Imaginary Laws

[gwilson]

What worries me about trying to persist in this situation is that if you persist, while they can't charge you with taking pictures, they can use other vague charges like causing a disturbance or failure to comply or something of that nature.

[TheNiche]

What worries me about trying to persist in this situation is that if you persist, while they can't charge you with taking pictures, they can use other vague charges like causing a disturbance or failure to comply or something of that nature.

Failure to comply with an imaginary law. Disturbing the policeman's imagination.

Anyone been watching the trilogy of new South Park episodes? It's amazing how fiction (terrorists successfully attacking our imagination) so closely parallels reality sometimes.

[dbigtex56]

It's because of law-enforcement officers like this that I have Ray Hill' phone number memorized.

(He was once arrested after arguing with a police officer, and then implying that said officer had a highly improper sexual relationship with his mother - in one word. Took it to the Supreme Court and won!)

[liammclaren]

It's a sad state of affairs when one has to wonder whether "law enforcement" is lawful or not.

[gto250us]

Yes, downtown at the location in the top photo. This is about the 5th time I've been stopped, but the first time an officer has told me there is a law against it. Usually I'm just taking pictures and an officer approaches me and tells me to stop.

I think that the Houston Pigs are on a power trip. I got stopped the other day crossing main/train against the light, just like everyone else on that and every other day. When I said that I did nothing wrong he frisked me and threw me in the back of the pig car. It will cost me $117. What in maddening is that cops are at that corner everyother day watching people do what I did without batting an eye. Even the same Pig who stopped me. In my book they are all losers.

[woolie]

Thanks for the support. I'm going to see how far I can take this... I'll report back later.

[gwilson]

I think that the Houston Pigs are on a power trip. I got stopped the other day crossing main/train against the light, just like everyone else on that and every other day. When I said that I did nothing wrong he frisked me and threw me in the back of the pig car. It will cost me $117. What in maddening is that cops are at that corner everyother day watching people do what I did without batting an eye. Even the same Pig who stopped me. In my book they are all losers.

Considering the language you are using in reference to police officers, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that there is more to it than that. Having a piss poor attitude and being disrespectful is a quick way to get the book thrown at you and I don't blame them one bit.

With the exception of a few, most police officers are not bad people and are, in general, cool. But if you act like an ass hat to them, you are going to get the treatment in return.

[TheNiche]

I think that the Houston Pigs are on a power trip. I got stopped the other day crossing main/train against the light, just like everyone else on that and every other day. When I said that I did nothing wrong he frisked me and threw me in the back of the pig car. It will cost me $117. What in maddening is that cops are at that corner everyother day watching people do what I did without batting an eye. Even the same Pig who stopped me. In my book they are all losers.

The difference is that you actually broke a law. Just because other people get away with it doesn't mean you should.

Granted, the cops shouldn't be without blame on account of poor enforcement, but a court would likely uphold your fine.

[Jax]

Another case of the same problem. It sounds weird because he was detained, and then in the end they told him he could take pictures again after doing some sort of background check.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/3187788...157602731357722

[Subdude]

I think that the Houston Pigs are on a power trip. I got stopped the other day crossing main/train against the light, just like everyone else on that and every other day. When I said that I did nothing wrong he frisked me and threw me in the back of the pig car. It will cost me $117. What in maddening is that cops are at that corner everyother day watching people do what I did without batting an eye. Even the same Pig who stopped me. In my book they are all losers.

You told the cop you did nothing wrong, while in the first sentence you admit you crossed against the light. The cop's reaction, and your use of terms like "pigs" makes me suspect you were mouthing off to the police. Not the best strategy there.

[woolie]

Next time I'll just demand to be arrested if I am in fact breaking a law.

[editor]

Sigh, yet again the police stopped me. However, each time until now, the officer has relented, admitting after my inquiries that there is in fact no law banning photography of public places. There is just "Metro Policy" or a "Directive," but in fact there is no statute.

Today marks the first time an officer has answered in the affirmative, that such a law exists. Curiously, I was unable to find it in the city codes at houstontx.gov, or in any federal or state law.

There needs to be some solidarity and a kind of public protest to raise awareness of this issue in Houston. I intend to write letters to my council person and the mayor about the issue.

If officers are allowed to continually stop and arbitrarily threaten photographers with imaginary laws, HAIF wouldn't exactly have much source material to work with....

This came up a lot during the Enron collapse -- cops were chasing photographers away from the signature building. The national and local media got so fed up with it that they had a meeting with the then-police chief who put out a memo to all of his officers (I used to have a copy) reminding them that as long as people are on a public right of way they can take pictures of whatever they want.

It appears the officers have forgotten this.

By all means post the officer's name and badge number here on HAIF. There's no law against that, either. In fact, you could have taken a picture of the officer telling you not to take pictures. That would have probably earned you a night in jail, but you would have at least had the satisfaction of going through a trial and having the cop proven wrong in a court of law.

