More Photographer Harassment Idiocy

[WorkingClassHero]

Amtrak photo contestant arrested by Amtrak police in NYC’s Penn Station. You couldn't make it up.

http://carlosmiller.com/2008/12/27/amtrak-police-arrest-photographer-participating-in-amtrak-photo-contest/

[digirebelva]

Stupidty in todays world gets clearer all the time..:confused::(

[jptsr1]

tough one for me. i see the point that the guy should be able to take pictures in public areas but i also know how hard the job is protecting the public. since its a dude taking pictures for a contest we are saying what the hell were the cops thinking. if it was somone taking photos of where he was going to plant explosives to kill the most people we would be saying where the hell were the cops.

J.

[digirebelva]

tough one for me. i see the point that the guy should be able to take pictures in public areas but i also know how hard the job is protecting the public. since its a dude taking pictures for a contest we are saying what the hell were the cops thinking. if it was somone taking photos of where he was going to plant explosives to kill the most people we would be saying where the hell were the cops.

J.

Yes but the fact that they waited to charge him with trespassing after they locked him up, tells me they realized they were in the wrong and had to figure what to charge him with that could stick....
I realize there is sometimes a fine line that the officers have to walk between security and civil rights, but really, is it so hard to realize they were in the wrong and fix it without being aholes about it....the terrorist angle is the one the authorities seem to be using a lot lately to get what they want (fear works) (kind of like "its for the children")... But he who gives up liberty for security deserves neither...roughly quoted from someone a heck of a lot more well known (and probably a lot smarter to) than myself;)

[jptsr1]

Yes but the fact that they waited to charge him with trespassing after they locked him up, tells me they realized they were in the wrong and had to figure what to charge him with that could stick....
I realize there is sometimes a fine line that the officers have to walk between security and civil rights, but really, is it so hard to realize they were in the wrong and fix it without being aholes about it....the terrorist angle is the one the authorities seem to be using a lot lately to get what they want (fear works) (kind of like "its for the children")... But he who gives up liberty for security deserves neither...roughly quoted from someone a heck of a lot more well known (and probably a lot smarter to) than myself;)

not that I don't think you have a valid point but I'll bet a lot of the folks hurt in the London train bombing would have been happy if the the perpetrators (seen clearly on video lurking around days before the attack) were "harassed" and charged with trespassing. i also think you left important bits of the Ben Franklin quote out. he speaks of "essential liberty" and "temporary safety" and im not sure it applies here. i believe the security some of us are looking for is more than "temporary" and i do not see a guy snapping photos of trains to be an "essential liberty". true liberty we have not, just check some of your local case law for proof of that if you live in the states. I'll settle for whatever i can get of it and a bit of security as well. i do not believe what i deserve is in question. what i want is both liberty and security. its not like the guy was snapping photos of the 5 train at 180th street. its Penn station, Id be surprised if they didnt stop him. locking him up and charging him with trespassing may have been a bit extreme but he will undoubtedly have his day in court so we will see i guess.

J.

[Deckham]

I can't wait till some security firm gets their effin pants sued off them for this stuff.

I have no problem with the questioning, with the dog-sniffing, with the photo-viewing. Everything after that deserves an example made, and the sooner the better.

[digirebelva]

not that I don't think you have a valid point but I'll bet a lot of the folks hurt in the London train bombing would have been happy if the the perpetrators (seen clearly on video lurking around days before the attack) were "harassed" and charged with trespassing. i also think you left important bits of the Ben Franklin quote out. he speaks of "essential liberty" and "temporary safety" and im not sure it applies here. i believe the security some of us are looking for is more than "temporary" and i do not see a guy snapping photos of trains to be an "essential liberty". true liberty we have not, just check some of your local case law for proof of that if you live in the states. I'll settle for whatever i can get of it and a bit of security as well. i do not believe what i deserve is in question. what i want is both liberty and security. its not like the guy was snapping photos of the 5 train at 180th street. its Penn station, Id be surprised if they didnt stop him. locking him up and charging him with trespassing may have been a bit extreme but he will undoubtedly have his day in court so we will see i guess.

J.

