Innocent Photographer Surrounded After Woman Calls Cops on Him: Why It's Your Fault and the Media's

Innocent Photographer Surrounded After Woman Calls Cops on Him: Why It's Your Fault and the Media's

A man with a camera and a smartphone was questioned for twenty minutes in his own neighborhood after a woman called the cops, fearing he was taking photographs of children in the park across the street. It turned out he was just a guy who lives nearby and has been photographing his neighborhood for three decades. Was this a little embarrassing for the woman? She might feel that way, but there are two sides to this story.

Essentially, the Internet (of photographers, perhaps) seems annoyed that another human being was concerned with someone taking photographs. Neither the fact that six policemen arrived to question the man for 20 minutes while looking through photographs on his phone to confirm he had not taken photos with that device either, as had been suggested, nor the fact that the man hadn't even actually taken any photographs yet help the situation seem any better. But was it really that bad?

So, she was wrong in her suspicions; I get it. But can you really blame her? The article quoted in this story suggests we should simply talk to people that we're worried might be photographing children in a not-so-innocent way. And that's true. That's one way to go.

On the other hand, I think it's hard for men (and I'm a dude, for the record) to understand the fear women go through every day. I've imagined it and I think it would be even presumptuous of the relatively socially forward-thinking me that I am to say that I fully understand. I had an experience walking in Detroit several years ago with a Hasselblad H4D-40 around my neck that scared me for the first time in my life. Until that point, I hadn't been scared — not once — walking down any street in the world (and I'd been around quite a bit, not to mention the better part of a year spent in Ghana back in high school).

Society — okay, so maybe not you or me, but maybe — has its effect on women regardless and in a much more profound, everyday, non-location-specific manner. There’s not much anyone can do about it without decades of slow progress.

Was this woman’s life or well-being threatened in that specific moment? Perhaps not. But it’s this same fear that is increased by the same media that posts and shouts of every child molester’s wrong-doings, taking advantage of the situation and constantly building fear surrounding the idea of men photographing children (don't get me wrong: child molesters are terrible, for lack of a better term at the moment, but it's the media's constant extension of every scenario that makes it seem like every man who smiles at a kid with ice cream on his or her face is a potential pervert).

But we have to live both sides of this with grace and a good attitude. We (as men) need to be understanding of the fact that, yes, it’s a bit creepy to photograph near, around, or in the general direction of children. As much as I want to photograph beautiful and interesting children, men, women, and everything in-between, the older I get, the weirder it gets for me to photograph at least the children. That part is just not quite the same for female photographers. And no, it may not be fair, even though we have the best intentions. However, I think a man with a camera near a park can go through a few minutes of questioning to satisfy everyone’s worry and make them feel comfortable for once.

The man in this story complained that his wife saw him with the officers when she came home and immediately thought the worst might have happened to their teenage son, causing her to shake with grief from her stirred worries. While it’s unfortunate that she was worried, that is simply a mother’s reaction and the very normal act of “jumping to the worst conclusion” that every mother does when the phone rings late at night or when receiving a text that plainly states, “call me.” At some point, worrying is just a part of life that we need to deal with and police shouldn't have to worry about someone else who might start to worry that someone they love might be hurt after simply seeing the police near their home.

So, why couldn’t the woman who called the cops just have asked this man what he was up to in the safety of broad daylight? First of all, the “safety of broad daylight” could easily be considered a myth for many women. And second, I’m sure she legitimately thought the man was a creep. What woman wants to walk up to a man like that and question him or perhaps tip him off and have him disappear into the wind? At some point, police are there for a reason: to be that safe barrier.

With all the stories about police brutality lately, calling the cops might be viewed as extreme. But by the sound of it, these policemen seem to have handled themselves the same way that the far majority of officers still seem to do so: with adequate restraint and good intention. Were six officers a bit much? Perhaps. But having backup simply keeps the officers as safe as possible and who isn’t for that, really?

No one was tackled. No one was arrested without cause. The man was simply questioned and 20 minutes of his day were “wasted” to satisfy the worry of another woman (and he didn’t have to give up access to his phone if he didn’t want to, but he obviously felt it was okay and in his best interest to cooperate and help prove his lack of ill will). It wasn’t the best day for anyone. But it wasn’t the crime of the century, either. Can we all just get over it?

What do you think? Was it an overreaction? Was the man “wrongly” questioned? Ready, set, comment.

UPDATE: It should be noted that taking pictures of anyone on public property is not a crime (at least not in the U.S.). There was obviously a huge assumption made that this man was taking photos of children and that he was planning on using them in some negative fashion. However, legally, there is nothing that is "wrong" or that can be done until this man uses those photos in that negative fashion, whatever it may be (not sure what you can do with photos of children in a park, but it is a "thing" at least in the mainstream news media and throughout Hollywood movies that somehow, pedophiles like to take photos of kids in parks).

