Posted on 02/14/2005 9:28:14 PM PST by LibWhacker
Steve, a freelance photographer, was stopped while taking pictures in a San Francisco MUNI station, told that he was breaking a post-9/11 law against photographing San Francisco's public transit. He challenged the MUNI cops to name the law he was breaking, aware that such a law was unconstitutional, and they -- unsurprisingly -- couldn't identify the law. That is because there is no law. They were lying.
So then they called the real cops, who proceeded to dress Steve down for breaking this nonexistent law -- for being a troublemaker who wanted to exercise his constitutional rights and ply his trade -- and threaten to trump up a trespassing charge and jail him for the weekend if he didn't meekly acquiesce.
Officer Primiano expressed extreme frustration with me as soon as I began speaking of my rights to photograph in public places. She wanted to debate the wisdom of my taking pictures and asserted that in the wake of the Sept 11th attacks on our country, I should be more interested in aiding officials in their efforts to increase security than my rights as a citizen or journalist. Despite my calm statement of my side of the issue, Officer Primiano waved her hands in the air, stated, "This guy is really p______ me off", and walked away, leaving Officer Ryan to talk to me. Luckily he exhibited a more rational, professional demeanor.
However Officer Ryan was of the opinion that I should not be taking photographs. I explained to him that I didn't want to argue the wisdom of my taking photographs, or the efficacy of a ban on photography in the MUNI System should one exist. All I was concerned with was the legality of my actions. If I had in fact committed a crime by taking photographs, I should (and in fact wanted to) be cited under the relevant law so that I could then pursue the matter in the courts and assert my First Amendment rights. Officer Ryan told me in a very straightforward manner that he did not wish to allow me the opportunity to assert my constitutional rights in court.
After walking over to the group of Fare Inspectors and BART Police Officers, Officer Ryan returned to speak to me. He expressed his frustration at the situation and me by saying: "Would it have been so difficult for you to just stop taking photographs when these guys told you to stop? If you weren't on your soapbox, I'd be out fighting real crime rather than standing around here dealing with you." He expounded further, "Even if there is no law forbidding photography in the MUNI System, the Fare Inspectors have the right to refuse you service for any reason they choose, including taking photographs. Once they refuse you service they can swear out a citizens arrest for trespassing. I, or other officers, will book you and you'll spend the rest of your weekend in jail. It won't be for taking photographs, so your weekend would be ruined yet you'd never get a chance to argue the matter of taking photographs before a judge."
We were stopped from taking photographs of our son while at BWI. He was at the ticket counter.
A real police officer rather than a jerk on a power trip would have assertained that this person was semi legit, a tourist, free lance journalist ect and not a threat and dropped the issue. But instead they focus on people openly taking pictures rather than someone clandestinely taking pictures who might be a threat.
And no I am not interested in some police advocate telling me the guy was probably being a jerk. You swear the oath, you take the badge, you serve the public and the public can be jerks sometimes. That is not a crime. That is not an excuse to abuse your authority. If you do so, you should be jailed.
It's a floor wax and a dessert topping!
If you're on public property, I can't see how they can stop you from taking pictures.
Yes, a real incursion on our rights!
[...]
Officer Ryan returned to speak to me. He expressed his frustration at the situation and me by saying: "Would it have been so difficult for you to just stop taking photographs when these guys told you to stop? If you weren't on your soapbox, I'd be out fighting real crime rather than standing around here dealing with you."
At least there was one adult in the crowd.
If there isn't any law against it, he is well within his rights to take photographs. Clearly, the SFPD didn't enforce the "ban," but they would have liked to.
I wonder if they will enforce a ban on photographing San Francisco's most famous public transportation, the cable cars? It would certainly put a dent into tourism if they started arresting visitors taking photos of the cable cars -- or of the Golden Gate bridge.
Stupid laws are no substitute for observation of real suspicious activity.
I'm also a PT system enthusiast in addition to political junkie. There is a petition on www.nycsubway.org to the New York MTA to allow photography for enthusiast hobby use and stop the proposed "no tolerance approach to all photography on NYC transit systems". The link is below:
http://www.nycsubway.org/photoban.html
That's why I personally oppose such bans. I personally believe this does not really help the central task of the police: catching the terrorists.
Yeah, why can't citizens just do what cops tell them to do? It'd make fighting real crime so much easier.
Where's Dirty Harry when you need him?
You mean the person that kept snapping pictures?
If you think people should just do whatever the person in a uniform tells them to do, you have made worthless the sacrifice of every man and woman who ever swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the USA.
Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!
Conundrum!
On one hand we have a cry of heavy handed law enforcement officers.
On the other hand we are screaming for common sense in law enforcement by officers.
So which is it? Law enforcement or discretionary Law enforcement?
In this instance an obviously discretionary approach was taken to no avail inconjunction with a fictional law to enforce.
You would probably get in trouble for taking pictures of a bridge, tunnel, or airline terminal "up close" with a typical digital camera. I'll bet that if you were three-quarters of a mile away with a quality SLR and huge zoom lens, people wouldn't say sh*t about it.
~ Blue Jays ~
Well said.
---"Even if there is no law forbidding photography in the MUNI System, the Fare Inspectors have the right to refuse you service for any reason they choose, including taking photographs. Once they refuse you service they can swear out a citizens arrest for trespassing. I, or other officers, will book you and you'll spend the rest of your weekend in jail. It won't be for taking photographs, so your weekend would be ruined yet you'd never get a chance to argue the matter of taking photographs before a judge."---
To protect and serve, even if you're not breaking the law, we'll make up some phony baloney stuff and arrest you anyway, for not stepin' and fetchin' the way we'd like you to.
Is that a close enough translation? I think anyone that's been young has heard that one at least once.
Absolutely
We are not supposed to give up our rights for then there would be nothing left to fight for.
They win.
On the other hand if the person is obviously ME looking then the cops sould be in their rights to intervene somehow.
Profiling can be our friend.
We are at war however and weren't there similar restrictions during WWII?
The only thing the cop left out was, "You hear, boy?"
This could end up being a hundred year war and I'd sure hate to see everyone, in effect, have to stow their cameras for a hundred years. And I sure don't want to see the ACLU encouraging people to go out there and play lawyer with every cop in sight, either, lol.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.