Nicole Kidman Speaks Out On Taking Risks, Roles And Taking … 
SUMMER SLUMP? Will Smith’s ‘MIB3′ Slows … 
Oscilloscope Takes U.S. Rights To ‘Reality’ 
‘Mud’: Did Cannes Save One Of The Best For … 
Cannes Podcast: Pete Hammond On ‘Lawless’, … 
Over-Achievers Of This Year’s Upfront 
Aussie Pay-TV Shakeup Impacts Hollywood 
USA: ‘Rebounding’ & ‘Modern … 
Interview: Philip Kaufman At Cannes With ‘Hemingway … 
R.I.P. Television Mogul Lee Rich 
Cannes Biz Shines Despite Wind & Rain 
Full 2011-2012 TV Season Series Rankings 
2011-12 Season Network Rankings: Fox Still On Top But Down, … 
HLN Set To Air Daytime Emmy Awards 
Grant Bowler Cast As Richard Burton Opposite Lindsay Lohan … 
UPDATE: Dish Network And Broadcasters Ask Courts To Decide … 
Cannes Surprise Screening: Change Of Plans On Juan Antonio … 
Kevin Hart In Talks To Join Kevin James In ‘Valet … 
Anthony Hopkins Up For ‘Red 2′ Villain; Can … 
Cannes Conflicted Over ‘The Paperboy’ As … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘American Idol’ Posts … 
Asserting that harassment of photographers taking pictures in public places is unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds, the ACLU has filed suit in federal court in Los Angeles against the LA County Sheriff’s Dept. Video shows photographer Shawn Nee’s encounter with a deputy who stopped Nee for taking photos of then-newly installed turnstiles at the Metro station in Hollywood. Photographer Greggory Moore was surrounded by eight deputies on a public sidewalk in Long Beach while photographing traffic for a story on Distracted Driving Awareness Month — across the street from a courthouse. We’ll leave to commenters any exploration of the ironies within that situation. Sheriff’s Dept. contends deputies were just doing their jobs investigating suspicious activity.
-
Marketplace
-
-
News/Opinion Poll
Loading ...Box Office Poll
Loading ...
- 'Cosmopolis' Premiere: Robert Pattinson, Kristen Stewart On The Red Carpert
- Wes Anderson Movie Art: 'Rushmore,' 'Moonrise Kingdom,' 'Fantastic Mr. Fox' (PHOTOS)
- 'Star Wars' Anniversary: Posters From All The Episodes (PHOTOS)
- 'Star Wars' Unscripted: A Look Back At George Lucas And Hayden Christensen's Very Awkward Interview
- 'Twilight Breaking Dawn Part 2': Edward, Bella And Jacob Character Posters (PHOTOS)
- REVIEW: Is Chernobyl Diaries Offensive? No, It's Just Dumb
- Cannes Bans Controversial Comedy The Anti-Semite
- Lindsay Lohan's Liz Taylor Finds Her Dick Burton... in Bon Temps
- Wes Anderson on the Fantasy of Moonrise Kingdom — and the Myth of His 'MO'
- Zero Dark Thirty: Did Mark Boal Meet One of the Men Who Killed Osama Bin Laden?
the photog was being a douche.
I agree — you see this is EXACTLY what we need… the ACLU out fucking with cops over photography rights. I’m a card carrying Democrat but this shit just eats me alive. Seriously.
The photog is a douche. The ACLU needs to pick their battles.
The photographer was indeed being a douche. I bet prior to 9-1-1 some douche like this argued about the rights of Americans to bring sharp objects on board airplanes.
Oh…and I’m also a Democrat.
The cop was being a ass. They love to threaten and flex. Ever call fro a cop and wait a hour its because he is harrassing someone like the photographer.
I’m with the police on this one. They photographer could have cleared this up in a minute by explaining what he was doing. “Rule” or no rule, the officer believed he was doing something for the public safety, not beating down photographers for fun.
Oh, is that now in the bill of rights? First ammendment shall be suspended for those who random Internet commenter deems a ‘douche’?
This has NOTHING to do with the first amendment:
the first amendment is: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
This guy specifically says he’s NOT a member of the press.
in what way did the cop violate this guy’s rights by asking him what he’s doing? He wasn’t arrested. they didn’t take his camera. If he had answered the question they would have moved on. Instead, he was evasive, so they had to pursue it. That’s their job.
The ACLU wastes a tremendous amount of taxpayer money, taking these set-up, nonsense cases to trial.
Don’t try to act like you know what you’re talking about and then say that the ACLU is wasting taxpayer money. That alone should just prove you don’t know enough about the topic to speak.
what are you talking about?
Every time the ACLU sues a city, state, public school, law enforcement agency, etc etc — who do you think pays for the defense? We do, the tax payer.