Perhaps, given these facts and added considerations, the woman should have simply not reacted. At the same time, however, perhaps it should be the policemen's jobs to know the law and inform the woman there is nothing they can or should do at that moment. Thoughts?

[Via SomeNews]

Adam Ottke's picture

Adam works mostly across California on all things photography and art. He can be found at the best local coffee shops, at home scanning film in for hours, or out and about shooting his next assignment. Want to talk about gear? Want to work on a project together? Have an idea for Fstoppers? Get in touch! And, check out FilmObjektiv.org film rentals!

Log in or register to post comments
134 Comments

The society has changed. The women did what she needed to do ; it is better to prevent in those cases.

But why 6 policemen? One car, two officers, I would understand. But 6? Did she reported that a man was shot or did she reported her bad feelings about a possible creepy behavior of a photographer?

It is sad for us, male photogs - it won't be the last story of this kind.

Call them on my for something stupid like this and you'll have a civil harassment and libel suits on your ass in a heartbeat, along with having the police sued for violating my first amendment rights.

6 cops, detained for 20 minutes, illegal search and seizure ... for doing something that is not illegal? And you think this is ok?

Even 2 officers ... IT IS NOT A CRIME TO TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS IN PUBLIC .... NOT EVEN OF CHILDREN!

Stupid Woman: Officers! There's someone in a public park taking pictures ... he might be taking pictures of children.

Police Dispatch: Mam, photographing children is not a crime. *hangs up the phone*

That's how it should have gone. What happened instead was a gross violation of his civil liberties. He was illegally detained and searched.

This was the equivalent if being swatted.

What's next? Being detained, put on no fly lists and government watch lists for taking pictures of bridges?

She and the police department need to be sued.

Hi Eric. I'm not saying "this is ok". Where did I wrote it was fine to perform illegal search and seizure?

I'm saying that the reaction of the police was disproportionate. The police needed to do something. They had to. It is a delicate subject, but bad things happen to our little kids and I will endorse prevention of abuse or kidnapping.

Nothing can legally stop that women to call the police and report what she saw [or thought she saw].

Just imagine one minute if something wrong had happened, imagine a policeman announcing in a conference that a kid vanished, that they had information in regards to a "suspicious man" taking photographs of children in that park days before and that they did nothing at that moment.

If illegal procedures were done by officers, let him sue the police dept. But if "standard" verification is done, simply and quickly, I repeat, I will cooperate and answer questions, no problem with that.

Perhaps only one officer would have been sufficient, a few questions, 2 minutes, and move on.

You are right ... but you did say.

"The women did what she needed to do ; it is better to prevent in those cases."

It is right to report someone not committing a crime? It's not like she saw someone breaking into a house ... she saw someone doing something perfectly legal. why not report everyone driving past that park in a white van with tinted windows?!?!

"Nothing can legally stop that women to call the police and report what she saw."

Depends how she reported it ... otherwise it's filling a false report or even swatting which are both illegal.

Your argument that "imagine one minute if something wrong had happened" is why we are in this situation now. Take pictures of kids, bridges, subway stations ... so on so forth and you are automatically a creep / criminal / terrorist.

There is this little legal concept of presumption of innocence ... it's not my job to constantly prove I am not a terrorist / pedophile when I am enjoying my basic civil rights!

Like I've said, the woman calling dispatch should have been told that photography is not a crime instead the guy was essentially SWATTED.

By saying that the woman did the right thing, you are enforcing that this paranoia of photographers is correct ... you are further enforcing the concept that we are all criminals and creeps.

See. This is what I don't get... I don't think she "did the right thing." And if I said that somewhere, I absolutely need to correct it. My only point is that it really isn't THAT big of a deal. Now...everyone is going to freak out again and say, but it is. And yes, in the grand scheme of things, we (photographers) need to help educate the public about reasonable expectation of privacy and/or lack thereof, photographers' rights, etc. But in the end, I think this guy handled it well. It's unfortunate that this had to happen this way, but he took it as well as he could, cooperated, and I think that's okay. And furthermore, by sharing his story, he helped open the discussion to this point of response...

So for the record: What she did is not "okay." But it happens. Just like when someone sees a person wandering around a house at night and calls the cops because they think there's a burglar next door...and it's some black kid...who did nothing wrong but who happens to live there... At that point, the best thing to do is to just sit down, say, "Look, I live here...I'm not sure where the confusion started, but all is good...look around." And then just shrug it off -- shit happens. And I'm sure this lady who called the cops on the photographer is going to think twice next time anyway...