Also write a letter to your councilcritter and send a copy to both the mayor's office and the police chief and post a copy here. If people don't stand up for their rights, they will have no rights left.

I've been stopped a few times, mostly by security guards not police officers (Hello, El Paso Energy Plaza!) I inform them that I'm not on their property and I tell them that when I cross the property line they are more than welcome to call the police. I've had a few get angry and threaten to call the cops and I've pulled out my cell phone and offered to do it for them (I have the non-emergency line programmed in for just such situations). They've always stormed off without getting their way.

However, it should be noted that there are SOME restrictions to taking pictures in public spaces.

Military installations and power plants are a no-no without prior permission. Also, while handheld photography is usually OK, setting up a tripod on a sidewalk will require a permit and a fee in many cities (New York, Chicago, London, etc...) And in countries with less freedom than the United States there can be even more restrictions. For example, in London it is illegal to take commercial pictures in any parks owned by the Crown. This includes Trafalgar Square and Hyde Park. You can do it if you pay for a license (something like $300).

One time in Hong Kong I thought I might have trouble with security at a particular building (One ifc) so I went up to the security desk and asked the guards what they thought would be the best places to stand to get a good shot of the building. They pulled out a map of the area and pointed out several locations. As far as I'm concerned, that counts as permission. And if they were watching me through their remote cameras they at least knew I was harmless.

[Ross]

Which law prohibits taking pictures of a power plant? Or a refinery? or a chemical plant? Anything you can see from a publicplace, you can photograph. If a military installation prohibits photography, there will be signs.

[Daniepwils]

I have yet to be stopped when taking pictures. Maybe they stopped you for another reason, different ethnicity than the police officer?

edit: I have taken pictures in the same location where you were.

[gwilson]

I had an (albeit drunken) conversation with a cop on Friday night about this.

"We are at war, things have changed." Was what he said. He did say it wasn't against the law, but in the same breath he said it was. He suggested that if it happens, so ok, move along, and come back later.

I told him that I shouldn't have to do such a thing when I am within my rights to begin with.

He disagreed.

[marmer]

When I was in NYC last month I saw signs on the George Washington bridge saying it was illegal to photograph the bridges in NYC. I think it was a city ordinance.

See this link.

[Jeebus]

When I was in NYC last month I saw signs on the George Washington bridge saying it was illegal to photograph the bridges in NYC. I think it was a city ordinance.

See this link.

I think those signs are to keep people from stopping on the bridges to take pictures.

[MidtownCoog]

Which law prohibits taking pictures of a power plant? Or a refinery? or a chemical plant?

None. But try it. They'll run you off in no time.

[marmer]

I think those signs are to keep people from stopping on the bridges to take pictures.

But then why at the entrance to tunnels and below overpasses? No, I think it's to make it possible to harass "potential terrorists."

[gwilson]

The bridges and tunnels of NYC are, technically, private property I believe. Just like the toll roads here. So if they say no cameras, then no cameras.

[VicMan]

In Pennsylvania I took a photo of a police car when a policeman walked up to me and asked to see my pictures. He was undercover and HE did not wish to be photographed. Since I took pics of the CAR it was okay, and I kept the picture.

Later I found that there was a scam that was busted by the cop in some mall.

[liammclaren]

setting up a tripod on a sidewalk will require a permit and a fee in many cities (New York, Chicago, London, etc...)

I'm just so shocked that those three cities would require a payment for photography And yet how many surveillance cameras do they have rolling constantly? Reminds me of Jefferson: Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry--

Anyone ever come across such a thing in Houston?

[MidtownCoog]

Don't film Customs Agents when driving from Canada into the US. They took our camera and erased the tape.

[editor]

The bridges and tunnels of NYC are, technically, private property I believe. Just like the toll roads here. So if they say no cameras, then no cameras.

They are, because they are owned by the Port Authority or the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority or the Metropolitan Transit Authority, etc... That's the key word -- "Authority." That means it's a private company, even though it's quasi-controlled by the government (exactly how varies by municipality).

It used to be that airports were owned by their host cities, and as such were public buildings like city hall or a courthouse so anyone could go there anytime they wanted to. Eventually most airports ended up being transferred into authorities which made them private property. I don't know the precise reason this happened, but one of the upshots was that the airports can now kick out anyone they want, whereas before they couldn't. This is why there's the scene in the movie Airplane where the Hare Krishnas are bothering people in the airport. Airports used to be infested with grifters and vagrants and there wasn't anything anyone could do about it because they were public property. The city of Chicago still has a homeless shelter operating at O'Hare that dates back to this time.

Anyway, you don't see Krishnas or anyone else doing that sort of thing anymore because it's now private property.

It's interesting to note that what is considered "public" property varies from state to state. When I lived in West Virginia (1994-1995), public schools were considered public property because they were built with taxpayer money. We used to be able to just walk into them whenever we needed to (for work) without signing in or anything. I wouldn't try it today. Back when I spent a lot of time in federal, state, and local courthouses for work, I used to go to the top floor hallways and take pictures out the windows. It's public property. But in today's climate it's another thing I wouldn't try anymore.