As I stated it was "roughly" quoted..;)..I guess my point is, by our own security people acting the way they do (not all the time mind you), even in the face of someone exercising their rights as allowed by the law (due diligence accepted) , the terriorst have already won..they use the continued fear of another attack to erode our liberties which they despise..and like sheep, too many people are simply willing to allow it without a further thougt to gain what they hope is security..The only way you are going to completely eliminate the threat is to become a poilce state like the old USSR was (papers please) where state security is paramount.... Liberties lost are hardly if ever regained..When fear rules, common sense is pushed aside:(

[jptsr1]

As I stated it was "roughly" quoted..;)..I guess my point is, by our own security people acting the way they do (not all the time mind you), even in the face of someone exercising their rights as allowed by the law (due diligence accepted) , the terriorst have already won..they use the continued fear of another attack to erode our liberties which they despise..and like sheep, too many people are simply willing to allow it without a further thougt to gain what they hope is security..The only way you are going to completely eliminate the threat is to become a poilce state like the old USSR was (papers please) where state security is paramount.... Liberties lost are hardly if ever regained..When fear rules, common sense is pushed aside:(

im no historian so i wasn't knocking your use of the quote, only pointing out that you left out some very important/pertinent parts. i don't disagree with you completely but i would submit that if the terrorist win in either scenario (1. they get to plant a bomb in the station or 2. they have us running so scared that they will plant a bomb so we do irrational things) then i choose the one without the actual bomb. the guy got locked in a holding cell in Penn station for 90min and some folks are acting as if he was water-boarded. I've been detained on the shoulder of I-95 longer than that in a random drug search. just recently i was stopped and questioned for taking pictures of the Golden Gate bridge from a public park. i feel like every time i fly im picked for the additional search. but i still believe there is a difference between minor inconvenience in the face of a real threat and being stripped of liberty. there's a lot of real-estate between a paranoid US and the old USSR.

[digirebelva]

Were in the same church..in the same pew just at different ends :D

[andrew748]

Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /2008/12/27/amtrak-police-arrest-photographer-participating-in-amtrak-photo-contest/ on this server.

Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

link's not working for me :(

[jptsr1]

Were in the same church..in the same pew just at different ends :D

Yep.

[Bill Roberts]

Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /2008/12/27/amtrak-police-arrest-photographer-participating-in-amtrak-photo-contest/ on this server.

Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

link's not working for me :(

That's what I got too, but a search on google for "amtrak-police-arrest-photographer-participating-in-amtrak-photo-contest" soon turned up the info

[jptsr1]

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?action=printpage;topic=77084.0

[andrew748]

That's what I got too, but a search on google for "amtrak-police-arrest-photographer-participating-in-amtrak-photo-contest" soon turned up the info


Thank you Sir.

a tremendous own goal for amtrack :rolleyes:

[DennisW1]

tough one for me. i see the point that the guy should be able to take pictures in public areas but i also know how hard the job is protecting the public. since its a dude taking pictures for a contest we are saying what the hell were the cops thinking. if it was somone taking photos of where he was going to plant explosives to kill the most people we would be saying where the hell were the cops.

J.

Yes but do you really believe that a terrorist or someone scouting the area to plant explosives would be standing there in plain obvious sight with a crapload of serious camera gear (asuming that the arrested person was indeed using something more serious than a pocket P&S).?
Any such recon photos that terrorists might want or need most likely have already been taken, inconspicuously, with said P&S cameras by someone who looks like just another daily commuter.
They don't need contest winning quality and pixel-peeping sharpness, just recon photos that could be snapped in an instant by anyone walking from a train in a crowd of commuters.
Harassing the guy standing there with his gear, in plain sight, already a bit of a spectacle, is ridiculous. No terrorist or person meaning harm would do anything so blatantly obvious to attract such attention to themselves just to get recon photos.
But it makes a nice feel-good statement that our "homeland security" forces are doing their job. I don't know about you but such stupidity hardly makes me feel any safer.

[capt_tast]

And if he had been AL Qeida or somebody else using some kind of photography contest as a ploy to get intelligence (after all, it's not like they are wearing big orange traffic vests that say Terrorist) we'd all be singing a different tune. I understand the ire, but
A. It's NY.
B. Ask the Brits if they care that the police are jacking up train photographers.
C. Generally cops respond only when called. The days when there were enough on the streets to be proactive have long passed. I would suspect that about a hundred people called and reported this guy and they felt they had to do something.

[andrew748]

And if he had been AL Qeida or somebody else using some kind of photography contest as a ploy to get intelligence (after all, it's not like they are wearing big orange traffic vests that say Terrorist) we'd all be singing a different tune. I understand the ire, but
A. It's NY.
B. Ask the Brits if they care that the police are jacking up train photographers.
C. Generally cops respond only when called. The days when there were enough on the streets to be proactive have long passed. I would suspect that about a hundred people called and reported this guy and they felt they had to do something.

