a woman at the park taking photos of kids. I may wonder about an man doing the same thing though.

Further news just breaking! - I emailed the members of my camera club this morning with the details of what happened (basically what I posted at the beginning of this thread but with more geographic info as they know the area). Turns out that two other members have had similar experiences, one a very distressing one where a parent accused him of being a paedophile. Fortunately he also was able to show the police that the images he had taken were all entirely innocent and he was allowed to go on his way. However, he was deeply upset by the incident.

Anyway, my club has decided to issue a membership card with photo because of these incidents. It won't stop the police stopping anyone, but it might give a little legitimacy to the claim that the photographer is simply a keep amateur. Most interesting is the thought that the reverse of the card may have a brief summary of photographer's rights.

Cheers
Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didache

About half a mile away from the alleged offence, I was stopped by two police officers (which meant they must have followed me) who flashed their warrant cards and told me I was being stopped under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

---

Yes, that's a good catch all to give grounds to stop and search.
Doesn't even need you to do anything, unlike the Public Order Act.
Though it seems just saying b******s is grounds to detain you under that act.

Quote:

---

they often stopped photographers on hot days in Trafalgar Square in case they were taking inappropriate pictures of kids

---

No surprise there.
They can use the PoTA as grounds to stop and then use evidence recovered to mount other prosecutions.
Remember the terrorist suspects whose homes were raided, and then when they discovered some indecent images they were prosecuted for that?

Cynic in me says they had to find something to justify going in there in the first place.
Wouldn't look good politically at all if they raided a house and detained someone for 24 (now 48) days without them being guilty of something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Addies Granddaddy

I hear ya, Mike. While on vacation in Washington, DC in May, I was taking pictures at Arlington Nat'l Cemetery, and was approached by a security guard at the gates of Ft. Myer. He wanted to know if I'd taken any pictures of the front gate.

---

I probably would have told him -- Cool, I'll get some on the way out!

Is it just me or are people more paranoid and irrational. I got one of those forwarded e-mails from a distant aunt this morning that set me off a bit. It was a letter supposedly by a woman and it talked about how Islam attacked us on Sept. 11th and how she doesn't care if we torture prisoners a little, mistreat the Qur'an among other things. I was a little annoyed by it and let her know.

I guess anything goes in the post September 11th world. Fear and Loathing -- It's all good! :rolleyes:

mbb

Many police harass photographers all over the world with their Terrorist BS. If I was a terrorist I sure would not go out to the location I wanted to destroy and photograph it. I would go to google maps. Here in the midwest many of the streets have been done and you can get street view photography. So all of you terrorists just take the time to google the location and save your shutter releases for something else.

Did you see this?
http://forums.photographyreview.com/...ad.php?t=45422


An interesting positive viewpoint ...

Firstly, we have confirmation in writing from the Home Secretary (i.e. the politician responsible for what in the US would be termed 'homeland security') that there is no law against photography in public places. That alone is helpful when faced with a jobsworth trying to tell you it's illegal to take pictures without some sort of permission.

Secondly, although the Home Secretary states that police may implement local restrictions, she goes on to say that this is the decision of the regional force Chief Constable. Not part-time PCSO Smith. Or PC Plod. Or even the Inspector (US terms: Lt) running a local policing operation. Yes, the letter says that these people can make decisions on allowing photography - but it goes on to say that they have to be able to point to a policy set by their Chief Constable, not make it up as they go along.

And that helps, because at the level of decision-making a CC is meant to operate at, policy decisions should be based on a proper assessment of all the factors, including the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. So, if the policy is overly restrictive (e.g 'no photography without a permit applied for a month ahead') or too vague ('entirely at the discretion of the local officer') then it would be open to challenge through the courts.

Now, this is not an ideal situation. I would like a strong, positive presumption that photography is permitted unless there are very clear and overwhelming local circumstances against it. But for now the Home Secretary's letter actually provides some useful ammunition for anyone threatened with legal consequences for public photography.


And something that is more like what I expect to happen...

