Police Chief Confirms Detaining Photographers Within Departmental Policy

[PulpedFiction]

[img]http://www.lbpost.com/images/image1313146779-26509.jpg[/img]
[I]A photograph shot by Sander Roscoe Wolff on June 30 before he was detained by Long Beach Police[/I]

[quote]Police Chief Jim McDonnell has confirmed that detaining photographers for taking pictures "with no apparent esthetic value" is within Long Beach Police Department policy.

McDonnell spoke for a follow-up story on a June 30 incident in which Sander Roscoe Wolff, a Long Beach resident and regular contributor to Long Beach Post, was detained by Officer Asif Kahn for taking pictures of a North Long Beach refinery.

"If an officer sees someone taking pictures of something like a refinery," says McDonnell, "it is incumbent upon the officer to make contact with the individual." McDonnell went on to say that whether said contact becomes detainment depends on the circumstances the officer encounters.

McDonnell says that while there is no police training specific to determining whether a photographer's subject has "apparent esthetic value," officers make such judgments "based on their overall training and experience" and will generally approach photographers not engaging in "regular tourist behavior."

This policy apparently falls under the rubric of compiling Suspicious Activity Reports (SAR) as outlined in the Los Angeles Police Department's Special Order No. 11, a March 2008 statement of the LAPD's "policy … to make every effort to accurately and appropriately gather, record and analyze information, of a criminal or non-criminal nature, that could indicate activity or intentions related to either foreign or domestic terrorism."

Among the non-criminal behaviors "which shall be reported on a SAR" are the usage of binoculars and cameras (presumably when observing a building, although this is not specified), asking about an establishment's hours of operation, taking pictures or video footage "with no apparent esthetic value," and taking notes.

Also listed as behaviors to be documented are "Attempts to acquire illegal or illicit biological agent (anthrax, ricin, Eboli, smallpox, etc.)," "In possession, or utilizes, explosives (for illegal purposes)," and "Acquires or attempts to acquire uniforms without a legitimate cause (service personnel, government uniforms, etc.)." Special Order No. 11 does not distinguish between how these behaviors should be handled and how (e.g.) photography should be handled.

McDonnell says that LBPD policy is "on-line" with all instructions contained in Special Order No. 11, "as is everyone else [i.e., other police departments] around the country."

In response to Long Beach Post's coverage of the incident, the National Press Photographer's Association has written to Chief McDonnell expressing concern "about the misplaced beliefs that photography is in and of itself a suspicious activity."

Deputy City Attorney Gary Anderson says that the legal standard for a police officer's detaining an individual pivots on whether the officer has "reasonable suspicion of criminal activity"; and that whether taking photographs of a refinery meets that standard "depends on the circumstances the officer is confronted with." For that information, Anderson says, we must know what is in the officer's mind.

Officer Kahn did not reply to repeated attempts to contact him in order to determine what was in his mind when he allegedly detained Wolff; and the LBPD Public Information Office referred pertinent questions to Anderson.

According to Anderson, Kahn claims that Wolff complied with Kahn's request to see his license, and that it was unnecessary for him to compel Wolff to do so — a version of events Wolff flatly contradicts. "I absolutely asked him if showing him my license was necessary," Wolff says, "which is when he gave me his little spiel about Homeland Security [allowing Kahn to detain Wolff under the circumstances]."2

Anderson reports that Kahn asserts Wolff denied being a reporter, which Wolff says is untrue. "I never denied being a reporter," Wolff says. "He never asked me about being a reporter. He asked me why I was taking pictures, and I told him that I was an artist."

Regarding whether Kahn felt Wolff's behavior gave him "reasonable suspicion of criminal activity," Anderson initially replied, "I never asked [Kahn] that question." Agreeing that "we can't go any further in discussing [whether Kahn had 'reasonable suspicion of criminal activity'] without knowing what was in the officer's mind in this specific instance," Anderson agreed to follow up with Kahn on that matter.

However, when reached 10 days later, Anderson stated, "I'm not going to get into the officer's subjective state of mind at this point. … That's attorney-client privilege."