You think that cop pays for his own defense? No, his department does. That comes out of the taxpayers pocket.
And YES, I’m saying this case, if it goes to trial, is a total waste of time and taxpayer money. as are a LOT of ACLU cases.
and i, too, am a democrat. the state is broke, we don’t need to waste money on this kinda crap.
we, the taxpayers, now have to pay for the defense this cop, and all the court time, in this pointless, set-up nonsense.
If he simply answered the first question about what he was doing, none of this would have happened. He was looking to create an issue. Good for the cop for being diligent. You take a picture of subways, bridges or tunnels here in NYC and you don’t answer they’ll haul you in to get some answers.
This isn’t about rights its about safety. This same guy would be the first to accuse the cops for not protecting him if a bomb goes off.
Wrong, IZ. It’s a public place and the police have no right to do anything other than maybe smile. The price of freedom is eternal diligence, not eternal repression. This isn’t Russia, Iran, Nazi Germany or Uganda. (But we’re working on it).
I agree with Santayana. The cop is wrong in saying the guy can’t photograph. There’s no way that the cop could determine what is going to happen afterwards to the footage shot. With those two points obliterated, why are we saying, “Yay, cop?”
We’re saying ‘Yay Cop’ cause the photographer was trying to walk this cop right into this spot. If you can’t see that, friend, it’s time to go see your shrink again.
Wow! Repression? Seriously? You compare the US to Iran, Nazi Germany, Uganda, Soviet Russia? Have you been to any of those places, have you ever really had your freedom stepped on, do you realize by comparing this incident of ‘repression’ is an insult to those people in those countries that had/do endure those regimes. The police are there to protect not smile, to investigate and not ignore photographers at bridges, tunnel, trains, and subways as those locations have been reconned for terrorist action. Maybe if you sat through six funeral’s after 9/11 you may feel different, but your rights aren’t being repressed.
You sit there and preach about how the police should be able to search and detain anyone doing anything “suspicious” at any place so long as there has been a terrorist attack at a similar place, somewhere in the world? We should be happy that we have freedom here in this country, and not settle for halfway free just out of fear that we may get attacked. By doing that we play right into the hand of the terrorists. These people aren’t trying to invade the US and take us over, they are trying to strike fears into our everyday lives simply because they hate they way that we live and that we have these freedoms. As for your comment about insulting people who are repressed by the comparison and talking about people who died in the attacks on 9/11? That day was one of the worst tragedies this country has ever seen, but it is not grounds for us to lose our liberty, and if you think it is, than every one of your six friends died for nothing that day because you are playing right into the hands of the horrible men who killed them. ~1,350,000 troops have died in combat throughout the history of this country, many of them fighting for the freedom that most of us take for granted. Don’t let THEIR lives be wasted.
The cop didn’t arrest him or beat him or anything. He simply asked him a question and the guy wouldn’t answer. Any cop, or person for that matter, is going to find that suspicious. This wasn’t on the street somewhere, it was in a subway… a place where terrorist activity has happened all over the world. Answer the question and there would have been no incident. It’s stupid.
I would say threatening to list him as a suspected terrorist which would make sure he gets flagged any time he travels is a pretty aggressive threat. The photographer might have been uncooperative but this police officer was a bully and was unwilling to listen to reason.
How is he being repressed though? I’m all for freedom and rights, but I’m also for safety too. Yes, the cop was wrong on some of his facts, but the photographer was acting like a douchebag. If he would have just said, hey, I’m a tourist, it’s my first visit to the city and I’m taking pictures to show my family, the officer would have let him walk I bet.
But he didn’t answer the officer’s simple questions.
Don’t you have an obligation to answer a cop’s questions? I don’t think all cops are bad, I think the majority of them are good and try to do their job, and he believed he was doing his job, and the photographer just kept pushing him.
Actually, no you don’t, it’s totally your right unless the cop can specifically point out something illegal you are being questioned about.
I’m married to an LA Deputy. They’re douches, but not all public places can be photographed. Try photographing an airline check point. The ACLU are bigger douches.
Go back home, bro.
That shit don’t play here. You may love violence but we don’t. I like it when cops ask questions, cause you see, my taxes pay their salaries. So I like to know they are actually working for it. I’m sorry that steps on your right to be a jackoff.
Right now your parents are turning over in their graves.
This comment is just random:
1) go back home… to where? Are you implying he’s not american? cause I’m pretty sure that wasn’t in the clip.
2) when did he say he loved violence?
3) parents turning over in their graves… how do you know his parents are dead?
you sounds as stupid as that cop so it isn’t surprising that you support him
The Sheriff was being a fascist. He wasn’t doing his job. He was flexing his muscle. He cannot detain a person for not breaking the law.