Put simply, the comments made by the Home Secretary have placed what was a clearly understood situation "yes, you can take photos" into a 'well, it MIGHT be OK but you will not necessarily know until we decide to bust you' nightmare. I am sure that memo's will be coming down from Chief Constables with 'guidelines' for questioning photographers. this will not be 'law' but advice from a CC. The general public will discover these guidelines when they get arrested for 'failing to obey an officer' who will be enforcing the opinion/interpretation of the Home Secretary.

Every tin-pot personal dictator (not police but Joe Public) will be going "What do you think you are doing? Don't you know the Home Secretary says you cannot do that" and essentially being 'nosey-parkers.

I carry I.D with my passport number.on,just in case...- have been challenged three times,in a year of shooting,in Indonesia and Turkey.Every time smiles,showing my I.D,photos and giving my website address got me out of trouble with over-zealous security.
-Wonder how it would go for me,taking photos in any of the places mentioned...?
(see icon pic....lol.)
-that is why I live in Indonesia !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by photophorous

The part that concerns me the most is that you're expected to show them the photos on your memory card. I'm wondering how they would react if I asked them to give me a few hours while I develop my film?

---

Interesting point - I think "everyone" just expects that photography is digital, so images can be reviewed immediately. I remember reading an article with Joe McNally who photographed a military fighter jet and reviewed his shots with security before he left, to be sure he didn't have shots of classified stuff. Several years ago, this would have likely been on slide film - and then what?

The whole shooting-in-public thing just keeps getting more wierd by the day. I haven't ever been stopped, but I'm not likely to shoot anyway when kids are around. People shots aren't really my thing, so I just avoid it.

New York City has set some formal rules regarding filming and photography on city streets.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didache

Just to be clear: they did not ask to see the photos - I offered as I thought it was the quickest way to deal with it and be on my (legal) way. All they did was take me up on my offer. I should also say that this is the first time this has happened in hundreds, maybe thousands, of hours of shooting in central London. I wouldn't want to blow it out of proportion.

Cheers
Mike

---

same here. I have been stopped twice already and both times, I found it easy to simply show them my pics...It is like my computer, I have nothing to hide, so why make a mountain of of a mole hill...

However, like photophorous (paul) mentioned, what if I where shooting film? which is what I have been shooting mostly these days..

Mike and others..I have been following this thread http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/for...ad.php?t=52309
and it is quite interesting...It seems to fit in this thread, and don't want to derail it, so if a mod feels like moving it, it might make for an interesting topic.

It's not everyone with a camera though. . .there are cameras everywhere these days; in phones, on light poles and traffic lights, over doorways, in grocery stores, parking garages, the highway. And people with point and shoot cameras are rarely stopped, you're not going to get anything 'like a security breach' with something like that!:rolleyes: But pull out a camera with a detachable lens and you're going to have to come over here and answer these questions or just put that away.

I was stopped in a revolving restaurant//bar that overlooks Washington, D.C. I entered carrying my large backpack and tripod, paid the cover and set up at a table in front of the windows. I spent probably a half hour doing long exposures of the skyline as the room rotated. (I was going for long streaky light shots.) As the room swung around to the other side of the building it looks out over the Pentagon. I was pretty much finished at that point as the lights of interest were out of sight but still had the camera set up. I was enjoying a drink with my husband when the manager hustles up and says I am not allowed to take pictures from this restaurant and could I please put away the camera or leave. :confused: :eek: I pointed out that the main attraction of this place was coming for the view and that everyone else in the bar was taking photos out the windows.

Yes, the manager nodded. But not with a camera like THAT, with a tripod! It's National Security m'am.
'Come again?'
You can see the Pentagon from here.
So.
Well, it's National Security.
What is?
The Pentagon.
But I'm not taking pictures of the Pentagon.
That doesn't matter. I've been asked by the GOVERNMENT to not allow photography from our roof top bar with cameras like YOURS.
But it's night and there's no lights on the pentagon.
That doesn't matter.

