Can cops demand to take your photo? Says no, 5 months in jail.

[Telperion]

The question is about the notion that photographing someone represents a search and seizure.  If photographing someone is search and seizure, then any use of cameras by government officials might arguably be unconstitutional without a warrant.  That would include security cameras.

It seems like a goofy way to describe the ruling.  It implies all sorts of foolishness.

It is seizure of his person to force him to face the camera and keep his hands from obscuring his face.  If police have the power to demand his picture, then they have the power to physically grab his hands and head and take the picture -- do you understand the concept of seizure when it is reduced to naked force?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

It is seizure of his person to force him to face the camera and keep his hands from obscuring his face.  If police have the power to demand his picture, then they have the power to physically grab his hands and head and take the picture -- do you understand the concept of seizure when it is reduced to naked force?

Naked force and the physically grabbing someone, that sounds more like assault than search and seizure.

But nevermind.  Y'all seem to have missed my point.

[Telperion]

It's you who is missing the point.  At issue is not whether the government or private party can take surveillance photos, it's whether the government can compel (ultimately by force) someone to have their image taken without justification.

Naked force and the physically grabbing someone, that sounds more like assault than search and seizure.

The cops were claiming they had to power to demand his picture.  Demand as in not take no for an answer.  If the police have the power to demand one's picture (e.g. mugshots when arrested), then they have the power to restrain the person to get the picture they want.  In such case, grabbing him would not be assault, but force necessary to carry out a lawful order, and he could be arrested for resisting.  Is the real issue here becoming clearer?

[DJJ]

they have a union

So? How does that absolve the "good majority" of their responsibility?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

It's you who is missing the point.  At issue is not whether the government or private party can take surveillance photos, it's whether the government can compel (ultimately by force) someone to have their image taken without justification.

The cops were claiming they had to power to demand his picture.  Demand as in not take no for an answer.  If the police have the power to demand one's picture (e.g. mugshots when arrested), then they have the power to restrain the person to get the picture they want.  In such case, grabbing him would not be assault, but force necessary to carry out a lawful order, and he could be arrested for resisting.  Is the real issue here becoming clearer?

The real issue was clear all along, poor wording in the description of the case.  

It's not that a photograph is an illegal search and seizure, as the article said.  If the police had simply left with the pictures they'd already taken, with the man covering his face, then there wouldn't have been an issue.  Taking the pictures wasn't illegal.  The problem wasn't one of photography. 

The problem was that the police arrested a man for not uncovering his face on demand.  Take the cameras away and it still would have been illegal to force the man to uncover his face.

The article makes it sound like simply snapping someone's photo is an illegal search and seizure, which is folly and implies all sorts of goofy stuff like unconstitutional security cameras.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

So? How does that absolve the "good majority" of their responsibility?

it means that the union will defend him, often successfully, no matter what he does.

[DJJ]

it means that the union will defend him, often successfully, no matter what he does.

Again: So? Who controls the union? Again, if the "good majority" wants to be considered the "good majority", they have the power to dictate what the union does. If, as they claim, they want the small minority rooted out, it could happen, with decisiveness. That it doesn't is a choice.

[RevDisk]

Again: So? Who controls the union? Again, if the "good majority" wants to be considered the "good majority", they have the power to dictate what the union does. If, as they claim, they want the small minority rooted out, it could happen, with decisiveness. That it doesn't is a choice.

Unions exist to protect the lowest common denominator.  If you're well motivated, a hard worker, a very bright worker or young, you don't ever want to be in a union.  Every union I've had the pleasure of knowing were geared towards first and foremost protecting seniority, second the lazy, and lastly the less bright.  Anyone not senior, lazy or stupid is usually considered with suspicion.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

rev disk described my union experience as well

[DJJ]

Unions exist to protect the lowest common denominator.  If you're well motivated, a hard worker, a very bright worker or young, you don't ever want to be in a union.  Every union I've had the pleasure of knowing were geared towards first and foremost protecting seniority, second the lazy, and lastly the less bright.  Anyone not senior, lazy or stupid is usually considered with suspicion.

I thought so. In short, the alleged "good majority" doesn't really exist, or at best, it's a minority.

[RevDisk]

I thought so. In short, the alleged "good majority" doesn't really exist, or at best, it's a minority.

No, the majority do a good enough job.  Somewhat less so than if they were non-union.  But they don't have a real voice.  They're the numerical majority, but they don't have the influence.  They get a good enough raise, they do "enough" not to get yelled at, they vote the way they're "supposed" to, etc.  They're just too busy or don't care enough to take on the party line.   

Mind you, when you need backup on a call that turns out to be a bunch of drunken machete waving PCP addicts, you DON'T want to be the really unpopular guy who cares more about "those civilians" than the thin blue line that stands between a wonderful utopia and absolute anarchy.