The Long Beach Post - News, Life, Business, Sports

Thanks very much for the follow-up, Greggory. It really is unfortunate that Sander chose to not speak with a supervisor at the time of, or immediately following, his detention or, barring that, that he chose to not file a formal complaint concerning the many allegations and inferences of misconduct that Sander has offered in previous comments.

An on-scene supervisor may well have been able to clear up all or at least many of Sander's concerns on the very day of the detention.

A formal complaint might have resulted in the production, review, and transcribing of an audio recording of the contact that Off. Khan may very well have made during the detention. Such a recording could have proven invaluable in clarifying some of the variations in perception and/or recollection that are noted between Sander's version and what little we know of Off. Khan's.

Sander has claimed that he felt it would be more productive to argue his concerns here, in the court of public opinion, and that had he filed a formal complaint, the PD and the city may have been less than forthcoming with information when Greggory called to seek answers.

And yet, despite Sander's decision to address this challenge in the way that he did, the City Atty. has still gone so far as to assert attorney/client privilege in some of his responses to Greggory's questions.

So Sander's approach really didn't have the desired effect he hoped for. All it really served to accomplish, as I suggested previously, was to deprive Off. Khan of due process in responding to Sander's allegations of misconduct.

Early on in the comment string of the first part of this article, Sander said:

"The point that I'm trying to make, and you seem to keep ignoring, is that the officer did not have any reasonable suspicion."

But Sander cannot possibly know that for a fact because the suspicion had to be developed in Off. Khan's mind, not in Sander's and there is, now, no *possible* way to know for sure how Off. Khan developed his suspicions and then to objectively assess whether or not they were reasonable. Sander, himself, precluded our ability to accomplish these things by failing to avail himself of his right to speak with a supervisor at the time or to file a formal complaint which would have served to hold Off. Khan fully accountable, through proper internal investigation and due process, for his decisions and his actions that day.

Through his own decisions and actions following his detention, Sander ultimately made it *impossible* to receive a direct answer to the central question of this entire article...whether or not Off. Khan had developed the reasonable suspicion necessary to detain Sander, to properly identify him, determine whwther he had any wants or warrants, and to inquire into his activities.

Going forward, I strongly encourage any citizen who is dissatisfied with a police officers' conduct to immediately request a supervisor. If the citizen does not want to ask the officer in question for a supervisor, he or she can simply call police disapatch (562-435-6711) and request a supervisor that way.

Barring that, I strongly encourage anyone who feels they have a legitimate cause to think that any officer has committed misconduct, he or she should arrange to file a formal complaint to that effect as soon as possible, so that they can get their allegations clearly documented in writing and have them properly investigated so that all of the facts can be brought out and all of the evidence considered.

For all Sander knows there may have been one or more other people in the area who were, in turn, observing his detention from a discrete distance. A supervisor who was following up on a formal and contemporaneous complaint may have been able to locate and interview such witnesses and memorialize their observations and perceptions of the incident. These witness accounts could well have served to provide independent support for the allegations Sander has offered here. Unfortunately, Sander did not file a complaint, so no supervisor responded to the scene, so no withesses were sought or interviewed.

Citizens have a right and a responsibility to speak to a supervisor about their legitimate concerns. Citizens also have a right and a responsibility to file a formal comaplint whenever they believe any officer has committed misconduct.

Unfortunately, Sander declined to avail himself of these rights or to meet these responsibilities.

I hope if others are met with similar circumstances, they will make better choices in how to react.

Well said John B. Greet. One only wonders why this article was created in the first place?

Big Brother at it's finest.

Oh boy. The Art Police are here. Welcome to post-Bill of Rights Long Beach, where non-tourist behavior will not be tolerated.

"No apparent aesthetic value"?? So, in addition to enforcing penal codes, police officers are now authorized to be art critics and can detain you if they don't like your art/photographic eye? Talk about subjectivity!

The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. Absent a specific legal prohibition
such as a statute or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take photographs. Exceptions to the rule are that commanders of military installations can prohibit photographs of specific areas when they deem it necessary to protect national security. The U.S. Department of Energy can also prohibit photography of designated
nuclear facilities although the publicly visible areas of nuclear facilities are usually not designated as such.

However, absent all of the legal issues, it's really quite easy for police officers: Terrorists don't carry tripods and thousands of dollars with of photographic equipment.

For more information, I suggest photographers visit this page:

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

What? I had to read this headline three times to believe what it seemed to mean -- and apparently it did.

What about simple personal liberty? Free people are allowed to do and act in any way they like provided they're not treading on anyone else's rights or freedoms when they do. That's what freedom and liberty ARE. Free people don't have to justify their behavior to law enforcement officers. Indeed, it's the responsibility (and duty) of law enforcement to justify interfering with the lawful activities of free people. When in doubt, freedom wins out.

The definitions of "terrorism" and "homeland security" have become so elastic as to stretch over and cover up personal freedom and liberty at their most basic level.

I just read this story and all that have commented so I'm not sure there was some-sort-of write-up before this. Kudos to the officer for detaining this person. This isn't Kansas anymore and Uncle Sam has a huge target on its back. This "artist" should be thankful that any law enforcement officer or agency is looking out for the community they have promised to protect. If this artist does work for a news agency then he, I'm assuming it's a he, should know the drill and be honest an open upfront but with all honesty, It sounds as though this employee and or paper set the police up to post a negative story. Shame on you LB Post for promoting this type of behavior.

That's a red herring of an explanation if I ever heard one! Then I guess they'll just have to add "Art Appreciation" classes to their "police science" training. Give me a break!

Pretty good shootin' Sander, got any more?

One word ok 2. "Very Unconstitutional"

Seriously, you lose all credibility when you start describing what this artist went through as "horrible" and comparing it to the Soviet Union, really ?

And both the artist and at least one of the comments here used the phrase, the officer's little homeland security spiel. This is clearly meant to demean and belittle the actions of the officer. You have that luxury in this society because you are not on the front lines of this activity. You are the same people who, when a bomb goes off at the refinery will be belittling the police and other authorities for not being able to stop it. You have that luxury also. And the comment that terrorists don't carry tripods and thousands of dollars of camera equipment is laughable and simply ignorant. The public domain can be searched for the many instances where terrorists were caught using just that when they comducted their reconaissace activites of their potential targets, be it Mumbai or Manhattan, it happened and it's a fact. And that, hopefully, is in the mind of every police officer out there. A minor inconvenience is neither horrible nor a stepping stone to soviet style oppression, get real.

Right on, jslane, best comment award goes to you. And dear LBPD: Please, anyone who looks out of place, by all means ask what they are doing. You are on the streets more than anyone, and know when something is off. Sure, you'll get people like that photog and this writer Greggory poking you in your chest and infering you are a commie and a bad person, but please, continue to do what is needed to protect our city.

It is amazing the novel being written because a cop asked for a drivers license. And said license was given, and the police quickly moved on after it was clear there was no threat.

It's almost like this provacature of a photog wants to sue, but is bummed they were not roughed up or something. This person would sure sue if the refinery blew up while they were tking photos... Lastly, stop wasting the cops & city staff time with stories like this.

Meanwhile, in what passes for real news in Long Beach, because trumped up stuff like this certainly isn't, Councilman Gary Delong announced he's running for Congress against State Sen. Alan Lowenthal, except you'd never know that if all you read was this little site.

Here is to all you dummies that have no concept of how easily history can repeat itself. We only need to look back at Nazi Germany or any one of several similar occurrences that have repeated itself since then. It all starts so innocent, a little bit at a time, freedoms that seemed so unimportant, for the better good of everyone the officials repeat over and over. Then mix in the rhetoric that always accompanies it. Before people knew what happened it became a total police state. Anyone who didn't agree or had the sand to speak up was beaten or murdered by those who were supposed to protect him or her. If you happened to be a family member or friend, watch out!!! Remember reading about a little thing called the holocaust. It happened because the people didn't take a stand in the beginning. Look around the world today, how many more killing fields need to happen before you get it.

Our freedoms are being slowly eroded. Lets stop those smokers; lets cause the loss of hundreds of jobs by banning plastic bags. Oh by the way, the reason plastic bags became so popular is because a few years ago the popular opinion was to ban paper bags.

Keep thinking and agreeing with the current trend, eventually it will bite you in the ass, something you do or enjoy will be banned or made illegal, then you will be screaming for sure, lets just hope by that time screaming will not be banned as well.

Over reaction, not at all, just look at history.

Now, for the true stupidly and scariness about this discussion for those of you who cite terrorism or the like: Go to goggle maps and check out the satellite view for 6800 Paramount then zoom in, yep that's right, you can almost read the license numbers on the cars. Spend a few dollars and you can see what the security guard is watching on TV. It is available almost anywhere in the world. Why would a so called terrorist waste gas, time or take a chance of being seen when all they need to do is turn on a computer.

So you see friends, things like this are really about police control and loss of freedom. Nothing more, nothing less

Chief Really? Are you telling the citizens of Long Beach that the best deployment of our police resources are to determine whether a photographer is creating images with esthetic value? Are you serious? We have much bigger problems which your departments resources should be put against. If this is the best that you can do with our precious and scarce tax dollar you should look for another job.

I frequently walk from my home to the gym with no ID whatsoever because my gym now uses the fingerprint scanner. On these walks I often use my phone to take photos of whatever catches my fancy during my walk to the gym. What happens when an officer stops you and you don't have any ID on you? You are not required to carry your driver's license if you are not operating a vehicle. Would the detention have gone on for longer if Wolf had walked to the refinery and had no ID to show?

Dick Cheney still lives.

I have been a photographer and location scout in LB for over ten years. I have been detained/questioned numerous times while taking pictures. The list includes but is not limited to: the Haynes steam plant, Bixby oil fields, Edginton Oil, houses on a street (yes houses) in North LB (apparently 5'5" woman in jeans and flip flops are highly suspicious--this day I was working for a real estate agent and actually had my camera taken away from me), on the beach (!), at special events(!), been ordered not to shoot (nice pun)at police officers on duty...the list goes on.
Sometimes the officers are nice and just walk away after I explain myself. Then there are the unfortunate times I have not had an ID on me for what ever reason. There have been the times they have scared the crap out of me and I have wondered if I was safe from the police. Seriously I should not be afraid of THEM.
The truth is that photographers do have a constitutional right to take pictures.
As a couple other posters said, why would a terrorist bother risking being caught by the police when they can so easily surveil their target using google earth?
I see this as an over reach of authority and evidence of the general paranoia that society has allowed to infuse all aspects of public life.

Dear Sander, Please stop talking now. Signed, What's left of your dignity.

Jeanine,

I'm astounded that you've encountered so many problems. Perhaps mine is not an isolated incident and, instead, reflects a policy that does not respect civil liberties.

You're right, of course, that you should have no fear of the police, especially when behaving in a perfectly legal way.

Too sad.

It seems we hear about all the proposed cuts to the police force and how that is going to put our safety in jeopardy as citizens.

Yet our overworked police force has the time to horse around with people taking photos???? If they've got that much time on their hands, why don't they go clean up some of the ugly parts of town? Or come to my street and issue a ticket to the family who thinks broken plastic toys are more attractive than conventional landscaping.

I'd be happy to submit a long list of things the police might want to spend their time doing rather than looking for people taking photographs. And my list would actually make the city safer and more attractive.

@Sander: I was told in the majority of those instances that the officer was responding to a complaint call. So to some extend we must blame the over reaction of people who apparently saw me taking pictures and decided to freak out and call the cops.

I'm generally not a capital "L" Libertarian, but in this and similar cases, it certainly does seem that the government is overstepping.

As for Mr. Crum's legal cites, I don't think they address Sander's position. The opening sentences of Hiibel, for example, state "The petitioner was arrested and convicted for refusing to identify himself during a stop allowed by Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968)." ANd in following pages, the Court states: "Here there is no question that the initial stop was based on reasonable suspicion."

Indeed, the facts of that case as cited by the Court were that: "The sheriff's department in Humboldt County, Nevada, received an afternoon telephone call reporting an assault. The caller reported seeing a man assault a woman in a red and silver GMC truck on Grass Valley Road. Deputy Sheriff Lee Dove was dispatched to investigate. When the officer arrived at the scene, he found the truck parked on the side of the road. A man was standing by the truck, and a young woman was sitting inside it. The officer observed skid marks in the gravel behind the vehicle, leading him to believe it had come to a sudden stop.

The officer approached the man and explained that he was investigating a report of a fight. The man appeared to be intoxicated. The officer asked him if he had "any identification on [him]," which we understand as a request to produce a driver's license or some other form of written identification. The man refused and asked why the officer wanted to see identification."


If the stop was "allowed by Terry," it was by definition under reasonably suspicious circumstances. The Issue in Hiibel was not whether any particular activity was reasonably suspicious, or even whether the statute was constitutional as written, but whether the individual officers violated Hiibel's rights.