Needless to say we left and the conversation seemed like something straight out of an Abbott and Costello routine. But it appears the crime I committed was that my photos might have actually turned out.

Here's the security risk photo:

I must not get out enough to shoot, or I just look so dang cute & innocent since I haven't been stopped or questioned before. And I live in the Bay Area as well :)

It seems this thread has struck a chord!

Anyway, I will be back in London again tomorrow to take some photographs - hopefully I will have nothing to report!

Cheers
Mike

Wow!! This has been a very interesting thread. It appears that everyone or all most everyone has been stopped and questioned pertaining to the pictures taken. I am a summing that everyone is Caucasian. Let me enlighten you all and add a little twist to this sage, I am black, American, and live in the good ole US of A. In my 'hood we have this quaint little deal called DWB(driving while black)
the police will stop you for no good reason. Driving in the wrong neighborhood, driving the wrong type of automobile, dressing a certain way, etc. This amounts to illegal searches and seizures but this occurs all the time both pre911 and post911. This is especially dangerous during the hours of darkness. When stopped, you make no sudden moves, put your hands in top of the steering wheel in plain sight. In other words, do nothing to give the cops a reason to shoot you and have questions asked later when you are dead and can offer no rebuttal to what has been said or done. The cops can always say that they thought you had a gun, or were reaching for one. I could go on, but you get the idea. Least way you were not spreadeagled and handcuffed face down in the roadway or on the sidewalk.. Sometimes it is like asking the fox to guard your chicken coop.


bluesguy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluesguy

Wow!! This has been a very interesting thread. It appears that everyone or all most everyone has been stopped and questioned pertaining to the pictures taken. I am a summing that everyone is Caucasian. Let me enlighten you all and add a little twist to this sage, I am black, American, and live in the good ole US of A. In my 'hood we have this quaint little deal called DWB(driving while black)
the police will stop you for no good reason. Driving in the wrong neighborhood, driving the wrong type of automobile, dressing a certain way, etc. This amounts to illegal searches and seizures but this occurs all the time both pre911 and post911. This is especially dangerous during the hours of darkness. When stopped, you make no sudden moves, put your hands in top of the steering wheel in plain sight. In other words, do nothing to give the cops a reason to shoot you and have questions asked later when you are dead and can offer no rebuttal to what has been said or done. The cops can always say that they thought you had a gun, or were reaching for one. I could go on, but you get the idea. Least way you were not spreadeagled and handcuffed face down in the roadway or on the sidewalk.. Sometimes it is like asking the fox to guard your chicken coop.


bluesguy

---

A few years back, I was driving through ELA in my brand spanking new 300zx Turbo and being a ''spanican'' I get pulled over and they bring me out of the car and sit me at the curb like I am some punk cholo selling drugs or that I was driving a stolen car...When they found out the car was indeed mine and fully paid for I might add, I went on a rampage...I started telling them, that I make more money than both of them combined and that I would be filling a law suit against them, (which I did, but dropped the charges at the request of my wife) But boy was I upset...Come to think of it, that was back in 1995..Boy how time passes...But anyway, I digress and I know where you are coming from....

Unlucky Mike, I guess you must have that guilty look.

Roger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluesguy

In my 'hood we have this quaint little deal called DWB(driving while black)

---

That's arrived here in the UK too.
And internationally of course there is FWI (flying while Islamic).

Bump.

More fuel to add to the fire.

A story out of Great Briton: A father of three is branded a "pervert" for taking photos of HIS OWN kids in a public park!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...blic-park.html

mjs1973 - to be fair here, it was some other mother who did the branding, not the police. Personally if I were going about my legal business and someone started screeching "pervert" in public, they would find themselves very quickly on the wrong end of a slander suit.

Mike

Yes, you are correct. It was not the police. In this case, the police confirmed that what the man was doing was perfectly legal.

