I know my PD had a written policy not to give out social security numbers over the air, and it was strictly adhered to. If we needed that number for a rap sheet, it was always done by phone or message from the computer in the car. That's about the only time we might have needed that number.

I concur. Sounds like a potential Section 1983 claim, though that is admittedly not my area of expertise.

Even if such a case is not viable I would write the Chief and ask for a written explanation as to why you were harassed and why so much valuable police time (19 page report) was wasted on someone who is clearly not a threat. I am sure the department has limited resources and doesn't need to be using them to harass people.

I have to say I don't have a whole lot of sympathy here.

It sounds to me like OP is one of those folks who runs around pushing the limits of his rights without applying some common sense. An instigator. Just because you may technically have the right to do something doesn't make it polite, reasonable, or a good idea.

A case-in-point would be taking pictures of things related to security. If a reasonable person takes pictures of the TSA security lanes, a reasonable person should expect that someone is going to ask questions about it. And when asked questions about it, if the person decides to be difficult because it's their right to be difficult, they shouldn't be surprised when that behavior, right or wrong, is returned.

Personally, I'm GLAD the TSA agents and the HPD followed up on this. If they're not going to follow up on people hanging around at airports taking pictures of things that would appear to be entirely uninteresting except for security implications, who ARE they going to follow up on?

I agree that a lot of what we do for 'security' is theater. But keeping an eye out for people who are doing odd things at the airport is one of the actual effective ways to increase security - one that, unlike liquid bans, WBI, pat-downs, is effective AND doesn't impact the rest of us one bit.

Maybe next time when you're taking pictures of the security lanes and the security agents ask what you're up to if you adopt a cooperative approach instead of taking pictures of the people asking you questions you might have a better result.


As for the 19-page police report, I don't think the report is 19 pages ha anything to do with perceived security issues. The report is 19 pages long because it probably took the HPD officers moments to realize that the OP is exactly the kind of person who might file a frivolous "My rights were violated!" lawsuit/complaint and the officers went to great lengths to document exactly how the situation unfolded and why should that become an issue later. I would imagine they would be far more worried about such an issue from a "I know my rights and I'm an attorney!" type person than somebody who just committed a violent crime.


Did the cops need to spend this much time on this? Probably not - but OP bears just as much responsibility for the waste of time as they do. My recommendation? Stop going through life trying to see how difficult you can be.

If that is the way that you choose to live your life you are more than welcome to. I choose not to explain why I want to exercise a right.

What are you, some kind of hippie? Logic is not always welcome at TS&S...

Oh, gee I don't know, how about real criminal activity, instead of harassing photographers? :rolleyes:

That's the whole point. Taking pictures of things that normal people wouldn't take pictures of could be a precursor to criminal activity. I'd much rather have our law enforcement identifying and investigating behavior that indicates potential criminal activity than making me throw out my bottle of water before I can go into the airport.


It's the difference between investigating someone who just blew up a federal building and investigating someone who just acquired a bunch of fertilizer and doesn't have a farm.

Thanks. I definitely choose to live my life in a way that:

1) Is not rude to others
2) Doesn't cause me to spend hours detained at airports


People getting detained or subjected to ridiculous screening because their name happens to match a name on a no-access, no-appeal, poorly controlled no-fly list is a problem.


Questioning someone engaging in behavior that is irregular for normal people but probably for would-be terrorists, especially when that someone is making a point of not giving you information that would explain who they are and what they are doing, well, that's just plain common sense.

Well, here's over 100,000 cases that the police should follow up on, by your reasoning. :rolleyes:

Really? So we want the Federal government deciding what is normal and what is abnormal? For one, I think photos of airport security are very interesting. In fact, they just had a picture of airport security in the NY Times, a paper I find interesting.

Second, just because it is abnormal to do, we have laws, rights, and regulations to protect the minority. Many of this country's laws were created to protect minority opinions, and doing what the OP did may fall under those guidelines.

I don't want to overblow the situation, but within my lifetime a black person going to school with a white person was not normal. A Catholic being friends with a Presbyterian was not normal. My wife is a different race, and in many states, when I was born, it would have been illegal for us to get married. I think it's normal, but many, apparently didn't.

The point is police, security, and TSA should worry about policing crime, not deciding if something is normal.

That's absurd.

This isn't a secret military installation from WWII, where the equipment, strength and unit numbers might help the enemy. This is a public facility that anyone can visit in person.

If a terrorist did want to take pictures, it's trivial to do it surreptitiously. For a few dollars you can buy a video camera in the shape of a working pen or car alarm remote. I've even heard rumors that some special model of cell phone has a camera built in. Although you undoubtedly need a spy ID to buy one...

I'm not saying everyone who takes pictures should get a multi-hour questioning. But if you are taking pictures, it isn't unreasonable to expect someone to ask why, and if your response to that is "I don't have to tell you", even if your response is technically correct, don't get mad when someone responds to your assertion that you can do whatever you're technically allowed to do by doing whatever they are technically allowed to do.


The initial questioning seemed normal and reasonable to me. While the follow-up treatment may have been excessive, the situation was escalated by OP's behavior.


One shouldn't be surprised to be on the receiving end of uncooperative behavior after pointedly exhibiting uncooperative behavior. Nor should one expect friendly treatment in response to adversarial treatment. That's just the way the world works.

A true, even if unfortunate, statement.

you would have been right at home in Nazi Germany, too bad you missed out:confused:

Yeap, any day now we'll be sending people who take pictures of TSA agents and don't answer questions to the showers. Totally comparable.



I'm right at home in the good ole' US of A, where sometimes people who act like imbeciles may experience predictable consequences, and if they don't like the consequences, should perhaps change their behavior.

"Mr Godwin...white courtesy phone..."