So this case is more like KOLENDER V. LAWSON, 461 U. S. 352 (1983), which as based on a then current California statute that "require[d] persons who loiter or wander on the streets to identify themselves and to account for their presence when requested by a peace officer. The California Court of Appeal has construed the statute to require a person to provide "credible and reliable" identification when requested by a police officer who has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to justify a stop under the standards of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1." There, the issue was what constituted credible identification. And the Court held that "The statute, as drafted and as construed by the state court, is unconstitutionally vague on its face within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to clarify what is contemplated by the requirement that a suspect provide a "credible and reliable" identification."

Here, it seems that Sander is challenging the POLICY of the LBPD rather than the officer's adherence to that policy, that's why this article cites McDonnell.

Not ONLY was Sander (and apparently Jeanine) detained without anyone calling in a "fight," or anything else, it seem that he was asked for his ID on the basis of an internal policy, or officer discretion which is even more vague, if it is even written anywhere, than the statute at issue in KOLENDER.

Understanding that "people" are less at ease after September 11, 2001 than they were before, if we let those events mean that our civil rights are no more, then Al Quaeda won. In the meantime, I would love to know if the pohoto at this link has any "Aesthetic value" or if I should have been arrested for making it (and several others like it): https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150298434988249&set=a.161413388248.114633.161306128248

Here are some quotes from Wikipedia:

The Supreme Court "has identified a constitutional difficulty with many modern vagrancy laws. In Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972), the Court held that a traditional vagrancy law was void for vagueness because its "broad scope and imprecise terms denied proper notice to potential offenders and permitted police officers to exercise unfettered discretion in the enforcement of the law." In Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979), the Court struck down Texas's stop-and-identify law as violating the Fourth Amendment because it allowed police officers to stop individuals without "specific, objective facts establishing reasonable suspicion to believe the suspect was involved in criminal activity." And in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983), the Court struck down a California stop-and-identify law that required a suspect to provide "credible and reliable identification" upon request.[5] The words "credible and reliable" were vague because they "provided no standard for determining what a suspect must do to comply with [the law], resulting in virtually unrestrained power to arrest and charge persons with a violation.""

As for Hiibel, it does not require that a person present an identification card. Simply stating one's name is enough to satisfy those guidelines. This does not trump the "Terry" specification. It actually seems to strengthen it.

Fundamentally, the law is there to protect individual rights. Anything that restricts them should be called into question.

I am very curious if the policy implemented by the LAPD, and copied by LBPD, has been tested in court. I'll inquire further, soon.

OK, this is unrelated to the article but I just can't resist...
In the post from DWG, there's portion of a filing with a reference to Grass Valley Road in Humboldt county - I know it's Nevada, not California, but Grass Valley and Humboldt County is a place I'd like to spend a lot of time! I know a non-sequiter but just couldn't resist.

I aggree with Yawn, must be another slow news day.

Oh how great this city could be if only these posers would vanish! Thank you to LBPD for doing your job, regardless of the illusions presented here.

Look out Rosa Parks, Sander Roscoe Wolff is the new face of civil rights.

For all the people supporting this kind of behavior, just wait for the day when you're stopped for simply talking on your cell phone, wearing a backpack, or driving a rental truck...all of which have direct links to terrorism.

Which is something photography doesn't.

found this article after the blub on Boing Boing. Your well written full article gives a much better (if sardonic) understanding of the event. Doesn't the LBPD have a history of overvigorous enforcement?

I'm still waiting for Moore or Wolff to deny this whole thing wasn't a set up. Moore gets stopped in front of the Courthouse, and what do you know, just a very short time later Wolff is stopped taking pictures too in front of a potential, undeniable terrorist target. I have said this from the outset- this has never passed the proverbial smell test. Wolff WANTED to get stopped, just to create an issue.

RW Crum: Of course I can't speak to whether Sander WANTED to get stopped (though nothing he's told me leads me to believe that). What I can tell you for certain is that the first I head about this was when Sander contacted me after the event. And as I indicated in my piece on Sander's detention, the police contacted Sander because of having received a phone call from someone at the refinery. I agree that it's quite a coincidence - and one that I immediately appreciated the value of - but that's exactly what it appears to be.

This is why one should always bring along a model who's naked under a trenchcoat. No one argues about the "esthetic value" of pictures of women's skin, no matter how industrial the background.

Unsurprising that the cops in that neighborhood would be a bunch of clueless thugs. Southern California must have a special training program.

Many Americans don't deserve freedom or rights.

Just look at all the apologia for the police (and the encroaching police state) made in the comments below.

These timid mice have abdicated their humanity and basic dignity. They live in a world where taking a photograph that a police officer doesn't like can result in detention and a criminal record. They embrace an existence of "security" that requires high resolution digital imagery of their genitals to be provided to the government prior to boarding every flight they take.

They've happily handed away all of their rights, dignity, and individual liberties to bureaucrats in exchange for an ephemeral "feeling" of "safety." When the inevitable overreach happens, and their rights are violated in an obscene and callous way by the men they've designated as "above the law," they will squeal and cry and say "how could this happen?"

They'll need only look in the mirror for the answer.

Someone should tell this police chief that the courts have already ruled that we can take photographs of anything we can see from a public place, period. Refineries, factories, hospitals, the Pentagon, the White House - if we can see it from a public street, there is no ban on photographing it - because, in fact, there can not be.

IF a police officer cannot require a citizen to show their ID, then WHY THE HELL NOT?! I sure as hell hope they can do that. How else can they run a background check to know if the detainee has a criminal record or claims to be who they say they are? Are cops really supposed to just take a citizen's word for it? I'd hate to live in a society where all the cops just relied on the "honor system" to determine the status of suspicious activity.

Seriously, requiring citizens to show their IDs does not equal being a fascist state. If it is illegal for the police to require a citizen to show them their ID then we need to reverse that ASAP.

I'd LOVE to see one of these right-wing fascists who advocate the loss of our rights under the guise of "security" actually explain (and not in vague general terms) what a terrorist will do with a photograph of a publicly visible building that can't be done by just looking at it.

Stupid lemming, that's a cliff.

Mr. Crum: I didn't say that oil refineries aren't targets. I'm asking just how photography exploits any vulnerabilities they may have.

Examples:

I don't want to give a gun to a bad guy because he might shoot me.

I don't want to give a knife to a bad guy because he might stab me.

I don't want to give plutonium to a bad guy because he might set off a nuclear device.

So, complete the sentence: I don't want to give a hi-def photograph to a bad guy because he might... well, what, exactly?

Answers based on popular entertainment in TV and movies that have no real-world application to security don't count.

Has Sander file a formal complaint with LBPD? Yes or No?

Supporters of LBPD's "policy": Please stop kidding yourselves. Wolff was detained for photographing the *Edgington Oil Company*. Not the Alaska Pipeline; not one of the huge refineries in Wilmington; not one of the Ports, but the EDGINGTON OIL COMPANY. In terms of terrorism, how important do you suppose the Edgington Oil Company is as a target? That's what I thought....

If officers are to make such judgments "based on their overall training and experience", their overall training and experience should help them realize that the Edgington Oil Company is not likely at threat from terrorism, and Wolff should have been left in peace.

Long Beach cannot afford the cost of civil liberty violations. I urge Chief McDonnell to reconsider this "policy" before it seriously backfires on him. He may be able to fool the fearful into submission; the knowledgeable will seek a civil rights attorney.

Mr. Greet, you were provided with an opportunity to answer sincere questions in a civil way. What you chose to do instead was to denigrate the legitimacy of the questions themselves, and to foment fear without factual foundation.

For example, if one takes you up on your suggestion of googling "terrorist attack planning cycle" (with the quotes, so the exact phrase), one gets 220 results. If one removes the quotes, then yes, one gets 211,000 hits... of which, on the first page, the documents linked deal with terrorism in the abstract, and not actual empirical data or examples.

Can you please provide an example, drawn from the historical record, of photographs being used in this nefarious way you have yet to define?

You know, it's sad to realize that photographers face more harassment in the USA than in Communist China.

So much for "Home of the free."

From the beginning we were told that "Wolff claims he has no intention of filing a complaint or taking any other action regarding his detainment, but that he is interested in further discussion of the issues underlying what transpired."



Well, I would say that Sander certainly got his wish concerning the discussion, but I think it would have been better had he not chosen to impugn and denigrate those who happen to disagree with his positions. Perhaps what he *truly* wanted was a long litany of comments in support of his position.



Later, in subsequent comments, Sander said: "As to filing a complaint: First, Greggory told me that the LBPD was concerned that I might file one and, if I did, they might not be willing to speak with him about the incident. That's why he included my statement that I had no plans to file a complaint. I felt that his efforts to engage with the City Prosecutor, the City Attorney, and the Chief of Police were far more valuable than my filing a complaint."



Hmm...I wonder how Sander feels Greggory's approach has worked out for him? The Chief has opined that "If an officer sees someone taking pictures of something like a refinery"..."it is incumbent upon the officer to make contact with the individual." The City Attorney's office has offered no opinion on the question of reasonableness other than to cite attorney-client privelege. No comments at all attributed to either the City Prosecutor or, as was orginally promised, Councilmember Steve Neal. Yes, I can certainly see how Greggory's efforts to engage with the City Prosecutor, the City Attorney, and the Chief of Police have proven more valuable than Sander's filing a complaint.



Later, in subsequent comments, Sander said: "John, in your supervisory role, if you observed or even heard about misconduct, you yourself had no ability to act on it unless a citizen filed a complaint? What if the misconduct had nothing to do with citizen interaction? I cannot believe that there is no internal mechanism for dealing with suspected misconduct."



Here I believe Sander attempted to deflect from, and to shirk, his own responsibility as a good citizen to file a formal complaint if he truly suspected Off. Khan had committed misconduct. It seems clear to me that Sander was not willing to demonstrate the courage of his alleged convictions. He seemed to want Off. Khan to be held accountable, but he didn't want to do, personally, what was right and necessary to make sure that actually happened. As a result of his shirking and deflection, he all but guaranteed, intentionally or not, that no potential witnesses could be interviewed and no potential evidence recovered. This, in turn, served to deny Off. Khan his own right to due process related to an allegation of serious misconduct. This is just not the way these sorts of things should be done but, hey, at least it makes for some really good slanted commentary, right?



@ Michael Gordon: A terrorist attack on Edgington Oil, or any other documented aspect of our city's critical infrastructure is not, to any degree, out of the realm of realistic possibility. On an international or national scale, Edgington Oil may indeed be considered fairly insignificant. But the vast majority of terrorism experienced in the US is, fortunately, of the domestic and home-grown variety. Domestic terror groups like ALF and ELF are responsible for a considerable number of acts of significant property damage in CONUS. To diminsh this very real domestic terrorism threat, particularly in this day and age of heightened environmental awareness and activism is, in two words, "ignorant" and "naive." This is but one aspect of a professional police officer's "overall training and experience" which you, by contrast, seem to sorely lack. All police actions that result in the violation of a person's civil rights are unlawful and should be punished. But for that to happen, such an allegation must first be formally asserted, whether through an official police complaint, or a claim against the city, or a lawsuit. None of which Sander seems interested in pursuing.



How very convenient for him.

What a waste of the police chief's time.

Will somebody please answer the question: Did Sander file a formal complaint with the LBPD? Yes or No?

Mr. Greet: It would be nice if you stopped carrying water for the LBPD. The reality is that if you contact them to file a complaint they aggressively try to make like it's your fault. They care not about the citizen's rights.
In many instances they purposely delay investigations in hopes the public will forget. The hose "gun" killing is just one example.

A police officer has the right to stop you and ask questions. Once he has been shown legal identification, and unless he can show a crime is being committed, he has to let you go. And he can't confiscate pictures without a court order. Of course this all begs the question, if ordinary citizens can be stopped like this, what's the problem with stopping people to check their citizenship status? Why can a citizen be randomly stopped, but liberals are up in arms if an illegal got stopped? If you want to enforce Homeland Security, get all the people out of the Homeland that aren't supposed to be here. That should include the anchor babies who stole their citizenship as well.

Sometimes I think it appropriate to use a stun gun on "artists" that take strange pictures.

I have lived over here in the downtown area for 2 1/2 yrs. I am 63 yrs. old and wear a Marine Corp Hat proudly. Today I was walking my dog and stopped and said Hello to a black guy I know that has yard sales a couple blocks away every so often. A cop pulls up AND says what are you doing. Ummmmmmmmmmmm Well I don't have the mind of a rocket scientist. But do you think maybe it would of been so hard to figure out that we were just two US Citizens talking. So why in the hell would we need to explain to a police officer any explanation of why we chose to talk to each other. The sad part is if we would of stuck up for ourselves he probally would of had us on the ground. Did this happen just because I spoke to a black guy for a minute. Did the cop assume just because we were talking friendly there was a drug connection ? I just don't get it and for sure I don't think it is right.