I was replying to Carl Viens but now that you ask ...

"So, she was wrong in her suspicions; I get it. But can you really blame her?"

"On the other hand, I think it's hard for men (and I'm a dude, for the record) to understand the fear women go through every day."

" it’s a bit creepy to photograph near, around, or in the general direction of children."

... I could keep going but I'd copy about 1/5th of your text ... you are making the woman out to be the victim instead of the photographer.

This quote just blows me away ...

"Was this woman’s life or well-being threatened in that specific moment? Perhaps not."

PERHAPS NOT? SERIOUSLY?

You spend 2/3 of the article apologizing for the woman's reaction!

"I know she called the police on those black kids who were walking through the neighborhood but can you blame her?"

Would you be as forgiving then? No because that would be racial based ... the photographer was a white male after all ... who cares about his rights ...

He was asked permission to inspect his camera, and granted it. That's not illegal. His camera wasn't siezed for inspection. And unless he requested to be let go, and wasn't, he also wasn't illegally detained.

Surrounded by 6 armed individuals, was it really a "choice"?

Do you know what it's called when a large group of people come at you to initimadte you? Swarming ... but when it's armed cops it's reasonable?

Here is a quote from the photographers open letter (the article above should really link to it).

"I had barely gotten across the street when three police cars pulled up: I was told to stop, and swiftly surrounded by six policemen. I was “detained” there for approximately 20 minutes and questioned; another officer returned to the park to find out why you had called them.

The policeman returned and wanted to see my “flip phone,” and then asked me if I knew how he knew I had a flip phone: I didn’t. He knew, he told me, because the woman who called the police had taken a picture of ME, sitting on the bench, and shown him the picture."

I'm glad you're pointing out the difference between formal (the law) and effective (overdetermining circimstances) choice here, because it means you *should* be aware that when one says "(il)legal", it pretty clearly has to do with formal freedoms.

TO START: I'm not a lawyer.

I think we are arguing semantics at this point and while in law they ARE important in real life the effect was the same.

Actual police training manuals are all about how to skirt the edge of the law to effectively trick people into abandoning their rights because civil rights are inconvenient.

When you are talking to an officer he isn't looking for proof that you are innocent, he is looking for proof that you are guilty (presumption of guilt). anything you say that could be even remotely construed as guilt WILL be used while anything that could prove your innocence in INADMISSIBLE IN COURT AS HEARSAY!

The event described by the photographer reek of textbook police psychological interrogation techniques.

Look up John Reid and the 9 steps to psychological interrogation.

One of those steps is confrontation ... like being confronted about owning a flip phone and having photographic evidence ... see where I'm going here?

Another is to make the suspect unconfertable to increase his unease and stress ...surounded by 6 officers and kept on a sidewalk for 20 minutes.

20 minutes isn't long? The conversation should really have taken 1 minute.

What are you doing.
Walking.
Can I see your phone.
Yes/No

Ok, you are free to go ... what took 20 minutes?

Did you know that due to their training, police officers normally get about 80% of suspects to waive their right to silence and counsel? This is EXACTLY what happened in this situation.

The VERY FIRST THING the photographer should have done is asked about his status : Am I being detained or am I free to go.

If he was being detained, he should have then asked for a lawyer.

The moment the cops arrived he was being interrogated.

Read up on police interrogation ... it's crazy.

It sucks but police interactions with civilians aren't as benign as people think ... they aren't there to serve and protect anymore ... if they ever were.

"The VERY FIRST THING the photographer should have done is asked about his status : Am I being detained or am I free to go."

So much this!^

Eric- You are so right! Cops are not our friends, they are part of the money making justice system. Never call the cops if you need help, you can't afford it! The cops in Stark County, Ohio will always charge someone if they are called. It is like calling a plumber, be prepared to pay!

I have watched too many videos of cops abusing their power to trust any of them!

The photographer should have recorded the entire discussion with the cops as well!

Touchy subject for me! The cops illegally searched my niece's apartment (no warrant) and busted her for growing pot. Then they gave her $1.5K in fines and told her she had to maintain a job to stay out of jail. Since she now had a record all she could do was become a topless dancer which led to bigger drugs and prostitution. Now she is a heroin addict on the run...So, yeah, I hate the cops!