The reason I posted the link was simply to add to the discussion about knowing your rights. Like you, I would have not taken this situation lying down. I don't know that I would go as far as to sue someone, but I would be sure to let them know that I had every right to be there, and to take photos. Of course a situation like this could very quickly get out of hand with the whole "mob mentality" so perhaps the man in the story did the right thing by leaving, and diffusing the situation before it got out of hand.

I think this story points to a bigger picture (pun intended) about people being paranoid when they see someone with a camera. It's not just rent-a-cops on a power trip we have to watch out for when we are out there in public taking photos.

My understanding from having read US legal opinion (as of 2004) is that if anyone tries to stop you from taking photos in a public place it can be regarded as harrassment and is subject to legal remedy (in most states). "...all states have have laws that make coercion and harrassment criminal offenses."

Mike, that is exactly why I stick to landscapes and wildlife. Although I recently found out that if I want to shoot landscapes and wildlife in Canada's National Parks with the idea of maybe selling them for stock or as a calendar illustration, I need a permit :eek: .

This permit requires $2 million in liability insurance, an application fee (one time) of $148.50 Cdn and a location fee of $495.30 Cdn per day - not that I would ever bother with this, but theoretically Mr. Ranger can ask me to leave the park if I don't have a permit and am a known free lancer maybe even if I am not a known freelancer. I believe these rules were originally put in place for film companies making movies and for pros shooting models, but they can still go after known (unknown) freelancers.

So much for my tax dollars at work...:D

Cheers,

WesternGuy

I too have been asked by security to not photograph anymore. BUT I was on a military installation taking pictures of the F-16s taking off. I was training out there and just got off track a little. I had to delete some, but they were nice enough. But I will add that I was on Police training (high speed driving training).

As a police officer, I know that almost no one understands what we see and how we interpret it. I do stop people that look "harmless" but something in their demeanor gives me reason to be suspicious. I do search people that fit a certain description because it fits a CRIMINAL profile.

I could explain in depth why cops do certain things, but it would take to much time and most would still not truly understand. I don't want you to. That is why we do what we do, so that people do not have to see what we do.

Understanding your frustrations, I can only suggest that respect and politeness goes a long way. Many criminals try to "intimidate" us by threatening law suites and such. It is a sure way to get more attention than you want because it is what many criminals do. Respect is a two way street, give it and most likely you will get it. BUT THERE ARE STILL BAD APPLES EVERYWHERE.....

Phil

I have been told to move on as I was taking "professional pictures" around sydney harbour. I happen to have been getting paid for the shots so I moved on and kept shooting, but given that i was paid about $50 for several hours work for a friends band you could hardly call it commercial. apparently anyone taking professional shots in most of the interesting places around syndey city needs approval and insurance etc to satisfy the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority. This is a little silly as what is deemed professional is at the discretion of the ranger you are talking to. An Australian satirist show the chaser did a segment where they filmed buildings of "national security or importance" when they were dressed as a tourist no-one cared, but when they dressed as an arab they were almost always immediately told to stop and move along. imagine if someone took offence to you using one of the old Zenith Photosnipers!
<img src="http://www.gizmodo.fr/savedfiles/photosniper.jpg">

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ciddog91

BUT THERE ARE STILL BAD APPLES EVERYWHERE...

---

And wide ranging law-given powers for them to (ab)use.
"A disabled 12-year-old boy and his parents were detained by police under the Terrorism Act after his mother was accused of 'people trafficking' her mixed-race son."

Mind you, she did push her luck "Ms Maynard, a legal advocate, said she challenged the Channel Tunnel police officer, asking whether she would have been asked the same question if her son had been white"

Red rag to a bull that, PC plod(ette) not being known for a sense of humour.


http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/a...afficking.html
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ing/article.do
http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=425
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7520598.stm
http://ukliberty.wordpress.com/2008/...terrorism-act/
http://www.xable.com/news/127344

Paul .. I read the articles and it's made me steaming mad! Quite apart from what the mother or the police constable said, what on earth has child trafficking got to do with terrorism or its prevention? It really and truly seems to me as though this ill-conceived and paranoid act is just carte blanch for the boys in blue to stop people for any reason they damn well please, whether terrorism related or not.