The suggestion that I would intentionally attempt to bait the police is absurd, and not worthy of further discussion.

As I've stated previously, I am an avid photographer, having taken my first picture with a home made shoebox pinhole camera at the tender age of 6.

When in High School, I saved my money and purchased a used Pentax K1000. With that camera, I've photographed many aspects of life in Long Beach, including the Port, the rail yard, the Edison Power Plant, and numerous refineries in Wilmington and El Segundo.

I'd driven by the refinery on Artesia in December of last year, and had mentioned to a friend of mine that I wanted to take pictures of it. Life has a way of interfering with creative activities so, on the day before the day in question, my friend had asked if I'd ever made it over to the refinery. I had an early AM get together with another friend and, after that, thought I had a bit of time before I lost the AM light. So I drove there, parked, and started taking pictures.

At the time, I wasn't thinking about Greggory's recent experience but, as soon as I finished speaking with the officer, he was the first person I called.

As for filing for a complaint, while I understand that some may desire, wish, or demand that I do so, I shall not. I've already explained why, and my reasons have been quoted by Mr. Greet for those who did not see them on Greggory's previous post.

As others here have said, and I have suggested, the complaint process and the Citizen's Oversight process have not been productive for anyone I know who has availed themselves of it. While others clearly disagree, I believe that community engagement is more meaningful to me. Only time will tell if I am right, or if this issue will fail to inspire residents of Long Beach to contact their elected leaders and demand accountability.

Still, had the Department not made their availability conditional on my not filing a complaint, perhaps I would have considered it.

i LOVE this photo!
One need only check the myriad groups on Flickr.com devoted to showing off rust, oxidation, etc. in all its glory.

Dear Sander, Please file a formal complaint against the LBPD. Signed, Everyone in this city laughing at you for being a crybaby.

Jay, many of us agree with your observation. Sander is really bad for this city, the LBPost, and to himself.

"If you don't think someone taking pictures of a refinery does not merit law enforcement contact, then I'm sure you will be the first ones to complain when the terrorist act occurs!"

Krod, do yourself a favor and look up the meaning of hypocrisy because that isn't it, you moron.


It is one thing to ask somebody what they are doing, and I welcome it - enjoy sharing my hobby, but the detention, haraassment, etc - not just by cops, but by private guards and employees - is absolutely stupid. If you see them trying to trespass, or acting dangerously, that's one thing, but a photo will not led to a terror attack, and anybody with a goddammed iota of common sense knows that.

@ Laszlo: I suggested that folks google "terrorist attack planning cycle", without quotes. If I intended for folks to include the quotes I would have suggested it in this way: ""terrorist attack planning cycle"". I hope you can perceive the clear difference. There was no intent on my part to commit any sort of fraud or to mislead anyone. The phrase I suggested, *in the way I suggested it*, yields precisely the results I claimed. Whichever way one enters the search terms, those with a *truly* open mind can learn a very great deal about terrorist attack planning cycles and methodology. Did you consider trying to actually do so? Or were you more interested in offering insults and focussing upon the quantity of the search results, rather than the quality and content of those results?

Here are a couple of historical records on point as well as some additional information that supports my positions in this area. You and other skeptics are welcome to consider this information critically, or not, as you prefer.

Singapore embassies attack plot (2001):
"In April 2001, a member of the cell, who was working at the Singapore Technologies Aerospace, took digital photographs of American military aircraft and personnel at Paya Lebar Airbase, and distributed them to other cell members."
(Raymond Bonner and Seth Mydans (26 January 2002). "'Sleeper cells' in Singapore show al Qaeda's long reach". Financial Times, London. http://www.singapore-window.org/sw02/020126ft.htm.)

Thwarted London attack plan (2009):
"Based on what is known of al-Qa'ida training, heavy emphasis is placed on using cameras (still and video) for both overt and covert surveillance. In 2001, al-Qa'ida operative L'Hoyssaine Kherchtou testified in New York City that he took a two-week surveillance seminar in a training camp in Pakistan in 1992. When asked if he trained in any particular equipment to use during surveillance, he replied, "Yes. We were trained how to use different cameras, especially small ones, develop the pictures, and to take the pictures holding the camera so that the surveillant is not looking through it." Today, the ubiquity of small hand-held cameras and cell phones equipped with cameras add another dimension to this threat. They are easy to use and can be easily shared with other members of the surveillance team."

The recommended response:
"Timely and accurate reporting of suspicious actions by organization personnel is essential to spot, deter, or disrupt a terrorist operation. The U.S. private sector should encourage their staff to report any suspicious event, no matter how innocuous it may seem. It is important to report what type of suspicious behavior was noticed and where it was detected. Understanding and appreciating where the activity took place will assist in understanding what might be of interest â€' that is, the potential target. It should be emphasized that terrorist surveillance indicates a group's interest in a specific target or the search for options. It does not automatically signal a group's intent to attack. The surveillance activity could be a diversionary tactic or designed to have the target deploy costly security resources. Confirmed surveillance incidents should be assumed to be part of an attack cycle until proven otherwise. It is only during the surveillance phase and the final preparations for an attack that the surveillant will telegraph his/her interest in a target. It is at this point that they are most vulnerable to detection and disruption of the attack cycle."
(http://publicintelligence.info/OSAC-CellSurveillance.pdf)

~~

"Given that pre-operational indicators are likely to be difficult to detect, state, local, tribal, territorial, and private sector partners play a critical role in identifying and reporting suspicious activities and raising the awareness of federal counterterrorism officials."
(http://cryptome.org/0004/dhs-fbi-obl.pdf)

"Effective AT (anti-terrorist) programs aim to detect, disrupt, and potentially defeat terrorist attack planning in order to ensure the safety of personnel and resources. To achieve this, AT plans should examine terrorist methods of surveillance, information gathering, and attack planning to determine the extent of training and resources needed to address the threat. In addition,
AT plans must identify the most effective way to train personnel to counter terrorist attack
planning with basic surveillance awareness procedures. This also requires identifying necessary surveillance detection requirements and promulgating incident reporting procedures."

-and-

TERRORIST ATTACK PLANNING CYCLE

2. Initial intelligence and surveillance
4. Pre-attack surveillance and planning
(http://www.au.af.mil/au/aunews/archive/2011/0603/0603Articles/DU%2011-01%20JP%203-07_2.pdf)

There is so much more on this that is readily available in the public domain, that only those who absolutely refuse to accept the true nature of the threat of both international and domestic terrorism will be unable to discover and learn from it.

So do you seek to be educated and informed, Laszlo? Or are you just interested in offering insults?

It's absolutely pathetic how paranoid some of you sheeple are. This is the United States. This isn't some third world country. This story makes me sick, and I honestly fear for the state of our country 10 years from now if people are being arrested for taking "pictures with no aesthetic value" now.

I'm a cop and a professional nature/adventure photographer. I read stories like this and I'm pulled in two directions. The photographer in me gets mildly upset but the cop in me fully understands the brief detention.

In the state in which I work, this would be a completely legal and legitimate pedestrian stop. The law requires that I not detain anyone for a period of time greater than that which is reasonable and necessary. It sounds to me like Officer Khan was professional and brief in his contact with Wolff. He had reason to contact him, and upon doing so he explained the reason for the stop. As soon as he determined that Wolff wasn't engaging in criminal behavior he returned the license and cleared. Looks like good police work to me.

Something the general public doesn't understand is that seemingly silly contacts often end in the apprehension of criminals before they can commit crimes against humanity.

Here's where I will no doubt make a few enemies: If Officer Khan's actions had resulted in an arrest of a terrorist (homegrown or otherwise) who was photographing buildings while looking for places to hide a bomb that wouldn't be noticed, would there be such an outcry over his contact with Wolff. I think not. I'd bet we would all be hailing him as a hero.

I for one have nothing to hide and would have no issues taking 5 minutes to explain to an officer why I was photographing a building, person, subway, whatever. I'd have no problem providing him with my license so he could run it to ensure I had no wants or warrants. I'd thank him for his service and return to making art.

@Greet-

Doesn't it bother you that, because of your precious Patriot Act, simply by googling "terrorist attack planning cycle," you've more than likely triggered automated keyword detectors, and your search activity is now being archived, in case some gov't agency would like to subpoena it later?

This is a tough one for me. As a photojournalist, of course I am concerned about our freedoms and rights. However, we cannot ask the police to protect us and then tie their hands by not allowing them to at least investigate suspicious activity.
When asked by the authorities, I have no problem producing my press pass. But, if someone is truly photographing for the sake of art, a simple explanation should suffice.
I travel and use airports often. While I abhor having to go through all of the rigor of TSA, I sure wouldn't want to get on an airplane full of people who have not been screened.
So, we live in a world of Catch-22s. We want safety and security and at the same time we want our freedoms. Hopefully, we can find a happy medium.

Req'd reading

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1857623

Its comical how this even needs to be justified? What a waste of an article. I would bet, this officer barely remembered the incident when he was told, it was in question...To those people who believe an officer does not have the right to conduct "simple" field investigations, stop being so entitled. Heck, If I Were So Self-Centered, I would contact the LBPD, and file a Crime Report on "The LB Post Editor." Section 101, Theft of my Time, for having me read such a ridiculous piece!!!

Thank you BravoEcho for your professional insight. The fact that you are also a photographer gives added credibility to your words.

Obviously he's not going to file a formal complaint since he was acting within department rules. As the Police Chief confirmed that "Detaining Photographers was within Departmental Policy" a complaint would serve no purpose.

I do fine it interesting the idea that just showing an ID or running it for "wants or warrants", is enough to prevent a possibly devastating terror attack. Do terrorists usually have warrants our for their arrest? Could a terrorists not say they were taking pictures for an art project? I do not think there was reasonable suspicion here, but if there was, I fail to see how it was removed by production of a driver's license and a warrant check.

I for one applaud Sander for not filing formal complaint. He has achieved exactly what is needed without filing a formal complaint. People are talking, exchanging their ideas, points of view. He has made a legal protest on a subject that has touched a nerve with all who have chosen to express their views, agree or disagree.

Yes, he could go through the process of filing a complaint, but to what end would it really serve, use precious resources, cost the city money that is already in short supply. Lets say that the outcome was that nothing illegal had occurred. Do you invite him to take to the next level, maybe get the ACLU involved, and take it all the way to the Supreme Court? Maybe it would be found to be illegal at the first step. Would you then invite him to sue the city and police dept. You would then be the same people who would then accuse him of being a money monger who really didn't believe in what he was doing and only did it for the money.

As I have stated before, my opinion and belief, it is not really about taking pictures or talking on a cell phone or walking down a street that maybe you look out of place on or any number of circumstances or activities that a person may be engaged in. It is about one of the principals and basic rights that our country was created on. The govt or law enforcement should never have power to infringe on our freedoms or rights.

The Supreme Court has ruled on issues that are crucial to protecting our rights, Miranda, to name one. Believe it, like it or don't, a person does not have to carry any form of identification if they choose not to. Now if a person is driving a car then they need to have proof that they are licensed to operate a vehicle on a public street. If I own 50 acres in Arizonia then I can drive all day on my property without one. If I am walking down the street without a penny in my pocket, the Supreme Court has ruled that I cannot be arrested for vagrancy. Matter of fact I do not have to answers any question by police if I choose not to. They do not have the right to ask me where am I going or coming from, why I am walking down a particular street. Who I am talking to on my cell phone or taking pictures with a camera. None of these are illegal activities. I have the right to remain silent. If the police choose to arrest me then they better have probable cause.
Because unlike Sander I will file a complaint.

Now lets talk about probable cause. If I fit the description of a suspect of a crime that has occurred then I may be subject to an investigation, no problem. All the officer needs to do is explain the reason for the stop. You see, if I am expected to answer questions by the police then they need have an explanation as to why I am being questioned. If I am seen pointing my camera at a window where a woman's bedroom is then no problem.

You see, what it really comes down to is confidence and trust. You know, one bad apple and all that. The reputation of the LBPD is not one to be proud of. How many times has this city had to pay big money in the past because of the behavior or our finest? Too many to count. How many are pending right now, there is one that will no doubt cost our city big bucks. How about Fullerton. Only after videos surfaced did reports of police broken bones turn into bruises.

Yep, be thankful that sanders has not filed a formal complaint.

BravoEcho - where the heck do you work that you regularly experience such heinous and evil law breaking.

As a law enforcement official I'm sure you are aware that "crimes against humanity" is a legal phrase with a very specific meaning?

So what state is it you work in where criminals (presumably by this you must mean organs of the State?) are regularly apprehended through casual contact with law enforcement while committing inhumane acts and atrocities.

