• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Picture demanded by LEO

soloban

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
255
Location
Huntsville, Alabama, USA
imported post

Why on earth do LEOs insist on snapping pictures if they aren't going to arrest the person?? I can understand taking pics when investgating an assault/battery, domestic violence, trespass, etc....

If you're not going to arrest someone then why take pictures? For the police report?

Someone clue me in, I don't get it. This needs to stop.
 

FogRider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
1,412
Location
Centennial, Colorado, USA
imported post

soloban wrote:
Why on earth do LEOs insist on snapping pictures if they aren't going to arrest the person?? I can understand taking pics when investgating an assault/battery, domestic violence, trespass, etc....

If you're not going to arrest someone then why take pictures? For the police report?

Someone clue me in, I don't get it. This needs to stop.
Because they can? Because it's legal for them to do so?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

soloban wrote:
SNIP If you're not going to arrest someone then why take pictures? For the police report?
Gathering intelligence? Intimidation?

When the FOIA requested information from Manassas came back, one of the e-mails that turned up was from a Manassas PD Lt. or Capt. requestingany information from the recipient. His recipient list wasfourteen individuals inlaw enforcement around the state.
 

G27

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
573
Location
Kitsap County, Washington, USA
imported post

Wow is pretty much all I can grasp out. Let's just take everyone's picture who is "suspected" of a crime now. It will back it easier to round them up later on false charges. Too much power is being given.
 

FogRider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
1,412
Location
Centennial, Colorado, USA
imported post

G27 wrote:
Wow is pretty much all I can grasp out. Let's just take everyone's picture who is "suspected" of a crime now. It will back it easier to round them up later on false charges. Too much power is being given.
It's not power given to cops, anyone can photograph anyone else in public. There is nothing stoping you from turning it around and taking a picture of the cops. As for the "why" behind a cop taking your picture, that does seem a bit scetchy. But the fact of the matter is, there is nothing saying they can't do it. The only thing I am not sure of is if it can be used as evedence, although I can't think of any reason why not.
 

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

FogRider wrote:
G27 wrote:
Wow is pretty much all I can grasp out. Let's just take everyone's picture who is "suspected" of a crime now. It will back it easier to round them up later on false charges. Too much power is being given.
It's not power given to cops, anyone can photograph anyone else in public. There is nothing stoping you from turning it around and taking a picture of the cops. As for the "why" behind a cop taking your picture, that does seem a bit scetchy. But the fact of the matter is, there is nothing saying they can't do it. The only thing I am not sure of is if it can be used as evedence, although I can't think of any reason why not.
I was thinking the same thing too. I don't have anything against cops taking pictures of people... But I think you'll agree that cops don't have the right to "subdue" someone into having their picture taken. If someone who hasn't been charged with a crime is stupid enough to pose for a picture that police will document, then fine. But they shouldn't be thrown on the ground if they choose not to do so.


What troubles me even more, though, is that apparently the paramilitary, er, police can raid a house without a warrant now. Not to mention that the last time I checked, it wasn't a crime in Pennsylvania to have a gun in a private residence. Though I can never really keep up with the latest decrees of King Edward.

"A neighbor got into an argument with some of the men, called 911 and complained that someone had a gun at 346 N. Plum St.

Lancaster police entered the home with guns drawn, according to documents, and after a pat-down search produced no weapons, police moved all the men outside."
 

Wynder

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
1,241
Location
Bear, Delaware, USA
imported post

FogRider wrote:
soloban wrote:
Why on earth do LEOs insist on snapping pictures if they aren't going to arrest the person?? I can understand taking pics when investgating an assault/battery, domestic violence, trespass, etc....
Because they can? Because it's legal for them to do so?

It's perfectly legal to take a picture of someone in public; however, forcing them to submit to it unwillingly is, in my opinion, another issue all together.
 

jtkratzer

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
30
Location
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

What I really dislike about the situation:

1.) The police were called by a neighbor claiming someone had a gun...

-> Fine, someone is scared about a gun that was not found by the police...did this guy make that part up to make things more serious?

2.) The police entered the residence with guns drawn, no warrant.

-> Is it really necessary/legal to enter without knocking? I understand the police can't assume that everything is legit, but in the event that things are legit, I know I'd be upset if I was treated that way as a legally armed and carrying citizen. I mean, if someone calls the police because I'm open carrying, I'd be really upset if they came in my house guns drawn.

3.) When Corll arrived, the men were on the ground in the driveway and police were checking their IDs to make sure they were valid, according to the lawsuit.

...further on in the article...

During the hearing, Corll testified that because none of the men had picture IDs, police obtained their names, dates of birth, social security numbers and addresses.


How can they check IDs if no one has them? Why was anyone detained for any period of time after no gun was found and everyone checked out without any warrants, etc?




The police have a tough job and I'm not bashing them, but these are some serious issues here. I'm not a big fan of lottery by lawsuit, but unlawful actions can't be allowed, by the public or the police.
 