?

er....... ?

did they move " New York City’s Penn Station"

beside in the UK, we just shoot suspicious characters using the rail network, much quicker than faffing about with handcuffs etc :p

[andrew748]

besides this thread is more about the humongous cock up in communication between the Amtrack publicity dept and the Amtrack police dept.

it has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism or did i not read the article properly?

[gjl711]

It's time photographers get militant and organized much like the NRA has done else we will soon find ourselves shooting nothing but flowers. There are those that would like to take away our right to take pictures and they are using the boogie man of public safety to do so.

[jptsr1]

Yes but do you really believe that a terrorist or someone scouting the area to plant explosives would be standing there in plain obvious sight.....

call me crazy but isnt that exactally what happend in London?

J.

[andrew748]

call me crazy but isnt that exactally what happend in London?

J.

do they need to recon these days with google maps etc?

[jptsr1]

besides this thread is more about the humongous cock up in communication between the Amtrack publicity dept and the Amtrack police dept.

it has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism or did i not read the article properly?

i think the assumption was made that the guy was being harassed for reasons of "security". if that's the case i don't think the assumed jump to where this thread has gone is out of order. Amtrack obviously has a bunch of idiots in the front office. if that was the point of the thread them my apologies for contributing to its getting off track. no pun intended.

J.

[jptsr1]

do they need to recon these days with google maps etc?

google maps dosent show underground tunnels and i doubt it will show you where struts are anchored or the location of security cameras. to your point though i have no idea what terrorist need. for all i know they can download the station plans on line.

J.

[gjl711]

The whole argument about cameras being used for reconnoitering is totally bogus. If reconnaissance is what you are trying to stop then all cameras, SLR's , compacts, phone, PDA, etc need to be confiscated. In addition all pencil and paper need to be confiscated as well. A pencil is very capable of rendering an image. While were at it, just looking around with ones eyes is a great way to gather information. Maybe we should require all passengers to ride blindfolded.

The fact is that there is no magic and if someone has ill will in their hearts, it's going to happen. Those in power have singled out photographers to go after to let all the other sheep in the heard feel safer. It's an illusion and we are the ones being sacrificed.

[andrew748]

i think the assumption was made that the guy was being harassed for reasons of "security". if that's the case i don't think the assumed jump to where this thread has gone is out of order. Amtrack obviously has a bunch of idiots in the front office. if that was the point of the thread them my apologies for contributing to its getting off track. no pun intended.

J.

:) no harm no foul mate :)

Then he casually walked towards the staircase to make his own way into the city. He stopped before the stairwell to tie his shoe.

When he stood back up, the cops were hovering over him. Two cops and a dog. A black lab with a nose for explosives.

“They asked what I was doing, I said I was taking photos,” he said.

“They said put your bag on the ground and let our dog sniff it.”

He complied and the dog confirmed he was carrying no explosives in his photo bag. Then they asked for his ID. Then to see the photos.

And then they ordered him to delete the photos.

“I said ‘absolutely not’,” said the 50-year-old navy veteran who describes himself as a “conservative republican”.

They told him it was illegal to photograph the trains.

“I asked where is the sign that says that,” he said.

sounds like bored cops with tiny manhoods to me

cops like this need to be sacked for the damage they do but also further reading of this article brought up this little gem LMAO

Furthermore, this same issue arose in Washington DC’s Union Station where a TV news crew ended up interviewing a top dog from Amtrak to determine what is the actual policy on photography in train stations. The Amtrak official said that photography is allowed. Meanwhile, a security guard tried to shut the cameraman down.

awesomely stupid but very funny :oops::cool:

i am easily pleased :o:o

[Deckham]

Type 'Penn Station' in Google, then click
'Images'.

Man it's tough being a terrorist...

[Mark_Cohran]

Gentlemen, in previous incarnations, topics such as this thread have devolved into extreme speculation and then into politics which usually result in the thread being closed immediately. The speculation has started, so let's not let it get into politics.

There are certainly nuances to this situation that aren't immediately evident to all of us here, and we get but one side of the story and can only make assumptions about the rest (Were there complaints about the photographer? What orders or policies were the security guards operating under? etc.)

Some see the restriction of photography as a necessary evil to protect the general public. Others see it as an erosion of liberty and the beginning of a police state. I'm sure many see it as something entirely different, but whatever your views reasonable discourse on the subject should be confined to the topic at hand at not to the associated politics - for instance, how should we as photographers handle ourselves in such situations.

