Chelsea cops don't like photographers in public spaces

We dont know if he really was blocked in or if the cops took the available spaces that were around him in this area with limited tight parking. It also doesnt sound like they demanded or stopped his movement, they asked to see the camera. Even by his own account this is circumstantial at best.

Although I could see the chelsea police stopping this guy for taking pictures that someone probably called to say was suspucious, and I believe that they probably asked him for an ID, I don't beleive the chelsea police cared enough to ask for the camera or see the pictures or especially delete the pictures. Chelsea cops dont care whats on the film in this case. They might have wanted to see the equipment to make sure it was just photo equipment, I simply don't believe the whole story here.

And detaining someone for ID purpuses is not an "arrest" per MA or US law, although it is a legal "seizure" if he were in fact not free to leave.

But you can bet some private citizen called about the guy about the equimpent he had in a park. The police went and asked the guy what he was doing there.

Too bad no one asked what Tim McVeigh was doing in the area of the federal building 12 years ago....

it's O'Malley, and it's a public park. That means it's open to the public for people to do anything legal that isn't specifically prohibited by a posted sign. There might possibly be signs prohibiting smoking, or unleashed dogs, or golfing, or staying after 11 pm, but there sure aren't any signs that prohibit taking photographs.

Also, it's not adjacent to the LNG port. There's a substantial inlet in between, and no bridge across the inlet.

Please cite the law in question. Is it federal, state, or city ordinance?

I don't understand how taking a photo of anything can be "stupid behavior" as long as it isn't distracting (for instance, flash photography in a subway station) or obstructive (tripods on sidewalks)

NYC bridges are some of the most photographed sites in the whole world.

its not legal to take photographs of potential high risk terrorism sites. people know this. nyc bridges, power plants, military installations, etc.

Oh, really? That's news to me. And what's a high-risk terrorism site? "Sorry, sir, no photos allowed at Fenway Park, too many people gathered in one place, it's a risk in this new world we live in." "Sorry, sir, no photos during the July 4 fireworks, with half a million people along the banks of the Charles we just cannot take that chance."

For what it's worth, it's only the MTA-run bridges that have signs saying no cameras allowed on the bridge (and even that's dubious whether it could be upheld if challenged), and you're free to take whatever photos you want of those bridges off the bridge property. The Brooklyn Bridge, probably the most famous bridge in the world? Snap away, no restrictions there.

they just made him delete the pictures of the plant. so what's the issue?

bostonian123, the cops will be arriving at 9:00 at your residence to look through your bookshelves and computer to make sure you have nothing dangerous in there. And if they find something suspicious, no harm, they'll just make you trash it.

Good blog entry. A few opinions in response from someone who used to be an aspiring photojournalist in the relatively safe city of Boston (addressing amateurs and novices, not seasoned professionals):

* Avoid crime-ridden hellholes like Detroit and Miami. :)

* If you must be in those places, be especially sensitive to the delicacy of situations like rioting, an officer down, or an officer doing something that might appear improper. You don't want to get on the business end of someone's stressed attempt to regain control of the situation. Do it if it's your job, or there's a moral imperative, but accept that you might get smacked down.

* Don't knowingly photograph undercover cops without a good reason. (One time, after I raced to the scene after a drug bust, I saw obviously undercovers with badges around their necks help search for evidence. I stood out of everyone's way and let my cameras conspicuously hang down while I waited for an image good and newsworthy enough, or to speak with someone. Nothing interesting happened that time, but afterwards I figured that the next time I encountered some of the same guys at a news scene, they'd recognize me and at least know that I wasn't a total idiot loose canon. Mutual respect can help when it's an officer's discretion on how close to let you get to a scene or whether to tell you what's going on.)

* Cops are trained observers, like good photographers. If you're biased against cops in general, assume they'll pick up on that when you interact with them, which can complicate your job. (Personally, I wouldn't want to live anywhere that I didn't think the cops were good-to-great, so that was never a problem for me.)

* On things like photographing government buildings, it can't hurt to to have state-issued media credentials and an editor to back you up.

* If you're photographing government buildings and 'sensitive' structures, then politeness, a cool head, and knowing your rights are important. In 9 years of heavy photography around town (first urban, then news), I was approached a few times, and *many* times security/police kept an eye on me, but nobody ever asked me to delete a photo.