Focus is on photographer with an eye for cheerleaders

Omaha.com ^ | 02.06.03

[Coleus]

Focus is on photographer with an eye for cheerleaders

BY STU POSPISIL

LINCOLN - Metro Conference athletic directors and the Nebraska School Activities Association will be watching their high school basketball sidelines more closely after Omaha police detained a 74-year-old man for training a camera on high school cheerleaders.

Omaha Marian Athletic Director Jim Miller said Wednesday that cheerleaders from his school became uncomfortable because of the man's apparent picture-taking at a Jan. 30 girls basketball game at Omaha South.

Miller said the girls alerted Marian's dean of students, who told South administrators. School officials called police, who interviewed the man. The man told authorities that he was a fan of Omaha Marian and Omaha Creighton Prep and was just there to observe the game.

Sgt. Dan Cisar said police took an information report, and the man was ordered to leave the building.

The girls later told Miller they had seen the man at other games.

The man could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

School officials have expressed concerns to the NSAA that if photographs of cheerleaders were taken, they could end up being sold to a Web site that contains pornographic or offensive material.

Copies of a photograph of the man, taken from South's video security monitoring system, were distributed this week at the Metro Conference's monthly meeting of athletic directors.

The man's photo also was sent to the NSAA because of its state basketball tournaments at various sites in Lincoln next month. The girls state tournament is March 6 through 8, and the boys tournament is March 13 through 15.

NSAA Assistant Director Jim Angele said copies of the photo have been forwarded to floor managers at the tournament sites in Lincoln.

"We hope this person won't show up at the state tournament," Angele said. "We'll have to police our sidelines more to make sure only those with credentials are there."

The NSAA does not have a uniform policy regarding the management of spectators at sporting events, other than to ask for good sportsmanship. The obligation to police spectators is left up to individual schools. That means school administrators can decide whether to prohibit admission to a particular spectator. It is common at events such as high school basketball games to see numerous school staff in attendance for the sole purpose of monitoring the crowd.

Miller said amateur photographers, such as family members, may be asked to provide identification if not recognized by officials of the host school.

"We're telling our workers that if they don't know somebody taking photographs, they may want to check it out," Miller said. "It's not a good situation for someone to be going to games and taking photos of cheerleaders only. It sends up a red flag."

[Boot Hill]

Arkinsaw, I've read the entire thread and most of the replies I've seen seem to miss the point. The officer didn't detain and question the 74 year old man because of some imagined law against old men taking pictures of young women at an event that was open to the public. They detained him because his pattern of behavior would lead a reasonable person to suspect whether he may be involved in child pornography or pedophilia.

In the terms used by courts and LEO, the officers in this case, apparently felt they had an "objective suspicion" that the person may have been involved in a crime (and I don't mean the crime of taking those photographs). That objective suspicion would allow the officer to detain and question the person.

It is not a crime to run. It is not a crime to carry a TV. It is not a crime to be in a high-crime neighborhood. Nor is it a crime to be out late at night. But if an officer observes a person running with a TV late at night in a high crime neighborhood, he would be a fool not to entertain a suspicion that the person might, just possibly, be up to no good. And the courts would very reasonably permit the officer to stop and detain that subject for questioning. That is all that happened in this case, the officers had an objective suspicion that something was amiss and detained the subject briefly for questioning.

As to the officer "ordering" the man to leave the building, we don't know if that was actually what happened, as the story includes no quotes. However, if the officer's questioning of the subject elicited no substantive reason for the subject being there and for his photographing the kids, then it would be within the officer's discretion to (and he would have been a fool not to have) strongly suggest that since he had frightened many of the children and their parents with his behavior it would probably be a very prudent thing, and in his best interests, for him to leave...now.

Such "move along" orders, under these type of circumstances, are not the "jack booted" exercise of authority, and have, in fact, been upheld by the Supreme Court as a reasonable exercise of police authority.

I would also suggest, from the circumstances outlined in this article, that it would be prudent of the officer to send a copy of his report, the very next day, to his department's sex crimes unit for follow up.

--Boot Hill

[Tall_Texan]

Were tickets sold for the event? If so, did the tickets contain any information about being removed from the arena? This may not be true at the high school level, but it is usually true at the college and pro level. Essentially, the organization providing admission has the right to expel someone from the premises for all sorts of poor conduct, from screaming obscenities at the officials to public drunkeness to throwing items onto the field. Check the stub and you'll see it all spelled out. Some even prohibit the use of camcorders or any type of moving pictures.

It doesn't mean that any of these behaviors, if done on a public sidewalk, are technically illegal but just because it is a "public event", even one by a "public school", there is no grant to allow spectators at public sporting events any conduct that would prove a disruption for others enjoying the game.

Smoking isn't illegal either but you'll probably get tossed if you repeatedly light up in areas of the arena where smoking isn't allowed.

At most sporting events, you can be subject to removal for any number of behaviors that are technically legal.

[Tamzee]

You'd be betting correctly, unfortunately... they post pictures of children from ads on a regular basis.

