[metaglypto]

Warning: this is kind of a long read, but has the potential to affect photographers everywhere.

As described in another thread I started and botched, "Photograhy and the Current National Security Drama " I have once again been accosted by security guards and a U.S. Corps of Engineers (USACE) Park Ranger for my photography close to McNary Dam adjacent to Umatilla, Oregon. This time, I was well away from the dam at a lookout that over looks the dam. Sometimes I sit up there and watch for barges coming up or down river, then get close to get better pictures. Today, I was sitting up there waiting for barges prior to heading to another spot where I know the marmots hang out. There were a couple of seagulls sitting on a guard rail, so to kill some time I thought I would snap some pictures of them.

Lo and behold, along comes a security guard in his truck, and pulls 50 yards or so behind me to a pump station. This is now a familiar routine to me. I park somewhere to get pictures, and the next thing I know these guys come cruising by me two, three or more times. It gets old and really ruins the time I try and spend in the area that is actually on USACE property. I was not even on USACE property this time. However, the USACE property is replete with accomodations for the public, with parks, toilets, trails and even blinds for photographers to get pictures of birds and wildlife. This is one of the reasons it is such an attractive area for me. The wildlife has gotten so habituated to the human presence, they will allow you to approach them much more closely than in a truly wild setting. A couple of years ago, a bird photographer was there during the mule deer rut, and decided to try and approach a buck and got gored.

But then I digress. I was a little pissed today at their ever present annoyance, especially since I was not even on USACE property, so I took the camera off the tripod and pointed it at the truck as if I were taking his picture. Within 10 minutes the park ranger shows up and starts quoting the law that is the title of this thread, stating I have violated the law. I now routinely carry a small Pentax Optio A10 with that has the ability to record voice. Before he got more than 10 words out, I informed him everything he said was being recorded and asked him to state his name for the recording which he did. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to me,I only got about two minutes of the conversation recorded before it shut off, due to the card being filled up.

I argued with them for a few minutes, told the park ranger to give me a ticket and I would see him in court. He responded that it was now out of his hands and was going "higher up". It was at this point the security guard said I would either delete the pictures, or he was going to confiscate my camera equipment. I then took the camera off the tripod,folded the tripod, placed both the tripod and the camera in my vehicle, shut the doors and locked them. Looking the security guard in the eye, I said, "You are not going to take anything," got in the vehicle and drove off. I went down to the marmot spot, again off USACE property and waited for marmots to show up. After a few minutes I knew my day had been ruined, so I went home.

Part of the reason I post this here is to get it down on "paper", so to speak. The other reason is to find out if there are others who have had similar experiences with USACE, and to find out how they have dealt with it. They stated that under the law quoted I was not allowed to photograph any security measures, and that security guards are a security measure. I called BS on them, especially in a public area off site. Below I have posted the wording of that law and find nothing in there as they have stated, though I worry that something, somewhere is buried that I have not yet been able to look up.

From 18 U.S.C. 795 - Photographing and sketching defense installations

18 U.S.C. 795
United States Code, 2009 Edition
Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 37 - ESPIONAGE AND CENSORSHIP
Sec. 795 - Photographing and sketching defense installations
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov


§795. Photographing and sketching defense installations

(a) Whenever, in the interests of national defense, the President defines certain vital military and naval installations or equipment as requiring protection against the general dissemination of information relative thereto, it shall be unlawful to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map, or graphical representation of such vital military and naval installations or equipment without first obtaining permission of the commanding officer of the military or naval post, camp, or station, or naval vessels, military and naval aircraft, and any separate military or naval command concerned, or higher authority, and promptly submitting the product obtained to such commanding officer or higher authority for censorship or such other action as he may deem necessary.
(b) Whoever violates this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 737; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
Historical and Revision Notes

Based on sections 45 and 45c of title 50, U.S.C., 1940 ed., War and National Defense (Jan. 12, 1938, ch. 2, §§1, 4, 52 Stat. 3, 4).
Section consolidated sections 45 and 45c of title 50, U.S.C., 1940 ed., War and National Defense.
Minor changes were made in phraseology.
Amendments

1994—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 103–322 substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $1,000”.
Ex. Ord. No. 10104. Definitions of Vital Military and Naval Installations and Equipment

