ACLU sues Los Angeles police for detaining photographers

The American Civil Liberties Union is suing the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department over its written policy designating photography in certain public places as suspicious activity.

The suit comes after three separate incidents where photographers on public property were detained by the sheriff's deputies, which the suit says violated the photographers' First Amendment rights to free expression and their Fourth Amendment rights to be free of unlawful searches and seizures.

The complaint alleges Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin and Greggory Moore -- amateur and professional photographers -- were detained and searched for photographing turnstiles at a Los Angeles Metro station, industrial buildings, and drivers engaged in cell phone usage near the Long Beach courthouse.

The policy in question lists a number of "terrorism-related" actions, including people who take "pictures or video footage with no apparent esthetic value, i.e., camera angles, security equipment, security personnel, traffic lights, building entrances, etc."

The ACLU complaint says "photography is not a crime; it is a means of artistic expression."

Moore, a reporter for the Long Beach Post, was working on a story about distracted driving on June 2 when he was questioned for taking photos in front of his home, which is across the street from the Long Beach courthouse. Moore said eight officers came to the scene, had him put his hands behind his back and conducted a pat-down search.

Moore wrote a commentary later that month wherein he said it was understandable why officers would think he was photographing the courthouse, but "what I had trouble understanding is why I was detained and searched, and why so many officers were involved."

The National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) came to Moore's defense, writing a letter to the sheriff's department. "It is one thing for law enforcement to act when there is probable cause," said Mickey H. Osterreicher, the association's general counsel."It is quite another to abuse that discretion in order to create a climate that chills free speech under the pretext of safety and security."

In a letter of response, Los Angeles Sheriff Leroy Baca said, "While taking pictures in itself is not a crime, in our heightened state of national security, a courthouse is a Homeland Security hard target, and as such, supplemental security precautions are in place. We would be remiss in our professional duties if we did not investigate all incidents which appear to be suspicious."

In Osterreicher's response to Baca's letter, he said he recognized "the balance between actual vigilance and over-zealous enforcement is delicate," but that he did not think taking photographs in front of one's own home should qualify as suspicious activity.

One of the other plaintiffs, Nee, said he was questioned by deputies about being "in cahoots with al-Qaida," and asked whether he planned to sell the terrorist organization his photos.

According to the suit, others besides the plaintiffs have "suffered similar treatment," which "serves no legitimate purpose." The suit goes on to expand the issue beyond the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, alleging that its actions represent a larger trend.

"Over the past several years, law enforcement agencies across the country have implemented 'suspicious activity reporting' programs, under which officers are trained to report certain categories of behavior believed to be potential indicators of terrorism," the complaint says. "Many departments include photography as one such 'suspicious activity' that should be reported."

Osterreicher said the purpose of the suit is to get "at least" the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department to amend its guidelines and train its deputies accordingly.

"Photographers in Los Angeles and nationwide are increasingly subject to harassment by police officers," he said. "Safety and security concerns should not be used as a pretext to chill free speech and expression or to impede the ability to gather news."

The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction prohibiting the department from enforcing the policy, compensatory damages and a declaration that the guidelines singling out photographers as suspicious are unconstitutional.