Prostitution "John" Sting today in Kent, WA

[Endzone]

This quite strikes me as being an overkill on manpower and equipment. There was also a 6th cop who was the female decoy. I was going to take a couple shots of her as she was only 15 feet to my right, but the cops were all over me in about 5 seconds for taking their pictures, so I didn't push it. The "John" you can't see looked to be about a 30-something Mexican man. The police did their usual tough guy routine and he had to get on the ground face down and all this horsecrap that the police do in stings like this. Don't you think this is going overboard though?

I don't know if you will find these interesting or not, but at least they are consistent with my philosophy of taking pictures of people.

 

[Deamiter]

I just HATE when the police overstep their authority and try to keep photographers from legally taking pictures. There's really only two main reasons why they could prevent you from photographing them -- for your own safety (it makes sense to keep you away from ongoing arrests) and if you're trespassing. Otherwise, they're violating your right to snap photos in public places!

Of course, they have every reason not to want pictures published of their female "prostitute" (and perhaps other undercover officers) but would it really be so hard to ask nicely rather than to illegitimately assert their authority to force you to stop?

A friend of mine got stopped by the police for taking pictures of a local airport. They were rather polite and just wanted to make sure he wasn't planning a terrorist attack or anything. More importantly, when they'd verified he was who he said he was, they allowed him to continue taking legal photographs of the airport from public land.

 

[Endzone]

I just HATE when the police overstep their authority and try to keep photographers from legally taking pictures. There's really only two main reasons why they could prevent you from photographing them -- for your own safety (it makes sense to keep you away from ongoing arrests) and if you're trespassing. Otherwise, they're violating your right to snap photos in public places!

Of course, they have every reason not to want pictures published of their female "prostitute" (and perhaps other undercover officers) but would it really be so hard to ask nicely rather than to illegitimately assert their authority to force you to stop?

A friend of mine got stopped by the police for taking pictures of a local airport. They were rather polite and just wanted to make sure he wasn't planning a terrorist attack or anything. More importantly, when they'd verified he was who he said he was, they allowed him to continue taking legal photographs of the airport from public land.

Yeah, they sure put pictures of "Johns" up on the internet and sure don't have a problem with that. But, when you take pictures of them they get pushy. Oh well, I'm not going to make a mountain out of a molehill. It took guts for me to do this though--at least for me. I got the camera out of my trunk which was only 12 to 15 feet from the female decoy. The cops were about 30 feet away. My camera had a X10 optical zoom that wasn't quite maxed out.

 

[Deamiter]

I should be clear that I have a huge amount of respect for police, but as a photographer I've seen how they're prone to overstep their authority.

I understand why they're so wary of photography and video since pictures and videos have been used against police in police brutality cases. In some of the cases, the police were out of line, and in others, the amateur video/photos only tell part of the story. I still get a bit miffed whenever I hear of police telling you you can't photograph something because they do not legally have the authority (in 99% of the cases anyway) to make you stop shooting.

 

[theVirginian]

but the cops were all over me in about 5 seconds for taking their pictures, so I didn't push it.

One reason they may not want you to take their's and especially the "prostitute's" photo is because she's undercover and any of the uniformed cops could be about to take an undercover job. They don't know what you're going to do with the pics and if they fall into the wrong hands, it can cost them their lives. The photogs at the paper I work for always get permission to include cops in the shot since obviously the photos will be public. They've been denied permission on these grounds many times.

 

[Tiberius]

Just remember that a cop can't take your camera, demand that you delete your pictures or seize your storage card/film unless they either have a court order or they are arresting you.

If they try to, refuse. If they force you, you can take legal action and you'll win.

 

[Deamiter]

One reason they may not want you to take their's and especially the "prostitute's" photo is because she's undercover and any of the uniformed cops could be about to take an undercover job. They don't know what you're going to do with the pics and if they fall into the wrong hands, it can cost them their lives. The photogs at the paper I work for always get permission to include cops in the shot since obviously the photos will be public. They've been denied permission on these grounds many times.

Indeed, there are very good reasons not to take pictures of undercover police officers, and even better reasons not to publish them publicly! I would not purposefully take pictures of undercover agents and would NEVER knowingly publish these pictures!

That said, "good reasons" do not translate into law. It is not illegal for a newspaper to take and publish pictures of ANY person on public property. Since it is not illegal for the pictures to be taken or even published, it is not legal for the police to prevent you from taking photos on the grounds that they are trying to preserve the anonymity of their undercover agent.

When police start enforcing whatever they want (even if it's for a "good reason") rather than sticking to the laws enacted by the government, they are themselves breaking the law and should be prosecuted.

