Police Stop Journalists From Photographing Metrorail System 601
schwit1 writes with this excerpt from Reason.com:
"Carlos Miller, who runs the Photography Is Not a Crime blog, and veteran photojournalist Stretch Leford decided to test the photography rules in Miami-Dade's metrorail system. Before embarking on their test, they obtained written assurance from Metro Safety and Security Chief Eric Muntan that there's no law against non-commercial photography on the system. The two didn't make it past the first station before they were stopped. Employees of 50 State Security, the private firm contracted to provide the metro's security, stopped the pair first. They then called in local police. The private firm and the police then threatened the two with arrest, demanded their identification (to check them against a terrorist watch list), demanded multiple times that they stop filming, and eventually 'banned' Miller and Ledford from the metro system 'for life' (though it's doubtful they had the authority to do so)."
Is the metrorail public property? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:We would have to know the other side (Score:3, Informative)
Obviously they were trying to provoke a response, which if someone is acting suspicious and literally trying to get negative response from security and police they will get one
The other side of the story (if you RTFA) is that the protagonists interviewed the head of security of the Metrorail system who assured them that what they wanted to do was allowed and legal. So are you suggesting that "legal" activities are now suspicious and that everyone should just do as they are told? No wonder you are AC.
Re:Look at it like an airport... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, the only way to really fix this is to go ahead and get arrested. That's what it's going to take to turn this crap around; a lot of journalists getting arrested and writing passionate articles about the experience while hopefully being exonerated.
Yep. The key to this is to behave calmly and rationally (although one might argue that telling the cops to fuck off is the rational thing to do), and to have someone document the incident on video with a hidden camera from a distance, then post that video on Youtube and other places ASAP. A perfectly reasonable response by the photographers, along with the written assurance, the video and a decent lawyer should go a long way towards getting this shit fixed.
Something similar happend to a good friend of mine in Canada of all places. He was taking pictures of some properties that were for sale to review with his business partner, and the local police pulled him over and general police fuckery ensued, and the harassment continued after he idintified himself and explained his business and what he was doing. He had to call a lawyer.
Sometime the authorities can be stupid beyond belief. Do the think that there isn't any imagery [google.com] of their precious system? Or perhaps that detailed satellite imagery [google.com] doesn't exist with convient, detailed maps of all potential routes of escape and schedules even? Holy shit, look at that! [google.com] Better go arrest Google.
Bunch of fucking retards.
Re:This isn't over (Score:2, Informative)
They even presented to the security guards the very letter that granted the photographers permission, and they were still stopped.
The video isn't available anymore, but there was a great episode that happened a couple of years ago at DC's Union Station. From: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/06/union-station-p.html [typepad.com]
And as I recall from the video, the security guard refused to take the Amtrak spokesperson's direction to back off.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Informative)
Spot on! This is exactly the way to deal with this. Test it, get arrested, document the whole process and manage to be professional enough about it so you arise the interest of main media journalists, PBS, BBC, etc. Expose, just like they do here, underlying causes, like top security acknowledging of the rights, and private security and local police involved in arbitrary and erratic behavior.
The result: big public embarrassment for those involved, instigating fear of the same for like-minded small-time tyrants doing this everywhere.
This is a job of public education and the two photographers involved here are doing the right, appropriate and efficient thing about it. My hat to them!
The only bullshit part of it is that the fact you were arrested shows up on any criminal background check. It's the kind of thing that could deny you employment in the future. Sure, you can explain why the arrest happened, and most management types will listen to your explanation and decide "he's an activist troublemaker who might rock the boat, a loose cannon" and throw your application in the trash. Of course it's unjust.
It's bullshit because a criminal background check should never show arrests. It should show convictions only.
You can get your record purged of non-conviction arrests after a few months. I'm no law-talking-guy, but if you're ever arrested for bullshit charges that later get thrown out, remember that you can get the arrest record wiped clean.
"Personal Photography" = People (Score:3, Informative)
On the "personal photography" (okay) vs. "commercial or terrorist photography" (not okay) question -- A couple years back I was taking pictures of an interesting fountain in the corridors linking a Chicago convention center with a Metra station when a cop came up and told me I couldn't take photographs of the interior of the building because "since 9/11" etc etc. I never did check to see if the city was trying to enforce such a rule, but I doubted it was her bright idea -- she was fairly apologetic about it, said she could see that I was just taking photos of the fountain, but had to ask me to stop anyway.