[DuaneKerzic]

HI,

I'm here and will answer some questions. I can say it really is a difficult time when you are bullied for doing nothing wrong.

I'm really busy till Wednesday.

Have a wonderful New Year.

duane

[andrew748]

HI,

I'm here and will answer some questions. I can say it really is a difficult time when you are bullied for doing nothing wrong.

I'm really busy till Wednesday.

Have a wonderful New Year.

duane

Hi Duane

Welcome to POTN

how accurate is the article that was linked?

[gjl711]

Welcome to the forum Duane. It would be very interesting to hear your side of the story. I look forward to your account.

[andrew748]

oh and have a great new year yourself Duane

btw
Have you had a response from Amtrack?

do you have access to the CCTV (this could prove that you weren't trespassing) ?

How's your wrist ?

what do you think of the lensbaby?

[capt_tast]

I am to be a Police Chief by trade, photographer by hobby.
My point was that, just as photographers are misunderstood, so is law enforcement.
The station probably received numerous calls on this gentlemen, especially since he had a bag. I don't pretend that the general public is rational or realistic only that they are paranoid and reactive.
Judging by the dozens of "Unknown white substance" calls I took part in after September 11, I still believe that the general public is certainly in a heightened enough state of security that they, probably many, felt compelled as good citizens to call in this gentleman. I am certain that he was not doing anything wrong, I merely suspect that the officers felt compelled to do something.
I am not making excuses, merely illustrating the other side of the argument. I am not negating the possibility that the police acted inappropriately and/or incorrectly. In my 20 years of LE, I've seen that as well.

[DuaneKerzic]

How can you help. Write to your President, members of his cabinet, Senators, Congressmen, Governors, Mayors, and anyone that you voted for about this or how you have been personally effected because of incidents like this. That's what I did, I sent letters to Joseph Boardman the CEO of Amtrak and copied everyone I could think of that could have any type of interest as an elected official. It doesn't take long to write a letter, they actually make a huge difference. Things I've written about in the past have been changed for the better. Most politicians have email addresses posted online or a webform to send message on their websites. Use them. Send copies to the people I've listed below. Letters are more efffective then 100 people showing up in Pennsylvania Station with cameras. I will try to write some sample letters and post them to make it eaiser. You can also print out my letters to Mr. Boardman and just put a short note saying I want to be sure you are aware of this and send it off. You can email links to my page here to your representitives. You can email links to my page to Amtrak Media Relations National and NY. Very easy to do. Thanks for your help.

[Deckham]

I am to be a Police Chief by trade, photographer by hobby.
My point was that, just as photographers are misunderstood, so is law enforcement.
The station probably received numerous calls on this gentlemen, especially since he had a bag. I don't pretend that the general public is rational or realistic only that they are paranoid and reactive.
Judging by the dozens of "Unknown white substance" calls I took part in after September 11, I still believe that the general public is certainly in a heightened enough state of security that they, probably many, felt compelled as good citizens to call in this gentleman. I am certain that he was not doing anything wrong, I merely suspect that the officers felt compelled to do something.
I am not making excuses, merely illustrating the other side of the argument. I am not negating the possibility that the police acted inappropriately and/or incorrectly. In my 20 years of LE, I've seen that as well.


It's great to have a professional as part of the discussions.
Would you help me understand something please?

After discovering that there were no weapons or explosives involved, and having looked at a bunch of artistic photos on the camera, as well as listening to the explanation, why was the matter not dealt with as a 'sorry for disturbing you, Sir, have a good day', instead of an arrest (with handcuffs) and a 90 minute detention?

[DuaneKerzic]

I am to be a Police Chief by trade, photographer by hobby.
My point was that, just as photographers are misunderstood, so is law enforcement.
The station probably received numerous calls on this gentlemen, especially since he had a bag. I don't pretend that the general public is rational or realistic only that they are paranoid and reactive.
Judging by the dozens of "Unknown white substance" calls I took part in after September 11, I still believe that the general public is certainly in a heightened enough state of security that they, probably many, felt compelled as good citizens to call in this gentleman. I am certain that he was not doing anything wrong, I merely suspect that the officers felt compelled to do something.
I am not making excuses, merely illustrating the other side of the argument. I am not negating the possibility that the police acted inappropriately and/or incorrectly. In my 20 years of LE, I've seen that as well.