 

[theVirginian]

It is not illegal for a newspaper to take and publish pictures of ANY person on public property.

This was an interesting situation during the '80s when the pedophile problem surfaced in my area. The photog would take a shot that happened to include children that he couldn't get advance permission from the parents or even anyone's name that was in the shot. Someone would get his car plate number and that evening, the police would show up at his door to check him out. He would show his credentials and that was enough, but I've wondered what they would say if it was me just messing around taking photos. They can't do anything directly, but would I end up on some kind of watch list? It was this and negative reactions from some of the people that realized I'm photographing them that prompted me to quit taking "sniper" people photos. I don't have the right to upset people just to play with my hobby.

On the other hand, when I haul one of my 4X5 cameras around, I become a curiosity rather than a threat and I can do just about anything I want to. The only questions I get is whether I'm a professional and if my old timey camera will shoot color photos.

 

[Endzone]

One reason they may not want you to take their's and especially the "prostitute's" photo is because she's undercover and any of the uniformed cops could be about to take an undercover job. They don't know what you're going to do with the pics and if they fall into the wrong hands, it can cost them their lives. The photogs at the paper I work for always get permission to include cops in the shot since obviously the photos will be public. They've been denied permission on these grounds many times.

I'd be willing to bet no police officer ever lost his life doing "John" stings. These people are docile and not violent. You have to wonder too that since this is suppossed to be a deterent to prostitution why they wouldn't want it plastered all over the place? Most TV news departments are there showing the decoy and the arrest in many cities. The one reason I can think of they don't want their picture taken is for people to understand what a huge waste of manpower this is. These operations are fun and games to the cops and they know their a joke.

 

[Endzone]

Just remember that a cop can't take your camera, demand that you delete your pictures or seize your storage card/film unless they either have a court order or they are arresting you.

If they try to, refuse. If they force you, you can take legal action and you'll win.

Thank you for that information. You know, the Lord has had me pray for this Federal Way police bunch. I still think it's a ridiculous waste of manpower and a ridiculous waste of time even, but they Lord has changed my spirit and had me pray for them.

 

[Boss_BlueAngels]

This quite strikes me as being an overkill on manpower and equipment. Don't you think this is going overboard though?

Not at all. That was an easy take-down, have you been ther to watch someone resist and go absolutly ballistic? I've seen it when they actually need six cops to hold someone back.


As for pictures, yeah, that's kind of a rough deal when they ask you to stop. I've been stopped at an airport I frequent also. But that was because I was unaware the president was coming in a few days. lol That I'd certainly consider an extenuating circumstance and was on my way. The officer was very polite and allowed me to photograph a couple more planes that were ready to takeoff. It was kind of creepy actually because he pulled up next to me and asked why I was there. I said just to take pictures. And he asked, does this have anything to do with what's going on next week? And all these weird questions which left me completely confused. Finally I just asked what was up and he mentioned Air Force One was landing there in three days.

Also at some airports, especially those with military aircraft, sometimes you can get yourself into trouble by photographing the wrong thing even if it is "open to the public." At this same airport Boeing has some pretty sweet military gear and they get very upset if they see cameras (especially with long lenses) peeking at their toys.

 

[Deamiter]

I'd be willing to bet no police officer ever lost his life doing "John" stings. These people are docile and not violent. You have to wonder too that since this is suppossed to be a deterent to prostitution why they wouldn't want it plastered all over the place? Most TV news departments are there showing the decoy and the arrest in many cities. The one reason I can think of they don't want their picture taken is for people to understand what a huge waste of manpower this is. These operations are fun and games to the cops and they know their a joke.

The people are usually docile because the police use overwhelming force to make resisting pointless. When I came across one of these stings once, I actually saw the police solidly bump the john's car. When he asked why, they said it was part of their procedure and it makes perfect sense to me. Once they have the john confused and disoriented by a minor accident, the prostitute is in much less danger.

In fact, the undercover prostitutes are extremely vulnerable. They're right next to a total stranger who is about to realize that he's been lied to and caught by the police. For the safety of the undercover agent, I wouldn't want my local police to conduct stings WITHOUT overwhelming force!

You might not be able to find a police death in a prostitution sting, but I bet you can find quite a number of injuries -- especially to the undercover officer. I'd also bet you that the majority of these injuries could have been prevented by using more officers to make resistance pointless from the start.

 

[Endzone]

Well it turns out this was a narcotics sting after all. I emailed the Federal Way police and they told me the guy was a well know narcotics dealer. I hope that's the truth because it is an assinine amout of resources for a "John" sting. John stings don't do any good anyway.