Ex. Ord. No. 10104, Feb. 1, 1950, 15 F.R. 597, provided:
Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the foregoing statutory provisions, and in the interests of national defense, I hereby define the following as vital military and naval installations or equipment requiring protection against the general dissemination of information relative thereto:
1. All military, naval, or air-force installations and equipment which are now classified, designated, or marked under the authority or at the direction of the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, or the Secretary of the Air Force as “top secret”, “secret”, “confidential”, or “restricted”, and all military, naval, or air-force installations and equipment which may hereafter be so classified, designated, or marked with the approval or at the direction of the President, and located within:
(a) Any military, naval, or air-force reservation, post, arsenal, proving ground, range, mine field, camp, base, airfield, fort, yard, station, district, or area.
(b) Any defensive sea area heretofore established by Executive order and not subsequently discontinued by Executive order, and any defensive sea area hereafter established under authority of section 2152 of title 18 of the United States Code.
(c) Any airspace reservation heretofore or hereafter established under authority of section 4 of the Air Commerce Act of 1926 (44 Stat. 570; 49 U.S.C. 174) except the airspace reservation established by Executive Order No. 10092 of December 17, 1949.
(d) Any naval harbor closed to foreign vessels.
(e) Any area required for fleet purposes.
(f) Any commercial establishment engaged in the development or manufacture of classified military or naval arms, munitions, equipment, designs, ships, aircraft, or vessels for the United States Army, Navy, or Air Force.
2. All military, naval, or air-force aircraft, weapons, ammunition, vehicles, ships, vessels, instruments, engines, manufacturing machinery, tools, devices, or any other equipment whatsoever, in the possession of the Army, Navy, or Air Force or in the course of experimentation, development, manufacture, or delivery for the Army, Navy, or Air Force which are now classified, designated, or marked under the authority or at the direction of the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, or the Secretary of the Air Force as “top secret”, “secret”, “confidential”, or “restricted”, and all such articles, materials, or equipment which may hereafter be so classified, designated, or marked with the approval or at the direction of the President.
3. All official military, naval, or air-force books, pamphlets, documents, reports, maps, charts, plans, designs, models, drawings, photographs, contracts, or specifications which are now marked under the authority or at the direction of the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, or the Secretary of the Air Force as “top secret”, “secret”, “confidential”, or “restricted”, and all such articles or equipment which may hereafter be so marked with the approval or at the direction of the President.
This order supersedes Executive Order No. 8381 of March 22, 1940, entitled “Defining Certain Vital Military and Naval Installations and Equipment.”

Attached Images

 

---

Last edited by metaglypto; 04-08-2012 at 04:58 PM. Reason: Add Picture

[ihasa]

Ah is this the same dam I can look at in detail on GoogleEarth and Street View? If the location is so important, it's a wonder that it's available to view for anyone with internet access anywhere on the planet.

[metaglypto]

Ah is this the same dam I can look at in detail on GoogleEarth and Street View? If the location is so important, it's a wonder that it's available to view for anyone with internet access anywhere on the planet.

Yes, that would be correct.

They do have some signs posted on fences and gates around the dam. The Park Ranger, Ben Nelson, stated that Title 18, Section 795, specifically states I am not allowed to take pictures of security measures, this includes, gates, fences, locks, and security personell. I see it no where in the regulation he cited. Then if I were to believe what he is telling me, I would also be breaking the law by taking a picture of this sign, even if it were for my own records, to insure I stay within the limits of the law,and to research the regulations.

The signs conflict with the infrastructure built and maintained by the USACE. This sign is posted on a gate, through which runs a well maintained foot path, maintained by the USACE. Could this be construed as being "entrapment"? I was at least 200 yards outside this sign, but then the gate is left wide open, facing in, towards the restricted area. Does this then mean that the rest of the world is a restricted area as well?

[MRRiley]

What these gestapo wannabe's always miss is the part reading...

Whenever, in the interests of national defense,
the President defines certain vital military
and naval installations or equipment as requiring
protection against the general dissemination
of information relative thereto, it shall
be unlawful to make any photograph, sketch,
picture, drawing, map, or graphical representation...

Never mind that that is the first sentence in the law they ignore the part where the President must designate these facilities. As far as I know, neither Obama nor Bush stated that facilities such as dams were vital military installations. Just the fact that they are run by the Army Corps of Engineers doesn't make them so.

As for the sign you posted... note that it states "All persons or vehicles ENTERING herein...." I do not believe it can apply outside of the fenced area, nor that it has any legal force over photography OF the facility from otherwise unrestricted public or private property (where you have permission to be). Also, if you look closely, it is restricted based upon a 1950something SecDef directive. Dams may well have been considered "vital military installations" after WWII, but it is unlikely they are today. "Critical Infrastructure," perhaps... but not "vital military..."

