Los Angeles County Sheriff's Commander: Officers Trained That "Potential Terrorist" Activity Such as Photography Merits Pat-Down Searches
- Details
- By Greggory Moore Follow @greggory_moore
- | Thursday, 20 October 2011 07:48
1:50pm | Captain Steven M. Roller of the Los Angeles County
Sheriff's Department has told Long Beach Post that it is standard
practice to detain and pat down photographers for "potential terrorist"
activity such as photographing a courthouse.
Roller also said that in such a case it is acceptable to conduct a
pat-down search prior to attempting to find out why the individual is
taking photographs —that, in fact, this is part of officer training:
Because officers are "harped on [that] Homeland Security says a courthouse is a hardened target," Roller said that when an officer is alerted to the possibility that someone is taking pictures of a courthouse, "in the back of his head he's going, 'Oh, potential terrorist taking pictures of the courthouse,' okay? When I deal with a potential terrorist, first thing I gotta do is make sure there's no weapons. How do I do that? I'm gonna pat him down, for officer safety."I'm going to make sure, just real quick, I'm going to do a non-invasive pat-down, okay? And now I'm sure this guy doesn't have a weapon. Now I can kind of relax a bit and do the second part of this thing and find out why he's taking pictures of the courthouse, okay? … If you ever read anything about training material, they always tell you after you make sure there's no secreted weapons, then you always want to keep an eye on the hands. … But I know certainly that if I would have said, 'Can I see some identification?' that would have been too late. Because if I had said, 'Can I see some identification?' and you're going to reach back and get your wallet out of your back pocket, that's too late to suddenly say, 'Oh, maybe I need to pat you down to make sure you don't have a weapon,' because you're already going for the back pocket. That would have been too late.
Roller, who identifies himself as the "unit commander" of the Long Beach County Courthouse, made his comments in late August while discussing the Sheriff's Department's investigation into my June 2 detainment and pat-down search for suspicion of photographing the courthouse. Of that specific incident, Roller said that, based on the facts as he knows them, he approves of the pat-down search that was conducted: "They respond to information they receive that there's a potential terrorist across the street taking pictures, okay? They go over there, they contact him, they pat him down to make sure he [doesn't have] weapons, for their safety. Nothing wrong with that."
Peter Bibring, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, says that these practices by the Sheriff's Department are illegal.
"The fact that [the Sheriff's Department] might be following their training on counter-terrorism doesn't give them license to violate the Constitution," Bibring says. "Under the Fourth Amendment, police can only detain a person they have reason to believe is involved in criminal activity, and can only perform a pat-down on a person they have reason to believe is armed and dangerous. It's ridiculous to think that merely taking photographs of a courthouse would give the police good reason to think you were involved in terrorism, much less or armed and dangerous. If deputies want to know more about why someone is taking pictures, they can always just walk up and ask. But they can't detain or frisk the person without reason to believe there's criminal activity involved."
Roller also confirmed that the aesthetics of the photographic subject is a criterion in determining whether a photographer's activity is suspicious. "Look, I gotta tell you, [the current Long Beach] courthouse is not that attractive," he said. "Now, the new one may be different; but the old one, it's not attractive, okay? So, does that person [photographing the old courthouse] fit into the potential terrorist kind of thing? Well, let's go check it out."
This consideration echoes the policy outlined in Los Angeles Police Department Special Order No. 11, which lists among Suspicious Activity to be reported by officers, "Takes pictures … with no apparent esthetic value."
If the person is dissatisfied with the investigation, he or she should file a claim against that agency and jurisdiction for civil damages and, if that claim is denid, file a lawsuit to being the question before a judge and/or jury for legal rulings in both the facts and the law.
Opinions on both sides of this argument are all well andd good. Where the law is concerned, however, the only opinions that ultimately has any lasting significance are that of a judge and a jury.
Attractive by who's standards? What if I were doing a photographic study on unattractive buildings in Long Beach (of which, the courthouse, city hall, and probably a handful of other government buildings would fit the criteria)?
