Again .. this is where discretion comes in. Police have the right to exercise discretion when it comes to misdemeanor offenses -- but, not for felony offenses.
Police don’t have “rights” as police officers. Police have powers, which must be carefully checked by laws. If not, police become the law. What is the felony offense of taking pictures and video in a public place? Some places have passed laws banning video taping police. Those laws will soon be declared unconstitutional as they obviously are. Until they are, police do have the power to arrest people who video them, and should not be punished for doing so.
But in places in which such laws have not been passed, the police are still responsible for their oath to the U.S. Constitution.
The other test of laws is REASONABLENESS. There is a well-established legal principle that a "reasonable person" is the basis on how we judge someone's action. Of course, when a case comes before a court, the judge decides what is and isn't reasonable ... there is no empirical metric for reasonableness.
That is EXACTLY why we have laws. So there is no confusion about what is reasonable, but only clear guidance about what is lawful.
If someone calls police about a street performer juggling oranges, cops will most likely inform you that this isn't disturbing the peace. A reasonable person wouldn't consider their peace disturbed by seeing someone juggling oranges.
But that does not happen with journalists taking photographs, which is what the majority of “auditions” are.
If someone calls 911 about a photographer, 911 should tell them, “ma’am, that is NOT an emergency.” But if police arrive, that did not happen.
However, an irate parent is upset because someone is taking pictures of their child in a park. Whether or not that person is reasonably irate is situational. A guy taking pictures of dogs catching Frisbees thrown by children, probably not. A taking close up pictures of children ... particularly your child ... for an undisclosed reason ... and won't stop when confronted ... being irate is probably a reasonable response.
Do those same parents react in the same way to the cameras that are taking videos of the hallways of public schools? Do they tell their banks, their Walmart, and their daycare to stop taking pictures of their children? Maybe we do need a law that says you can’t just video people just because they are in public. Pass it, and then police can enforce it. Until then, I have just as much right to video inside a government building as government has to video me.
When police believe there is a reasonable belief that an offense may have been committed, they are legally obligated to investigate. That investigation may lead to a criminal charge, it may lead to no offense being discovered. It may lead to the complainant being charged with a different crime (I have several examples of that).
The first step in any investigation where a reasonable belief exists is to confirm the identity of everyone involved.
Nope.
The first step is to identify the crime. What crime is suspected of a person taking video in public? No crime at all. Police being “audited” never seem to name one.
For example, in my state, it's not a crime to photograph children in public, UNLESS, you're a registered sex offender, then it's a felony.
What state is that, so I can verify that? If you are telling the truth, which I assume you are, then such
audits will be short and sweet. The police immediately arrest the public photographer and the photographer is convicted. Please post examples.