@Eric Lefebvre- You are exactly right. One is usually tricked or coerced into giving up their rights. If one is an informed person, then it's a matter of weighing the option of giving up rights for less harassment. It's a sad state of affairs that the police are allowed to cheat and lie as well as try to scare people into saying something they can use in court. And once said, they won't try to get a clarification. It's even worse that when they regard any protest to what they want as obstruction or resistance. Their reason? It's another charge. An arrest leads to inflated crime numbers; and they don't care as long as they can go home safely at night. In other words, they don't care what is right, because "it's the law" and it's not them. And then they write up the report exactly the way they want to. The context of all of this comes from a couple of cop friends of mine. They also point out that cops hate responding to calls on other cops because they know the cop in question will automatically lawyer up. It's something we should consider.

additionally, one should always be ready to record an incident. The police here usually have cameras but some of them "malfunction" at critical times.

Here is an older police training video on how to profile a photographer as a terorist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxoTItUgpKw#t=278

I feel bad for children of today, having mom or dad hovering over everything they do,

The police today are out of control and it's only getting worse.

The police out of control thing you are saying is not true. You're just getting force feed that info every minute of your day. So you prescieve it as getting worse. When it actually is not.

I agree a bit with your point. I think six policemen "sounds" scary. But in reality, where policemen are honest, trustworthy, integral parts of the community (which is still in most places), who cares about having a few more policemen to question and to be there? Half of them are probably curious while the other half are learning by being there anyway...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/nyregion/new-york-police-officer-is-co...

The police will lie, steal, and cheat. In the US with everybody and their brother having a video camera, we are seeing how bad the police are. The police are afraid of people with cameras, why? Because they are being caught red handed.

i can strongly disagree with this, as previously working for the police, it is not a case of "being caught red handed" no human being while trying to work likes someone to shove a camera in your face.

Follow your local postie, film him, im sure you will recieve a similar reaction.

Plus the media can easily take a situation out of context and make it look the opposite to the fact.

Here in the UK, when Taser first was introduced to officers, the media spiraled out of control of a video, where one police officer is holding a guy on the floor and a second officer tasers him.
But when you watch the longer version, you see that the guy on the floor has bitten, and is continuing to chew on the officers leg. And in an atempt to stop him, he gets tasered. Which is certainly proportionate.
Think that is where the real fear comes from. Its far to easy to use images and video to what ever gain you are trying to achive, be it pro or anti police.

It's part of their job to be photographed and videoed while doing their job. There is no excuse for their bad behavior. The courts in the US have deemed it the public's right to do it.

Attacking a cop is different then photographing or video recording them.

I'm from the UK, and this occurred in the US, so perhaps there is an important difference of law here.

In the UK it is entirely legal to take photos of anyone (including children) in public places. No permission is required of anyone. Is it different in the US?

I think the question here really is why the police even talked to this guy - if what he was doing was legal then there's no reason to talk to him at all. The police should have just explained to the lady involved that what he was doing was legal.

Yes, it's legal in the US to take photos of anyone, including minors, in public.

Exactly the same as it is SUPPOSED to be here in the US.

A similar situation happened to me a number of years back in a public park in the UK, I was doing client session for her son and daughter when officers approached me. the officers investigated the pictures, asked what I was doing and talked to my client. They let me go but at that point there was a mob of mothers who was angered by the situation which made leaving the park rather difficult despite the police presence. Needless to say it killed my business once word got around.

All the more reason for outrage online and complaints about the police. We should fight this attitude towards photography with every ounce of our being.

The police 'investigating' photographers acting lawfully kills businesses and causes fear among mothers.

Even if the man was taking pictures of children in the park, that isn't criminal activity. It's what's done with the photos after the fact that determines the legality. This woman should be the one cuffed for wasting taxpayer's money and diverting the officers away from other potential crimes. Photography is not a crime, and you have no expectation or right to privacy in a public space.

Arresting her would only mean more waste of time... but sure, the 20 minutes would have been much better spent on her, instructing to better assess the next time she considers a wandering photographer as 'suspicious activity' and avoid wasting police time.

"Arresting her would only mean more waste of time..."

Not really, depending on what she reported, she could be fined for filling a false report or swatting (considering the number of cops they sent) ... both of those are ACTUAL crimes.

True. I missed the point slightly.

My mind went more irrationally rhetoric as "Oh, there's a creep with a camera around here. He could be taking pictures of children."

Cheers

Yes this is clearly an over reaction. First, people tend to exaggerate, lie, or just become completely irrational when it comes to protecting children. After all playground equipment injures more than 200,000 kids per year, but somehow an irrational personal calls the cops on a person with a camera. Second, the police also need to have a much more cautious approach and ask many more questions of the complaining person. When there is no direct evidence of a crime, they need to ask alot of questions before sending officers. Police should also advice complainers that taking photos of people in a public place with no expectation of privacy is not a crime. Third, people should be more rational when it comes to perceived threats of people with cameras. There are undoubtedly several video cameras on houses and business pointed at the park, but rational people understand that it is not a concern.