This is just one more way for law enforcement to infringe upon our individual liberties by making seem like they're "just doing their job". With the advent of Google Street View, Bing Maps, and a slew of other free hi-res aerial and ground level photography available online, does anyone really think that a potential terrorist would be stupid enough to be caught on a street corner photographing a building? I can get a heck of a lot more photographic information online (including proximity of buildings to each other, escape routes, etc.) than I can from snapping a picture from the sidewalk. Either the terrorists really are winning, or cops just really have nothing better to do.
It's a slippery slope when a sheriff's department tries to justify it's action beyond reasonable action. How about using some common sense, something that seems in dire paucity nowadays and simple ask, "Hi, How are you? Can I ask why you are taking photos and for what purpose? Do you have an I.D.?" I don't anyone would object to this and would go far in building public trust and public image in the long run. All without giving up civil liberties, the supposed reason went to war, right?
We, here in Long Beach have not had the misfortune to have a successful terrorist attack and I hope we never do. However, I suggest we send the address of the ACLU to all known or suspicious terrorist groups and let them know the local police departments will honor the ACLU's wish for privacy by staying far away from their headquarters.
No offense to law enforcement, but I don't want a Sheriff judging my photographs for "aesthetic value." I don't trust that they would understand art and photography to be able to make that determination.
The police are overstepping their authority.
If that was the case, then the police themselves are suspicious of terrorism because they are monitoring city-wide through "volunteer" businesses, as a different article on lbpost.com has stated.
You really should try to get your facts straight before presuming to try to discuss these issues.
You probably thought Sen. Joe McCarthy was just being a patriotic American too, right?
@ Jay & norb: EXACTLY.
Our cops only have the authority that we grant them. Among other things, we have granted them the authority to detain people based upon reasonable suspicion and to arrest them based upon probable cause or in compliance with a warrant issued by a judge.
If we no longer want our police to have this authority then we should re-write our laws to deprive them of it. If we do want them to have this authority, then we really should avoid whining and crying every time they exercise it.
If we feel a cope has committed misconduct, then it is our right and responsibility to file a complaint and/or file a claim and a lawsuit formally alleging the violations. This is necessary so that they can be properly investigated and so that due process can be assured for all parties involved.
This is how our system of civil order and peacekeeping is supposed to work.
@ Bwolf: Thanks for the tutorial. I've made hundreds of Terry stops and conducted many, many pat-down searches. I have more than a passing familiarity with both the law in that area and the manner in which it is applied. The important thing people should remember is that the reasonable suspicion is rightly developed in the mind of the officer, not of the average citizen. The average citizen lacks a good deal of training and experience which police officers, particularly experienced police officers possess and upon which they are right to rely when determining whether a person's actions or behaviors or appearance seem suspicious.
The law enforcement officers in Greggory's courthouse photography case should certainly be able to articulate why they decided to conduct a pat-down search for weapons. If they cannot, then that would seem, to me, a good basis for a formal complaint, a claim against the county, or a lawsuit, or all three.
One thing is certain, nothing on such questions will ever be definitvely resolved on an informal level. Nor should it.
Greggory, you got stopped months ago. You really need to deal with it. yet again you're trying to make something out of the same nothingness of before. And by the way, that's the ACLU lawyer Bibring's OPINION that it's illegal, not a fact. Get back to us if this is ever in a court of law.
And golly, by all means, let's color all police officers with that broad brush.
@ Explanation: I have no more authority than you or any other private citizen, nor have I ever said otherwise. I am sorry to hear about your experiences. Assuming they occurred just as you allege, you had every right and responsibility to speak with a supervisor at the scenes and to file a formal complaint against the officers or a claim and lawsuit against the city. Did you avail yourself of those rights or meet those responsibilities? If not, is it really reasonable to complain now, in a venue such as this, when your concerns cannot possibly addressed in any constructive manner? I hope you may agree that it does not.
Deal with the totality of my assertions, as I am attempting to deal with the totality of yours. Try to not cherry pick only those arguments you believe support your views and ignore those that do not. In this way we are most likely to reach a true understanding and arrive at some measure of truth.