Enquiring minds want to know (so we can at least avoid such places for our own safety).

Indeed I'm surprised I haven't read about this in the NY Times or seen it on CNN?

File the complaint Sander. I dare you. We all dare you. Be a man. File the complaint!

"I for one applaud Sander for not filing formal complaint. He has achieved exactly what is needed without filing a formal complaint. People are talking, exchanging their ideas, points of view. He has made a legal protest on a subject that has touched a nerve with all who have chosen to express their views, agree or disagree." Nope. Disagree. He has achieved nothing but talk. Action is what matters, period! File the complaint, or shut up.

IN this day and age when terrorism is and should still be front and center of concern, we as photographers must be sensitive to these concerns. What is clear is that the officer never said it was illegal to shoot. No arrest was made.
Clearly, if I were the cop, I'd have been asking questions too. And the photographer had an obligation to cooperate. Look where he is! These are toxic substances that if collected or used or detonated are a threat. We as photographers must bend over backwards to cooperate on things like this and I'd be the first to say he has the right to shoot. But we must still allay fears where there is reasonable fears and a place like that is enough to give an officer pause and the right to detain and question. Todd Maisel R2 NPPA

The problem is that a photographer may be setting background shots that will emphasize the foreground. I do this a lot. and photographers generally have an eye to see things that most people miss. It is true that some terrorist may be lurking out there ,but to detain someone for taking a picture(unless security matters are in place) is not the right thing to do .

To Greet and everyone else who thinks this article served no purpose:

Assuming the writer is not seeking some sort of retribution or legal recourse against the police dept., and rather, intended to spark debate about civil rights vs the police state, I'd say they succeeded with flying colors. Not only have we been debating this for the past several days, but a quick google search of any combination of the search terms +"Long Beach" +"Police Chief" +detains +photographers shows that this story has been picked up by a vast multitude of larger news services. OC weekly, Gawker, and the ACLU have already replayed this story, as well as about a million other blog sites.

@ Just the facts: I have never once asserted or implied that I think this article served no purpose. Please follow your own pseudonym's implied advice and try to adhere more closely to the facts.

"OC weekly, Gawker, and the ACLU have already replayed this story, as well as about a million other blog sites." A million? Really? Where are you getting "a million" from? Are you sure you don't mean a gazzillion? You're exaggeration of numbers and facts that you made up do not help your argument. In fact, they only help highlight the fact that SANDER WILL NOT FILE A FORMAL COMPLAINT WIHT THE LBPD. WHY NOT????????

A critical piece of information to remember is that Officer Khan was responding to a call for service; he had no choice but to investigate.

Greet>Yawn...I 2nd the motion.

For the rest of you who've given "kudos" to law enforcement for saving the day and stopping crime dead in its tracks, shame on you! This isn't about keeping our neighborhoods safe and cozy; it's about protecting the policies that keep us a free people. And in the name of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act, our most basic rights are eroding quickly, under our very noses.
"Terrorism" is certainly a serious subject but it's also a big business fear tool used as an adjunct to gain supreme control over our societies. You better believe that once we allow our law enforcement to step over the line and violate our freedoms with assertions of "terrorism", even in the most benign situation such as this, they will run with it and it's off to the races folks! Rolling over and taking it is NOT an option!

WOW, I can't believe I read them all - There seems to be 2 different topics of debate. 1 was it "legal" for the officer to ask for ID. This topic is worthy of debate 2. is the "journalist" credible, the latest acounting of the innocent, spur of the moment inspiration to be creative seems a lttle contrived days into the debate, lacks street cred. I think it important to remember that bloggers don't necessarily follow the jouralist code of ethics.
Just sayin'

Dear Editor/Mr. Moore: It would be great if the inane and juvenile comments were edited out or not permitted. By now we have all clearly heard why Mr. Wolff did not file a complaint with LBPD. Although we get to see him/her make a fool of him/herself, the individual that posts anonymously and repeatedly statements such as "SANDER HAS NOT FILED A FORMAL COMPLAINT WITH THE LBPD" is wearing on the mature individuals here who desire more meaningful discourse.

The problem with the interpretive nature of the department's "policy" is just that: every individual pointing other than a point-n-shoot camera in a public space is likely to be questioned by the LBPD in order to prove that they *are* engaged in "regular tourist behavior" (has Chief McDonnell yet defined what is "regular tourist behavior"?). Is this how the law goes? I didn't think so...

This "policy" is going to earn lawsuits against the city, and last I looked, we still have serious roadwork; infrastrusture; and social problems that need to be addressed first with those dollars. Chief McDonnell needs to call his men off of photographers so that the *genuine* problems that plague this city on a daily basis can be better addressed.

Nope Michael Gordon, we're not buying your words as well. Your suggestion of what is "inane and juvenile" is just as guilty as the police deciding what is art and what is not. Get it? You can't have it both ways. You state that the truth is "wearing on the mature individuals here who desire more meaningful discourse". Well, guess what? The irresponsible journalism of Sander has been "wearing on the mature individuals" for quite some time now. Once again, you can't have it both ways. If Sander seems fit to proclaim illegal harassment in a public forum, then he should not be surprised when the community calls on him to be accountable. The reason why we keep posting the same message for Sander to file a formal complaint, is because he will not......and yet he persists in making his dealings public. Put up, or shut up. It's that simple. So Mr. Gordon, I will end with this statement: FILE A FORMAL COMPLAINT SANDER! STAND UP AND BE ACCOUNTABLE AND GIVE THIS ARTICLE SOME CREDIBILITY!!!

Would any other photographers be interested in meeting up to do a little walking photography tour of the city and see if we can find some spots with "aesthetic value"?

Ugh, I can't believe the amount of talk that a routine, everyday police procedure has produced.

I think I've lost respect for myself for having participated in this discussion.

Also, I applaud your writers for having the gumption to stand out and speak for what's right. The readers of this website would do well to follow their example.

What YOU seem to be forgetting is that the very same people who are defending the police in this instance are the same who will turn around and call something like a ban on environmentally harmful plastic bags "too much government." So which is it? Where's the line? It's ok for the gov't to tell you what it is and is not OK to take pictures of, but it's not ok for them to tell you that there are clean alternatives to plastics? Well if we're going to start splitting hairs, let's see... so it's OK for the government to subpoena my internet history, my library book history, and my phone records... is it ok for them to tap my phone lines as well?

While one photographer being stopped for a moment for questioning is admittedly not a huge deal, it's a glaring warning. Giving up civil liberties is a slippery slope, dear Emerson. Once you start laying down and accepting that your freedoms and rights are being stripped away, it's only a matter of time before you have none left.

You're totally blowing what I said out of proportion. Are you willing to give up the ability to roam the streets anonymously in exchange for a little more security? It seems like a fair exchange to me. The only people I'd see not wanting to lose that freedom are people who are likely up to something. But okay, let's say we revoke the directive to stop "suspicious activities." Who are you going to blame when some terrorist takes advantage of the freedoms y'all take for granted? I bet you 100% you'll be pointing a finger at the government and demanding why it didn't protect its citizens.

Don't get me wrong, I think a lot of the crap the gov't is doing now is excessive. And I might be somewhat miffed (but not peeved) about being required to provide an ID when taking pictures of, say, an airport... But I'd rather have that inconvenience foisted upon myself and others rather than have someone with an RPG show up and blow up my plane as we're on takeoff roll, because "Eh, it's probably just a piece of PVC... no one would actually shoot down a plane on the ground."

I really don't believe much in what Sander says anymore, given the fact that he won't file a formal complaint with the LBPD.

I agree. Sander really is a victim. He should really speak out. He might want to file a formal complaint with the LBPD.

Let's use some gray matter shall we? Would a proper terrorist actually do something as obvious as open planning with a camera? Stopping a photog is as dumb as frisking old ladies at the airport on their way to florida. At the end of the day it's all about INTENT. If a cop stops someone he needs to determine rather quickly if there exists INTENT to commit a crime. If the cop is too dumb to understand that or possess that skill then god help us all when a real terrorist shows up on the scene. Have these dorks ever heard of Google street view? We can all look at military bases and every other part of the economic infrastructure of North America. duh.

Sander,

yes, you were detained illegally; yes, this is a big deal, regardless of what this incredible bunch of fascisting individuals is posting here; yes, you were not required to produce the ID, and your only answer to any officer's talk, however friendly (and maybe especially when friendly, since it's most dangerous) should be "my name is Sander, my address is xxx; for any other questions I want an attorney; am I under arrest or free to go?" - and not a word more. For the extensive reasons of why this is prudent, see "Don't Talk to Cops" in 2 parts, and "Busted" on Youtube. And know who to talk to - when faced with the crowd so much in favor of the police state, learn to recognize it early, and cut the talk - or you will become one of them. You have no chance to convince them anyways.

I agree with stk33 Sander. You have been violated. I am glad that you are putting your money where your mouth is and filing that complaint against the LBPD, right?

As a working member of the media if you are asked for ID by a law enforcement officer you show it. Why was this a problem for this photographer. He says he was never asked about being a reporter. The first words out of his mought should have been I'm taking these pictures for such and such a publication for a story about ect.. Any media proffesional I know would clearly ID themselves to anyone who asked who they were and what they were doing.

just because you are willing to give up your rights, and adhere to the old 'if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about' principle that those wishing to strip us of our rights continually assert, does not mean that others are as willing. just because you are so terrified of the terrorist bogeyman the government has indoctrinated your fearful little mind with, that you are willing to hand over your rights on a silver platter in the name of the government protecting you, does not mean not others are as terrified and want the government's illusion of security. 'having done nothing wrong' has absolutely nothing to do with it, and is irrelevant to the argument. we do not need a license or 'papers' to move freely about our own city, state or country. this is not east germany. we do not live behind an iron curtain. we live, well we used to live, in a free country. that is until people like yourself dropped to your knees in front of your savior state, begging for them to take your rights in exchange for the illusion of security. while you may not have anything to worry about, and you may not be a criminal yet, do not fret. Your beloved protectors will make you a part of their criminal class sooner or later.

tell me john, do you apply this same premise of 'having done nothing wrong' to the police? You know, when they get their panties in a bunch, and threaten, detain or arrest people over being photographed or videotaped while they are performing a taxpayer funded job, in a public capacity? do you still believe that old adage applies to them as well? Or are they, in your mind, above the rest of us, and privilege to those rights where others are not? Because john, if they have done nothing wrong then they have nothing to worry about. they should not be concerned with their rights or privacy. am i right?

The key thing here is this: I am allowed to walk freely around the United States, on private property, doing anything that isn't illegal. I don't have to show papers to do this.

If the photographer had declined to show the officer identification and been arrested, then we have a real story.

Instead, like every other sheep in the country, he showed his papers and was sent on his way.

"Papers, please" is not acceptable. This is the same problem as with the AZ immigration law. Carrying a camera in a non-tourist fashion is apparently the same level of crime as being dark skinned in Arizona.

Oh wait, neither one is a crime. My mistake.

@ "@John B Greet": I'll try to be succinct in my responses to the comments and questions you have directed toward me:

I am not willing to give up any of my rights. I simply do not believe that what Sander experienced was a violation, or even an unreasonable intrusion upon, his rights.

Terrorism is by no means a bogeyman, it has been around for centuries and, from the looks of it, will continue to be around for centuries to come. I believe that those who ignore, or dismiss, or seek to diminish this truth are exhibiting one of the more dangerous examples of ignorance possible.

People should be primarily responsible for protecting themselves and their families and, trust me, I take my responsibilities in that regard very seriously. I simply do not believe that submitting to duly-appointed authority, when it is operating in a manner prescribed by law, is unreasonable. I believe it is but one of my responsibilities as a good citizen and a free person who lives in a civil society that operates according to the rule of law. Sander and some others here seem to disagree.

The only people who are members of the "criminal class" are those who commit crimes. Sander is not a member of the criminal class (well, so far as I know) and the only thing Off. Khan did was to detain him briefly -and in full accordance with the law- to confirm that this was the case. That's his job. From all accounts he did it well and professionally. Instead of impugning Off. Khan for this, folks should be praising him and expressing their appreciation.

I think we should hold our public safety employees to a higher standard of personal and professional conduct. When they commit misconduct that represents a serious violation of their public trust, I think they should be fired. I do not think that need be the case for everyone in the private sector. Those who take an oath of public office, whether elected or appointed, however, agree to serve the people...and they agree to do so in as professional and ethical a manner as is reasonably and humanly possible. Whenever they fail of this oath to any significant degree, whether or not their failure rises to the level of criminality, I think they should be deprived of their ability to continue serving us. Period.