Dear Chief:

I want to start by saying that I've talked to many police officers over the years because I tend to drive too fast. I've also known many officers very well, from scuba diving, other hobbies and relatives. I fully understand how difficult the job of being a police officer is. I've also personally had jobs in areas where decisions had to be made and acted on before all the facts are known so I can totally sympathize with officers caught in the damned if you do damned if you don't situations they have to find themselves in many times a day.

I knew I was being surveilled with cameras the entire time I was on the platform, I even waved hello at one as I walked by. I figured there was a good chance I'd meet a police officer before I left the platform. This isn't to imply that I was looking for a confrontation or wanted one. Just that the law of averages would suggest that there was a good chance it would happen since I was a minute or two behind the person before me off the platform and I walked in the wrong direction when I got off the train.

I had no problem with being stopped. No problem with being asked what I was doing. No problem with being asked for ID. No problem with being sniffed by the dog. I expected to have to allow that and that would be that. Investigation over, duly memorialized in the log book be on your way. I also think that if we are taking photos in public places as much as we might not want to we might have to tolerate this intrusion in to our privacy.

For them to say to me, the platform is now closed to the public you have to leave would have been expected and complied with in light of that stop.

When I had problems is when they said, you're not allowed to take pictures here. Lets see those pictures in your camera. Delete those pictures. That's when I had problems.

I voluntarily showed them the photos, knowing I didn't have to. I wanted them, I'm saying them but at this point only Officer Rusbarsky was talking and Officer Smith had a look on his face like he was going to get sick, to leave me alone and see how bad the photos were. The photos were after all taken with a Lensbaby so lots would consider them bad photos. However even tho I refused to to delete the photos I was still trying to be very polite. My time as a Naval Officer has taught me some colorful language to use when you are refusing something and I didn't use that language as much as I wanted to.

This is when things started getting bad. It's when I started getting upset. It's when I was physically hurt. This is when I was pissed off enough to do what I've done on the web about this. I can tolerate lots but I can't tolerate being bullied and abused.

I have to applaud you on having an open mind about this. Not jumping to the defense or the condemnation of anyone. We certainly need more Police Officers and Chiefs like you with an open mind and willing to listen. Police Officers in my mind anyway are supposed to observe the facts, write them down, treat people as they would like to be treated as allowed by the circumstances. You seem to be doing that. I will do my best to have the other side of the story presented when it's available for presentation.

I do want to say that I have done my personal best to be objective. When you are the person that has been or feels wronged this is not always possible. Again I have done my best. I've also done my best to make it possible to separate what is my opinion from what actually happened.

I hope I get a chance to personally visit the community where you are chief and have a chance to say hello.

***********
I got asked a few other things that I want to tag on the end.

Carlos interviewed me at least 2 times for his story, I read the story and corrected what I felt where two small things that didn't actually fit the facts.

As I've stated I've written exactly as best I can what all the facts are. When video becomes available, if I'm allowed, I'll post it.

As time goes on I'll post more. This is probably going to take years before it's over. These things tend to drag on.

Thanks for reading.

[MDJAK]

. how should we as photographers handle ourselves in such situations.

Mark, I agree completely agree with your assessment. I will comment exactly as you request.

How does one handle a situation like this? I think it's common sense. By cooperating with law enforcement and doing as requested. I know I'd do whatever it takes to not get myself arrested. Lack of cooperation can only lead down a path I know I don't want to tread on.

If I were a professional photojournalist doing this for a living, that may be a different story. But as an amateur, if I'm given an order by the police, I'm going to follow it whether I may like it or not.

me

[DennisW1]

Gentlemen, in previous incarnations, topics such as this thread have devolved into extreme speculation and then into politics which usually result in the thread being closed immediately. The speculation has started, so let's not let it get into politics.

There are certainly nuances to this situation that aren't immediately evident to all of us here, and we get but one side of the story and can only make assumptions about the rest (Were there complaints about the photographer? What orders or policies were the security guards operating under? etc.)

Some see the restriction of photography as a necessary evil to protect the general public. Others see it as an erosion of liberty and the beginning of a police state. I'm sure many see it as something entirely different, but whatever your views reasonable discourse on the subject should be confined to the topic at hand at not to the associated politics - for instance, how should we as photographers handle ourselves in such situations.


So, exactly how would you "handle yourself" as you were being handcuffed and detained/or arrested for doing what you believed to be perfectly legal in a public place? That's not a political question or observation, just a question about what can be a very real and frightening situation.