While we were talking, she mentioned that it would have been okay if I had been taking pictures with my girlfriend (who was standing next to me while this was going on) in them, instead of specifically photographing the architecture. I suppose that could have been this particular officer's personal guiding philosophy, but it sounded like an institutionalized rule. Apparently if you're taking posed, touristy "look at us in [place]" pictures you're not doing it for terrorist plotting purposes, and it seems fairly obvious that you're not planning to sell the photos.
tl;dr: To placate security, professional photographers should always drag along an assistant whose job is to stand around close to the shot and grin inanely at the camera.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah but driving is a different set of rules.
Driving is a privilege and therefore can be revoked at any time & any reason, even if no crime was committed.
That has nothing to do with a police officer's legal authority to detain you. "Driving is a privilege" is a matter between yourself and the state DMV that issued your license. It's the logic used to take away your license if you refuse a breathalyzer, a way to make sure that the Fifth Amendment protection against incriminating yourself does not apply to being charged with a DUI. It's like "free speech zones" in that it's a clever way to get around that pesky Constitution.
That being said, the purpose of a speeding ticket is not to take away your privilege to drive. It's to fine you for a violation. None of this is related to your normal right to move freely and associate or not associate with anyone of your choice (such as a police officer) being suspended because you have been detained. At least in my state, the police have the legal right to detain anyone for up to 48 hours for any reason or no reason at all, even if no charges are made. Thankfully they rarely use that power, but they certainly have it.
If you jaywalk or are drunk in public you better believe they can detain you in order to charge you with those violations. In that scenario, doing anything other than complying with the detention would be exceedingly foolish. That's exactly like when you are driving and speeding; they pull you over and detain you in order to charge you with that violation. It just so happens that you're much more likely to encounter a police officer when driving. That's both because you are covering more ground in the same amount of time and because the state's ticket revenues from traffic violations greatly exceed the state's ticket revenues from pedestrian violations. Therefore, they care a lot more about enforcing one than the other. Otherwise the same rules apply.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Informative)
Hmmm
That all sounds wonderful, except that you do not have to actually be resisting arrest for you to be charged and convicted with resisting arrest. You merely need the police to state that you were doing so...
Unless the event is recorded, or there are a substantial number of witnesses to the event willing to back your story, the word of the Police is almost always believed by the courts. One reason so many police officers want it to be illegal to record them, though obviously they claim it is for security or privacy concerns and never for accountability reasons...
Re:Hmmm... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The terrorists won. (Score:5, Informative)
This was the very goal of the 9/11 attacks and we have taken the bait, hook, line and sinker.
That's what bin Laden wrote, years before 9/11. That was his plan. Read Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America. [amazon.com], published in 1999.
Re:In Florida, you sure can sue the cop (Score:1, Informative)
Except if you read 776.032 which clearly opens the door to law suits if it was not a justifiable action. Was it a justifiable action, depends on what the evidence is or lack of evidence and that would be determined in a court of law. How is that going to be determined in a court of law? Why sue the cop and let the judge decide! If the judge decides the actions were justified, then the law giving immunity applies and cop/agency is off the hook. If the agency is nice, they will pay for the legal bills for the cop. If the agency is strapped and doesn't give a rat's ass about the cop, the cop better a member of PBA/FoP/IUPA so their insurance will cover his bills for winning.
photographer's rights card (Score:4, Informative)
If I recall correctly, /. had a similar thread some time back and someone posted to something official that was recommended to carry with you in your camera back about having the right to photograph public places.
I've googled and can't seem to find it. Anyone?
Try googling "photographer's rights card":
http://www.billadler.net/Photographer's_Legal_Rights_Card.pdf [billadler.net]
or
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm [krages.com]
Re:Hmmm... (Score:3, Informative)
This is also now the case in Canada. It used to be that juvenile records were sealed and required a court order to access them, but that ended a couple of decades ago.