California and some other states have what are called "all party consent statutes" that require that all parties involved in a recording consent to its being created. In California this statute is codified at PC 632. While this section certainly could be misused to prevent anyone from recording any police activity in progress in public view, I also think there are a couple of affirmative defenses that one can, and should, assert. Noteably that, 1. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy or confidentiality under the circumstances and 2. That the event could be deemed newsworthy and, so, protected under the Press Clause of the 1st Amendment. A good and fairly recent discussion on this point can be found here: http://www.consumeradvocatelegalupdate.com/tags/filming-police-officers/

Anything else?

The following is the definition of kidnapping according to the Ohio Revised Code. By my way of thinking, a police officer who illegally detains a photographer, or any person engaged in a legal activity is guilty of kidnapping. If a person is detained, or arrested and grounds for the detainment do not meet criteria for a legal arrest, the officer is guilty of kidnapping.

2905.01 [Effective 9/30/2011] Kidnapping

(A) No person, by force, threat, or deception, or, in the case of a victim under the age of thirteen or mentally incompetent, by any means, shall remove another from the place where the other person is found or restrain the liberty of the other person, for any of the following purposes:

(1) To hold for ransom, or as a shield or hostage;

(2) To facilitate the commission of any felony or flight thereafter;

(3) To terrorize, or to inflict serious physical harm on the victim or another;

(4) To engage in sexual activity, as defined in section 2907.01 of the Revised Code, with the victim against the victim's will;

(5) To hinder, impede, or obstruct a function of government, or to force any action or concession on the part of governmental authority;

(6) To hold in a condition of involuntary servitude.

(B) No person, by force, threat, or deception, or, in the case of a victim under the age of thirteen or mentally incompetent, by any means, shall knowingly do any of the following, under circumstances that create a substantial risk of serious physical harm to the victim or, in the case of a minor victim, under circumstances that either create a substantial risk of serious physical harm to the victim or cause physical harm to the victim:

(1) Remove another from the place where the other person is found;

(2) Restrain another of the other person's liberty.

(C)(1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of kidnapping. Except as otherwise provided in this division or division (C)(2) or (3) of this section, kidnapping is a felony of the first degree. Except as otherwise provided in this division or division (C)(2) or (3) of this section, if an offender who violates division (A)(1) to (5), (B)(1), or (B)(2) of this section releases the victim in a safe place unharmed, kidnapping is a felony of the second degree.

Ironicly if the photog was a middle eastern looking man named Abdul the cop probably would NOT mess with him for fear of being called out for racial profiling.
Just like the at the airports.

It's a tough call. Japanese posing as tourtist took pictures of the ships in Pearl Harbor as part of their planning.

Oh Michael Gordon, I agree with you completely! It is "horrifying to know that near me are sheeple". I agree. For example, Sander. He will not file a formal complaint with LBPD........pretty much like the "sheeple" you speak about. Sander Sheeple. It fits!

Another disturbing undertone is dominance of esthetic art theory! Why not judge the situation by information esthetics? Semiotics? Institutional theory? (Oh, wait a minute, what is a better institution to define desirable esthetics than police!)

@ Michael Gordon: Yes, Chief McDonnell is, indeed, a nice man regardless of what has been printed. He is also an extremely experienced and professional law enforcement executive who lives in our community and has for many years. I am pleased that you had a chance to speak with him directly on this topic.

Did he happen to discuss with you why facilities like Edgington Oil are considered to be aspects of the city's critical infrastructure and why, as a result of this, they may be more likely to be targeted for terrorist or other unlawful acts and why, as a result of this, they sometimes merit special attention from his department and his officers?

@ LB Lover: Yes, Greggory pointed his Facebook friends to that same blog, which anyone can post on, whether they are truly politically conservative or not. The author of the piece you (and he) have linked to appears to be a Mr. Carlos Miller, a "Miami multimedia journalist", whose website, entitled "Photography is Not a Crime" is one vehicle by which he seeks to share his "expertise on First Amendment rights in the digital age." I think Mr. Miller's 1st Amendment advocacy is vaulable and important and I actually agree with a good deal of it.

What I do not agree with is his periodic emphasis on photography as a stand-alone activity. An emphasis that appears to ignore -much as Sander and Greggory seem to- the totality of the circumstances under which an officer might develop the reasonable suspicion required to detain a photographer so as to conduct a brief and minimally intrusive investigation in a manner that is entirely compliant with both statutory and case law.

Sander Roscoe Wolff and Greggory Moore is my hero.

Great to know that American police departments now detain photographers for the sake of our safety; JUST AS NAZI GERMANY & RUSSIA did!!

Hey Sander! I double dog dare you to stand up for your rights and actually file a formal complaint like an accountable person! Just like the movies!

How many people have died on U.S. soil because of attacks by al-Qaeda, its allies, or its imitators since 9/11? The threat of terrorism is greatly overrated. There would have been more attacks by now, and some of them would have succeeded; even Dick Cheney admitted that we can't protect everything at once.

We could save far more lives by banning cell phone use while driving. Watch the people who are praising the police start howling "Freedom!" and "Nanny State!" and "How can you single out people who talk on their cell phones while driving?"

Because a few here love to obfuscate facts and realities, let's look at some quick numbers:

* Acts of International Terrorism that have taken place in Long Beach since 9/11: Hmmm.... I cannot locate evidence of any occurrences from ANY source. International Terrorism is obviously of such great concern in the city that LBPD's crime report is absent of a field for reporting such crimes;

* Acts of Domestic Terrorism (robbery, rape, murder) that have taken place in Long Beach since 9/11: An incredibly significant number. I don't have the time to compile the data; there's too much of it.

"...to accurately and appropriately gather, record and analyze information, of a criminal or non-criminal nature, that could indicate activity or intentions related to either foreign or domestic terrorism."

Here we go again! Look, photographing from a public space is constitutionally protected; the act of photographing is not a crime; the act of photography is not in and of itself a suspicious activity. The first illegal detention by LBPD of a constitutionally aware photographer is likely to result in a lawsuit against the city; a lawsuit that the city cannot afford. It's already hurt Long Beach enough that this story has moved around the world; will it benefit the city further to be known as one that does indeed violate the constitutional rights of its citizens and tourists? Most of today's digital cameras feature video/audio recording capabilities that can be activated at the simple push of a button. While the constitutionally-ignorant may freely submit to LBPD's intrusion on their civil liberties, serious hobbyists and professionals will record their encounters with LBPD officers, and this city is in no position to make payouts for violating the civil liberties of its residents and tourists.

In light of the fact that there is a "FY12 proposal by Mayor Foster and City Manager West to let LB police levels fall by 31 more sworn officers (reaching that level by Sept. 2012)", the department simply cannot afford to waste precious resources on a problem which does not exist!

I urge Chief McDonnell to invest all of LBPD's resources into the real problems (robbery, rape, murder) that plague Long Beach streets on a daily basis.

Michael Gordon's most recent comments seem to indicate a mistaken belief that just because a terrorist attack has not happened in Long Beach, one never could or would or will. His comments seem to indicate certain knowledge (which he cannot possibly possess) that no aspects of our city's critical facilities or key resources have ever been, are not currently, and ever will be targeted.

In point of fact the Ports of LA/Long Beach are a key resource and aspect of our critical infrastructure that would have adverse *national and international* implications if they are ever attacked. Does he really believe that domestic and international terrorists do not know this?

The Queen Mary is an iconic and historic vessel is recognized around the world and which people *from* all around the world come to see. Attacking that ship would shock the conscience of millions and millions of people. Does Mr. Gordon truly believe that the terrorists are unaware of this very juicy iconic target, where it is and the many ways it can be targeted?

Mr. Gordon seems to believe that just because nothing in Long Beach has been attacked, nothing ever will. I'm sure some in New York thought the very same thing right before the VBIED blew up in the underground parking structure of their WTC. I'm sure that despite that first direct attack, some in New York thought there ccould not possibly be *another* attack on the WTC...right up until that first plane hit the first tower and for the first time, a majority in the US finally got it...finally realized how vulnerable we are...finally understood that we are truly at war and how very committed and persistent our enemies truly are.

Mr. Gordon and some others are anxious to dismisss the serious nature and considerable scope and threat of terrorism. Mr. Gordon apparently has that luxury.

So many who are so dismissive of this threat would also be among the first to condemn LBPD for not properly protecting some aspect of our critical infrastructure should it ever be successfully attacked by either domestic or international terrorists.

Chief McDonnell and his officers can only do so much. But given the extremely serious nature of this threat they *must* do all that they can within the proper bounds of law and in the face of severe and deepening budgetary constraints.

And the rest of us really ought to give them more of a break, particularly when all they are doing is what is *lawful* for them to do and what the majority of us fully, and rightly, *expect* them to do.

BTW, as far as I know, Off. Khan was not called to investigate a potential terrorist. He was called to investigate a person that someone ELSE thought was suspicious. Legitimate anti-terrorism efforts aside, this, too, is part of the job we expect Off. Khan to perform for our community. Our officers handle several suspicious person calls throughout each and every week that they work in service to us.

Should we tell them to stop handling all of those, just because some disagree that what is being reported should rightly be *considered* suspicious?

Here's an idea, how about we let our professional police officers do the job we train, equip, compensate, and expect them to do?

And if we think they have committed misconduct, how about we file a formal complaint against the officer, or a claim or lawsuit against the city, so that the allegations can be properly investigated and, if proven true, properly addressed?

How about that?

Soon, very soon it will be illegal to view painting by Charles Sheeler.

Orbmanelson

Anyone, police or civilian, who does ANY ACT as a reaction to the possibility of terrorism is a scared old woman. It is PITIFUL that any American exhibits fear about terrorism. Take all the pictures you want, of ANYTHING! This police action is unwarranted and only applies to the craven sheep amongst us.

At the risk of sounding like a "conspiracy theorist", I'm going to go ahead and bring this up:

As years of reports and research will tell you, at best, the gov't knew about Sept. 11, had ample warning, and let it happen anyway. At worst, they had a hand in planning it. I'm not here to debate the merits of this "theory", there's been a decade of debate on this subject, and the evidence is overwhelmingly clear that the facts about what happened 9/11/01 just don't add up.

SO, ten years later, why are we still being asked to give up our precious civil liberties in the name of protecting something that never should have happened in the first place, because it was perpetrated by the very same people who are saying they're going to protect us?

That's like me kicking you in the shin, and then telling you that you have to pay me to be your body guard, or else "someone" might kick you in the shin again.

Further, when I asked the officer if I was required to comply with his illegal request, he stated that, since 9/11, police officers were given more leeway in who they stopped, and who they asked for identification. This is factually false. DID YOU TAKE HIS ANSWER TO BE A "YES" OR "NO" TO YOUR QUESTION? What if you'd asked, "Am I being detained?" and if he says no, simply walk away if YOU chose to do so?

Mr Wolff:

If you're sincere about community engagement please address each of my above points. I will address yours here.

Mr Wolff says:
"A friend, who is a lawyer, said that if I had refused to identify myself, the officer could have taken me in."

This is true. But you did identify yourself as Sander Wolff, however you did not refuse to provide ID. These are two separate issues. Citizens of the U.S. are not required to carry "papers" with them (ID).

It is readily apparent that Mr Wolff's claims have no basis.

First he argued that LBPD did not have probable cause that a crime was/is taking place. Photographing a critical infrastructure installation is inherently "suspicious" when considered in the "totality of the situation." Has Mr Wolff been an ostrich with his head in the sand while terror attacks have been going on?

Secondly he argues that he was "illegally detained." He wasn't. He could have walked away at any time! Mr Wolff's constitutional protections have been in place for over 200 years. It is not LBPD's fault that Mr Wolff was ignorant of his rights. LBPD has no obligation to be Mr Wolff's advocate or legal counsel concerning his rights. It is up to each citizen to know their own rights. Ignorance is no excuse.

Thirdly, Mr Wolff did not have to comply with LBPD's request for identification (ID). All Mr Wolff had to state was his name and address (identity, not identification). It's irrelevant whether LBPD was mistaken in telling Mr Wolff his ID was required, they have no obligation to be truthful with him [Frazier v Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969) United State Supreme Court)].

Quod erat demonstrandum. I have just dismantled all of Mr Wolff's arguments. Perhaps the most galling is that it was LBPD's duty to advise Mr Wolff of his constitutional rights and be his legal counsel and advisor.

What does Mr Wolff wish next? That LBPD also be defense attorneys?

If we could hook a generator up to Thomas Jefferson's grave, we could light a city block with each comments supporting the police and/or trashing Sander's innocuous actions. The bottom line, Sander was taking photographs of an oil refinery. A person who thinks that is inherently suspicious is not reasonable. I was asked for ID a couple of years ago at a bus stop in Seal Beach on a Saturday morning. I was going to show the officer the ID until I thought about it--I have a right to wait for the bus, the same as Sander has a right to take photographs of the world around him. I asked the officer if I had to show her the ID and she said no, so I declined. In this case, the officer seemed to indicate that he did have to show ID, which is overstepping his bounds unless he intended to detain Sander. So I think it's overreach and he's right to be pissed.