[FlyingPhotog]

So, exactly how would you "handle yourself" as you were being handcuffed and detained/or arrested for doing what you believed to be perfectly legal in a public place? That's not a political question or observation, just a question about what can be a very real and frightening situation.

You do realize that Duane K is THE person involved in this matter?

When the "horses mouth" is sitting right in the room, it sort of renders further speculation moot... ;)

[DennisW1]

I am to be a Police Chief by trade, photographer by hobby.
My point was that, just as photographers are misunderstood, so is law enforcement.
The station probably received numerous calls on this gentlemen, especially since he had a bag. I don't pretend that the general public is rational or realistic only that they are paranoid and reactive.
Judging by the dozens of "Unknown white substance" calls I took part in after September 11, I still believe that the general public is certainly in a heightened enough state of security that they, probably many, felt compelled as good citizens to call in this gentleman. I am certain that he was not doing anything wrong, I merely suspect that the officers felt compelled to do something.
I am not making excuses, merely illustrating the other side of the argument. I am not negating the possibility that the police acted inappropriately and/or incorrectly. In my 20 years of LE, I've seen that as well.

I know many police officers, and have nothing but the utmost respect for the job they are asked to do.
Sorry to report, but there are some who do act inappropriately, and when that happens, the person on the other side of the situation is in most cases helpless to come out ahead. You're confronted by a person who is in power, with a badge, handcuffs, and most likely a nightstick and/or a firearm. If they're irrational enough to escalate a situation that doesn't require it, then you have to consider the possibility that they are irrational enough to use more force than would be either necessary or appropriate in order to sustain their "control" of the situation.
Yep, you can take them to court, write your Mayor, Congressman, Senator, Alderman, Police Chief, or anyone else you choose, but the reality of it is you're still forced to endure an embarassing and possibly painful and injurious situation just because someone in a position of power decided to flex their muscles a bit.

[DennisW1]

You do realize that Duane K is THE person involved in this matter?

When the "horses mouth" is sitting right in the room, it sort of renders further speculation moot... ;)


Yep, and his having lived thru it I'm very interested in knowing what he thinks others who might be put in the same position should do.
From reading his account of the event, I feel his his actions were as respectful of the authority he was confronted with as he could possibly have been.
Still, he was subjected to what we all believe was a horrible abuse of that power and authority. I don't know if I would have acted as graciously in his place, but then again I've always had a bit of a problem with authority, especially when I believe it's being abused.
I live in a major city also, and as such find myself always looking over my shoulder just a bit when I'm out in public places with my cameras, I would not like to be in a similar situation.

[Mark_Cohran]

So, exactly how would you "handle yourself" as you were being handcuffed and detained/or arrested for doing what you believed to be perfectly legal in a public place? That's not a political question or observation, just a question about what can be a very real and frightening situation.

I believe you misunderstood my post. How to handle yourself in such a situation is a perfectly acceptable topic for discussion. Speculation about who did what and why doesn't add much to the discussion and tends to drive the conversation toward political observations -and that's simply not acceptable here.

[FlyingPhotog]

Yep, and his having lived thru it I'm very interested in knowing what he thinks others who might be put in the same position should do.
From reading his account of the event, I feel his his actions were as respectful of the authority he was confronted with as he could possibly have been.
Still, he was subjected to what we all believe was a horrible abuse of that power and authority. I don't know if I would have acted as graciously in his place, but then again I've always had a bit of a problem with authority, especially when I believe it's being abused.
I live in a major city also, and as such find myself always looking over my shoulder just a bit when I'm out in public places with my cameras, I would not like to be in a similar situation.

I'm in total agreement with you except for one key thing (and maybe our PD Cheif can chime in on this aspect):

I think you have to give some latitude to the NYPD and Port Authority simply because they experienced 9/11 first hand, lost friends and co-workers that day and I'm sure there is a very strong "Not On My Watch" mindset.

I feel bad for Duane but it's easier for the authorities to apologize for doing the right thing at the wrong time than it is to explain doing the wrong thing at the right time.

For better or worse, the US will never again be the way it was on September 10, 2001.

[capt_tast]

I have to applaud you on having an open mind about this. Not jumping to the defense or the condemnation of anyone. We certainly need more Police Officers and Chiefs like you with an open mind and willing to listen. Police Officers in my mind anyway are supposed to observe the facts, write them down, treat people as they would like to be treated as allowed by the circumstances. You seem to be doing that. I will do my best to have the other side of the story presented when it's available for presentation.


