[grhazelton]

I don't know where to post this so I'll leave that up to the moderators.

There has been a lot of discussion here and in other fora about the legal rights of photographers to shoot in public. This link discusses the issues and has some videos of unfortunate photographers being harrassed by police.

Photography Is Not A Crime

At the end of the site there are a number of links to other sites dealing with the same topic.

With the rise in police "activism" and increasing governmental infringements on rights we had thought to be inviolate, knowledge is indeed powerful.

Be careful out there....

[joe.penn]

Thanks for posting the link, however, some info is misleading:

"I wonder how many crimes were committed in Baltimore during the 35 minutes that 9 officers harassed this deaf tourist from Oregon."

I watched the Baltimore video, and the Transit Police (and Baltimore Police) were 100% absolutely correct in what they were doing, they even CLEARLY spelled out to the individual the procedures he had to follow. State owned property is not public property in any state unless it is so labeled as public property. In the end, the guy did not provide identification, the whole thing would have been resolved in 10 minutes (if that).

As for harrassment, I think the officers handled themselves extremely well, the guy that was taking the photos/video was the one who was causing the issues.

One other thing:

1. Anyone in a public place can take pictures of anything they want. Public places include parks, sidewalks, malls, etc. Malls? Yeah. Even though it’s technically private property, being open to the public makes it public space.

That statement is wrong - being open to the public DOES NOT make it public space, at least here in the states...



---

[philbaum]

Thanks for posting the link, however, some info is misleading:

As for harrassment, I think the officers handled themselves extremely well, the guy that was taking the photos/video was the one who was causing the issues.


---

Joe,
I'm not convinced. The Bill of Rights gives Americans assurance agaiinst unreasonable search and seizure. The Oregon resident requested a coupla times to know what law or statue he was being detained under. They were unable to respond to that question. It was pretty clear he was being detained/arrested because of his picture taking. The American Civil Liberties Union took his case for follow-up, something they wouldn not have done if it was groundless.

[joe.penn]

I'm not convinced. The Bill of Rights gives Americans assurance agaiinst unreasonable search and seizure.

Unfortunately, it was not unreasonable. He was told when he was first approached that he was in violation and the officer requested his identification - right there he should have (1) Provided his identification; or (2) Told them he did not have identification if he did not.

The Oregon resident requested a coupla times to know what law or statue he was being detained under

I heard 2 or 3 times within the conversation that he was being interviewed under the "Patriot Act Clause" (not exactly those words, but the patriot act was mentioned those times), so indeed they did tell him a couple of times, not only that, he was also informed almost immediately from the start of it.

As harsh and cold as this may sound, I think the officers were too light on him. He certainly insisted on not showing them any identification, and at the same time he is photographing or video'ing a sensitive transportation system in a city with one of the largest cross-ways of data communication infrastructures in the world (which puts that city in the upper tier of terrorists targets). Ya, lets all disrespect the police and not abide by what really is just common sense...




---

[MRRiley]

I watched the Baltimore video, and the Transit Police (and Baltimore Police) were 100% absolutely correct in what they were doing, they even CLEARLY spelled out to the individual the procedures he had to follow. State owned property is not public property in any state unless it is so labeled as public property. In the end, the guy did not provide identification, the whole thing would have been resolved in 10 minutes (if that).

What are you talking about??? The photographer was 100% within his rights to shoot video of the trains. The statement made by one officer that you have to have their (in his words "the governing authority's") permission to shoot on state property is factually and legally FALSE. Public property is PUBLIC PROPERTY and the only activity the police can interfere with are ILLEGAL ones. Photography is NOT ILLEGAL!

Furthermore, public property does not have to be marked "public property" to make it public. Where did you ever get that idea?

I see you blame the videographer for his delay... Why? The whole thing would never would have happened AT ALL if the police had not tried to interfere with a legal activity. Then there would have been NO DELAY!

And frankly, the only time you legally have to provide identification to a police officer (other than a traffic stop when you are a driver and must prove that you have a valid driver's license) is when you have been arrested for committing an actual CRIME. 24 states have a "stop and identify" statute.. MD is not one of them... And there is no Federal "stop and identify" statute... not even as part of the "Patriot Act."