Where in the penal code do "the things going on in an officer's head" apply? I'm shocked that some of you don't comprehend how frighteningly fascist this behavior is.

The "most free of nations"? Really? Are we talking about the same US here?

Now I agree with you that this is a great country. But free? Not really anymore. The unfortunate fact of the matter is, if the main goal of a terrorist is to incite "terror", the mere fact that we even CONSIDER these breaches of our civil liberties to be in our best interests means the terrorists have, in fact, won.

Now let's all go back to hiding our heads in the sand and jumping at shadows while Big Brother tells us he'll keep us safe.

It's easy for folks to sit behind the safety of their Logitech bluetooth keyboards and play Monday morning quarterback to any high incident. Sometimes you just have to put yourselves in the shoes of the folks brave enough to actually be out there on the front lines of human experience, where every action is influenced by adrenaline, where failure is final, at the junction between life and death...the fighter pilot, the cop on the beat, the trauma surgeon etc. Is that a garden hose nozel or a gun? Is that a MIG or a friendly? Is that an artery that got clipped or a ligament? Not so easy is it?

I remember going to a concert years ago, in downtown LA, wearing my Sunday finest. Late at night, on the way home I was running out of gas so I had to pull off into South Central LA. Well, I got pulled over by LAPD for trying to find gas while driving a fancy car. Before I know it, they had the nightsun on me, had me out face down and felony prone on a tar-filled street, Code Red at gunpoint. I still remember the how nervous the rookie was. Beads of sweat trickling down the side of her face. Her SIG twitching in the street light like a nervous habit. Couldn't have been more than 2 weeks out the Elysian Park Academy, but ready to double-tap a frangible hotload into my center of mass if I even made a flutter while breathing. Well, they ran Wants & Warrants, NCIC out at the coal mines of West Virginia, California DOJ...nothing. Clean as a hound's tooth. Well, the training officer apologized and told me that he thought I was trying to buy drugs what with the fancy car late at night. No harm no foul I say. My white dress oxford still bears the asphalt stains from that night, now faded to a dull gray. No complaint. No IA investigation. Just a "be safe out there" and "thanks for your service" before fading off into the looming metropolis. The officers were nice enough to escort me back to the freeway on-ramp.

Another time I accidentally wandered onto a secret Government installation in the middle of nowhere (literally). No signs until you were 100 yards into the place. Had a whole SWAT team surrounding my car. Those boys were even wearing black turtlenecks in the searing heat. Well, they brought out the K-9, looked under my chassis with those poles with mirrors, and took my film to their security trailer. Must have had a darkroom to look at my negatives because none of my photos came back spoiled when I went to develop them. Anyway, they politely informed me that I was on a secure installation (no signs, no fences, no civilization) and told me that although they could arrest me for trespassing they understood it was an innocent encroachment. All's well that ends well.

Civilians and LEOs can get along. We just have to understand that eachother is just trying to do their job, and pursue happiness, as diligently as possible.

The moral of my story is just put yourselves in the other party's shoes before kicking up a storm.

Thank you for the kind words about my photo, Patriot.

Mr Wolff,

Two other things.

-I'm sure most of your readership would much rather read your musings, as Arts & Culture columnist, on the upcoming Philip Glass performance of his score for Godfrey Reggio's "Powaqqatsi" at the Hollywood Bowl, than esoteric vagaries on Constitutional law. I shall look forward to your full report.

-If you find yourself in a future conundrum, you would be behooved to study the work of the 14th century friar, William of Ockham. His law of parsimony is a knife which cuts away unlikely assumptions and dictates that the answer is not more complicated than the riddle itself.

Good luck.

Wow! Simply wow.

I guess Long Beach will be a place that goes onto my list of "cities to avoid at all costs" in my travels out west, thanks to their Nazi-like mentality.

All I can say is if I were detained by police for taking pictures - no matter what said pictures were - there would be a lawsuit substantial enough for the payments to me to become a budget line item for the department for years to come. And the individual officer's house, car, and retirement fund would hopefully be mine as well. The police need to be kept on a short leash at all times, and routinely reminded that they are public SERVANTS. It doesn't look like that's happening here.

Chris- If what you say is true, then why didn't Sander file a formal complaint with LBPD? Maybe it's not true?

If a person is taking a photograph with one hand, and lighting fire to a building with the other, an officer observing the scene may have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has just, is, or is just about to take place. If an officer observes a person taking a photo with one hand and, with the other, tossing lit sticks of dynamite over a wall, he can certainly formulate a reasonable suspicion that a crime has just, is, or is just about to take place. If a person is taking a photo with one hand and, with the other, stabbing someone to death, then an officer observing the scene may have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has just, is, or is just about to take place.

If, however, any of these clearly illegal and intrinsically suspicious activities are absent from these hypothetical scenarios, than no reasonable suspicion is legally possible because photography, in and of itself, is completely legal, with very few exceptions.

Lastly, it is no more suspicious to photograph a flower than it is to photograph an oil tower. Neither is more or less aesthetically significant, either.

John, can you show me where I misspelled the officer's name? I've looked, but can't seem to find a single instance where I misspelled his name.

Also, can you explain why the LBPD would agree to speak with Greggory only on the condition that I did NOT file a complaint? To me, this seems to suggest that they do not value the complaint process nearly as much as you do. If, in fact, they felt it was meaningful they would have insisted that I make one. I've asked this question before, but it was completely ignored.

I am certainly not a police 'insider' like you, so I have no idea what meaningful changes to police policy, procedure and practice have arisen from the complaint process. Do you? If so, please share them. I'm sure we'd all love to know.

Lastly, although I have said this before, I really do believe our fundamental disagreement relates to how the supreme court defines 'reasonable suspicion.' It requires that an officer believe that a crime has just taken place, is taking place, or is about to take place. There is a certain urgency to the definition. Looking at a person doing something unusual, an officer may feel suspicious. That isn't enough to ask for an ID. An officer may speak to whomever they choose, of course, but cannot detain someone without reasonable suspicion as defined by the US Supreme Court.

Only when a criminal act is evident is that threshold crossed. This is not 'my opinion.' This is the US Supreme Court's opinion, and has defined the operational parameters of law enforcement officers' actions for many years. The opinion was written to protect the rights of citizens, and to limit the powers of police officers.

With the response the LBPD has received from this article, I know they will be reviewing their policies and practices, perhaps moreso than if I had filed a complaint, and the Chief had refused to provide Greggory with the statements published, above.

MISLEADING & UNPROFESSIONAL STATEMENTS BY MOORE & WOLFF:

1) Moore's headline in the below cited article identifies Wolff as a "Resident" of LB. He is not. Wolff is a resident of Lakewood and was a visitor to LB.

Furthermore, Moore suggests Wolff was just an anonymous citizen ("Another Resident") whereas he was Moore's friend and co-worker. Very misleading.

http://www.lbpost.com/news/greggory/11971

2) Wolff calls a LB Post reader a "buffoon" and attempts to correct the reader's grammar on a public message board, while additionally demeaning the reader as having only a 2nd grade education. A recent study indicates that approximately 22% of Americans are illiterate and of those, approximately 42% are living in poverty.

If Wolff was serious about community engagement he would not mock and ridicule forum participants for grammatical errors but politely and courteously teach them the correct usage as a professional writer and journalist.

http://www.lbpost.com/news/greggory/11971

It's hard to take Moore's & Wolff's allegations, or version of the events, seriously when they depart from professional etiquette and standards.

The 'buffoon' response was to this comment:

Monday Morning Mike
Wow Sander, if your that afraid of the police , maybe you should stay inside. Are you okay to cross the street, those big cars sure are scary? I think it's best you stop posting, it only makes you look like more of a buffoon. This story stinks of bad journalism, writer and subject.

This person was clearly mocking me and my feelings. I responded rather humorously, yet still helped to clarify his grammatical confusion:

Sander
Oh, and Mike: You'd come off as less of a buffoon if you knew the difference between the possessive "your" and the contraction of "you are," which is "you're." For example, it would be incorrect to write "Mike, your a buffoon." The correct form would be "Mike, you're a buffoon." If you wanted to use "your," you'd have to say something like "Mike, your buffoonery is hilarious!" This is something they teach in 2nd grade.

Greggory was not acting as my lawyer. He called and said, "The PD won't speak with me about the stop if you're planning to file a complaint. Are you planning to file a complaint?" I said, "No. I think that your speaking to the PD about the incident is far more important that me filing a complaint."

I wasn't loitering. I was taking pictures while on public property of areas that were in plain sight from my vantage point.

Also, not all of my time was spent photographing the oil facility. I also photographed the train tracks just West of there, flowers along the sidewalk, and a pipe fitting company across the street.

This outing was rather 'spur of the moment' for me. Had I not left my camera in the car from the day before, I wouldn't have gone. I didn't know the name of the company. They certainly don't have much signage in the area where I was. Also, there's no 'front desk' or 'office' entrance anywhere in sight of where I was. Even if there were, however, I was under no obligation to contact them because I was well within my right to take photos of whatever I can see from public property.

Also, I had no problem at all with the officer speaking with me. It was when he decided to detain me that the problems arose.

Once again, suspicion alone is not enough. There must be the belief that a crime has just taken place, is taking place, or is just about to take place. That is how the US Supreme Court has defined "reasonable suspicion."

It's still not too late to file a formal complaint with the LBPD, and become the hero/tortured artist you so badly want to be. Will you do it? Will you actually be accountable?

MR WOLFF:

You state:
"[Greggory] called and said, "The PD won't speak with me about the stop if you're planning to file a complaint. Are you planning to file a complaint?" I said, "No. I think that your speaking to the PD about the incident is far more important that me filing a complaint."

In what way do you think that Mr Moore speaking to the LBPD and/or City Attorney, for what is essentially a limited audience blog, is "far more important" than you yourself (a first-hand party to the encounter) filing a complaint about the encounter?

You further state:
"With the response the LBPD has received from this article, I know they will be reviewing their policies and practices, perhaps moreso than if I had filed a complaint, and the Chief had refused to provide Greggory with the statements published, above."

Do you honestly believe the LBPD is going to revise policies/practices due to anonymous responses to an internet blog more so than an official investigation based on firsthand depositions and/or legal precedents of court rulings?

Additionally, many of the other internet blogs which you proudly declare have picked up this story, have done so mistakenly thinking that Officer "Asif Khan" (a Pakistani Muslim sounding name) was the photographer! Not because of the constitutional issues arising from this encounter! Again, Mr Moore's misleading headline ("Another Resident Detained...") misrepresents the truth by not reading "Another LB Post Contributor" etc.

http://www.photonomad.co.uk/?p=1507

Well, bottom line, no formal complaint, no action taken, plain and simple. Sander, you can spin it all you want, over and over again.....we're not buying it. Your claim of "thousands of calls, letters and emails" speaks volumes to the self absorbed nonsense you see as news worthy. It is not. As a life long citizen of Long Beach, I find your credibility suspect and your lack of accountability appalling. If you simply would be accountable and file a formal complaint, then your action would be viewed as honorable. You are not. The King has no clothes, and Sander has no credibility.

Sander: I do not seek to impugn your character, only the lack of wisdom evident in your decision in how to handle this encounter.

I think I understand very well why you chose to do what you did. You have said that you acted, in part, out of fear. You have said that you acted, in part, out of an assurance that you would be able to accomplish more on an informal level than you might have by following the formal complaint procedures. You have said that you believe Off. Khan violated your 4th Amendment right and the guidelines for temporary detentions clearly specified in "Terry."

Does that pretty much summarize why you made the unwise choices you have?

You claim that had you had a better understanding of police policy and procedure in this area, you might have made different decisions. Exactly what attempts did you make to develop a better understanding in this area *before* deciding on the unwise course you chose? Apparently your only attempt can be found in your contacting Greggory (vast amounts of police experience there, right?) and then relying upon him to, essentially, act as your agent in all subsequent contacts with police and other city officials.

The only time that approach under these circumstances would be even remotely effective would be if Greggory had a law degree and was acting as your attorney.

You infer that your primary motivation was to expand community awareness and create a meaningful dialog about police policies and practices. But I suspect that what you really wanted to do was expand community awareness about your *misperceptions* of police policies and practices and your erroneous *assumptions* about police detentions, generally, and "Terry" specifically.

If you truly wanted to develop a better understanding in these areas, you would have sought to inform yourself *before* allowing Greggory to go to press with this extremely slanted story, and then reporting upon what you learned afterward. Just as Greggory did in his own courthouse photography story.

You claim that "the department has taken a defensive and, dare I say, victimized posture." I suppose you can dare to say whatever you like, but doing so doesn't make it true. What, exactly has the department said or done that indicates that it feels "victimized?"