We were doing publicity photography for an eco-fair last weekend in Ecuador. At one point, I saw a cute little girl, maybe 3, trying to carry a bag that was almost as big as she was. I pointed her out to my wife, and we both shot maybe a dozen photos of the girl.

Her mother then came over, and obviously distraught, asked what I was going to do with the photos. I said they were for publicity of the eco-fair, and would be part of probably1000 photos that might be used for next year. She said she really didn't want any photos of her girl used in any web image or publicity shots.

We agreed, walked away, and that was that. When I came across them in the shoot upload that night, I simply flagged as "do not use - mother request" and did not forward to the fair organizers.

Though I think she was over-reacting, it was an easy conversation, and easy result.

Unfortunately, nowadays, in the US you'd probably be physically assaulted.

SO TRUE ERIC! Today the so-called 'good guys' can bash the heck out of OTHER "good guys" and all they need do is say, "I thought he was a bad man"! No other reason - just, "I THOUGHT...". NO the person did NOT "THINK"! She had her filthy mind in the gutter and ASSUMED because of HER SICK MIND that anyone with a CAMERA must be equally as SICK! People like the "lady" make me ill; TYPICAL of society in 2015.!

Is that Mike Kelley taking a dump?

Basically! Ha. I was assisting him shooting in a kitchen/bath/lighting store the other day. This was the best spot for that particular shot...perfect.

i actually understand the woman, and i think she reacted right. let do cops do there job, you're pay taxes for it.
photographing stranger people on a locotion is creepy as hell, when it is without a reason like a demonstration or fastival.

You think she reacted right until they come and question you for just sitting there. I for one, am not willing to give up my rights as a photographer or human, just for someone who is worried that something is happening

what right you mean? the police come to you, ask you some questiens and that it.

maybe this is a culture thing, here in germany the police is friendly and professonal. we see cops as a person not as the faceless law. speaking with a cop is more like harmony and courtesy, they have feelings too. you want they help, too, when you're in trouble.
dabimus et accipiemus

Lukas, what was the cops reason for spending 20 minutes questioning this photographer? The cop (with 5 other cops) shouldn't be questioning a photographer for 20 minutes about something which was very definitely legal, surely?

If the cop had a report that someone was doing something illegal it might be reasonable for 6 cops to question them for 20 minutes, but why did they use police time on the photographer when they knew for sure he hadn't done anything illegal.

Perhaps the law is different in Germany? In the US (and the UK) it is entirely legal to take photographs of anyone (including children) in public. You might find it creepy, but the police aren't there to question people because you find something they did creepy, they're there to ensure the law is followed.

The cop should have spent those 20 minutes educating the lady that even if he was taking photos of kids it is entirely legal and he is only there to enforce the law, not to enforce one persons social norms on another.

My whole conversation with them will consist of "Am I free to go? Am I being detained?" They have to choose one or the other, and IF I am being detained they better have a damned good reason why or they'll be unemployed shortly followed by a 1st amendment suit.

I wish we had the same constitutional protections in the UK.

You say that, but good luck — police literally get away with murder, nevermind someone's legal hissyfit over questioning.

I've done this. It's not luck. If they arrest me, which I wouldn't resist, they'd have a big ass suit on their hands for false imprisonment. Legally the only statuses they can place us is "free to go", "detained" which has to be able to be proven WHY in court and the reasoning better be valid as in an actual crime took place and I was a legitimate suspect, or "arrested", which requires actual charges on an actual crime.

I have no problem dealing with police and talking with them, but as soon as I feel I'm being questioned for doing something wrong, I clam up and demand legal representation.

GET 'em ERIC! I agree! Sadly the "system" would pin something on you and make it appear as if your manhood was flying in the wind in front of that woman". ANYTHING to keep the "chillun safe"! Just ask BARACK OBAMA! He would snatch OUR rights in the blink of an eye.

You do realize you're talking to a very liberal combat veteran right? Get off your Obama Derangement Syndrome. He's not trying to take your rights and this is American not 'merca.

robert, data protection in germany is importent. stranger on a streetphoto must be gadgetry, a protrait is against the law. (recht am eigenen bild - the right of your own picture)
personaly i like a conversation with a well trained officer, who know how to act with a person and know the law, as with a pissed off woman.
20min is to long for you? what is the perfect time?

It most definitely is a culture thing. The US is a nightmareland when it comes to both police-interaction AND the defensive civilian sense of personal liberties.

More comments