That Sheriff -
was extremely polite.
I would have wacked that smart ass with my nightstick -
now, that would have been FASCIST!
Could go either way on this one. I guess I’d side with the photog, but they’re both being pretty uncooperative with one another.
photographer was looking to start something and he did. why is this on the site?
Good question.
It’s funny… but when the really big, iconic terrorist stuff goes down, the police are NEVER around and all those CCTV cameras that are supposed to show who the “terrorists” are -well they always seem to be out-of-service on that day!
except that that’s how they caught all of the london bombers.
and that guy who left a car bomb in time square.
The officer violated this gentleman’s constitutional rights. End of story.
The officer claims ‘you might be taking photos for a terroristic purpose.’ So what? That is not against the law.
He claims his is detaining someone for not disclosing his reason for taking photos. So what? Taking photos of public spaces is a constititionally protected right. How can something that is protected be suspicious in and of itself?
He then claims he has no idea what is on the photos because they are film and not digital. How can he have any reasonable suspicion concerning what is occurring if has no idea what is on the images? What is the legal grounds for the detention? Doing something that is perfectly legal?
You have an ABSOLUTE right to NOT answer police questions when they are investigating a crime. This clown Sheriff’s officer states he is investigating a potential crime. What would he have done if they guy said: “I stand on my fifth amendment right not to speak to you?” He has ZERO facts and ZERO evidence of a crime – thus – he needs to let him go.
How can doing something that is protected under our system of laws be suspicious if you say you have a right to be doing it and simply do not want to talk about it?
The terrorists know what the station looks like – for gosh sakes its on the stupid MTA website.
For the record – I am a Tea Party Republican, not a liberal lawyer. WE own the rights we have not given to the government – the USAPATRIOT act is illegal and unconstitutional. We are not to be controlled for the pleasure of law enforcement. They work for us – and need to be made to understand that.
Officer GYFLIE = when you signed up to be a cop, you vowed an oath to uphold the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Start doing that, please. This officer displayed the ‘Us v. Them’ attitude that is all too common with LEO’s in this nation – y’all have forgotten who you work for and why.
I don’t think the cop violated his rights, but he certainly abused his authority and needs to learn the law (even though the Sup. Ct. has ruled that the police CAN lie to a suspect- good to remember if you are ever questioned by a cop- they can lie, you can be arrested and jailed for lying, so answer honestly or shut up).
So I agree with you- you don’t have to answer any question. If confronted by a cop asking questions, you only need to identify yourself and show ID when asked. Other than that, you have the absolute right to remain silent and that refusal to answer questions can’t be used to justify an arrest. If after answering your name and showing ID you want to leave, you are free to leave. If detained, you have a right to ask what you are being detained for. You can’t stop the police from detaining or arresting you, but if they can’t present objective evidence other than their suspicion, you will walk. You may end up in jail for the night, it’s a pain, but you can’t be charged with a crime based on their gut.
The real problem the cop will face, or should face, is his explicit threat to put the photog on the terrorist watch list. That crossed the line of police ethics if not the law, but again, the cops can lie and they are protected from most of their lies.
Last thing- the cop is a fool. Does he really think that a terrorist is going to walk around with an old school film camera and snap pics openly? Wouldn’t any real terrorist find a more clever, concealed method of acquiring info? And wouldn’t they be more interested in the trains?
I agree we need to have vigilant efforts against terrorists or potential terrorists, but we also have to be smart and realize that if we surrender our rights we will be giving our enemies what they want, namely, the loss of our liberty.
I’m a Democrat, and I completely agree with you.
Sure, the photog wasn’t very cooperative, but he certainly doesn’t have to be in this case as he did nothing wrong.
On the other hand, the cop is clearly in breach of his oath.
The mistake is on the cop, period. And I’m certainly glad that the sheriff department is being reminded of it.
This same kind of thing happened to me in Manhattan. I was on vacation and taking photos of the Brooklyn Bridge when two foot patrol officers stopped me. They kept me for about 20 minutes and then let me go. I cooperated fully. The bridge may be a terrorist target but it’s also a tourist attraction and probably one of the most photographed structures in the US. If terrorists really wanted to have some pictures, they could just buy a book.
The problem with this sort of thing is that they’re violating the constitution. It’s not really any different than being pulled over for no reason and having the cops search your trunk on the off chance they might find something illegal. These kinds of intrusions into ones personal liberty are the beginnings of a police-state.
Having said all that, I’m sure this guy was baiting this very situation. The cops made the mistake of falling into the trap.
In most Countries, you would have been arrested and locked up and that would be the end of it. Good thing you live in America!