As for harrassment, I think the officers handled themselves extremely well, the guy that was taking the photos/video was the one who was causing the issues.

There would have been no issue at all if, rather than making up non-existent laws, the officers had explained to whoever got scared by "the man with the scary camera" that "photography (videography) is NOT A CRIME!"

The real CRIME here is that these police have't got a clue about the LAW. This is from MTA Maryland's own "Photo Policy" website... (my highlighting in red)

Filming and Photography on MTA
We allow filming and photography on most MTA property that is open to the public, including local bus, light rail, Metro Subway, Commuter Bus and MARC. However, some activities require prior notice, a permit and insurance.

I NEED A PERMIT?
No permit required: A permit is not required for non-commercial, personal-use filming or photography by the general public that does not interfere with transit operations or safety. Permit required: If you wish to film or photograph on MTA property or vehicles while engaged in a commercial, educational or non-profit activity, a signed permit and acceptable insurance certificates are required. Submit your permit application (see below) at least 14 business days prior to your proposed first shoot. Fees may be required. News media: We ask that you provide MTA’s Office of Media Relations advance notice before filming. Media personnel are allowed to ride for free, but may not interfere with the safe operation of the vehicle or board a vehicle at capacity. You must contact us to arrange an interview with an operator. See contact information below.

The videographer on the footage stated several times that he was shooting only for personal use... thus NO PERMIT or APPROVAL is REQUIRED!!!

So what about the safety angle? Well the videographer was, at the time he was approached" behind the yellow line on the platform and was in a public area of the platform. He also did not appear to be impeding other passengers in any way. Funny that the police officers ignored the woman who blatantly and illegally crossed the tracks about halfway thru the first video.

Face it... some worry wart complained about the "scary man with the camera"... And when the videographer refused to meekly comply the went all "contempt of cop" on him...

One of the other claims the cops made in the video was that it was illegal to tape people in MD, even on public, without their consent, especially police.

While this is true where there is a valid "expectation of privacy" this concept was ruled invalid by a MD court last year after a motorcyclist was charged with "illegal wiretapiing." Anthony Graber won his court battle over this and the judge made an interesting comment.

One of the key legal questions facing Judge Emory A. Pitt Jr., was whether police performing their duties have an expectation of privacy. Pitt ruled that police have no expectation of privacy in their public, on-the-job communications.
Pitt wrote: "Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public. When we exercise that power in public fora, we should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation. 'Sed quis custodiet ipsos cutodes' ("Who watches the watchmen?”)."

(see https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-photography/109418-news-man-faces...ng-police.html for information on this case)

Evidently even almost a year later, the police in MD still have not begun following this ruling.

One other thing:

1. Anyone in a public place can take pictures of anything they want. Public places include parks, sidewalks, malls, etc. Malls? Yeah. Even though it’s technically private property, being open to the public makes it public space.

That statement is wrong - being open to the public DOES NOT make it public space, at least here in the states...

You are right here... Even when "private property" is made generally open and available for the public's use it is still private property and the owners can control (most) activities on it at their whim. The cannot however have you arrested for performing otherwise legal activities like photography. What they can do is as k you to leave and if you refuse, have you arrested... not for photography... but for trespassing.

Unfortunately, it was not unreasonable. He was told when he was first approached that he was in violation and the officer requested his identification - right there he should have (1) Provided his identification; or (2) Told them he did not have identification if he did not.

I heard 2 or 3 times within the conversation that he was being interviewed under the "Patriot Act Clause" (not exactly those words, but the patriot act was mentioned those times), so indeed they did tell him a couple of times, not only that, he was also informed almost immediately from the start of it.

The "Patriot Act" is brought out by the police all the time these days to scare the public into compliance. To put it bluntly though, there is nothing in the "Patriot Act" which makes photography by law abiding citizens a crime. It also does not make photography of mass transit operations or facilities a crime.

I hope he and the ACLU skin these ignorant cops alive!

MTA warned: Let photographers shoot - Baltimore Sun

Mike

[joe.penn]

For The Record - I Am Not A Public Official or Any Other Official Affiliated With Public Service

I see you blame the videographer for his delay... Why? The whole thing would never would have happened AT ALL if the police had not tried to interfere with a legal activity. Then there would have been NO DELAY!