The officers who commit misconduct do, indeed, represent the tiniest minority of the total population of police officers. You can deny this all you like but the fact is that police misconduct is a newsworthy event precisely BECAUSE it is so uncommon. To believe otherwise is to do a very great and unjust disservice to the hundreds of professional and competent cops currently working for LBPD and the thousands of others who worked there previously and who do and did not engage in misconduct, of any sort throughout the duration of their commendable careers.
Sheriff Carona, himself, was an incredible abberration among law enforcement executives. That's precisely why his conduct was so sensational and newsworthy.
The officers who brought the donning/doffing lawsuit were completely within their rights to do so. Cops don't waive their rights to a redress of an employment grievance just because they happen to be public employees.
Keep in mind the donning/doffing portion of that lawsuit was eventually dropped. Even so, the city settled with the plaintiffs for a considerable sum. It did so on the advice of its own counsel and as resommended by an independent court-appointed arbitrator. The settlement was, in fact, considerably *less* than the arbitrator actually recommended so apparently the plaintiff officers had grounds for filing their suit.
Availing oneself of one's constitutional rights is not an abuse of power or authority. That you would dismiss it as such is as much a part of this challenge as anything else.
Many allegations of police misconduct are, in fact, sustained. Many are not. But I know that the department has an entire division of detectives whose sole mission is to investigate allegations of misconduct and make recommendations to the chief on their disposition. If the department and the city's attitude in this area was even half as dismissive as you seem to believe, I rather doubt the department would allocate that much of its budget, personnel and support resources to address it. Nor is the department the only venue through which one may file a formal complaint. Nor is the official complaint process the final recourse for citizens who believe they have been the victims of police misconduct. The point, of course, is that citizens have a right and a responsibility to pursue every legal avenue available to them, including several that are outside of the departments direct ability to control or influence.
@ Stop: Unless I completely misunderstood you, you offered the donning/doffin lawsuit as an example of "the culture of absolute power the the cops like to wield over ordinary law abiding citizens" (your words.) did i not address that issue directly? Yes. Did I address that issue to the exclusion of any other issue you raised? No. So you'll excuse me if I fail to see how I have fixated upon anything other than to seek fair treatment for all involved, citizens and police personnel alike (who are *also* citizens by the way, with the same rights to due process as any other citizen.)
You claim that it "stands to reason that many more (instances of misconduct) are suppressed through intimidation or...the blue code of silence." Do you have any proof to offer that this is so? If not, I would dicourage you from making unfounded allegations for which you have no proof. Such baseless accusations do not serve the pursuit of truth or clear understanding.
You and I seem to agree that police misconduct is wrong and, when proven, should be appropriately corrected, whether by re-training, counseling, or discipline up to and including loss of position and civil/criminal prosecution. Where I part ways with you is in your belief that there is some sort of dark police conspiracy intent upon abusing the vary citizens who grant them their authority in the first place.
In over 26 years in law enforcement, I never once saw evidence of such a thing. Sorry.
You offered the donning/doffing lawsuit as a specific example of something. When I addressed *your* specific example, you then accused me of "focusing on minutiae."
If this is so, then, logically, you were *also* focusing on minutiae when you brought it up in the first place.
The civil court action that eventually became known as the donning/doffing lawsuit, in fact, dealt with several other issues as well. The donning/doffing claim was eventually dropped, not because it did not have merit, but because LBPD had no written policy that required officers to change before their shifts started or after their shifts ended. Other such lawsuits around the nation that were successful were all brought against departments that had such written policies, so the plaintiffs at LBPD chose to not pursue that part of their claim.
They continued, and prevailed, on their other claims. That they prevailed is de facto *proof* that their claims had merit and that the court AND the defendants *agreed* that they had merit. Now, perhaps you feel the court, the plaintiffs and the defendants were all "ridiculous" and that only you and those who disagree with the suit are not, but I think I'll side with the court and BOTH of the parties to the lawsuit on this one.
I would suggest that it is never inappropriate for any employee, public or private sector, who believes he or she has a legitimate grievance against his or her employer, to avail himself or herself of the right to press that claim in court.