Duane, I don't pretend that my chosen career field is perfect. It is a very difficult career to keep. The stress involved is gargantuan. Sometimes people make mistakes, intentionally or unintentionally.
I don't say that to offer excuses or justify anyones actions. There are policies in place and Police Officers are expected to enforce the law and policy and conform to both.
If you are in the right, I hope and pray that you are vindicted and made whole and the police officers get the training or discipline they need or deserve.

[PhotoJourno]

It was really interesting to read the article and subsequently this entire thread.

I will quote -once more- the wise words of Lt. Able, "Don't make excuses for bad cops".

Point is, while there are a few obvious things clearly prohibited in a certain environment (running from train car to another in the nude, spitting at people and uttering profanities at the same time, pushing people off the platform as trains approach, taking someone elses belongings and making a run for it), the non-prohibited list of activities is quite long, and not nearly as well known.

Precedent of terrorist attacks and other related events, do tend to tighten that list of non-prohibited activities.

Regardless, the situation at this point seems fairly clear -given the info provided- that the photographer was arrested in public property, while allegedly photographing transit situations.

It's been said here before, and it should be said again. Law Enforcement Agencies should be better informed and participate of the appropriate training in order to understand the reaches and boundaries of Photography in public property.

This sort of situation has happened not only to amateur photographers, but also to credentialed Press photographers as well.

Only thing I can think of to have prepared myself better -where I to live this experience- would be to carry a printed copy of the contest rules in my pocket, right by my ID. But hindsight is always 20/20.

Sometimes you can do nothing to anticipate or avoid the negligence or ignorance of others.

whatever happens, continuing to take legal photos is key in order to let the LEOs adjust and eventually become more aware of the Do's and Dont's.

Seen some adamant photographers pull some pretty stupid crap in front of the law, while trying to defend their alleged rights (but really just trespassing, or getting in the way of emergency crews, etc). This one case seemed the entire opposite though.

Dying to see some of the pics of that day.

[ibdb]

Maybe they just didn't like the Lens Baby? ;)

OK -- poor attempt at humor in a very serious topic. For those interested, Duane has posted the shots that led to his arrest, as well as others documenting the day and its aftermath on his website at: http://photos.duanek.name/Amtrak%20Problems

I've never been in that situation, but I absolutely would not have deleted anything from my memory card in that situation. Those images would serve as a defense against any false charges, in addition to whatever their original purpose might have been. I've seen other stories similar to this where it seems pretty easy to understand how the photographer might have acted to escalate the situation, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. It is possible to stand up for your rights without going out of the way to provoke a response that would lead to a confrontation. I didn't see anything in the images you posted that should have led to what followed.

I wish you the best in pursuing this to a satisfactory resolution.

[DuaneKerzic]

Hi Again,

Lots here to comment on and today I'm hiring a lawyer and have to be up early to travel into the city. He has sued Amtrak in the past about the same set of facts as my case presents. The trespassing charges were dismissed and Amtrak gave the person a nice settlement for false arrest. He wasn't hurt.

1. Lensbaby jokes are ok. I was hoping (counting on) that they would totally upset the officers artistic sense. He's think something like what kind of a jerk would take outta focus photos. This guy doesn't need a jail cell he needs a bed in the mental ward if he thinks that's art. Ok, I'm over doing it a bit. But that's why I showed him the photos, so he'd see they were out of focus. Some people like these images some don't because for an image to be good to them it's got to be taken af f22 so everything is in focus. Others want an image taken at f1.2 so there is a very tiny plane that's in focus. I like shift movements. You never know what you are going to get till you look at it. I would have kept all the images but only posted about 5 of them if I wasn't arrested. Funny thing is one of the ones that I get comments on about being bad, I think is one of the most interesting ones.

2. I don't like to lie. It's also against the law to lie to an officer but not for him to lie to you. So I also hoped that when he figured out I wasn't going to lie to him he'd leave me alone. If I was a "terrorist" I'd comply with his demand so he's leave me alone.

3. I know lots of people like to think cops are dumb and stupid. Sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't. You don't know what you are going to get and in the 2 minutes you have to size the person up, while you can collect lots of information this is something you probably can't totally figure out. I hate to use fictional examples but 'Colombo' is the perfect example. So how do I know if he's smart enough to use the camera or not. I don't. I've played that game with other people to find out if they are lying to me ask them to show me something I know how to do and check the results of. So maybe he knows what buttons to push, maybe he doesn't. If it was the Chief he'd know. I'm screwed because now I'm caught in a lie.

