It is true that freedom is not free, but I am not someone who looks at the price tag to see if it's worth buying.

I will take it whatever the price. I want to be free.

You quote perhaps an extreme example, which never helps with true perspective as it's outside the norm (in this situation anyway). Maybe Qatar would not be on my list of places I would move to tomorrow either.

You consider LE initiating a low key enquiry here as harassment? Are they allowed to speak to people at all, or just when they are spoken to? I think the issue is that they should NOT speak to people in order to develop a suspicion, that would be quite wrong and indeed amount to harassment but if they have cause to initiate a conversation / enquiry already holding one, then that is different. I would say that is NOT harassment.

I get what you say about Poland though. Those roads! The method of overtaking is certainly coronary material. It does appear that they see rules as 'optional.' They do appear to respect authority (in person) definitley more than in say the UK. Thanks for the response.

In my experience, you will not find that place in this forum. Here, it's all black and white.

I hear you !!

What the hell? You need a photo to do all that? Isn't it easier and LESS CONSPICUOUS to drive down the street and taking FIVE SECONDS to write "BMW LIC ABC123 @1548" ... I mean, a photo doesn't tell you what STREET it's on, so you'd be writing anyway since your memory is so bad you can't remember what house the red BMW is at, right?

So then you would stop and question anyone driving there who doesn't live there? Just to be sure? I mean, if they can photograph, they can take notes...

You seem to be thinking we think TSA or HPD should not have asked questions. They can ask, but when they get an answer, or NO answer, they need to drop it, at that point it CROSSES THE LINE into a fishing expedition, harassment, and a 4th amendment violation. They did not "stay within their own remit and legislation" ... and you haven't put forth a single argument to counter that, just a hypothetical situation different from what happened to the OP.

Why am I not surprised that you never elaborated as to what you meant by "police can push it" ...

.... unlike those who are disposed favorably toward fascism and thus would choose otherwise -- at least while they still had an opportunity to make a choice.

Look, I am not self-employed or contracted as a B&Eer but this appears (here at least) to be the way of it. Perhaps you can consult on a one-to-one level about the US model if you are unlucky enough to come face to face with it. Ther would appear to be a few reasons for it. Generally they can at least get the Street right, the Photo is irrelevant for that. I think writing down the house number and associated vehicle on a piece of paper may be a tad more incriminating than a photo if found in possession. They seem to do it on mobiles, I believe and here at least the cops cannot look at that without a specific authority, so maybe that,s part of it too. Also Perhaps someone wants to check the colour first, before its boosted, who knows. Does every house have a visible number there, not here, I am afraid. I have seen that in some states in the US, cars don't have front number plates at all. If you can't see it do you wannt to walk up the driveway in broad daylight, nooooo!! We can go round the houses on this (excuse the pun) but I really don't think it's productive in this instance.

I didn't elaborate because I did not think you took it correctly and you are focusing on this disproportionately and I couldn't be bothered. Either they try and reason with the subject for a while, something else may happen, I don't know, he / she may take off, or if not they move on and leave it. You seem to have very little sympathy with their dilemma.

Also you misquoted me. I did not state 'Police can push it'. Why did you do that? I said either 'they do or they dont' and I did not mean by bending the law.

Are you an attorney (another one) by any chance?

So, I get the picture. Having posed the question with a hypothetical:

The consensus of you (those that have spoken) is that:

It's definitley not a case of 'Support your local Sheriff !'

Until there is a mad axeman running round your neighourhood, who do you call.......Ghostbusters?

I fully understand being suspicious in the house scenario. I fully understand them ASKING. I would NOT support them PUSHING it to the level that TSA and HPD did for the OP of this thread. Period. Even if it cost me my car. I do not want to go down that slippery slope, because one day it will be MY rights getting trampled for someone's sense of security, instead of that thief's for mine. If they police ACTUALLY cared and had a duty to protect you, and they were THAT suspicious, they could follow those 'photographers' all day and see where they go, for reference in a later investigation in case your house is robbed. That'd be the LEGAL way to do it but of course they would never bother. Same for the situation in the OP. If they were that concerned they can follow him (maybe for a long time, all the way home) to see if he's really up to no good, but CANNOT DETAIN HIM! WRONG WRONG WRONG!

Some people simply don't want to talk and you cannot force them to just because you don't like their actions. This is part of the reason that makes this country great, and I'd like to keep it even if I make a few sacrifices. NO ONE should be detained and harassed the way the OP was for simply not answering you past identifying themselves and briefly stating why they're there, when they are not doing anything illegal. I would call what those people did highly unreasonable in the 4th amendment sense, but that's just me. You seem to think it was reasonable.

We simply seem to differ in how much we're willing to sacrifice and how much we consider too much in terms of the police "pushing it". I think the police pushed it way too far with the OP. You seem to think otherwise, well you're entitled to your opinion, but I can guarantee you that once you hit that slope, one day you'll be on the other side of the argument.

Do you really describe the behavior of TSA and HPD in the original post to be "reasoning for a while" with the OP?

The issue is one of trust. I don't trust people unless they've earned my trust. The TSA, and more so the police, have earned the cynicism and mistrust with which I regard them.

Why the dichotomy? I will call the police if I see something suspicious.

You simply haven't convinced me that some guy hauling out a camera in the middle of a busy airport (where he can be seen by lots of people) and taking pictures of a security area and security personnel in a public space is suspicious.

Nor would I answer questions from the police if I was doing something perfectly legal like taking photos inside an airport.

I do support my local police. I do not acquiesce to them.

Seems like a balanced post. Fair one!^

I think following them around is more like harassment than the conversation element

Yes, I think we differ. In the case of potentially doing something to attract LEO attention, I am happy to answer a few questions to prove my innocence. I know I will be going home as that is what I am....innocent

I may well find myself on the other side of the argument one day and if it happens I'll act accordingly. Random traffic stops seem like the most likely candidate for that....Have you been drinking sir. No, what makes you think I have?

I think I said earlier, I did not condone the TSA judgement but I don't know what their level of understanding of the event, at what time etc and so the final judgement to involve HPD is their call

As far as HPD is concerned. Well it is interesting that the officer referred apparently to 'trespass' implying their is some sort of civil code or law restricting access. The OP (a lawyer) seems to have asked concerning points of law of the officer, who has at least contacted the DA office. Who knows how long this and any other routine enquiries took. Did I read they took away the OP's bag. I would be surprised if they felt the need to do that at the conclusion of the interaction. 90 mins does seem a long time. I really don't know what went on!

Just to be clear, do you have familiarity with or understanding of the US Constitution?

Yes, this is where the difference in how we see things, Custard.

Our laws make it very clear that we are always presumed innocent until proven otherwise. I don't need to prove my innocence through the answering of questions to anyone. It is up to the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I am guilty and they can only do that in a court of law.

That is why American courts have long held that maintaining your silence is not proof of guilt.

And this is your single most telling point!!

After four days of pointless diatribe you finally say this!!

Lol....I wouldn't refer to his points as pointless diatribe. I fully understand your point of view custard. I really do. I know what you're saying.

It boils down to , in my opinion, you seem to simply trust the police and tsa to be reasonable and do the right thing. I don't. So I turn to the LAW to protect me. Even when that means its from them.

I think once you have your first bad experience with law enforcement you will understand what we mean and why we think what we think.