And frankly, the only time you should have to provide identification to a police officer is when you have been arrested for committing an actual CRIME.

Well, yes, I do blame him, and here is why - actually Mike, you posted why he is to blame:

Filming and Photography on MTA
We allow filming and photography on most MTA property that is open to the public, including local bus, light rail, Metro Subway, Commuter Bus and MARC. However, some activities require prior notice, a permit and insurance.

My highlighting in red - they explicitly informed him of that early on in the interview, and it was pretty clear.

And frankly, the only time you should have to provide identification to a police officer is when you have been arrested for committing an actual CRIME.

Yes, that is why the next time I get pulled over for driving around the State Bldg in DC for too long I will not show them my ID until I am arrested (true story, stopped twice, once at the state department and once at the labor department for driving around the bldg's too many times).

To put it bluntly though, there is nothing in the "Patriot Act" which makes photography by law abiding citizens a crime.

Yes, and you are correct. Only if he would have shown his identification when requested he could have been verified as a "law abiding citizen" and thus would not have been held up that long. I show my ID quite often, mostly at the bank, but also when I check in at some state or federal bldgs, and I certainly do not refuse to show my ID to police officers when they are serving to protect our a**es all the while endangering their's. I guess his reason for not presenting ID is the fear of identity theft ...



---

[Bill_R]

That statement is wrong - being open to the public DOES NOT make it public space, at least here in the states...



---

Same situation in Australia.
4020 Φ NSW Photographer's Rights
"Every time you enter private land, you do so with the common law understanding that you consent to any requirements the property's owner may impose upon you. So if a property's owner (or their agent) tells you to cease taking photographs, for whatever reason, then there is nothing you can do about it. Even if an area is freely accessible to the public, a property's owner has full power of veto over what happens on their land. Reattach that lens-cap and put the camera away."

and

"They may be areas freely open to the public and justifiably regarded as the village square or commons of our time, but they are all private land, and so come under the control and regulation of their owners. Which means they can prohibit almost anything they like (including photography) on their land and there is nothing you can do about it. Their turf, their rules."

[joe.penn]

I am not taking sides, my whole point is common sense. The one officer in the video even said "Sir, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill" - and yes he was, especially when the other officer says "show us your id and you can go on about your way" <- (maybe not exactly like that as I will not watch the video again, but he did say something to that extent).

Now it just boils down to common sense! Not saying the guy is a dumb *s* or anything, but come on, IMHO, I think it was totally ridiculous for the guy to constantly refuse to provide his identification.

It's instances like this that make it bad for all of us, that's all it takes is for one to claim harassment and other crap for institutions and such to memo out changes in policies - policies that DO NOT have to be law that can and will affect other photographers in the future, eventually barring photography in places and we will have no say over it whatsoever...




---

[MRRiley]

I see you blame the videographer for his delay... Why? The whole thing would never would have happened AT ALL if the police had not tried to interfere with a legal activity. Then there would have been NO DELAY!

And frankly, the only time you should have to provide identification to a police officer is when you have been arrested for committing an actual CRIME.

Well, yes, I do blame him, and here is why - actually Mike, you posted why he is to blame:

Filming and Photography on MTA
We allow filming and photography on most MTA property that is open to the public, including local bus, light rail, Metro Subway, Commuter Bus and MARC. However, some activities require prior notice, a permit and insurance.

My highlighting in red - they explicitly informed him of that early on in the interview, and it was pretty clear.

Somehow I knew you would cherry-pick that phrase. However you ignored the conditional phrases of the policy that explain when permission/permits are needed. The MTA's own policy quite plainly says permits are required (which to me means no prior authorization) only when shooting for non-personal reasons.

"No permit required: A permit is not required for non-commercial, personal-use filming or photography by the general public that does not interfere with transit operations or safety.

Permit required: If you wish to film or photograph on MTA property or vehicles while engaged in a commercial, educational or non-profit activity, a signed permit and acceptable insurance certificates are required."