4. I know the photos are my property and I have always defended a photo that I have made as my property. Last time I checked in the USA property can't be taken from you without due process. However the government has done some things to whittle that protection away, like the RICO statues and the Patriot Act. Neither of which apply to photography anyway at least as best as I'm able to figure out even though they are often cited by people that haven't read them as effecting photography and where you can take it. I didn't have a problem with being taken to a judge for a judge to tell me to delete the photos.

5. Officers are going to learn about undelete programs. Every single one of them is going to know about them before long, on the job training. Then this will escalate from deleting photos to give me that memory card. Then to forcefully taking memory cards or just putting you in handcuffs and doing the deletion while you watch or removing the memory card and destroying it. If you resist getting put in handcuffs for them to delete the images you'll get arrested for resisting arrest and go to jail.

Don't think this won't happen. A good friend of mine is a public defender here. He told me a story. He used to get clients all the time charged with drug offences. They'd tell him how the arresting officers lied, how they were set up. He said I used to think it was a story. But now those officers are in prison. They were running a couple of houses of prostitution here in town on the side. They used to go to people that maybe would be involved in low level drug dealing and take a package of drugs, toss it in the air, then arrest the guy for dropping it. They did a bunch of other stuff also.

Again I'm not saying all officers will do this or get this extreme. There won't be many but there will be some. It's happened already.

6. Penn Station NY is owned by Amtrak (national railroad passenger corp). Amtrak is a private corporation. All the preferred stock in Amtrak is owned by the US DOT. There is outstanding common stock that is owned by American Financial Group, BNSF, Canadian Pacific and Canadian National. Today I will buy some stock in each of these companies and become a partial common stock owner of Amtrak. I will then complain to the CEO's of each of these companies about Amtrak using the investor relations pages.

What I'm saying her is that Penn Station is private property. The Chief will understand and perhaps explain a bit more. It's like a store in some ways and like a public venue or sidewalk in others. Amtrak has to allow certain activities a store would not allow because it's stations in some ways function like a sidewalk. It also has an overriding public interest in preventing some activities that could endanger people. Obviously the platforms are open to anyone with a ticket which isn't a very high bar. You can get a permit to have a protest in Amtrak stations but not on platforms. This makes sense, if you had a group of 25 people on a platform someone could get knocked off and on to the tracks. But the public can go on the platforms and see everything, in some places without a ticket and in others a ticket is required. It's been held by lots of courts that you can't prevent photography in limited public venues like this because all the public has to do is go and look and they can see.

So I also hold that trying to prohibit photographing in such a place doesn't do much to enhance security. After all anyone can go look. This is different then the RR tunnels leading into and out of NY. That is without question RR private property.

Like the store the RR also has an interest in keeping he public out of some places and controlling access. Places where you are almost certainly going to get hurt. Like on the tracks.

Then there are other places where perhaps sometimes you are allowed and sometimes you aren't. Let's for the sake of supporting Amtrak's position that they have a right to close the platforms. Just like store owners have a right to close the store. They need to tell you the platform is closing. After all I arrived on the platform with license and privilege to be there, how does one know when such license and privilege ends? This is my complaint about being charged with trespassing, there was no way for me to know my status had changed from having access to not.

Ok that's it for now.

[Tisha]

Similar worrying news article here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/photographers-criminalised-as-police-abuse-antiterror-laws-1228149.html

[jchargu3]

New york is especially bad for this since the september fiascos....


But thats a different story, Good luck in your case!

[ibdb]

1. Lensbaby jokes are ok....
Glad you appreciated it. :lol:

You've laid out a very strong case for doing what you did the way you did, and it all presents itself as the right way to handle a difficult situation. Your comments on any attempt to "falsely delete" the photos are also a good thing for anyone in a similar situation to keep in mind. If you haven't done anything wrong, don't complicate matters by purposefully trying to be deceitful.

Similar worrying news article here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/photographers-criminalised-as-police-abuse-antiterror-laws-1228149.html
That's one of the better write-ups I've seen on the topic lately. Many times the articles tend to be understandably skewed towards the point of view of the photographer, but that one works hard at showing that photographers aren't the only ones who are upset at how the laws have been interpreted and enforced.

[thebishopp]

You got my support Duane. Just saw your interview on the Colbert Report (love that show) and since have found your smugmug and the news story. I hope you do carry this thing through.

Wondering if you received any sort of reply from Amtrak? Obviously if it would affect the outcome of any legal proceeding you shouldn't post it but I was just curious to see if they did reply.