---

Last edited by MRRiley; 04-09-2012 at 07:15 AM.

[mikemike]

I have never seen any of these types of signs around here and there are tons of Corps sites where they have built levees, spillways, and other flood control and navigational aids. They are seem very welcoming of anyone wanting to come and look at or report on their progress. There websites provide lots of pictures and details on the projects too. Maybe it is a regional thing or the dam might have some kind of structural problem that they don't want you to see. We have very much adopted the trust but verify mindset with the USACE around here.

[philbaum]

I was about to say that i don't shoot anywhere around USACE property, not by choice but by chance, i guess. I do commonly shoot at State bridge sites but don't think they are USACE property. I've never been warned off a bridge site.

I have shot at a Ferry Terminal which is adjacent to a Navy installation. A state Ferry employee warned me nicely one time and a second time i was in the bus pickup area walking away with my tripod when a police car slowed down next to me and let me know without sayiing anything, that they were watching me. I keep going back to take pictures of ferrys, and they seem to have lost all interest in me. I was taking flash pictures at a nearby county courthouse towards the evening with another photography friend. When we left in my van, i saw the double flash of a TTL system go off in an unmarked police car (i assume) as we left in my van. Cheez, i beginning to feel like i live in a police state

But i see your cause for concern, they probably own a lot of prime land for photography. You might just drop into their office if you know where it is and talk to them. You could file an inquiry with your State Senator or representative - not sure which is appropriate.

[Blue]

I find it ironic that the security guard threatened to confiscate your gear. They are not a sworn officer. They can't even unholster their weapon unless they are being attacked. Yet, the Park Ranger did not threaten to arrest you (assuming he was a real ranger). The Security company should be contacted and the ramifications of taking gear and destroying property explained to them i.e. erasing cards, destroying film etc. Ask them their contact information and send them educational materials and contact information for their legal council.

[Blue]

I was about to say that i don't shoot anywhere around USACE property, not by choice but by chance, i guess. I do commonly shoot at State bridge sites but don't think they are USACE property. I've never been warned off a bridge site.

I have shot at a Ferry Terminal which is adjacent to a Navy installation. A state Ferry employee warned me nicely one time and a second time i was in the bus pickup area walking away with my tripod when a police car slowed down next to me and let me know without sayiing anything, that they were watching me. I keep going back to take pictures of ferrys, and they seem to have lost all interest in me. I was taking flash pictures at a nearby county courthouse towards the evening with another photography friend. When we left in my van, i saw the double flash of a TTL system go off in an unmarked police car (i assume) as we left in my van. Cheez, i beginning to feel like i live in a police state

But i see your cause for concern, they probably own a lot of prime land for photography. You might just drop into their office if you know where it is and talk to them. You could file an inquiry with your State Senator or representative - not sure which is appropriate.

I would have reciprocated and got a picture of the unmarked cop car and its occupants. Then you could send pics to the police station with a formal letter telling them that you are afraid someone is trying to kidnap you and give them the description of the suspects. Or better yet, hand deliver them.

[JinDesu]

I was about to say that i don't shoot anywhere around USACE property, not by choice but by chance, i guess. I do commonly shoot at State bridge sites but don't think they are USACE property. I've never been warned off a bridge site.

I have shot at a Ferry Terminal which is adjacent to a Navy installation. A state Ferry employee warned me nicely one time and a second time i was in the bus pickup area walking away with my tripod when a police car slowed down next to me and let me know without sayiing anything, that they were watching me. I keep going back to take pictures of ferrys, and they seem to have lost all interest in me. I was taking flash pictures at a nearby county courthouse towards the evening with another photography friend. When we left in my van, i saw the double flash of a TTL system go off in an unmarked police car (i assume) as we left in my van. Cheez, i beginning to feel like i live in a police state

But i see your cause for concern, they probably own a lot of prime land for photography. You might just drop into their office if you know where it is and talk to them. You could file an inquiry with your State Senator or representative - not sure which is appropriate.

From his prior stories (which i have read), he has spoken to their office and higher ranked officers about the matter, and was given expressed written verbal consent to photograph without disturbance (with limits of course!).

Mr. McDermott even went so far as to give me permission to drop his name whenever I felt threatened in my photographic endeavors of the areas around McNary Dam.

[metaglypto]

I am currently looking for a good blog site that has easy access for the general public to post all the materials I have collected so far. I have two audio recordings where I have informed those present they were being recorded that I am going to post as well.

[ElJamoquio]

Good luck.