As to defensive, wouldn't you be? You have alleged that Off. Khan has committed a serious violation of your civil rights. This is the sort of allegation that, if proven, can end a cop's career and cost him and his department huge amounts of monetary damages.

Then, on top of that you lace your allegation with despicable inferences to hose nozzles and you wonder why some at LBPD may feel a little defensive? Really?

Despite that you will not put your money where your mouth is and file a formal complaint, claim or lawsuit, you have repeatedly accused LBPD generally and Off. Khan specifically of serious offenses. What are they supposed to do, thank you for that?

If you never intended to file a formal complaint, why publis the officers name? No part of your allegations can now be proven, so all you have truly accomplished is to impugn and besmirch and denigrate Off. Khan.

The only person who has been posing as a victim, here, is you, Sander. You have repeatedly stated, inferred, and implied that LBPD has victimized *you.* Despite these serious allegations of misconduct you have never once demonstrated the civic responsibility necessary to file a formal complaint, claim or lawsuit so that your allegations could be properly investigated and, if warranted, corrective action taken. "To me, this does not reflect the values of the community the department serves."

I very much doubt whether any significant or meaningful change on policy, procedure, or practice in this area will arise, Sander. Because neither you nor Greggory have described *anything* improper or unlawful. It appears that you were temporarily detained in a manner authorized by law and in full compliance with department policy. Why, exactly, should they make any changes?

If Off. Khan hears anything from a supervisor, at all, it will likely be a sincere and and well-deserved "Good job, Khan, thanks!"

I believe the only way you might have caused any meaningful change in policy or procedure in this area would have been for you to file a formal complaint, claim or lawsuit and you have failed to do any of those.

I really think that is unfortunate.

John,

What I find unfortunate is that you can claim not to have impugned my character and, in the same breath, call me unwise. According to Webster, it means "lacking wisdom or good sense : foolish, imprudent." You also said I lacked courage, and called my convictions 'alleged.' All this certainly seems to impugn my character.

When I said that I didn't know specific details of police policy and procedure, and lacked a specific understanding of 'Terry,' I was referring to the morning of my encounter with the officer. Subsequent to that, in the hours and days that followed, I began to better understand that my rights had indeed been violated, that the officer had made an illegal request, and lied about his authority when I questioned him about it. I learned this by speaking with friends who are civil liberty attorneys, photographers, and others who have knowledge of such things.

This may surprise you, but I've actually had very few encounters with law enforcement officers. I've never been arrested and, other than this incident, can't recall ever being detained. (I may have been, but didn't realize it at the time.)

Had I known, at the time of my encounter with the officer, all that I know now, I am not sure what I would have done differently. Lacking any witnesses to the incident, and being aware that the officer was clearly willing to lie, I'm not sure that I would have trusted him to make an accurate report to a supervisor. Unless there were some documentation of the encounter that he would be willing to make available, it would simply be his word against mine, and few cases are won that way.

As I've continued my research, I've begun to gather information that suggests this policy, first developed in Los Angeles and, according to our Chief, adopted by our own police force, exposes the City to civil liabilities that our elected municipal leaders will find completely unacceptable, especially in these fiscally difficult times. If five members of the council agree that this risk of civil liability is too great, they will ask the City Manager to review the policy and change it.

This process seems far more significant than anything that would result from a complaint filed with the police department. I may be wrong about this, but only time will tell.

To the self-described 'patriot,' there is a clear difference between posting comments with one's real name, and posting them anonymously. I never suggested that posting comments from the 'internet' was problematic, in and of itself. You did. Thus, for me, no such hypocrisy exists. If there is any hypocrisy, it is that you're continuing to participate anonymously, and expect anyone to take you seriously.

As for our poor beleaguered Press Telelgram, I'm not at all surprised that they didn't pick up the story. Their staff has been cut back so severely that I'm surprised they can cover Long Beach at all.

I would ask you to point to specific statements in Greggory's article that are "unprofessional," or "misleading." His article is absolutely solid. While you may not like my comments, that in no way invalidates the article Greggory wrote. To suggest that it does is misleading and defamatory.

Also, despite repeatedly saying this, I did not once ever use the officer's name. Not once, ever, in any of my comments. You have. John has. I've not once, ever used the officer's name in any of my comments. Not ever. Why do you keep repeating this obvious lie, 'patriot?'

Lastly, 'patriot,' if this forum is so insignificant, and the discussions here so meaningless, why are you continuing to participate? I think your participation contradicts your claims. More hypocrisy, I guess.

It's good to know that all a terrorist has to do to avoid police suspicion is dress like a tourist. I kind of agree with the officer's art criticism, though.

Sorry, Sander, all of your research has apparently not helped you to gain a better understanding of either police procedures in Long Beach or "Terry."

You state, "lacking any witnesses" but you do not know there were no witnesses. There very well may have been, and had you chosen to file a formal complaint, these witnesses, if they existed, could have been identified and interviewed. They may very well have supported your claims. Perhaps Off. Khan audio recorded the encounter. The recording could have supported your claims. If nothing esle, Sander, your serious allegations of misconduct could have been properly investigated.

But your decision prevented that from occurring. Perhaps that's precisely how you wanted it all along.

I was thinking that we should invite Dr. Britt to Long Beach, but it sounds like he's already been here.

Due respect to Laurence Britt (not really a doctor of any sort), what is more likely to occur if the nation continues on its current path is not protofascism in the direction of modern-day conservatism, but in the direction of true totalitarianism in the direction of modern day liberalism.

Each of Britt's 14 threads that he found common to the seven fascist regimes he claims to have studied, have either an equivalent or similar thread in liberal approaches to government and society.

In my view the liberal version of Britt's 14 threads seem far more prevalent to me than does the conservative version he and others seem so concerned about.

For example:

1. Powerful and continuing devaluations of the critical importance of a cohesive national identity, culture, customs, language, and secure and sovereign borders. We see clear evidence of this in many places in the US and in those places where it is strongest, we see the clear societal detriments that result: Greater degrees of poverty, the loss of a common language and culture, an increasing lack of acculturation, an increasing sense of entitlement and demand for government-centric solutions and services, etc. this is by no means to say that our various sub-cultures in the US should give over every aspect of what makes them rich, strong, and vibrant in and of themselves. It simply means that as people of various cultures arrive uin the US, they should acculturate...they should seek to become a part of the larger common culture that is quintessentially "American", and not seek to convert the American culture of "E Pluribus Unum" (From Many, One) into the predominant culture from which *they* came.

2. Disdain for the importance of individual rights. Where political liberalism is strongest, a desire for greater centralized government involvement is greatest. Where centralized government expands, personal freedoms and individual liberties necessarily contract.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. This thread is far more common among liberals than conservatives. Liberal politicians repeatedly frame their political arguments in the terms of race, envy, entitlement, and of class warfare.

4. The devaluing of the military as but one important means of protecting and defending a free and civil society that is rightly constrained by the rule of law. to survive, our nation must sometimes be defended. This is the military's primary purpose. To fail to appreciate this sometimes harsh reality is, to me, the height of naivete.

5. Rampant sexuality, particularly as a means of asserting some aspect of victimhood and/or entitlement. People's personal sexual orientations and lifestyle choices should be no one's business but their own. In our public schools, we no more need to highlight the sexual orientation of "gay" persons in US history than we do that of "straights." Let the history books indicate that this person or that had this spouse or significant life parter or that, and let the reader draw his or her own conclusions about the orientations or choices that person made and whether that information has any relevance to the topic whatsoever. No where in our society is personal sexuality more greatly emphasized and celebrated than in liberal political circles. This is, and should be, a personal matter, regardless of orientation, and not fodder for public discourse or to be misused as a vehicle to assert how entitled one should feel because of it.

6. "A controlled mass media." No where is this thread more common and self-evident than in modern-day liberalism. for many, many decades in this nation, most mass-media outlets were little more than mouthpieces for liberal politicians, policies and programs. It has only been in the last decade or so that more conservative political views have made their way into the mass-media (and even then in only one major network.) The huge success of this network is not an indication of any sort of extremism but, rather, illustrative of how politically center-right most of the people in our nation actually are. The liberal mass media has felt the uncomfortable and unaccustomed pressure of this truth and they have been fighting back mightily. Their rhetoric has grown more vicious, more cutting, and more strident and their many liberal sponsors in government have willingly joined right in.

7. A notable dismissiveness and derision concerning national security. Despite what many of the less informed and more naive among us believe, the threat to our nation and national interests from terrorism is both real and increasing. Terrorism in, and against, the US is neither new nor novel. It has simply been increasing in frequency in recent decades and growing more violent and effective in its methods. The *only* reason that we do not regularly see the sorts of terrorist events in CONUS that we reguarly observe against us elsewhere in the world is because we changed our understanding and our focus after 9/11. We shifted our paradigm and became far more proactive about identifying, preventing, and combatting terrorism. The moment we step back from this proactive and aggressive stance, is the moment we will see more attacks of this sort succeed, both here and around the world.

8. An erosion of the importance of religious freedom and a loss of understanding of governments critical role in protescting that freedom for all people, regardless of religious belief or their lack thereof. Our nation was founded on a principle of freedom from religious persecution, not from religion itself. There is nothing prima facie inappropriate about religious writings in government buildings, or symbols on city or county seals, or prayer in public schools or before government meetings. Nothing. So long as all members of the society enjoy equal protection under the law, and so long as no person is singled out for persecution because of his or her religious preference or lack thereof, there is NOTHING wrong with a society's seeking, through government, to secure the "blessings" of liberty unto themselves. Nothing.

9. Corporatism can just as easily support liberalism as it can conservatism. There are no fewer political liberals in corporate America than there are politcal conservatives. I fully agree with SCOTUS that corporations are simply associations of individuals in corporate form and that, as such, the free speech rights of American citizens so associated shall *not* be abridged. As with any aspect of our society, however, corporatism can, if left entirely unchecked, tend to erode personal freedoms and individual liberties. When that happens, it is wrong and should be prevented.

There exist similar reasonable arguments concerning the remainder of Britt's threads but I hope readers get the idea.

It is not the clear evidence of the emergence of truly conservative political thought that threatens America.

The true threat is that, despite this recent conservative emergence, the constant and incremental encroachment of neo-liberalism is rapidly eroding every single principle of personal freedom and individual liberty upon which this greatest of nations was founded.

Britt, and those who like what he had to say, should worry less about the potential enventuality of fascism, and far more about the potential eventuality of Socialism as the prevalent form of our nations government.

The evidence around us every day suggests that the latter, rather than the former, is far closer to coming to pass in the US.

Sander you absolutely crack me up. A commenter apparently sympathetic to your point of view intruduces non-Dr. Britt's ideas and you run with it, in two separate comments, even going so far as providing a URL to an article that discusses them in more detail.

I (decidedly *not* sympathetic to your point of view) respond to these three consecutive comments on non-Dr. Britt and suddenly it has become "pretty far off topic."

Too funny. Well, we had to move "pretty far off topic" because the actual topic (your persistent misunderstanding of "Terry" and of police policy and procedure) had been pretty much exhausted.

I can only hope Greggory provides us with his annual Burning Man re-cap soon so we can truly move on.

I am going to sit on my front porch and watch every photographer and their unAmerican actions, if I can keep an eye on the rooskies I can keep an eye on your shutterbugs out making photographs of bridges, rust and the eternal beach cliche' sunset


you betcha!

@ No bueno: If we agree (and we should because it is true) that terrorism and other forms of criminal activity are real and occur, or are attempted, almost daily around the world; and if we agree (and we should because it is true) that photography is often a specific part of most terrorism attack planning cycles; then how do you propose we attempt to thwart these sorts of attacks that are planned, at least in part, in this manner?

How can we possibly know, of a certainty, whether a given incident of photography of such a facility is innocuous or part of the planning and preparation for a terrorism attack or other criminal activity?

Isn't it critical that we investigate and try to make that determination? If so, how do we do that, if not in the very same manner that Off. Khan did in Sander's case?

Sander was not abused, he was not searched, he was not arrested and booked and fingerprinted or his property confiscated.

What was the sum total of Off. Khan's response to a third party report that Sander was behaving suspiciously? Off. Khan, himself, observed Sander for a time, then approached him, then asked him a few simple questions in a respectful and "low key" manner, checked to make sure Sander was who he claimed to be and that he had no wants or warrants, and then left him to his photography.

Sorry, folks, there is just not...one...single...thing..unreasonable, unlawful, inappropriate, or counter to policy in the way Off. Khan dealt with Sander.

Sander just doesn't seem to like that he was thought to be acting suspiciously and questioned by duly appointed authority.

By his own admission, Sander let his own unreasonable fears about Zerby get the better of him.