Of course, juvenile records aren't criminal convictions (though juveniles can get criminal convictions if their case is remanded to the regular "adult" court system), but anyone can apply for a discharge [www.cfdp.ca] - but even that doesn't guarantee that records won't be kicking around somewhere.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:3, Informative)
How? This is relevant to my interests. I was arrested for having a valid ID from the wrong state recently and the charges were dropped before I got to the judge.
My guess is: By paying a lawyer. [lawyers.com]
In the future, you can ask google directly, (arrest record expunged) is what I searched for to get that FAQ.
Re:It's a catch-22 for the security guard (Score:2, Informative)
There is another factor here that you are missing - lawsuits.
Let's say you and a buddy are going to stage an accident and your buddy (the "victim") want you to get some good photos of his "accident". So now you have a slip-and-fall with lots of people rushing over to help and some really nice photos to go with it. JACKPPOT!
Can you imagine why people might be a little sensitive about someone standing around taking pictures? Could it be documentation for a lawsuit?
Probably 80-90% of public-facing behavior in the US today is driven by the possibilty of a lawsuit. Anyone, anywhere can sue anyone at any time for anything. It costs less than $1000 to try and if you have a clever scheme you are going to be awarded as much as $50,000 to go away and not bother the big company or public agency. The lawyer helping is going to get 1/3rd of this, so there are many helpful lawyers around.
Right now today most people don't seem to understand the way this lottery works. So as you walk down the street maybe only 1% of the people you meet are thinking of ways to game the system and get paid off. Actually, it is probably more like 0.01% or 1 out of 10,000. When unemployment was 4% (officially and maybe 8-10% really) most people had real work to do that they were getting paid for. Today with official unemployment at 10% and the unofficial numbers more like 20-25% I would think there would be a lot more motivation to get even modest payoffs.
Really, if you could collect $50,000 once a year legally would you continue to work? If you didn't have a job wouldn't this be really appealing? I suspect we are going to see a lot more of this going on.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2, Informative)
Anybody who truly believes in liberty would wear that arrest like a badge of honor. You stood-up against the Nobility and won. It's a victory for the People against tyranny.
The problem is, you'll be wearing that badge of honour in a trailer park somewhere, earning minimum wage while working at a gas station or convenience store. An arrest record - whether warranted or not - will present a barrier to employment in many, many industries and companies.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2, Informative)
On most employment applications, they ask if you have ever been arrested.
You should probably look a little closer at those applications. All the ones I have seen ask if you have been convicted of an offense. And generally just non-traffic related ones.
Re:Is the metrorail public property? (Score:3, Informative)
Here in Denmark, private property isn't private if there's public access (even if it requires paying a fee), at least not when it comes to photography. This means that malls, amusement parts and privately run railway stations are under the public area laws despite being privately owned. This means that you can photograph and film for your own amusement and other non-commercial purposes to your hearts content. Publicizing the footage requires written permission from both the 'recognizable' people in the pics and (in case of private property), the owner. Pretty simple.
Now, sometimes the rent-a-cops patrolling these places don't quite get it, but rarely put up much of a fight.
In the case of Tivoli (an amusement park in Copenhagen) I was snapping pics of the crowds as I was approached by a guard telling me I wasn't allowed to take pictures in the park. Now I came prepared as I had obtained a written permission from the CEO of the park by mail which I had brought with me. The guard still insisted that it wasn't allowed. I then pointed to the 15 people around me all engaged in snapping tourist pics of their family or the sights and asked why he didn't stop them and he obviously couldn't answer. I then asked for a name or number stating that I wanted to contact the CEO again and know why this particular guard didn't know the policy or didn't acknowledge the permission letter. He then turned around and left. Not a word.
I later contacted the CEO anyway describing the guard and the events, and was told that the event had been investigated and the story was that some celeb had been 'harassed' by some paps elsewhere in the park and they therefore has been on the lookout for 'men with expensive cameras obviously not with family or friends'. I fit that description to some degree although the DSLR I had at the time (Canon EOS 500D) was both fairly cheap-looking and a far cry from the professional cameras of the paparazzi. Today would have been a different story as I now primarily use a Canon EOS 7D, one of the preferred cameras of... the paparazzi.
Since then I've taken thousands of pics in there, including of the guards, with no trouble. I guess the guards got the message.