I am more concerned with all you liberals violating all my rights by trying to change America – this land of freedom into a socialist state. Please take your ideas and leave the Country. That’s right. You wouldn’t have the right to do what you do in any other Place. Be careful of what you wish for. Go and stay in North Korea for a month. Maybe it would change your mind.
Ahhh, how entertaining. You don’t even see the irony of your post, do you? You DEFEND behavior that routinely takes place in a place like North Korea, and then tell people you disagree with to . . . go to North Korea.
The First Amendment does not protect disruptive behavior by photographers, which is what the police action is going after.
what was he disrupting – the cops donut break, coffee break or smoke break?
yeah, disruptive? How? He was standing there taking photos when the officer approached him. He may have been doing something that the regular rider does not do, i.e., taking photos, but – he was not disruptive until he was approached by an aggressive police officer.
If he simply refused to engage with the officer – and said “I have nothing to say to you,’ then how do you explain the behavior? Suspicious?
Again, we really need to have the US Supreme Court state that if you refuse to speak to a police officer it is not grounds for further police activity absent something else that is illegal or leads to illegal activity. The 5th Amendment right must include a right to not speak if it is to have any meaning at all – especially since the police use anything you say either against you or to create an additional line of inquiry against you. If we remember, Martha Stewart was imprisoned not for insider trading but for lying to the investigators – if you open your mouth you must tell the truth. If you choose not to speak, silence must be accepted in the absence of other illegal activity.
In this case, the intent of the photographer is truly irrelevant and whatever reason he may choose to not speak to the officer is again not relevant to the ultimate conclusion. The photog might be a terrorist casing the joint. Its not illegal to take photographs of things that can be seen in public. Thus – any reason to take those photographs is likewise legal.
The whole ‘terrorists might be taking pictures’ is a pretty ignorant statement given that anyone can pretty much see anything they want on Google Earth or Bing Maps -
In “kahoots with Al Qaeda”!? Really, are we in the 1950s? The cop sums up his job really well at the end of the video, though.
Being detained for questioning isn’t a violation of his rights — however, only being detained for taking pictures would be — cuz, what possible non-bs crime is he committing?
Sorry folks, cops can detainee for questioning basically whenever they smell a fart (within certain limits) which is kinda fair if you think about it. ACLU’s going to lose on this one because the kid refused to answer the reasonable investigative questions of the officer. Yes, they’re both being jerks but ain’t no Constitution-shred fest.
NOW… if the cop had arrested him for continuing to take pics after ascertaining there was no crime being committed! CONSTITUTIONAL SHERIFF SMACKDOWN!
P.S. Real Al Qaeda terrorists would avoid suspicion at all costs – as soon as the kid was uncooperative he’s clearly drawing attention – not a terrorist… the rest is just a cop-power-thrusting (seriously – hands behind his back and pushing him up against the wall for shooting turnstiles? dominate that photog ass!)
The Officer was doing his job! He was being attentive – the photog needs to grow the f up
I’m sorry but it seemed like the Officer LET HIM GO AFTER QUESTIONING HIM.
How is this POSSIBLY OF ANY INTEREST? I’m shocked this video would be published
with such a lack of a climax. How is it an infringement of rights to ask someone questions?
Having a camera does not give him diplomatic immunity.
THIS VIDEO IS NOTHING.
And even more shocking is that it was posted here on an entertainment blog.
The simple fact is, the Police have no RIGHTS to stop you from taking photos of ANYTHING. The law is very clear on this, and if you don’t understand this, you’re not paying attention. They shouldn’t be asking someone, in a PUBLIC space, why they’re taking photos of “nothing”. Tourists take pics of “nothing” all day, and they’re not stopped, so how is this any different?
The Cop is an idiot. But the photographer was being a complete ass about the whole situation. He was trying to start a fight.
No one asks my permission to be personally photographed in public throughout all of the city. Cameras are everywhere being controlled by law enforcement too. Can I stop that activity on the basis of only “You’ll stop until I’ve determined if a crime is being committed”?
Which occurs more… Terrorist activity in US cities, or Police planting/altering evidence to frame a suspect? It’s an honest question, and one that I’m not convinced big media isn’t slanted on.
_______
The photographer didn’t exhibit any more frustration than anyone who gets tired of being harassed for consistently legal activity. “Because I can” is a perfectly legitimate answer, especially when there was no obvious crime being committed.
The Police Officers logic could be used to stop anyone from entering their own car. He could stop anyone moving out of their house with boxes loading onto a truck. He could open any package you receive in the mail and tap into any electronic correspondence all on the basis of “I’m investigating if a crime IS being committed”.
UNACCEPTABLE!
Papers Please!
This type of law enforcement behavior should be challenged at every opportunity in the most public manner possible.