As to why Anderson failed to cite attorney-client privilege initially, Anderson says only that he has "been thinking about it more"; and, "We have no further comment. Seriously."

1 After running Wolff's driver's license, Kahn left the scene without ordering Wolff to desist.

2 Legally, a police detention has occurred when "a reasonable individual" in that circumstance would be believe he or she is not free to leave[/quote]

[url=http://www.lbpost.com/life/greggory/12188]Source: Long Beach Post[/url]

The Police Chief of Long Beach confirmed that his department's policy is to detain photographers who do nothing more than take pictures in public places, and that he neither has, nor plans to implement, any guidelines for these detentions, classing photography with other "suspicious activity" such as "attempts to acquire illegal or illicit biological agent (anthrax, ricin, Eboli, smallpox, etc.)" and "In possession, or utilizes, explosives (for illegal purposes)."

Land of the Free, right? It's not much different over here in England. I find it a immensely troubling when a country that prides itself on liberty and freedom suddenly decides that it can define what is and isn't art. What is and isn't beautiful. What we're allowed to show and what we're not. All over the world, in every country, our rights are being taken away slowly, piece by piece, under our noses and the majority of us sit there and do nothing about it. We don't raise a fuss and we don't care about the kind of society we're allowing to grow. We dismiss these stories as isolated incidents. How many incidents must we have like this before they they stop being isolated and start being recognised as a problem? Every time we sit back and let another one of our rights be snatched away because it's 'safer that way' we're setting a precedent, we're saying "yes, I'm fine with this part of my life being taken over, I didn't really want to be in control of my own life anyway."

This could all be dismissed as hyperbole and exaggeration but when we're seeing more and more of these sorts of headlines from every sector of society you have to start to wonder what sort of world we'll be living in in 20 years. What sort of world our children will have to grow up in. Maybe I am crazy, maybe everything will be alright. I'm just not too keen on having somebody else make the decisions in my life for me.

[Shiftyze]

The fuck is wrong with every police force in this world? They need more in-depth psychological tests to hire people in the police force.

[B-hazard]

How can a police officer decide what has 'aesthetic value' or not, as a photographer I often take photos of things some people might consider mundane. I think I remember some guy being detained over taking photos of an oil refinery, which is actually an interesting subject imo.

[DIOBRANDO]

[QUOTE=PulpedFiction;31743386][img]http://www.lbpost.com/images/image1313146779-26509.jpg[/img]
[I]A photograph shot by Sander Roscoe Wolff on June 30 before he was detained by Long Beach Police[/I]

[url=http://www.lbpost.com/life/greggory/12188]Source: Long Beach Post[/url]

The Police Chief of Long Beach confirmed that his department's policy is to detain photographers who do nothing more than take pictures in public places, and that he neither has, nor plans to implement, any guidelines for these detentions, classing photography with other "suspicious activity" such as "attempts to acquire illegal or illicit biological agent (anthrax, ricin, Eboli, smallpox, etc.)" and "In possession, or utilizes, explosives (for illegal purposes)."

Land of the Free, right? It's not much different over here in England. I find it a immensely troubling when a country that prides itself on liberty and freedom suddenly decides that it can define what is and isn't art. What is and isn't beautiful. What we're allowed to show and what we're not. All over the world, in every country, our rights are being taken away slowly, piece by piece, under our noses and the majority of us sit there and do nothing about it. We don't raise a fuss and we don't care about the kind of society we're allowing to grow. We dismiss these stories as isolated incidents. How many incidents must we have like this before they they stop being isolated and start being recognised as a problem? Every time we sit back and let another one of our rights be snatched away because it's 'safer that way' we're setting a precedent, we're saying "yes, I'm fine with this part of my life being taken over, I didn't really want to be in control of my own life anyway."

