Mike I. wrote: > On an unrelated topic: today I went shooting to check out these two lenses, > to Charlestown (I live in Boston area). There's quite a spectacular > industrial view: a multi-tier highway, a huge (almost finished) bridge, with > Boston downtown skyline as a background. I was taking pictures when a guy > came by and told me that I have walked into a restricted construction area > where no pictures is allowed. I said "sorry", and moved back a dozen feet > away, where's a public park. Then I went on shooting from the park, under > the bridge, when the same guy together with 3 or 4 cops stopped me, searched > me, wrote down everything from my driver's license, asked a lot of questions > and took the film from the camera. They admitted that from where I was, it > wasn't prohibited to shoot -- but the highway and the bridge is "sensitive > area", and the argument ended there.
Interesting report. Had any cops in Sweden done this - searched you, taken your film - without noticing you of being suspected of a crime of certain dignity (and being able to prove that their suspiciouns were well founded) - they would have risked losing their jobs. It seems that they could be sued/charged (at least) on two accounts - 1) breach of duty (I don't know which term is used in the U.S.) in searching you without proper cause and 2) unlawful interference (again not sure of U.S. terminology), with is a criminal offence. It would be interesting to know if the police in the U.S. are in their full right to act the way they did to Mike. > I guess what I want to say, now that I am at home, after a drink -- I'm > happy I'm not an arab... Well, it doesn't seem to make much difference, does it...? > Just needed to share with someone. Thanks, Lasse - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
