"Since when is hiding your face to avoid cameras "acting suspiciously"?"
Since turning and walking when you see a police officer, or running when they shout Stop, or any of a myriad actions (even getting tetchy/sweaty when they do stop you).
It doesn't take a genius to draw an analogy there.
The question is:
- If they are acting suspiciously, are you allowed to stop them on that basis alone. Answer: Yes. Otherwise police work is literally entirely "witnessed crimes" and nothing else.
- If you stop them, are you allowed to hinder them longer than necessary to ascertain their identity, purpose, etc.? Answer: No. Never have been.
- If you stop them and they kick off and breach the peace, can you arrest them? Answer: Yes.
- If they don't, can you arrest them? Only if you have reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime. Which means that, without anything more than their identity, you have to hope something pops up on the computer? Or that they have a knife or something in their pocket. Then you can arrest them, otherwise no.
Police have the right to stop, search and ascertain your identity. They need almost ZERO reason to do that. It's been clear-cut in just about every developed country for decades, if not centuries. They can't unduly inconvenience you, they can't arrest you for no reason (even "suspicion" for an arrest requires an actual reasonable suspicion with corroborating evidence and a suspicion of a specific charge - e.g. suspicion of burglary of a particular location on a particular date, etc.)
To stop is not to arrest.
To arrest is not to charge.
To charge is not to convict.
They have every reason to stop the man, under the law, for literally anything they like. Whether you agree with that or not, you're several hundred years of the relevant legislation too late. What they can't do is arrest him for the sake of it. The fact they arrested him means that he kicked off and dropped himself in it.
If a police officer stops you, you don't have to co-operate more than the legally required minimum (identify yourself, maybe co-operate with a search if requested). But equally you don't have to get yourself arrested either.
"Certainly, officer, am I under arrest?"
"Okay, sure, I just don't want to be on camera. No particular reason."
"Absolutely, I'm X and here's my ID to prove it and/or I will provide proof of ID at a police station and/or here's a contact number for my employer and they can identify me if you wish."
"Okay, so am I under arrest?"
"I understand, but I'm in a rush, am I allowed to leave?"
Being dickish about it gets you arrested anyway. Being polite about it raises alarm bells along the lines of "Is this guy a lawyer and am I gonna end up with a charge of false arrest if I reply once wrongly to his questions?"
Now, some people go *too far* and say you shouldn't speak anything but your name, etc. but I think that will raise more suspicion than anything else.
P.S. The police can arrest anyone they like. Literally anyone. So long as they have reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed. They can arrest you, take you to the station, question you, etc. etc. etc. And arrest is "to stop" someone and ascertain more facts about the situation. They can then de-arrest you. You would be hard-pushed, if arrested and later de-arrested without charge, to claim that they *hadn't* got reasonable grounds because they won't really arrest you without reason. But they can do it. They literally have the right to do that. Whether or not their "reasonable grounds" are actually reasonable or not is a case for a lawyer, not an armchair rebel, and occurs after the arrest/de-arrest.
Hence, it's really stupid to push them to anywhere near something they can arrest you for, even on the slightest and most dubious of potential charges.
You can be arrested and de-arrested in the street. False arrest is only if they didn't have reasonable grounds upon which to do that. The bar is quite low on what's reasonable. Always has been.
The alternative is that police literally can't then arrest someone walking a few streets away from a burglary with an arm-full of DVD players because "no suspect description matched him" and stuff like that (an exaggeration but not by much).
If you don't understand this, I hope you never get stopped, because you could quickly end up being arrested.
If you do understand this, it doesn't *guarantee* that you won't get arrested, but it does pretty much guarantee that you can't be charged (like this idiot) except for things you actually have done.
Be nice to your police. Not because "they'll nick you if not". Because their job is hard enough without twats making it more difficult anyway. And every time I've ever been stopped, spoken to, pulled over, etc. by one, we've all walked away smiling.
If you were a security guard in a shop, tasked your entire career with detecting shoplifters, and maybe it costs you personally if someone nicks something (e.g. you own the shop), and you saw a guy come into your shop and hide his face from the cameras deliberately... would you not be suspicious? Suspicious enough to monitor him further, at minimum. Maybe let your presence be known, or ask him a question or two and see the reaction? I know I would.
Bam. The police did *just that*. They stopped someone for acting suspiciously. And they have FAR more wide-ranging powers available to them.
Maybe he was cold. Maybe he's shy. Maybe he just saw his ex girlfriend. Maybe he was a criminal who didn't want to be recognised. That's why it's a suspicion.
Stopped on suspicion != arrest and, in this case, charges unless you're a world-class moron.