This could all be dismissed as hyperbole and exaggeration but when we're seeing more and more of these sorts of headlines from every sector of society you have to start to wonder what sort of world we'll be living in in 20 years. What sort of world our children will have to grow up in. Maybe I am crazy, maybe everything will be alright. I'm just not too keen on having somebody else make the decisions in my life for me.[/QUOTE]
First off, a police chief isn't a country.
Secondly I am not trying to be rude but most likely you are an angsty teen who has a very narrow scope of history. Do you know what happened to thieves not to long ago? They had their fingers chopped off, without any due trial. The world is home to 6,775,235,700 people and still increasing, there is going to be fuck ups and idiots in the mix.

The reason this kind of stuff is put into the headlines is because it is negative, as positive is generally the expected norm so we do not find it interesting. We as humanity focus on the negative so it always seems like the world is being engulfed in fire because we never look at the good. The nazi regime for example is responsible for a lot of modern medical breakthroughs.

For every one bad cop you hear out there, there is 50 more silently doing their duty and they do not stand out because of it.

Even then, you view this as a act by a man to take away our freedom, when he is just trying to do his job to protect the citizens of his district. He is not thinking "oh yea let me fuck these photographers over, the cunts", he is put in a area of high stress to protect a district in an area that could be a high terrorist attack point. Imagine how you would feel as the chief of police having countless citizens die in an attack in your district? He is trying his best to keep people safe, and while I may not agree with his methods, his intentions are good.

Also the issue with the land of the free is that we have many mixtures of people who want to be free, and their liberties clash with others. With so much variety you cannot help but offend some group with some action, no matter how hard you try to please.

You are viewing this with a very narrow scope and in a very negative manner that is morphing your vision into seeing yourself as oppressed. No rights have been taken away in this decision, and photographers still have the right to take pictures, all it says is if the photographer acts suspicious police will not hesitate to question them. Generally these industrial areas are offlimits to the public and photographers do have a history of jumping fences and bending other rules to get the nice shot.

In this chief's eyes public safety rises above art. Also with the chief not defining a specific set of outlines he IS NOT defining what is art and what is not, by giving outlines he would have been.
As said nothing is in black or white and nothing is ever a simple decision simply from the sheer massive amount of differing views and opinions.

I hope you took the time to read this and possibly have a different outlook on these actions and take into consideration more variables.

[PulpedFiction]

[QUOTE=1chains1;31743714]First off, a police chief isn't a country.

[B]The decision had to be passed down or approved by somebody. The police chief couldn't just decide one day to arrest whoever he felt like, that would be illegal.[/B]

Secondly I am not trying to be rude but most likely you are an angsty teen who has a very narrow scope of history.

[B]What does who I am have to do with this discussion? I'm a 21 year old college graduate, if it makes the slightest bit of difference.[/B]

Do you know what happened to thieves not to long ago? They had their fingers chopped off, without any due trial.

[b]Comparing one injustice to another does not make either any less wrong.[/b]

The world is home to 6,775,235,700 people and still increasing, there is going to be fuck ups and idiots in the mix.

[B]That doesn't mean we should just accept them as part of life. Oh, look a car crash! Whatever, people die every day no my problem. Whoop![/B]

The reason this kind of stuff is put into the headlines is because it is negative, as positive is generally the expected norm so we do not find it interesting. We as humanity focus on the negative so it always seems like the world is being engulfed in fire because we never look at the good. The nazi regime for example is responsible for a lot of modern medical breakthroughs.

[B]Medical breakthroughs that were achieved by forced experimentation on prisoners of war and those in concentration camps. What you're saying is that even though it's in the news it doesn't matter because, as I said in the OP, you think it's hyperbole. The fact that it's being reported on means it's still happening. They're not making it up. It might not be as horrific as the tabloids make it out to be but the fact remains, these issues exist.[/B]

For every one bad cop you hear out there, there is 50 more silently doing their duty and they do not stand out because of it.

[B]We can't just accept shitty law enforcement. I deeply respect police for the job they do but when there's officers out there not doing their duty to the highest of their ability it makes me wonder about what sort of service we've got.[/B]

Even then, you view this as a act by a man to take away our freedom, when he is just trying to do his job to protect the citizens of his district. He is not thinking "oh yea let me fuck these photographers over, the cunts", he is put in a area of high stress to protect a district in an area that could be a high terrorist attack point. Imagine how you would feel as the chief of police having countless citizens die in an attack in your district? He is trying his best to keep people safe, and while I may not agree with his methods, his intentions are good.

