PATRIOT ACT - does it really allow this?

[S_O_Laban]

I'm certainly no expert on the PA. That said, it's my understanding that it deals mainly with how Leos and courts deal with non US citizens.

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about this can chime in.

 

[davec]

I've heard stories of people being questioned by the secret service for having the audacity to photograph the White House from a distance by a telephoto lens, but I have zero proof of their claims.

 

[buzz_knox]

Law enforcement does not have the right to request idenfitication from an individual on public or private property.

Actually, a lot of gov't property owners have posted that entry onto the property constitutes consent to search belongings. This would probably cover requests for identification as well.

 

[Jonathan]

Law enforcement does not have the right to request idenfitication from an individual on public or private property.

Terry vs Ohio established that they have always had the right to temporarily detain people, request ID, and question regarding the situation so long as they had "reasonable suspicion" of "criminal activity". However, Terry did not establish that the detainee was compelled to answer questions.


The Hiibel case reversed many rulings based on Terry in that it forces suspects to identify themselves. Refusal can be a misdemeanor violation of state or local law (in about 20 states, IIRC). In doing so the supreme court did not evaluate potential self-incrimination via personal identity.


So yes, they can request identification, and the government is free to make laws that demand you comply.

 

[BB62]

DMF,

"Also, you say "supposed LEO," why didn't they ID themselves?"

Because at the time the story was told to me I didn't pin my friend down on every detail, so I am presuming that it was an official or official looking person.

I will recontact him when/if I feel this thread nails down if this was truly caused by a legal use of the Patriot Act. At the moment I am pretty much convinced that the "stop" had nothing to do with the PA.


BB62

 

[Andrew Rothman]

New Jersey Transit has a policy of no pictures of facilities or trains without a permit.

They can "policy" whatever they want, but taking a picture from public property is always legal.

I suppose they could institute a "no cameras" rule on NJT property, but that's something else again.

My brother, by the way, was approached, confronted, identified and sent on his way by a city cop while photographing buildings in St. Paul, MN.

He doesn't look very Arab. He does, however, look pretty Jewish!

 

[Fairlane63]

Hope this isn’t too long. My first post—wooohooo!

Labor Day weekend of 1996, a friend and I were in Laredo, Texas and we walked into Nuevo Laredo via the bridge over the Rio Grande to drink, shop, etc. It was the first time I’d ever been west of New Orleans, much less into a foreign country, so it was kind of a big deal to me and I was taking pictures of most everything like the typical doofus tourist would. Anyway, as you come back over to the Texas border, there is a building on the U.S. side that pedestrians must pass through to be “screened†and occasionally have their bags searched. Well, before we entered this building, I took a couple of pictures of it. One of the uniformed LEOs inside came out pretty quick and told us that taking pictures of this building was not allowed—I’m pretty sure he was Border Patrol, but it’s been a while, so I’m not 100% sure. I really couldn’t imagine what harm these pictures could cause plus I’d had a little to drink so my initial thought was to answer with a three-word response that begins with “kissâ€. However, since we had yet to enter this building and the thought of a body cavity search inside said building didn’t sound real appealing, my response was something along the lines of “sorry about that—won’t happen againâ€. We were passed on through with nary a problem.

So… I don’t guess this really answers the original poster’s question about his friend’s incident, but this did happen to me eight years ago, so it definitely predates the Patriot Act. Now, what law, policy, rule, etc. this did fall under is a mystery to me…

-Chris W.

 

[bcbr]

This may be relavant to the thread

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41118

 

[Lupine]

National and State Parks have had an interesting policy since the mid-90s against photography.

They felt that professional photographers could not photograph within National Parks and most State Parks without a permit. Non-professionals were exempt. They claimed that professionals who might generate income from such images should pay for the use of the park itself, beyond admittance fees.

I had been a member of North American Nature Photography Association, a group that was outraged--after all, it was photographers such as Ansel Adams who helped create recognition that many of these places needed to be preserved.

Anyway, rangers were instructed to identify photographers using tripods as "professionals"

I got into it a few months back with a ranger at Smith Rock here in Oregon. I wasn't in anybody's way, I was right there at a paved viewpoint (not destroying any habitats) when the ranger came up and asked me if I was, indeed, a professional. I knew what was coming and said "Pro wedding photographer, but amateur landscape photographer." I was told I had to put away my gear. I told him to ask me why, and he said it was illegal....but he couldn't elaborate.

