Teribus,

Comments like this: "Handling of the situation could well have been better, but one point clearly illustrated is that the people responsible for the Vice-President's safety were alert and were on the ball."

and this: "One side of it that I can see, that you obviously can't, or won't, is that of a beat patrolman turning up on shift and being told that today you are part of a force responsible for the safety of the Vice-President of the United States of America. A weighty responsibility under any circumstances, but more than slightly heightened in the present climate. "

Let's assume for the moment the event happen as Maginnis tells it. Is the police officer justified in questioning his activties? Definately. Under the circumstances, they would even be justified in temporarily holding his film until the VP left town.

Under what circumstances, if any, would they be justified in siezing his personal property (the camera) and questioning him for 6 hours without legal counsel present when he hasn't committed a crime?

You know, if you are taking a picture of a microwave tower on top of a public building, you are very likely to get the snipers on top of the building too. Both accounts of the picture's contents may be correct.