"taking pictures" = see the back seat of a cop car

Olympus 12-45mm /f4.0 Pro

07/14/2006 12:38:12 AM · #1

Quite so Odyssey!

I think it might be time for someone to start a thread on clothing for woodies and woodettes...

I've been disturbing all the local toy stores by staring at the Barbies and Kens trying to do measurements...

Found a great plastic woody the other day, but they were sold without heads!

OdysseyF22

Panasonic DC-G9

07/13/2006 12:01:56 PM · #2

Originally posted by overclover:

She wasn�t in a dark alley late at night offering illicit services of any kind she was there to take pictures of the seedy side of life :D Look on the bright side at least it was a cop you ran into and not the seedy side!

Hey, how'd you get CLOTHES for your woody!? Mine keep getting arrested for indecent exposure... :-P

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

07/13/2006 11:37:19 AM · #3

Originally posted by bjorke:

Originally posted by mo5988:
...he could have just cited the patriot act and carted you off...
In the story, the cop doesn't ever seem to challenge anyone's RIGHT to make pictures

Considering that this scenario seemingly occured on what seems to be "Private" property, the rights of the photographer in this instance may or may not be as secure as they would have been had the incident transpired on public lands.

Originally posted by bjorke:

... This cop, from what we're hearing here, sounds like he enjoys working very much off of the books, so to speak.

I find it almost bemusing that people are quick to ascribe motive to individuals in authority such as police officers by using the very same mechanism they so vehemently oppose. You accuse this officer of making assumptions... then make use of inference and speculation to support your argument. We can't have it both ways...

Ray

overclover

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

07/13/2006 11:29:53 AM · #4

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

07/13/2006 10:38:08 AM · #5

Originally posted by garrywhite2:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
bah, second ammendment, I'm still waiting for the ammendment "Right to bare chests" ;-)

I would guess most dpc'rs are waiting for the "Right to Bear Music"

Oddly enough, I have decided to put the rights to "Bear_Music" up for bids. This is your chance to own a piece of me :-) The line starts over there >>>>, bids in increments of 500 dollars please...

R.

bjorke

07/13/2006 10:30:22 AM · #6

Originally posted by mo5988:

...he could have just cited the patriot act and carted you off...

In the story, the cop doesn't ever seem to challenge anyone's RIGHT to make pictures -- he just a priori decided that Mike was somehow an unindicted felon guilty of something, that he had almost no rights -- but the cop really doesn't seem to have cared about the specific right to photograph.

Either way, the PATRIOT Act contains no actual provisions against photography and any officer that actually brought you in for violating the PATRIOT act (or who actually brought you in for anything at all) would have to deal with paperwork. This cop, from what we're hearing here, sounds like he enjoys working very much off of the books, so to speak.

Anyone who tells you you can't photograph anything because of the PATRIOT act is lying, mis-informed, or both.

KB
PhotoPermit.Org

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

07/12/2006 11:47:02 PM · #7

... Isn't that the rights to bare harems :O)

garrywhite2

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/12/2006 11:44:47 PM · #8

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

bah, second ammendment, I'm still waiting for the ammendment "Right to bare chests" ;-)

I would guess most dpc'rs are waiting for the "Right to Bear Music"

fotomann_forever

07/12/2006 11:26:11 PM · #9

bah, second ammendment, I'm still waiting for the ammendment "Right to bare chests" ;-)

garrywhite2

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/12/2006 11:02:55 PM · #10

Mike these should help you understand why you would encounter a very difficult and uphill battle. They are case cites that have long guided the courts in regards to search and seizure relating to vehicles.

UNITED STATES v. ROSS, 456 U.S. 798 (1982)
and if you have the time for further research you might read one of the cases the decision was based upon. CARROLL v. U.S., 267 U.S. 132 (1925)

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200 f/2.8L

07/12/2006 10:12:46 PM · #11

Originally posted by nards656:

Originally posted by hankk:

The bigger issue is having someone paw through expensive camera equipment (did the cop take the lens off and finger the mirror? or even toss the camera around?) What other items in the car were damaged or destroyed? Remember, the courts have said that cops don't have to be all that bright (see Robert Jordan vs New London //www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/len/2000/10.15/p&p.html )

Oh, good grief. Let's all make up stories now.

It's just an example, what's wrong with that? And what does your second amendment rights have to do with any of this discussion?

Bosborne

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

07/12/2006 10:04:37 PM · #12

Didn't have time to read every post here, but did you by chance get a photo of him illegally rummaging thru your stuff???

nards656

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical IF for Canon

07/12/2006 08:58:52 PM · #13

Originally posted by hankk:

The bigger issue is having someone paw through expensive camera equipment (did the cop take the lens off and finger the mirror? or even toss the camera around?) What other items in the car were damaged or destroyed? Remember, the courts have said that cops don't have to be all that bright (see Robert Jordan vs New London //www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/len/2000/10.15/p&p.html )

Oh, good grief. Let's all make up stories now.

hankk

Canon EOS-5D

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

07/12/2006 07:18:16 PM · #14

Originally posted by nards656:

Profiling may piss you off personally, but it's not illegal everywhere, and it didn't actually cause any harm in this case. As well, the DA could have well told the police department that "stopping in a drug neighborhood" would be regarded as acceptable "probable cause".