And frankly, the only time you should have to provide identification to a police officer is when you have been arrested for committing an actual CRIME.

Yes, that is why the next time I get pulled over for driving around the State Bldg in DC for too long I will not show them my ID until I am arrested (true story, stopped twice, once at the state department and once at the labor department for driving around the bldg's too many times).

They CAN ask you for ID when you are driving your car, but legally this is to determine if you are a legally licensed driver... I added this caveat to my comments. However, even in DC, driving around in circles is not a crime, even in the federal areas.

To put it bluntly though, there is nothing in the "Patriot Act" which makes photography by law abiding citizens a crime.

Yes, and you are correct. Only if he would have shown his identification when requested he could have been verified as a "law abiding citizen" and thus would not have been held up that long. I show my ID quite often, mostly at the bank, but also when I check in at some state or federal bldgs, and I certainly do not refuse to show my ID to police officers when they are serving to protect our a**es all the while endangering their's. I guess his reason for not presenting ID is the fear of identity theft ...

How does showing his ID verify he is a "law-abiding citizen?" As for you showing your ID willingly... You show it at the bank to verify you are the person who has access to your funds. This is a bank policy, not a LAW. As for getting into buildings and facilities, showing ID is a condition of entry. If you don't show ID you can't go in. Again this is a federal/state "building access" policy, not "necessarily" a LAW. The point is, when you are IN PUBLIC engaged in a legal pursuit, there is NO REASON for the police to ask you for ID and in most states, there is no requirement to provide it unless you are placed under arrest.

Mike

[MRRiley]

I am not taking sides, my whole point is common sense. The one officer in the video even said "Sir, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill" - and yes he was, especially when the other officer says "show us your id and you can go on about your way" <- (maybe not exactly like that as I will not watch the video again, but he did say something to that extent).

Now it just boils down to common sense! Not saying the guy is a dumb *s* or anything, but come on, IMHO, I think it was totally ridiculous for the guy to constantly refuse to provide his identification.

It's instances like this that make it bad for all of us, that's all it takes is for one to claim harassment and other crap for institutions and such to memo out changes in policies - policies that DO NOT have to be law that can and will affect other photographers in the future, eventually barring photography in places and we will have no say over it whatsoever...
---

If he made a "mountain out of a molehill" the police made a "mountain out of a sub-atomic particle." There would have been no scene whatsoever if they had not harrassed him for engaging in a completely legal pursuit!

Again, the videographer had no legal obligation to do more than provide his name, which he willingly did several times. MD law does not require him to show ID despite what the officer's claimed.

As for policies restricting photography (or whatever).. policies are not necessarily LAWS, but if they violate our civil rights they are neither legal or enforcable. Thats why we must resist them whenever possible.

Mike

[mysticcowboy]

I wish the issue boiled down to common sense or first amendment rights, but, practically, it hinges on the opinion of the enforcement officer. If a police officer or port or transit officer doesn't want you shooting photos, then there's going to be a problem. I had a friend who's camera was confiscated and it took him hiring an attorney to get it back. He also spent some time in a police station before he was released.

He didn't break any laws. He was not on private property, but he was photographing a train, which an over-zealous cop took as a national security threat. My friend didn't say as much, but my take was that he got on his high horse and tried to lecture the cop on rights. The guy was handcuffed and taken to the police station.

I'm not saying that we should just walk away, but that a reasoned and calm conversation is called for. This is probably an object lesson in manners and politeness as much as photographer's rights. It might be reasonable to ask the officer to check with a supervisor and find the appropriate law. But, bottom line, if a law enforcement officer tells you to stop shooting photos, you are more likely to get grief than more shots. And if the cop has a wild hair about security, no reasoned argument is going to penetrate the paranoia.

If you feel your rights are being stepped on then take *useful* action, like calling the station and speaking with a higher up, writing an editorial letter to a newspaper, contacting a lawmaker like a city council person or even a state congress person. But getting mouthy to a cop will not further our cause and could result in some real personal unpleasantness.

[joe.penn]

Mike, we agree to disagree, however:

As for policies restricting photography (or whatever).. policies are not necessarily LAWS, but if they violate our civil rights they are neither legal or enforcable. Thats why we must resist them whenever possible.