[Coleus]

Kilts? Don't forget April 6 is Tartan Day.

[plain talk]

If there was physical contact that was of a sexual nature, then it would probably be considered child molestation.

Probably? Uh huh.

[Kevin Curry]

They detained him because his pattern of behavior would lead a reasonable person to suspect whether he may be involved in child pornography or pedophilia.

Exactly. His behavior was apparent and persistent enough to be witnessed directly by many "reasonable people." It was beginning to cause a stir. Left unaddressed, it is the kind of peculiar behavior that can easily lead to vigilantism by "reasonable people." Vigilantism is generally not a problem where "reasonable people" are confident that law enforcement will step in to take reasonable measures to investigate and ameliorate the problem. Where they have no such confidence, vigilantism erupts.

Eagle Eye and the loopy libertarians want no role for law enforcement. But denying a role for law enforcement would leave the old man at the mercy of vigilante suspicion and justice and its very arbitrary, capricious, and extremely prejudicial mob "due process."

Of course then Eagle Eye would be screaming at the top of his lungs for statists to intervene to arrest and punish the vigilantes.

[weaponeer]

Get back to me when blacks or Jews are equated to 'behavioral minorities' such as perverts.

Hmmmmm, "behavioral minorities." Imagine what a President Hillary and her AG could do with that.

I'll bet you'd send them some suggestions.

[Eagle Eye]

Here's an idea. Simply grant the fathers, brothers, boyfriends, and concerned associates of the cheerleaders license and immunity to beat the old pervert with baseball bats. That should work. No government at all. It would surely satisfy your libertarian demands.

No government? Then who grants the license?

Then you've, once again, demonstrated your willful ignorance of libertarian ideas. Why should the guy get beaten? Is that not initiating force? Isn't that going well beyond the needs of the situation?

I like it when you choose to be my personal playtoy. It's like you volunteer to be the chew toy my dog plays with until he's no longer amused. But you are going to have to do better in the future or you will no longer amuse me.

[Cultural Jihad]

Well said. Vigilantism flourishes when justice is not served, and in turn only further erodes justice.

[eno_]

Michael Jackson is an interesting case. The kids he hangs around with are clearly there on their parents' permission, which makes the whole scene very wierd. It is a lead-pipe cinch that The King of Pop is a pervert, and yet parents do this?

Then there are the Travelers. They prep their young girls to be what any casual observer would call sluts, and marry them off young. Parents do some mighty odd things to kids.

Compared with these two cases, an old fart with enough testosterone left to take the trouble to photograph cheerleaders is way at the mild end of the spectrum. If he had a history of sexual predation, that would be very very different, and his presence in a school would probably violate a condition of his parole. But there is no indication he means to do anything more than go home and spank the monkey. Real sex offenders are easy to spot, and nobody does their first molestation at age 74.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Things that make me say "eeeeeeeeewwwwww".

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Here's an idea. Simply grant the fathers, brothers, boyfriends, and concerned associates of the cheerleaders license and immunity to beat the old pervert with baseball bats.

I've got no problem with that.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

If the "photographer" cares to share the name of the school and location where he took the picture, the MINOR is very vulnerable.

Then, and only then, I imagine, would she have an actionable case.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

The best thing that the government can do is to conveniently not notice the group of cheerleader dads who escort the old pervert outside for a chat. Jeez, doewsn't anybody know how to threaten off a weirdo anymore? Have we become so lame that we've lost the art of verbal intimidation that doesn't cross the line to the criminal?

[Eagle Eye]

A strategically placed umbrella would solve the situation.

No bats, no fisticuffs, no intimidation, no cops.

[Cincinatus]

[SauronOfMordor]

Hardly. Just your basic legalistic thinking with a dose of contrarian thrown in for good measure. If you had a 17 year old daughter you might understand (or you might not I suppose by today's standards).

I have a 14-year-old daughter, and my solution is very simple and Constitutional: I decline to allow her to appear in public dressed in a manner that would appeal to "dirty old men".

These parents allow their underage daughters to jump around at a public event dressed in skimpy outfits, and are surprised and shocked to find grown men enjoying the view? Grow up! Be parents! Jeeze...

[Cultural Jihad]

However, if the officer's questioning of the subject elicited no substantive reason for the subject being there and for his photographing the kids, then it would be within the officer's discretion to (and he would have been a fool not to have) strongly suggest that since he had frightened many of the children and their parents with his behavior it would probably be a very prudent thing, and in his best interests, for him to leave...now.

Well said. The police are there to protect everyone's rights, including the right of children to not be harassed, as well as the photographer's right to not be lynched.

[gwjack]

Your comment about prosecuting/prohibiting thoughts reminded me of one of my favorite stories about the late Abe Lemmons (basketball coach).

Once when Abe's team was being routed with the assistance of several questionable calls, he called the head referee over and asked him if he could get a technical foul for what he was thinking.

After thinking a moment the ref said, "No, I can't tee you for what you think." Abe promptly responded that "Well I'm thinking that you are doing a lousy job of calling this game."

Abe got a technical.

gwjack