Didn't cause harm? The OP said he was sitting in a police car for 15 minutes while the cop searched his vehicle. That means that he probably lost a half-hour of time, which directly converts to money for consultants and other self-employed people. It also means that the OP may have not been able to take a money-making picture or two.

The bigger issue is having someone paw through expensive camera equipment (did the cop take the lens off and finger the mirror? or even toss the camera around?) What other items in the car were damaged or destroyed? Remember, the courts have said that cops don't have to be all that bright (see Robert Jordan vs New London //www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/len/2000/10.15/p&p.html )

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

07/12/2006 06:13:16 PM · #15

Originally posted by garrywhite2:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by garrywhite2:
My guess is you'll end up doing what 99.9% of everyone else would do. Forget it and get on with your life.

No matter what anyone writes or says they will do, people do not want to become tied down with lengthy time consuming and costly litigation.

Even if you were financially able and had nothing better to do with your time.... you would be surprised by the number of people that end up on juries that believe the police should have the right to search with or without warrant and with or without cause. Most people believe that you wouldn't have been stopped and searched if you weren't doing something wrong. Also the policeman probably is well respected. Think for a few minutes about how many drug dealers and abusers he's likely to catch using these methods. The community would likely stand behind him.

So, the ends justifies the means?? Maybe next time the cop will club some innocent guy into a coma because he "fits the profile". Is that OK too? I'm sure the community wants results, but NOTHING excuses violating the rights of an innocent person.

If everyone did as you suggest and just sat back and "let it go" as you suggest, we'd still have Jim Crow laws, legal segregation and all manner of very unpleasant things.

Complaceny about the violation of rights by those who are supposed to protect them is a sure path to the loss of those rights.

Either I write poorly or you don't read well. Never did I come close to saying "just sat back and let it go" as you state that I have. Regardless I will admit my writing could have been composed differently and perhaps more clear.

I only point out no matter how many people suggest that they would find recourse, the vast majority will sit idle, do nothing, and attempt a return to enjoying their lives. People with nothing to lose will often boast upon how they would react to a given situation, but when dealt with the situation themselves they fall incredibly short of their expectations of others.

To the conclusion that "we'd still have Jim Crow laws, legal segregation and all manner of very unpleasant things if everyone was complacent", I politely disagree. Some of which involves a political process that makes for a separate topic.

What is pivotal is the fact that Mike was not charged with a crime. Had he been charged with a crime involving evidence obtained via an unlawful search, his attorneys would be seeking dismissal of charges.

Those charged with crimes have a vested interest, their immediate freedom. The interest of the innocent is usually a swift return to a normal, happy life. The irony is that in order to protect and preserve the rights of the innocent, you must also protect the rights of the accused many of which may be guilty.

Mike need not feel like a martyr either. There are tens of thousands of prisoners with 4th amendment search and seizure cases before the courts. Mike is very unlikely to be raising any new issues.

Rather than suggesting what action Mike should take; I would offer to those who have time, to communicate with your local, county, state, and federal officials of your interest in preserving the protections from unlawful search and seizure promised in the federal constitution and most state constitutions. I have done so but I also accept that most people won't. They simply want to get on with enjoying their lives.

So, maybe Rosa should have just given up her seat on the bus that day...

Message edited by author 2006-07-12 18:14:36.

nards656

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical IF for Canon

07/12/2006 05:07:04 PM · #16

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by nards656:
Strange that none of you give a crap about my SECOND amendment rights... In fact, I would bet money that most of you think I don't have any.

Hmmph.

How can you possibly make that presumption when the topic hasn't even been broached here? You are characterizing people feeling on one issue based on your interpretation of their statements on another issue ... talk about profiling -- or as we used to say in the pre-NewSpeak days -- stereotyping.

Oh boy. There's no need to continue this conversation.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/12/2006 01:11:17 PM · #17

Originally posted by nards656:

Strange that none of you give a crap about my SECOND amendment rights... In fact, I would bet money that most of you think I don't have any.

Hmmph.

How can you possibly make that presumption when the topic hasn't even been broached here? You are characterizing people feeling on one issue based on your interpretation of their statements on another issue ... talk about profiling -- or as we used to say in the pre-NewSpeak days -- stereotyping.

nards656

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical IF for Canon

07/12/2006 12:52:38 PM · #18

If y'all bunch of rabble rousers keep it up, we're going to rename this $*%& place to //www.anarchy.com or //www.wehatecops.com.

Profiling may piss you off personally, but it's not illegal everywhere, and it didn't actually cause any harm in this case. As well, the DA could have well told the police department that "stopping in a drug neighborhood" would be regarded as acceptable "probable cause".

Nobody here knows the facts. You're just all up in arms because of what you feel it violates.

Strange that none of you give a crap about my SECOND amendment rights... In fact, I would bet money that most of you think I don't have any.