Maybe RedScare can enlighten us on how likely it would be for someone to get bounced from court buildings for doing the same thing today.

[TheNiche]

Don't film Customs Agents when driving from Canada into the US. They took our camera and erased the tape.

Whose agents?

[MidtownCoog]

US. My wife thought she'd be cute and film them as we drove to the inspection poing. Bad idea.

And this was in 2000. They said they have to do that becuase if people knew who they were, they could be contacted for bribes, drug running, etc.

[RedScare]

I am inclined to disagree with your definition of bridges, airports and tunnels as "private property". The "Authority" that owns and operates these edifices is still a public entity that was created by, and under the authority of government. I suspect that laws and ordinances were enacted to control groups or activities that interfered with the operation of the facility. However, I do not have the time to actually support my suspicion, so I will leave it as just a contrary opinion. If I find something to support or disprove this thought, I will report back later.

As for the local courthouses...something I am a bit more versed in....it varies. The Federal Courthouse enacted a policy several years ago banning cameras from inside the courthouse. Even cell phones with camera options built in must be checked at the metal detector, and retrieved when leaving the building. One must also present a picture ID, such as a driver's license to get in. Interestingly, a the federal government's own form of ID, a passport, is not valid.

The Harris County courthouses have no such restriction. While one must go through a metal detector and purses and briefcases are scanned, cameras are not prohibited. In the last month, I inadvertantly brought my digital camera to court in my briefcase. Not a word was said. Each of the floors accessible to the public have floor to ceiling windows which give a good view of the downtown skyline. I doubt anyone would mind if photos were taken.

Photos inside the courtrooms are a different matter entirely. The courtroom is under the control of the presiding judge. Video and still photos will largely be prohibited by the staff, unless permission is given. However, if one approaches the bailiff and explains the reason for the photo request, photos and/or video of empty courtrooms would likely be permitted by at least some of the staff. Certainly, anyone who would want an uninspiring photo of the criminal courtrooms need only contact me, and I can grease the skids. A more compelling photo would be the interior hallways or courtrooms of the civil courthouse.

As for outdoor photos, there are NO restrictions. While I do not fault law enforcement for looking into "suspicious" circumstances, outright refusal of picture taking to an otherwise non-suspicious photographer is crossing the line. My suggestion to aspiring photographers is to carry identification, and be prepared to explain their reasons for taking photos in a non-combative manner. Your addiction to HAIF is a great defense. While there is no legal requirement to be courteous or even identify oneself to police (if not in a car or being arrested), being unnecessarily rude will likely get a rude response in return. A smile and a "Hello" to a police officer signals your non-nefarious intentions. It works for me, not only when taking pictures, but also when dealing with court clerks and staff. Rude lawyers get less help than polite ones.

NOTE: Given the current federal government belief that everyone, including US citizens, is a likely terrorist, federal courthouse security is decidedly less accomodating than city or county staff. Therefore, it would not surprise me whatsoever if you are shooed away from even outside photo taking around the federal courthouse. While it IS legal, this unfriendliness is basically a top-down phenomenon, and probably will not end for awhile. It is also generally not the fault of the agent that is standing in front of you. Those are his orders. Luckily, the federal courthouse is not a big draw for photo taking anyway.

[Daniepwils]

Off topic

Red your quote:

"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good."

- Samuel Johnson

is awesome. My dad taught me when I was younger that you could judge a man's character on how he treated the waiters and waitresses at a restaurant. To this day when I am having lunch with clients and associates I am reminded of this.

[Subdude]

Off topic

Red your quote:

is awesome. My dad taught me when I was younger that you could judge a man's character on how he treated the waiters and waitresses at a restaurant. To this day when I am having lunch with clients and associates I am reminded of this.

Off topic again,

but I'm wondering if your dad ever bumped into my dad, because mine used to say the same thing. He is quite the maniac about behaving like a gentleman.

OK, back to subject.

[OldHouseLover]

Sigh, yet again the police stopped me. However, each time until now, the officer has relented, admitting after my inquiries that there is in fact no law banning photography of public places. There is just "Metro Policy" or a "Directive," but in fact there is no statute.

Today marks the first time an officer has answered in the affirmative, that such a law exists. Curiously, I was unable to find it in the city codes at houstontx.gov, or in any federal or state law.

There needs to be some solidarity and a kind of public protest to raise awareness of this issue in Houston. I intend to write letters to my council person and the mayor about the issue.

If officers are allowed to continually stop and arbitrarily threaten photographers with imaginary laws, HAIF wouldn't exactly have much source material to work with....

Would this affect taking pictures of private property? I take pics of comparables for HCAD property protests. When complaining to Neighborhood Protestion about a problem, they say "take pictures" & document. When asked if this could be considered harrasment, NP does not know the answer.