I do agree that we must resist whenever possible - we must also do it in a manner that is civil and not reckless (maybe reckless isn't the word to use, but you get the point).

The point is, when you are IN PUBLIC engaged in a legal pursuit, there is NO REASON for the police to ask you for ID and in most states, there is no requirement to provide it unless you are placed under arrest.

I think the transit doc part you posted is open for interpretation (not cherry-picking as you noted).

We allow filming and photography on most MTA property that is open to the public, including local bus, light rail, Metro Subway, Commuter Bus and MARC.

Neither I, you, or the person who was so called harassed knows if the particular station he was at was on the "most" list or on the "off limits" list. I think we can pretty much agree on that also. Without knowing this for sure, who are we (really speaking of the guy shooting the video) to just automatically assume the an official at the station is automatically wrong without knowing the facts? It's one thing if the guy thought it out first, did his homework and was for sure correct, but he did not - I mean, there was no "Hey, I am going to shoot a moving railway car in the city of Baltimore during a time of strict security due to recent terrorist's activities so I should do a little homework first before I attempt this" light bulb ding above his head before the travel to do this.

Bert Krages Document (which seems to be the go to document by many photographers)

Here is the quoted test from the first part of the document:

The General Rule
The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statute or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take photographs. Examples of places that are traditionally considered public are streets, sidewalks, and public parks. Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises but have no right to prohibit others from photographing their property from other locations. Whether you need permission from property owners to take photographs while on their premises depends on the circumstances. In most places, you may reasonably assume that taking photographs is allowed and that you do not need explicit permission. However, this is a judgment call and you should
request permission when the circumstances suggest that the owner is likely to object. In any case, when a property owner tells you not to take photographs while on the premises, you are legally obligated to honor the request.

Here is the PDF link to the document -> http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

He was asked to turn the camera off and stop filming a few times, he did not: "when a property owner tells you not to take photographs while on the premises, you are legally obligated to honor the request", and again, he did not (the transit police is the direct voice of the property owner in this case, and he asked the individual to stop filming).

Again Mike, I think we just agree to disagree. With the way the crazy a** world is right now, I appreciate the strict security that is in place to protect my family, friends, and others in our country and around other parts of the world...



---

[Bill_R]

He was asked to turn the camera off and stop filming a few times, he did not: "when a property owner tells you not to take photographs while on the premises, you are legally obligated to honor the request", and again, he did not (the transit police is the direct voice of the property owner in this case, and he asked the individual to stop filming).



---

The defining factor here is whether this was a public or private place. If it was apublic place then he was well within his rights to not turn the camera off.
The US law might vary from where I am (Australia) but certainly seems similar. IN NSW in Australia Railway Stations are considered a public place. In the state of Victoria, however, (at least in Melbourne) even though the stations are publically "owned" they are under the control of a private organisation and are not classified as a "public place". You can't photograph at Victorian stations unless you get a permit.
My guess is that this station might have been under private control.

[joe.penn]

My guess is that this station might have been under private control

Well, under State Control (or maybe under City control).



---

[magkelly]

Actually the cop may have had a valid reason for asking if he was photographing trains. They're probably keeping tab for Homeland Security. When they killed Bin Laden shortly after there was a story about there being credible threats in his papers towards other methods of transit including trains. He had apparently thought of putting bombs on trains as an alternative to bombing planes. After that there was a step up on security regarding trains and some talk of putting in scanners in like at the airports. Was it right to ask, not really, but then again those threats were credible and honestly I'd rather they did ask under the circumstances than have them not ask and someone not get caught after planning to kill innocent people.

Terrorists don't care that they're eroding our right to take photos and if trains are a legit target now, I'd want them to know if someone was out there photographing them even if it did mean an inconvenience to someone. Sorry, but in this case I'd have to defer to the police. People taking pics of major transit things could be perfectly innocent, but then again they could be someone scoping out train routes and actual physical conditions for a bombing too. That's also why taking pics at airports has gotten harder of late. I'm sure the cops aren't fine with all the extra time it takes to ask all these questions either, or the response they're getting asking, but it's not always just the police being abusive.