Hmmph.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

07/12/2006 12:26:03 PM · #19

Originally posted by otisXmike:

Originally posted by eschelar:

Oh and go back and review some pics of your hot wife (or just go ogle her for a bit if she's still around)...

Yup... she's still stickin around. Sorry man, not lettin that one go!

:)

Don't be sorry.

What I meant by 'if she's still around' was if she hadn't gone out for the day... you mentioned that it was morning... For me, mornings involve two steps... getting up and leaving the house for the day's activities.

She looks like she is quite a source of joy for you. Capitalize on that as often as you can. Not everyone gets the chance.

VinceDoss

Nikon D2X

07/12/2006 12:21:32 PM · #20

sorry, read this last night and am at work now so, I dont have time to go back over this thread to see if this has been posted already but wanted to put it out there.
Your Rights as a Photographer

There are always extenuating circumstances to take into consideration from both perspectives Law vs. Civilian. I would have been pretty pissed though regardless of what I look like or drive.

This is just food for thought.

Cheers,

Vince

garrywhite2

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/11/2006 11:31:20 PM · #21

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by garrywhite2:
My guess is you'll end up doing what 99.9% of everyone else would do. Forget it and get on with your life.

No matter what anyone writes or says they will do, people do not want to become tied down with lengthy time consuming and costly litigation.

Even if you were financially able and had nothing better to do with your time.... you would be surprised by the number of people that end up on juries that believe the police should have the right to search with or without warrant and with or without cause. Most people believe that you wouldn't have been stopped and searched if you weren't doing something wrong. Also the policeman probably is well respected. Think for a few minutes about how many drug dealers and abusers he's likely to catch using these methods. The community would likely stand behind him.

So, the ends justifies the means?? Maybe next time the cop will club some innocent guy into a coma because he "fits the profile". Is that OK too? I'm sure the community wants results, but NOTHING excuses violating the rights of an innocent person.

If everyone did as you suggest and just sat back and "let it go" as you suggest, we'd still have Jim Crow laws, legal segregation and all manner of very unpleasant things.

Complaceny about the violation of rights by those who are supposed to protect them is a sure path to the loss of those rights.

Either I write poorly or you don't read well. Never did I come close to saying "just sat back and let it go" as you state that I have. Regardless I will admit my writing could have been composed differently and perhaps more clear.

I only point out no matter how many people suggest that they would find recourse, the vast majority will sit idle, do nothing, and attempt a return to enjoying their lives. People with nothing to lose will often boast upon how they would react to a given situation, but when dealt with the situation themselves they fall incredibly short of their expectations of others.

To the conclusion that "we'd still have Jim Crow laws, legal segregation and all manner of very unpleasant things if everyone was complacent", I politely disagree. Some of which involves a political process that makes for a separate topic.

What is pivotal is the fact that Mike was not charged with a crime. Had he been charged with a crime involving evidence obtained via an unlawful search, his attorneys would be seeking dismissal of charges.

Those charged with crimes have a vested interest, their immediate freedom. The interest of the innocent is usually a swift return to a normal, happy life. The irony is that in order to protect and preserve the rights of the innocent, you must also protect the rights of the accused many of which may be guilty.

Mike need not feel like a martyr either. There are tens of thousands of prisoners with 4th amendment search and seizure cases before the courts. Mike is very unlikely to be raising any new issues.

Rather than suggesting what action Mike should take; I would offer to those who have time, to communicate with your local, county, state, and federal officials of your interest in preserving the protections from unlawful search and seizure promised in the federal constitution and most state constitutions. I have done so but I also accept that most people won't. They simply want to get on with enjoying their lives.

otisXmike

Canon EOS-30D

07/11/2006 01:23:42 PM · #22

Originally posted by eschelar:

Oh and go back and review some pics of your hot wife (or just go ogle her for a bit if she's still around)...

Yup... she's still stickin around. Sorry man, not lettin that one go!

07/11/2006 01:17:23 PM · #23

He's a funny guy.

PS. Don't get yourself too worked up about it... the good news is that the problem has passed. You might find that worrying about it and stirring the pot again will just get you all riled up, accomplishing nothing...

As was mentioned before, it might have been a guy who was just doing his best and was a bit jumpy because of the area...

It sounds like little more than your pride stands to be hurt...

It's a simple matter for you to not allow that...

If you walk away with pride intact, you win.

If you get all riled up, you just waste time and more importantly your energy.

Worth it? I doubt it.

SMILE!

Oh and go back and review some pics of your hot wife (or just go ogle her for a bit if she's still around)...

I heard from a very good source (actually rather spurious) that it'll do you nothing but good!

10 minutes is what the Doctor (*note, the doctor in the above spurious article MIGHT have made his diploma in Photoshop, but that's really unimportant I think) orders for ogling per day...

If you are feeling crummy, I say take two doses and call her again in the morning!

Message edited by author 2006-07-11 13:20:18.

otisXmike

Canon EOS-30D

07/11/2006 01:11:26 PM · #24

Thanks for quoting that pic eschelar... now I'm laughing again. Art Roflmao made my night with that thing. I was still laughing when I woke up this morning!