I eventually left. Anyway, when I heard the government was asking citizens to report sightings of foreigners photographing buildings, monuments and bridges, I nearly choked. Oh, PLEASE. I mean, what's the favorite pastime of tourists?

 

[BB62]

Lupine,

Did you contact your Congresscritter? If not, you sure should.

 

[buzz_knox]

Oh, PLEASE. I mean, what's the favorite pastime of tourists?

You mean the favorite pasttimes of two Arabs sought by the FBI (and currently awaiting trial for illegal entry into the United States) photographing a major hydroelectric facility at 4 a.m.?

 

[BB62]

Buzz,

You raise a good point.

On the one hand, the sense I get is that the "detention" of my friend was consensual (even though he hardly felt that to be the case), yet the police/FBI are looking for two Arabs photographing (at a rather odd time I might say) for what I can only surmise is a non-consensual questioning session.

What in the law, and/or what law makes the difference?

How does one interested in rights AND national security define their own position?

BTW, while in college (more than 10 years ago), I took time lapse pictures of Hoover Dam in the wee hours - it was nicely lit and looked cool!


BB62

 

[buzz_knox]

The difference is that your friend wasn't already wanted by the FBI on suspicion of committing a felony. These two subjects were. The only reason they weren't arrested on site was that NCIC was down when the officer who found them ran them through the system. He did it later that morning, found they were wanted, and they were busted in Virginia.

I'm aware of other individuals who have been questioned for photographing critical infrastructure facilities. They had some interesting stories, but nothing that they could be held on. For example, one gentleman was photographing the beautiful sunset . . . which happened to have been behind him the entire time he was observed photographing a fossil plant's electrical switchyard. I'll leave his ethnicity to your imagination, but I think you can get it in one.

 

[BB62]

Buzz,

Okay, thanks for the clarification.

Let me ask you this, then - let's say that rather than being compliant with this "consensual" questioning, my friend said "What's it to you?" and similar things (like I would be VERY tempted to!).

Does the PA come into play? What might become of his or my telling the LE guys to essentially pound salt?

I appreciate your and anyone else's input - but if you feel my or his doing so is against the law, please cite the law.

Thanks!


BB62

 

[DMF]

The USA-PATRIOT Act has NO affect on the situation you are describing. None, zero, nada, zip. Unfortunately the ACLU, and a few other idiots, have told lies to people that haven't bothered to do their research and now most of the time someone is unhappy with LE it's blamed on the USA-PATRIOT Act.

The USA-PATRIOT Act did very little to change how LE operates. It was a feel good piece of legislation, but did very little. If you would like to read a summary of how the USA-PATRIOT Act affects LE feel free to read the guidance given by the Legal Division of FLETC, the place that teaches the majority of Fed LEOs. Here it is, have fun: http://www.fletc.gov/legal/qr_articles/PATRIOTACT.pdf

 

[Ivy Mike]

Nope, nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

Being the smart-a** that I am, I would have told them that as a taxpayer, I own the land that I am photographing. Who are they to tell me that I can't take pictures of my own property?

Besides, I thought pictures were the property of the photographer...especially when you aren't taking a picture of anyone. I mean, these are just buildings/structures/etc.

I was recently asked to leave street corner on the Las Vegas strip when I was passing out flyers. My flyers were simply about changing our election methods. Two bicycle officers rode up, told me I was loitering (I was not) and that I needed to move along. When I started to argue with them, they asked for ID (which I produced along with my CCW card ) and told me that I could be cited. I decided that I didn't want to go to court and fight some BS charge (I know I know, I should have taken the High Road and fought it) The thing that bugs me the most is that illegals line the same stretch every night and pass out cards and flyers for very attractive "entertainers" without being bothered. I guess the stuff that makes money is OK, but the stuff that makes people think is bad.

 

[BB62]

Just what is the definition of "loitering"?

Sounds like a call to your local ACLU is in order.

 

[standingbear]

I wonder what wouldve happened if he'd said..."these arent the droids you're looking for" and "they may move along"?

being my typical smart ellic self,Ida prolly tried it,got charged then hauled off to some detainment facility for deviants...where I could be re-educated properly in the way of political correctness.

I understand the need for "security" these days but maybe..just alil..less intimidation could go a long way.it annoys me to no end that these days...everyone is under suspicion for something and common sense has gone out the window.


patriot act? I dunno but it is a sign of the times..