By his own admission, Sander has a predisposition of bias against law enforcement due to his mistaken belief that the practice of selective enforcement is unlawful and unnecessary, even though he offers zero evidence that he was the subject of selective enforcement, lawful and reasonable or otherwise.

Again, No bueno, given all of this factual information, considered in the context of valid law enforcement anti-terrorism and crime detection/prevention/suppression efforts, what would you have our police do?

I know what Sander would have them do. Sander would have them gaze into their standard-issue crystal balls and simply "know" that his activities did not represent a threat of some kind to the refinery.

Sander's silly expectations of devine omniscience notwithstanding, what would you have our police do?

You're wrong, John. I would have every law enforcement officer understand and enforce the law, not break it when they feel concerned about something unusual.

I still contend that, after observing me and speaking with me, the officer had no reasonable suspicion that a crime had just taken place, was taking place, or was just about to take place. No reasonable person having observed and then spoken with me would make that assumption. Without that belief, supported by facts, his request for my identification was illegal. That is the law according to the Supreme Court of the United States. If you don't understand this, then perhaps you might consider having a conversation with a civil liberties lawyer, as I did.

Also, when I was there on the sidewalk, I wasn't "working." I was there as a private citizen, and as an artist, spontaneously following a moment of inspiration.

The officer never asked if I worked for the press, or was a journalist. The only thing he asked was what my plans were for the images and I honestly said, "I don't know yet."

I don't understand why the conversation is focused on Officer Khan's actions. He's merely a footsoldier, charged with enforcing department policy. You can't really blame him, his job is to enforce the chief's policy, whether or not he agrees with it.
And that's what the conversation SHOULD be focused on: the policy. We can go back and forth all day about the officers involvement in this incident, but the fact of the matter is, he's merely a footsoldier in the Chief's army. The thing the international community has rallied around (if you don't believe me, google "long beach police chief" or "no esthetic value"), is the Chief's assertation that this is his POLICY being enforced, not that this is just one rogue cop who hates photographers.
We shouldn't be burning officer Khan in effigy simply because he was the closest officer to the Refinery at the time of the call- we should be pushing for the Chief to rethink his policy, and if he refuses, relieving him of his post.

John, you wrote:

"Sander has deprived himself, and everyone else, of the ability to determine definitively whether or not [the officer] had developed the reasonable suspicion required in "Terry." "

I absolutely disagree. Neither a complaint, nor a trial, would be able to determine anything. All it would have done is place his word against mine, and ask others to guess who is more believable. Even if, as you've suggested in the past, there were a witness to our encounter, they could only testify that the officer and I interacted. There was nobody anywhere nearby who could have overheard us speaking. Had the officer somehow recorded our encounter, that recording could have exposed him to significant liability and jeopardized his job. Given the ability to delete it, I can't think why the officer would keep it. With no evidence, and no witnesses, there is no case, nothing upon which Internal Affairs, the courts or my peers can adjudicate.

Despite your protestations, everything I read and hear supports my belief that Terry allows contact with individuals of interest, but to detain someone requires a belief (based on facts) that a crime has just taken place, is taken place, or is just about to take place. If police practice in Long Beach does not align with this US Supreme Court ruling, the City is exposing itself to significant liability.

Nothing about this experience has been convenient. Nothing.

I believe I had my civil rights violated and had the audacity to talk about it. Since then, I've been told that I was a liar, an idiot, part of some nefarious cabal, that the City would be better off if I didn't exist, and that I should abandon my honor. I continue to face a seemingly endless onslaught of abuse from individuals who, for the most part, hide behind the anonymity of pseudonyms.

Nothing about this experience has been convenient, John. Nothing.

While I have compassion for the officer, who must regret having violated my rights, perhaps he'll think twice about doing it next time.

In what way is any of this "suited to [my] personal comfort or to easy performance?" Nothing about this experience has been comfortable or easy. So, perhaps you're misusing the word 'convenient,' or thinking of some other definition I don't know.

I already said, more than once, that I had no idea that asking for a supervisor was an option. I really don't have many dealings with the police. What I did know, however, is that this person with a uniform and a gun was obviously lying to me so that I would comply with his illegal request. My only thought was to end the encounter as quickly as possible.

After speaking to a civil rights attorney who explained that my rights were indeed violated, I was then faced with the choice of filing a complaint. The public information officer told Greggory that if I did file a complaint, the Department would cease to be cooperative. Now, why would they say that? If the complaint process is so meaningful, so useful, and produces such positive results, you'd think they'd be urging me to file a complaint, and engage openly with Greggory about all non-personnel issues. That was not the case, however. They said "We'll only speak with you, Greggory, if Sander does NOT file a complaint."

Anyone can participate in this discussion, and if the officer chose to share his side of the story here, I'm quite sure that many people would be eager to hear it. Nothing has prevented him from doing so except a lack of willingness. So, to suggest that participating in a conversation in an open, public forum is somehow denying the officer an opportunity to defend himself is false.

You make much of this mysterious recording that the officer may or may not have made. What is the police practice for managing these recordings? Do officers delete them daily, weekly, monthly, or whenever they feel like it? Who manages the data when the department wants to review them? I'm sure you have direct insight into these questions, John. Please share your years of wisdom and first hand experience about this subject.

Are you suggesting that these recordings are outside of the officer's control? Are they automatically collected and stored just in case they're needed? If so, perhaps an information request is in order. Who knows what it will show if, indeed, it does exist?

Thank you for encouraging me to pursue this further. I'll file an information request tomorrow.

OH! Now I understand. All this obsessive vitriol stems from hurt feelings because I don't call enough. Now I know how my mother felt.

Oh please!

My "baseless and nonsensical retort" was in response to your "baseless and nonsensical" suggestion that I could have, would have, or should have called you.

When you have no valid basis for argument, resort to ludicrosities.

I've made myself crystal clear, and supported my assertions with facts. That you choose to ignore them has nothing to do with me.

Had I known, at the time that the officer stopped me, what I know now, I would have acted differently during the encounter. I'm sorry that I was unclear about this. Now, there can be no confusion about my meaning.

How can any citizen feel safe when those they employ to protect them are so comfortable disregarding the very laws they're sworn to uphold?

I do not believe that it is possible to demonstrate, to any degree that you would find acceptable, that the officer disregarded any of the laws he has sworn to uphold.

I was there. I know what happened. You weren't, so you don't.

The validity of my statements does not hinge upon your acceptance of them. They are valid because they're true.

You are stepping off a philosophical cliff, John. Truth is truth whether proof exists to support it or not. If an explorer in the Amazonian jungle sees a yet undiscovered butterfly, but is unable to capture and preserve it, does that mean it doesn't exist? The very premise of proof defining truth is absurd.

Again, John, you're wrong. They are true because they are true, whether proof is offered or not. You can choose to believe or disbelieve them, but that doesn't alter their truth or validity. Proof won't make a truth more true. At best, it may make it easier to accept. That's all, and nothing more.

Also, I have to ask: What did you mean when you wrote, "I'm done"? Was that a true statement when you wrote it, then ceased to be true at some point? How convenient for you.

Even though there may not be proof, that doesn't mean that what I said isn't true.

I was detained.

There was no reasonable suspicion, based on the facts, that I had just been involved, was involved, or was about to be involved in the commission of a crime.

The officer may have imagined or fabricated a justification for detaining me, but there were no facts to support his actions.

IF this is, as I describe it, true then the officer broke the law when he detained me.

Again, this is not my opinion. This is the opinion of the United States Supreme Court.

So, you can say that I'm mistaken, or lying, but to do so is prejudicial. You don't know what happened, and I do. You can assume whatever you like, but you have no facts on which to base that assumption.

All your arguments and assertions are based on the assumption that I'm fabricating, altering, or misenterpreting the story.

IF I am not, then what? Would you be able to agree with me?

If there were video, or audio, of the interaction that showed the circumstance exactly as I described it, then would you agree that the law was violated? I doubt it.

You can believe what you like, John, and demand proof all you like, but that will never change the truth of what happened.

How inconvenient for you.

You can make all the claims you like, Sander, but without proof, that is all they are...claims. I could just as easily claim that there *was* an audio-recording, that I had been able to hear it, and that it completely refutes much of your version of the incident.

You are not likely to believe that claim, though, are you? Nor should you, unless I produce proof.

It is quite the same with your own claims, Sander. They are only claims unless/until you can provide some proof.

You likewise claim that there was no reasonable suspicion, based on the facts, that you had just been involved, was involved, or was about to be involved in the commission of a crime.

But you cannot possibly know this, because the reasonable suspicion, if any, had to be developed in Off. Khan's mind, not your own.

Your choosing to not file a complaint, claim or lawsuit effectively prevented anyone else from requiring Off. Khan to prove that he *had* developed the reasonable suspicion necessary to detain you, and how he had done so.

Absent any offering of proof on your part, it seems entirely reasonable that one should doubt your version of the events, particularly since you persist in demonstrating a clear misunderstanding of "Terry", despite numerous corrections.

I do not question your assertions because I want to disbelieve you. Like most reasonable people, I simply require proof before I allow you to convince me of your claims.

You have refused to offer proof and you have taken very specific steps that actually serve to prevent any proof from coming to light. If, as you have also claimed, you wanted LBPD to make some changes in this area of its policies, did you truly expect them to do so based solely upon your unsubstantiated claims? Truly?

Well, how did that work out for you, Sander?

If there is a next time, I sincerely hope you will make better decisions.

There are MANY differences between you and me, Sander. Only one seems to be that I am not willing to accept the word of someone not a close friend or family member at face value alone.

Another is that if I choose to accuse a police officer of gross misconduct, or a police agency of having a policy thar tacitly enables gross officer misconduct, I will NOT presume to make such an accusation without offering proof.

Another is that when I truly believe I have a valid complaint against a police officer or a police agency, I file a formal complaint so that it can be properly investigated and so that if the evidence sustains my accusation, the officer can be appropriately re-trained, disciplined, or both.

Why would it matter how I answer your question concerning a recording, Sander? Would you believe me if I said I had, absent some offering of proof? If so, I think you are foolish. Would you believe me if I said I had not, absent some offering of proof? If so, then I think you are naive.

Either way, it doesn't matter. As you say, you were there, and you have settled within your own mind what happened and what did not, what should have happened and what should not. There is no changing your perspective and you have no hope, absent some offering of proof, of persuading me to your point of view.

And this is the most glaring difference between you and me in this instance, Sander. I am willing to be persuaded, if you would but offer me some proof to consider, but you will do nothing to modify your own point of view, even after I have clearly and repeatedly demonstrated that your understanding of "Terry" has ben and remains flawed.

You are an adult, Sander, and can make your own decisions and draw your own conclusions and you have done so.

And so have I.

Further discussion is therefore pointless so I willingly cede the last word to you.

Say on...

Sander, I attempted to cede the last word to you and you have used it to ask me a question to which I now feel compelled to respond.

I have not heard a recording of your encounter with Off. Khan. Do you believe me? There is no rational reason that you should do so.

If, despite this, you choose to believe me anyway, may your belief on that topic give you the same comfort that all of your other assumptions have apparently given you related to this incident.

One day, Sander, may you find within you the ability to demonstrate the courage of your alleged convictions, and to extend to others, the very same sort of due process you presume to demand for yourself.

Those are *my* last words on this matter and on this thread.

Be well.

If you are on public property a police officer CANNOT BY LAW ask to see the pictures in your camera. Therefore, they cannot possibly "judge" the artistic value of what you are producing. (since they cannot see it) Furthermore, many artists start with a "seemingly useless" shot and create entire projects and shows. Judging the "actual" on the spot shot is not practical. If they demand it, a warrent would be necessary to see your pictures.
If you can produce the same or similar view using Google, Street View they cannot "just" charge you.
Asking for ID is as far as they can go.
You cannot be detained unless you are being charged with a crime. Ask specifically what law you are being charged or detained for.
A business card/web url referencing your photos is sufficient to avoid most issues.

Call the ACLU

Lastly, clearly stated in the LAPD directive is:
If the activity observed is not directly related to a reportable
crime, officers shall record the information collected from the
person reporting, or their own observations, on an Investigative
Report (IR), Form 03.01.00, titled "Suspicious Activity" in
accordance with the following guidelines:
If absolutely necessary,
officers can enter "Anonymous" for person reporting. Any
desire by a person reporting to remain anonymous does not
exempt officers from the requirement to complete an IR.
You can't be held, detained or questioned on public property in order for an officer to fill in a form.

It is a form, not a law...

1. That's a nice photo. 2. The Cop was dead wrong. 3. The Department is wrong. These cops think they can do whatever they want, make our artistic and social choices for us, beat and arrest us when we legally resist their intrusions into our lives and the theft of our liberties. Sue in Federal Court. It's the only thing they listen to. Cash.