I have written to my MP detailing my experience, and asking sepcifically why a terrorism act is being used to harrass people suspected of other crimes.

Mike

Skyman,

I wanted one of those when I was doing "recon" missions. It would have made life so much easier. BUT being of Arab decent, I may have had some questions to answer if the wrong person spotted me.

SW,
Challenging an officer may bring about some wrath, but it does not mean the wrath is right. The terrorism acts have given an incredible amount of power to authorities. Mostly federal authorities though. I do not know how it works in UK, but here the feds have almost unlimited power in certain situations. I would like to think that as a law bidding citizen and officer, I am somewhat safe, but I have been scrutinized at times because of my looks. I do not condone that behavior. Wrong is wrong not matter what.

Phil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmartWombat

That's arrived here in the UK too.
And internationally of course there is FWI (flying while Islamic).

---

TELL ME ABOUT IT !!!!

I'm Caucasian ,-the headscarf makes me look a little bit Arab,
-but when I open my mouth and a nice middle class British accent comes out.....LOL..

- silica packs can be fun,removed mine from the camera case,after my Bro's acoustic guitar was opened...(Checked baggage,hard case)-I mean the body was actually opened up,and the silica pack removed and confiscated..::cryin:

..Camera gear is not usually a problem,its my acupuncture kit that gets raised eyebrows....:D

Mike, have a go at this one too.

Police in Portsmouth have admitted using powers to combat terrorists to question a man who took a photograph of a police car.

Basically the police are using the Prevention of Terrorism Act to intimidate people who upset them.

Who says we don't live in a police state !

Read what the superintendent said:
"this power can only be used for the purposes of searching for articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism, and may be exercised whether or not the constable has grounds for suspecting the presence of articles of that kind"

"It is therefore reasonable for the officer in this case to have made reference to the act and been suspicious about why the photograph of the vehicle had been taken."


http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/Qui...all.4332791.jp
http://www.crawleyobserver.co.uk/lat...Act.4334972.jp

Thanks for that Paul. It doesn't surpise me. Below is the text of the letter I sent to my MP (who I know very well personally). As it is summer recess, it might be some time before I get a reply, but I will certainly post it when it comes.

Cheers
Mike




Re: ‘Stop and Search’ under the Prevention of Terrorism Act


Dear Paul

On Monday, July 14th I was taking some photographs in Trafalgar Square (where thousands of photographs must be taken every single day) and then walked down Northumberland Avenue towards the Thames. About half a mile away from the alleged offence, I was stopped by two police officers (which meant they must have followed me) who displayed their warrant cards and told me I was being stopped under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

They were very correct and polite at all times, so no complaints there. As they were really rather pleasant about it, I offered to show them the material on my memory card, which they looked at and agreed there was nothing suspicious there. They then let me go after asking me to show some ID and making me wait for them to fill in a form recording the 'stop and search'.

However, even that is somewhat annoying as my name is now recorded somewhere as having been stopped and searched as a potential terrorist. Not only that, but they radioed my name and D.O.B. through so their computer presumably has recorded a police enquiry against my name.

The essence of my disquiet is this: the police officers very freely told me that they often stopped photographers on hot days in Trafalgar Square in case they were taking inappropriate pictures of children - fair enough I suppose, though what that has to do with the prevention of terrorism I don't know! I really have no choice but to conclude that the Prevention of Terrorism Act is being used by the police as a tool to allow them to stop and search anyone they like, whether the suspected offence is terrorism or not. Surely this is a misuse of the intent of the Act and a form of harassment?

In my shock I neglected to record the names of the officers concerned but it is widely reported in the photographic press and also by word of mouth in camera club circles that my experience is far from unique. (On this I am glad to note that you have signed Austin Mitchell’s Early Day Motion on this subject).

Best wishes

Hows this for a stupid rule?
Next thing you know point& shoot super zooms will get you thrown in jail over there.

China bans SLR cameras at Olympic venues.
http://2008gamesbeijing.com