

Long Beach Police Chief Confirms Detaining Photographers - scottshea
http://www.lbpost.com/life/greggory/12188

======
SoftwareMaven
"Papers, please."

"I'm sorry, you haven't been granted permission to be in this neighborhood.
Come with me."

I really don't understand how police officers can be comfortable with these
actions. Unfortunately, I've talked with enough "normal" people who think the
police are justified in this that I believe it is going to get _far_ worse
before it gets better.

------
ben1040
>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."

 _I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I
understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I
could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and
the motion picture involved in this case is not that._ \-- Supreme Court
Justice Potter Stewart

------
artursapek
This is hilarious because

A) I've been planning a 1400-mile road trip to Long Beach for weeks, and I
leave tomorrow.

B) I'm an avid street photographer.

C) I have a bad habit of pushing authority figures' buttons, because of my
disrespect for them generally, because of things like this.

I doubt it will, but if anything interesting happens I'll be sure to write
about it and share on HN. Geuis makes a good point, but my main thing
literally is photographing strangers when they're not expecting it. (not to be
a whore, but if you're interested:
<http://nnife.com/images/pinhole/spring/2.jpg>
<http://nnife.com/images/film/1/7.jpg>
<http://nnife.com/images/film/1/29.jpg>)

As this will be my first time in Long Beach and I have 8 rolls of B&W film
sitting around I plan to be very prolific this upcoming week.

------
sorbus
"Among the non-criminal behaviors "which shall be reported on a SAR" are ...
asking about an establishment's hours of operation ... and taking notes."

So if I see an interesting business which is closed, ask someone if they know
when it's open, and note that down so that I can return to it when it is, I
would be reported as a suspicious person.

~~~
GHFigs
What the policy actually describes as suspicious behavior is:

"Engages security personnel in questions focusing on sensitive subjects
(security information, hours of operation, shift changes, what security
cameras film, etc.)."

"Draws diagrams or takes notes (building plans, location of security cameras
or security personnel, security shift changes, notes of weak security points,
etc.)."

What you said, by contrast, is bullshit.

~~~
westicle
Your last comment is not necessary or helpful and detracts from the discussion
in my opinion.

Thanks for giving context to the grandparent post, but when compared to the
actual wording of the policy it is certainly not "bullshit" and within the
realms of reasonable interpretation. When you take into account how police
officers practically interpret these policies I wouldn't be at all surprised
if this behaviour was "caught" by the policy.

~~~
tptacek
Disagree. I found the original comment to be far more toxic; while written in
a level tone, it materially misrepresents the story, thus sidetracking us into
a discussion of something that didn't happen.

------
geuis
So the bit that gets left out to the very end is that _he wasn't physically
detained_.

The photographer is shooting at a refinery. A cop shows up and asks what the
guy is doing. Guy says he's an artist. By the guys own admission, the cop was
perfectly friendly and polite. Cop asks to see his id, and gives some spiel
about how Homeland Security lets them require you to show your ID. Cop runs
his license and hands it back and says he can keep on shooting. Cop leaves.

There are two things going on here. First, nationally in some areas there's
this push by law enforcement against being photographed, and they try to
extend that to public places too. That's very bad and needs to be combatted.

The second thing is the flavor of this article is trying to portray this event
in the light of the first situation, and it just plain _isn't_. If anyone is
taking pictures of a major installation and it's not something that normally
happens, it's prudent to just nicely ask what the person is doing and move on,
which is what happened here.

The photographer wasn't physically detained or arrested. The cop didn't want
to look at the photos or try to make him delete them. Just because you feel
like you are being detained doesn't mean you are.

I am a photographer too. I got all bristly when I first started reading this,
only to reach the end and see that nothing happened. I've gotten face to face
with people who think they can can control what people take pictures of.

This, however, is not one of those situations.

~~~
MichaelApproved
The concern is that the law is so broad that it could be abused. In this case
the officer let him go about his business but what will happen in the next
case? This rule is so subjective that it can justifiably be used at times
other than in the spirit in which it was designed for.

~~~
tptacek
What specific law are you referring to? A police department's general orders
are not laws. They're directives to the police, and they're confined to those
powers already lawfully conferred to the police. A department's general orders
cannot meaningfully include things like "arrest photographers on sight".

------
tingletech
An inconsistently in this report that bothers me is that it cites an LAPD
policy; but the article is about LBPD. Why would an LAPD special order apply
to police in an adjacent city in the same county?

------
molecule
ridiculous policy.

Nice photograph in the article, by the detained photographer. Thus it
apparently it has "esthetic value", so the officer erred in detaining the
photographer.

~~~
mc32
Except he wasn't detained.

~~~
molecule
from the article:

"...was detained by Officer Asif Kahn for taking pictures..."

~~~
chc
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2884313>

He was detained only in the very casual sense of being stopped to ask a
question ("Sorry I'm late; I was detained outside"). He was not brought into
custody, which is the usual sense in which people are said to be detained by
the police.

~~~
molecule
yes, but this semantic axe grinding misses point of the initial comment:

LBPD policy: "if x: then y;"

Report: "not x; then y!"

~~~
chc
Your algorithm has an error that renders it unexecutable on existing hardware.
Here's a corrected version, which appears to be the one the police are using
based on their statements:

LBPD policy: "if apparently x: then y"

Report: "apparently (but not actually) x; y"

If have the ability to upgrade police officers with psychic powers, I'm sure
they'll be happy to switch to your fork.