[B]How is he protecting people? Don't hide behind the terrorist excuse. We justify everything with that bullshit bogeyman. What if terrorists? What if al-Quaeda? What if Muslims? Take your head out of the sand. We can wall ourselves up with do and don't policy till the cows come home. All it's doing is making people more scared and more distrusting. It exascerbates the problem through bad decision making. Making somethnig illegal doesn't make the problem go away any more than brushing dirt under a carpet means it's clean.[/B]

Also the issue with the land of the free is that we have many mixtures of people who want to be free, and their liberties clash with others. With so much variety you cannot help but offend some group with some action, no matter how hard you try to please.

[B]The fact that we're scared of offending people is half of the problem. Nothing happens if you're offended. You don't sprout mushrooms and turn into a gnome. It won't kill you. If something offends you then don't look at it, don't do it, go somewhere else. So what if some of our ideas clash? The most people just want to live and let live. You're talking as if the minority, the explodey bomb people and the big bad fanatics are the majority and that we should be willing to sacrifice our personal lives, our ability to do what we want, for the sake of Johnny Lunatic down the street because he looks a bit shifty. I've looked suspicious before now, I've seen some very suspicious people on the street but they never did anything. Trying to stop crime before crime happens takes more than preemptively arresting people that look like they might do something, it takes tackling a problem at it's core.[/B]

You are viewing this with a very narrow scope and in a very negative manner that is morphing your vision into seeing yourself as oppressed. No rights have been taken away in this decision, and photographers still have the right to take pictures, all it says is if the photographer acts suspicious police will not hesitate to question them. Generally these industrial areas are offlimits to the public and photographers do have a history of jumping fences and bending other rules to get the nice shot.

[B]Who decides what acting suspicious is? Is crouching down at an odd angle to get a better photo suspicious? The definition is so foggy and ambiguous that massive liberties can be taken in application. I shouldn't feel, when I'm perfectly innocent, that I've got to watch my back because Mr Plod might not like the way I'm pointing my camera.[/B]

In this chief's eyes public safety rises above art. Also with the chief not defining a specific set of outlines he IS NOT defining what is art and what is not, by giving outlines he would have been. As said nothing is in black or white and nothing is ever a simple decision simply from the sheer massive amount of differing views and opinions.

[B]If the chief's eyes were on public safety arresting a photographer, of which there are thousands of in any given country who pose no threat to anybody (except maybe epileptics), would not be high on his list of priorities. Public safety and art have nothing to do with each other. Unless the photographer is expressly commiting a crime I don't get what he's doing wrong. [/B]

I hope you took the time to read this and possibly have a different outlook on these actions and take into consideration more variables.

[B]You too.[/B][/QUOTE]

[Edthefirst]

As a photographer this pisses me off to no end. Why is taking pictures considered a crime?

And how does a police officer get to decide what is aesthetically insignificant? That should be entirely left up to the photographer and target audience.

[NightmareXx]

[QUOTE=1chains1;31743714]First off, a police chief isn't a country.
Secondly I am not trying to be rude but most likely you are an angsty teen who has a very narrow scope of history. Do you know what happened to thieves not to long ago? They had their fingers chopped off, without any due trial. The world is home to 6,775,235,700 people and still increasing, there is going to be fuck ups and idiots in the mix.

The reason this kind of stuff is put into the headlines is because it is negative, as positive is generally the expected norm so we do not find it interesting. We as humanity focus on the negative so it always seems like the world is being engulfed in fire because we never look at the good. The nazi regime for example is responsible for a lot of modern medical breakthroughs.

For every one bad cop you hear out there, there is 50 more silently doing their duty and they do not stand out because of it.

Even then, you view this as a act by a man to take away our freedom, when he is just trying to do his job to protect the citizens of his district. He is not thinking "oh yea let me fuck these photographers over, the cunts", he is put in a area of high stress to protect a district in an area that could be a high terrorist attack point. Imagine how you would feel as the chief of police having countless citizens die in an attack in your district? He is trying his best to keep people safe, and while I may not agree with his methods, his intentions are good.

