Only once have I been told to not take photos of a building. It was the Arnold Palmer Childrens Hospital. Of course it was for some challenge (I don't remember) but I was told to cease and desist...
I don't understand the restrictions for buildings shot from a public space. Someone with ill intent will always find an easy way to achieve it. Maybe while the officer is distracted harassing the photographer.
Mine was the Fountain Plaza Central Fountain in Dallas. Apparently one can shoot with a hand-held camera, but when I set up the tripod, security descended upon me like a duck on a June bug.
The city will also provide training for deputies specifically on the subject of “interacting with photographers or members of the public who are taking photos in public places.”
I am envisioning a training session that goes like this.
"They aren't doing anything wrong, leave them alone". Cheapest training they ever had to run.
Training? Why weren't they already trained? How can you properly enforce laws if you don't know them?
Perhaps because it is not all that simple. Rules are subject to change due to things like the jurisdiction one is in, what legal parameters are in place and other similar issues.
You must also remember that post 911 everything was suspect in the eyes of security personnel and they were probably informed to question everything.
As far as your comment regarding "How can you properly enforce laws if you don't know them?" I seriously doubt that there is a person alive (including judges) who is familiar with ALL of the laws of the land.
"The training will be provided through a newsletter and will be given to all deputies assigned to patrol."
I have been prevented from taking photos of buildings numerous times. Mind you, taking photos of a building from public property (i.e. sidewalks, across the street), is not the same as being on the property itself (which is considered private) and being told you cannot photograph it. So taking one step backward, across the property line and onto the sidewalk, resolved the issue. Much to the consternation of the security guard :)
I've been questioned by a security guard when taking some pictures of a refinery from the sidewalk. We actually had a pretty friendly discussion on the subject of balancing safety and freedom with regard to photography.
I had an agent On my way! tell me to stop shooting the federal courthouse in Eugene. The confusing part was he assured me there was a court order forbidding photos, but it's hard to know what's what.
Training? Why weren't they already trained? How can you properly enforce laws if you don't know them?
Perhaps because it is not all that simple. Rules are subject to change due to things like the jurisdiction one is in, what legal parameters are in place and other similar issues.
You must also remember that post 911 everything was suspect in the eyes of security personnel and they were probably informed to question everything.
As far as your comment regarding "How can you properly enforce laws if you don't know them?" I seriously doubt that there is a person alive (including judges) who is familiar with ALL of the laws of the land.
Ray
I'd expect them not to know the more intricate details of criminal code, but you'd think the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, being the most fundamental of laws and not having changed for some 200 years would be at the top of the list for the most basic of training.
And no, "Because Terrorism and 9/11" as I was told, isn't a valid reason.
I'd expect them not to know the more intricate details of criminal code, but you'd think the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, being the most fundamental of laws and not having changed for some 200 years would be at the top of the list for the most basic of training.
And no, "Because Terrorism and 9/11" as I was told, isn't a valid reason.
Knowing the intricate details of the criminal code is something that I doubt anyone has mastered. If indeed they had, then there would be no disputes before the courts.
As far as the examples you provide, you do know that there are constitutional challenges on a regular basis, so it would seem that not everyone agrees with your premise.
I'd expect them not to know the more intricate details of criminal code, but you'd think the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, being the most fundamental of laws and not having changed for some 200 years would be at the top of the list for the most basic of training.
And no, "Because Terrorism and 9/11" as I was told, isn't a valid reason.
Knowing the intricate details of the criminal code is something that I doubt anyone has mastered. If indeed they had, then there would be no disputes before the courts.
As far as the examples you provide, you do know that there are constitutional challenges on a regular basis, so it would seem that not everyone agrees with your premise.
Ray
The point is that no one is discussing the intricate details of the criminal code. It's the fundamental rights guaranteed in the the documents that are the basis for all laws. There were no new laws inserted into the nooks and crannies of the criminal code that tried to make photography a crime and thus necessitated a challenge. It was law enforcement, making stuff up and overplaying the "Terrorism and 9/11" card to justify their actions. Whether it was the officers acting on their own initiative or at the direction of their superiors…who knows?
The important thing is that now, hopefully, the deputies will now focus on actual crimes and understand that just because someone has a camera and isn't taking tourist photos that they're NOT up to no good.
