Taken into custody.

kgoings wrote in post #9325730
So which is it? On foot or in vehicles? Were you

Technically, it could be both. They could have surrounded his vehicle w/ their's in order to prevent him from getting back in his car and leaving. Although, at that particular time, he was walking on the street.

asysin2leads wrote in post #9325755
Technically, it could be both. They could have surrounded his vehicle w/ their's in order to prevent him from getting back in his car and leaving. Although, at that particular time, he was walking on the street.

three security guards on foot flagged me down and surrounded my vehicle with their vehicles

kgoings wrote in post #9325730
So which is it? On foot or in vehicles? Were you "Taken into custody" as you claimed?

Both. people on foot and in vehicle. Now I'm being questioned by you? lol. And the "taken into custody" is ambigious statement. I guess I could have ripped out of there and ran from them.?!

lankforddl wrote in post #9325795
Both. people on foot and in vehicle. Now I'm being questioned by you? lol. And the "taken into custody" is ambigious statement. I guess I could have ripped out of there and ran from them.?!

Run next time! lol Or call the cops. Never been in that situation but remember your rights, I am sure you were spooked

kgoings wrote in post #9325806
Run next time! lol Or call the cops. Never been in that situation but remember your rights, I am sure you were spooked

It's easy to say what you'd do but when you're faced with that situation, you can't remember how many or what "exactly", your heart is racing, and the fight or flight response kicks in.

Moral of the story: Big Corp and Gov't runs the show and we're just the proletariat's.

Time to bump it up a notch. Field trip to the Idaho National Laboratory‎.
Pics or it never happened.

Greetings!
Often these threads get a life of their own, particularly when 'ambiguous'. You were NOT busted, NOT taken into custody. Starting off by saying this happened is very misleading. Actually, you had nothing to worry about and had two choices. Comply with their request or not comply and wait for competent authority to arrive. You made your choice and it is over with. If competent authority arrived and verified you were on public property, you would be on your way, albeit somewhat delayed.
In short, you were in control, not 'Big Corp or Gov't'. You took the easy way out - no problem. I am glad it was not escalated like many of these encounters have been reported.
Cheers,
John

lankforddl wrote in post #9324256
It really made me feel like I was in George Orwell's 1984. Anyone else experience anything like this?

It has, In my school every teacher is miced the students are almost required to answer into mics, and the teachers basically only teach on theses projectors. The school can see and hear exactly what the teacher is saying. There is far more crazy surveillance stuff out there, like cameras that can ID you based on how you walk., its nuts.

john-in-japan wrote in post #9325973
Greetings!
Often these threads get a life of their own, particularly when 'ambiguous'. You were NOT busted, NOT taken into custody. Starting off by saying this happened is very misleading. Actually, you had nothing to worry about and had two choices. Comply with their request or not comply and wait for competent authority to arrive. You made your choice and it is over with. If competent authority arrived and verified you were on public property, you would be on your way, albeit somewhat delayed.
In short, you were in control, not 'Big Corp or Gov't'. You took the easy way out - no problem. I am glad it was not escalated like many of these encounters have been reported.
Cheers,
John

Hey John. I must admit I did use a risky title for this post on purpose. The point was to stir the pot about a photography experience that some photographers will experience at some point in their lives.

lankforddl wrote in post #9325795
Both. people on foot and in vehicle. Now I'm being questioned by you? lol. And the "taken into custody" is ambigious statement. I guess I could have ripped out of there and ran from them.?!

"Unlawfully detained" would have been the correct term to use if they surrounded your car on a public road and wouldn't let you leave.

I encountered a very similar scenario awhile back. I was shooting off the main (public) road, but my car and my tripod were probably on Chevron property. I was outside of the fence, but it was still probably their property.

Anyways, within 1.5 min of setting up my tripod, a truck drove up and I was detained by security. After a few questions about who I was, with me answering them pretty vaguely, and a few calls on the radio to his superior, I was allowed to leave. They did not try and have me remove the images though, which I wouldn't have done anyways.

I have shot several refinery locations and never had anyone bat an eyelash, except for this time.

So, rather than spew the "big Gov't/big Business" line, why don't you pick up the phone and file an unlawful restraint complaint with the local law enforcement office? Then, walk down to the local circuit court and draw up your civil complaint.

john-in-japan wrote in post #9325311
Are we not getting ahead of ourselves?
He was NOT arrested - They were NOT the police.
He was asked to delete the photos - he had a choice to make - comply with request or not comply.
No indication of rudeness on anyone's part. If taken from public property, no foul. Where is the beef?
OP had the option to comply or not comply with a request. Over reaction on the part of security - perhaps - perhaps not? OP gives minimal information on what was said, so really can't tell if these were security folks simply trying to do their job or worse. Getting "busted" was not true. Lets get the full story. What was said and what was done?
John

This is one of the more common sense posts I have seen in this thread. By the OP's own admission earlier in this thread he was trying to "stir the pot" which, imo, we don't need. If someone is trying to muster the ranks to help them by writing to legal or elected officials we need facts not innuendo and commentary.

The world we live in is changing on a frequent basis but some refuse to change with it. If I was going to stop and shoot a refinery I would first seek permission or at the very least advise them of my intention. One has to stop and think that if they are taking photographs of a venue that could be classified as a viable terrorist target. No one wants to take any responsibility but in this day and age a little preplanning and thought will save some headaches down the road.

I am sure that the OP felt intimidated but it sounds like the security people were not over bearing or rude to him. I am hoping that someone can correct me on this, it is my understanding that there are some places that can have security that have virtually the same powers as the police, in that they can pack heat and hold you in temporary custody until the regional police force arrives. You do not have to actually be on their property but be in interaction with their property or people. I got this from a friend that is a retired cop in San Diego and I assume that he knows what he is talking about.

In any event, I see this thread for exactly what it is, pot stirring on a story line that is fairly thin.

Reading this thread reminded me of what happened to me back in the mid 1980s.. I was working as a photographer for a large iron and steel plant in Australia.. I was assigned to photograph a new plant installation at night for PR purposes.. I chose to shoot this plant from a public bridge over looking the plant.. I was shooting for around 30 minutes when a police car and security car stopped and I was questioned what I was doing.. I didn't have any ID on me proving I worked for this organisation and was asked to hand over my exposed films.. Not wanting to argue I did just that,, I could have argued my point and stood my ground.. The next morning the Superintendent of Security came to see me telling me films were confiscated from a member of the public and could I process them for him.. I thanked him for returning my films to me,,red faces all round..

The point of my post is that what happened to the OP isn't new.. Remember this happened well before 911.. Industrial plant owners just don't like the public photographing their plants for many reasons.. Industrial espionage is one reason.. Cameras are banned from visitors..

yogestee wrote in post #9327206
Industrial plant owners just don't like the public photographing their plants for many reasons.

Then they shouldn't leave them visible to the public.