Police officers do not waive this right when they earn their badges and it troubles me that you seem so willing to deprive people of their constitutional rights in this area.
You seem extremely ignorant about the motivation behind the lawsuit in question. It had nothing to do with feeling "so special" and everything to do with a desire to be compensated for work-related activity. Donning/doffing is, indeed, work-relatad activity. Before the lawsuit, officers were not compensated for it. After the lawsuit, LBPD changed its practices and officers are now no longer informally expected to change before their shift starts or after their shift ends.
In other words, Stop, the officers were RIGHT. You may disagree with that, but your disagreement does not make the officers any less RIGHT or any less justified in pressing their claims.
Lastly, it is not to any degree "delusional" to ask a person to offer proof for a contention, an allegation, or an accusation they have made. In rational discourse, people are expected to offer proof for the assertions that they make. If they cannot or will not do so, then they are not offering a fact, they are offering an opinion. An opinion not supported by factual evidence. I could just as easily claim (though I never would) that police officers never do anything wrong and anytime they are accused of wrongdoing it is baseless and should be ignored.
Unless I offer facts to support that claim, however, that's all it is, a baseless claim. You would not take it seriously, nor should you.
If you want to be taken seriously during a debate or discussion, Stop, you must be willing to offer objectively verifiable proof of your assertions.
May I respectfully suggest that nothing will ever be accomplished between yourself and any mature adult you happen to disagree with, unless you can make greater efforts to remain rational and logical in your arguments.
For example, I never said donning/doffing was your only example. I said you offered it as "an example" and "as a specific example." To so blatantly misconstrue what I have said and how I have addressed your argument is neither logical nor intellectually honest.
Further, it serves no constructive purpose to engage in a dialog with a person and contribute just as much to it as your antagonist, and then offer personal insults to them by calling them an "internet troll." You are not likely to ever enjoy a mature and adult discussion or debate with anyone by resorting to such petty and juvenile rhetorical tactics.
I fully acknowledge and respect that you and some you know may have had negative personal experiences with police officers. I have had those as well. But such information is entirely anecdotal. I asked you for objectively verifiable evidence and you have failed to provide it. Because of this your information does not constitute proof of any sort, it remains, as I stated, nothing more than your unfounded opinion.
It seems a little silly to complain (wrongly) that I have somehow focussed on only one aspect of your arguments on the one hand, and then, on the other ask me to try to be more succinct.
Which is it, Stop? Do you want me to attempt to address the totality of your arguments, or do you want me to be more succinct?
@greet- You say "Our cops only have the authority that we grant them." Really? I don't remember granting them the authority to shoot Doug Zerby to death. Or the authority to beat Kelly Thomas to death. Or to smuggle cell phones into jail for prisoners to use. Or under color of authority sexually harass women, or standby while prisoners beat another prisoner to death. I also haven't granted any of them to lie on police reports. So when you talk about granting authority to law enforcement, that would be great--if the only authority they took was what was granted to them. Sadly, there are too many examples of where they do not and overstep. This is just another example. See? That's the problem.
When I posted that you countered " It serves no constructive purpose to fixate only upon one part of what I say and ignore other parts that do not fit with your pre-conceieved ideas. Police officers have no authority to commit misconduct. Thus that is certainly *not* among the authotities we grant them. You completely, and conveniently, ignored the other part of what I said."
Do you see your dilemma? My original post still stands, your assertion regarding cops having only the authority we give them is what I took issue with, see? I appreciate the opportunity to make my original point a second time.
There is no need for me to correct you by posting a more accurate acounting, the full thread is there for you and anyone else to read who may care to.
Just a few friendly suggestions:
Avoid illogic and the offering of insults. Approach people with respect and they are more likely to respond in kind. If you make a point, and the person rebuts your point, don't duck the rebuttal by accusing them of fixating on just that point, especially when they did not do so. Argue from a point of intellectual honesty and mutual respect and you stand a better chance of convincing others to your point of view. Best.
Keep spinning.