FogRider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
1,412
Location
Centennial, Colorado, USA
imported post

Wynder wrote:
FogRider wrote:
soloban wrote:
Why on earth do LEOs insist on snapping pictures if they aren't going to arrest the person?? I can understand taking pics when investgating an assault/battery, domestic violence, trespass, etc....
Because they can? Because it's legal for them to do so?

It's perfectly legal to take a picture of someone in public; however, forcing them to submit to it unwillingly is, in my opinion, another issue all together.
I'm going to go ahead and apologize, and admit I kinda jumped the gun and replied without reading fully. Public photography is, and should be legal, but what actually happened in the article is nowhere close to right.
 

Steve in PA

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
158
Location
Somewhere in PA
imported post

2) Entering a residence like they did would require a warrant or exigent circumstances, which I do not believe they had.

3) I have no idea why they were on the ground. Asking for or checking ID's is fine and SOP. If they don't have a DL or photo ID, they run them by name and DOB.

As a LEO myself, I think these guys went overboard. It doesn't matter if they have a "policy" to photograph them, policy is not a law or legal requirement that needs to be obeyed.
 

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

Another problem I have is how the paramilitary appear to have the authority to demand identification from people who are on private property with the permission of the landowner, especially when it is not obvious that a crime has been committed. If they're on public land, even on sidewalks, in the street, then fine. But it sounds like the paramilitary barged into a private residence with guns drawn, then detained and questioned everyone in that residence while demanding identification. Is this the kind of country we're living in?
 

jtkratzer

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
30
Location
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

Steve in PA wrote:
2) Entering a residence like they did would require a warrant or exigent circumstances, which I do not believe they had.

3) I have no idea why they were on the ground. Asking for or checking ID's is fine and SOP. If they don't have a DL or photo ID, they run them by name and DOB.

As a LEO myself, I think these guys went overboard. It doesn't matter if they have a "policy" to photograph them, policy is not a law or legal requirement that needs to be obeyed.
About the SOP of running names and DOB, you usually don't need social security numbers right?
 

DeltaII5

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2007
Messages
44
Location
, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:
Another problem I have is how the paramilitary appear to have the authority to demand identification from people who are on private property with the permission of the landowner, especially when it is not obvious that a crime has been committed. If they're on public land, even on sidewalks, in the street, then fine. But it sounds like the paramilitary barged into a private residence with guns drawn, then detained and questioned everyone in that residence while demanding identification. Is this the kind of country we're living in?

Can you cite a stop and indentify statute in PA? (when on foot)

I'm unaware of one, but not too sure where I'd find one.
 

AbNo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,805
Location
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:
It's not power given to cops, anyone can photograph anyone else in public. There is nothing stoping you from turning it around and taking a picture of the cops. As for the "why" behind a cop taking your picture, that does seem a bit scetchy. But the fact of the matter is, there is nothing saying they can't do it. The only thing I am not sure of is if it can be used as evedence, although I can't think of any reason why not.

Isn't there something wherein you are allowed to request your picture NOT be taken?

I know this applies to commercial usage, does it apply to shutterbug LEOs as well?
 

ilbob

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
778
Location
, Illinois, USA
imported post

AbNo wrote:
Isn't there something wherein you are allowed to request your picture NOT be taken?

I know this applies to commercial usage, does it apply to shutterbug LEOs as well?


I'm not sure what the deal is. Hopefully, the cops involved get their heads handed to them (figuratively speaking) unless there isa lotmore to the story than is being told.

Cops are funny creatures. One minute they can be your protector and will stick their neck way out in doing so, and the next the same cop has his jack boot on your throat for not showing what he feels is proper deference. Who knows what the real scoop is here.


I always hate it when this kind of thing comes out. Theguy who was roughed up so the cops could take his picture does not appear to be all that nice of a guy.It may also be that the terms of his probation require him to cooperate with police. It would be a lot easier to feel sympathy for the guy if he did not have a record.
 

UTOC-45-44

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
2,579
Location
Morgan, Utah, USA
imported post

Grapeshot wrote:
A man was recently arrested in Lacaster, Pa., injured and lost his job as a result of refusing to allow law enforcement officers to take his picture. The charges were eventually dismissed and a law suit is pending.
http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/212086

Yata hey

This is happening more and more. Starts sounding like Gestapolice in the U.S.

I though this Country was FAR away from communism...Guess not:what:
 

stevemark

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
14
Location
Richland, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

During the hearing, Corll testified that because none of the men had picture IDs, police obtained their names, dates of birth, social security numbers and addresses.

"Then we took digital photos of all the subjects in question so that at some point these identifications could be verified as the investigation progressed," Corll testified, according to court documents.



What investigation is he talking about? No one had outstanding warrants and there was no probable cause to arrest anyone. Why is there an investigation?
 
Top