Also the issue with the land of the free is that we have many mixtures of people who want to be free, and their liberties clash with others. With so much variety you cannot help but offend some group with some action, no matter how hard you try to please.

You are viewing this with a very narrow scope and in a very negative manner that is morphing your vision into seeing yourself as oppressed. No rights have been taken away in this decision, and photographers still have the right to take pictures, all it says is if the photographer acts suspicious police will not hesitate to question them. Generally these industrial areas are offlimits to the public and photographers do have a history of jumping fences and bending other rules to get the nice shot.

In this chief's eyes public safety rises above art. Also with the chief not defining a specific set of outlines he IS NOT defining what is art and what is not, by giving outlines he would have been.
As said nothing is in black or white and nothing is ever a simple decision simply from the sheer massive amount of differing views and opinions.

I hope you took the time to read this and possibly have a different outlook on these actions and take into consideration more variables.[/QUOTE]
oh look somebody who thinks they are smarter than everybody else when they are really just making it look like they were dropped on their head as a kid.

[Gekkosan]

You people don't seem to realize that people probably snap photographs for illegal purposes more often than you'd think.

I don't think it's about art, you see snapping photos inside some abandoned place or wharever with no [b]actual aesthetic value[/b] might seem suspicious to me too.

[Mr. Scorpio]

[QUOTE=Gekkosan;31744869]You people don't seem to realize that people probably snap photographs for illegal purposes more often than you'd think.

I don't think it's about art, you see taking snapping photos inside some abandoned place or wharever with no [b]actual aesthetic value[/b] would seem suspicious to me too.[/QUOTE]

you know those photographers and their fatal frame cameras, stealing people's souls

[Gekkosan]

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;31744905]you know those photographers and their fatal frame cameras, stealing people's souls[/QUOTE]

Umm no, but taking pictures in an abandoned solitary place might seem like someone working for criminal conspiracy. Probably unlikely, but that's what the police is for.

[NightmareXx]

yeah holy shit he's taking pictures of an abandoned building that has so many illegal uses like

[HkSniper]

My only question would be...

1. Is he on private property?

If he is trespassing or otherwise being where he should not be, then it would trip the red flags for me. I have encountered a few photographers who were upset because someplace wanted them to leave for taking pictures on private property. It's ironic to hear them yell about their rights to take pictures when the property owners or agents of the property who are authorized to call the shots also have a right to not have them on their property. It's funny how a couple people think freedom and rights is a one way street only for them.

If he is on public property then the most I would see is if any suspicion at all may arise to make casual contact with the individual. Someone who is up to something malicious will throw up red flags.

[Missing User]

[QUOTE=HkSniper;31745171]My only question would be...

1. Is he on private property?

If he is trespassing or otherwise being where he should not be, then it would trip the red flags for me. I have encountered a few photographers who were upset because someplace wanted them to leave for taking pictures on private property. It's ironic to hear them yell about their rights to take pictures when the property owners or agents of the property who are authorized to call the shots also have a right to not have them on their property. It's funny how a couple people think freedom and rights is a one way street only for them.

If he is on public property then the most I would see is if any suspicion at all may arise to make casual contact with the individual. Someone who is up to something malicious will throw up red flags.[/QUOTE]

judging by that photo, no he wasnt. He cannot be charged with trespassing unless someone told him prior that he could not be there (or signs are posted)

[ExplodingGuy]

What is it with big city police forces and hating photography?

[editline]00[/editline]
The only issue that I can see with photography, is taking pictures of people's houses and reservoirs/water treatment facilities without permission.

[NightmareXx]

[QUOTE=Gekkosan;31744953]Umm no, but taking pictures in an abandoned solitary place might seem like someone working for criminal conspiracy. Probably unlikely, but that's what the police is for.[/QUOTE]
you're right that is definitely what the police is for.

[s0beit]

I suspect this same police chief wouldn't find pictures of police brutality aesthetically significant