What we have here is a Failure to Understand the 1st Amendment

[Feuer Frei!]

The Police Chief of Long Beach has confirmed that his department's policy is to detain photographers who do nothing more than take pictures in public places, and that he neither has, nor plans to implement, any guidelines for these detentions. He classes photography with other "suspicious activity" such as "attempts to acquire illegal or illicit biological agent (anthrax, ricin, Eboli, smallpox, etc.)" and "In possession, or utilizes, explosives (for illegal purposes)."

"If an officer sees someone taking pictures of something like a refinery," says McDonnell, "it is incumbent upon the officer to make contact with the individual." McDonnell went on to say that whether said contact becomes detainment depends on the circumstances the officer encounters. "

SOURCE

And here's an example of a Police Officer being a Clown, assaulting a Camera Man for filming him:


Some bad Precedents on access to the Government's own footage:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3557.asp

Rare cases when Credentials don't help, even if you are from a Television News Station:

[Lord_magerius]

[Feuer Frei!]

So you agree or disagree?

[Oberon]

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Communication science teaches that it is impossible not to communicate.



On the issue, photographing a factory where biological weapons are produced, raises suspicion, and healthy reasons demands to investigate the photographer. It is not the same than to pohotograph a famous coffee shop at a tourist-attracting public place. Also, it is healthy reason to point out that it is hard to line out a set of blueprints that should define all possible situation when who should investigate whom on the basis of what formal factors, when a weapons plant gets photographed. As the polcie chief said, it depends on a number of situational variables, and the officer in place has to make assessments of the situation.

Let's do not turn this into an issue. There is no issue at all.

[Feuer Frei!]

So there is no issue then? Riiight, ok. No problems, we will just let the cops deal with things the way they want to then. Like the clowns in the videos. Did we even bother to watch the videos? Or are we just spamming stupid pictures in a thread again? Sorry for the bluntness but wehn someone posts pics in my thread and I ask that person or rather invite discussion, an ignore is forthcoming.
Lord Magerius, it goes to you. Post a pic and back it up with some meaningful discussion rather than troll lol lol.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Communication science teaches that it is impossible not to communicate.



On the issue, photographing a factory where biological weapons are produced, raises suspicion, and healthy reasons demands to investigate the photographer. It is not the same than to pohotograph a famous coffee shop at a tourist-attracting public place. Also, it is healthy reason to point out that it is hard to line out a set of blueprints that should define all possible situation when who should investigate whom on the basis of what formal factors, when a weapons plant gets photographed. As the polcie chief said, it depends on a number of situational variables, and the officer in place has to make assessments of the situation.

Let's do not turn this into an issue. There is no issue at all.

How this "biological weapons factory" came into this discussion? Photographer was taking picture from refinery. It maybe suspicious in someone's mind but even if so I don't see on which grounds police officer detained person. I read the full article (which is available via link inside Freuer Frei!'s link) and I didn't notice any explanation on what grounds officer made detention decision and police chief have denied to discuss them.

Link to full article.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

"If an officer sees someone taking pictures of something like a refinery," says McDonnell, "it is incumbent upon the officer to make contact with the individual." McDonnell went on to say that whether said contact becomes detainment depends on the circumstances the officer encounters. "

Sounds reasonable.
You probably will find lots of examples of people being abused when stopped for regular alcohol check.
It does not mean that policemen should not do it.