My run in with security.....

[TimChgo9]

Even though it was hot and nasty today, I went out to shoot photos, and for some reason thought the Romeo Rd. bridge over the DesPlaines River and the BNSF would be a good place to photograph trains (it actually is..)

To make a long story short; After I decided I couldn't take the heat anymore, I headed back to my car, parked at the "Centennial Trail" lot on the north side of the bridge. As I approached, I noted a pickup truck, and a Jeep by my car. As I got closer a man with a uniform on was motioning me toward him. He turned out to be a Refinery Security Supervisor (The Citgo Refinery is clearly visible from this bridge as it is less than 300 yards from where I was) he had a security guard with him.  The supervisor inquired as to what I was doing, and then very patiently explained his reasons for, as he put it "detaining me for a few minutes".  He also patiently explained that he understood my rights as a photographer, and then he explained his responsibilities as security for the refinery.  Which made perfect sense to me. Since the place is a large potential target, they routinely investigate anyone who looks "suspicious" and standing on a bridge with a camera. (He noticed me as he drove across the bridge) 

To cut to the chase, the Romeoville Police showed up, as requested by refinery security,  asked me the usual "What are you doing here?" type questions, ran my name, and then let me go. The officer asked if he could see my camera, and I showed it to him, and showed him the photos I had taken the night before from that same spot. He stated "Well, all I see here are photos of barges, and trains"  The officers and security guards thanked me for my cooperation, and went on their way, and I went on mine, as I had to go pick up my children.  The whole matter was handled professionally, I gave my answers in a reasonable tone, and that was all there was to it.

To me, this was no big deal, and no cause for "asserting my rights" as some people would say I should have done. It was a reasonable request made by reasonable people.  I suppose I can expect the same treatment if I ever go there again, but since 9/11 as we all know, things are a little different.

[IRONROOSTER]

Bergie just locked this topic in another thread.  I don't think he'll appreciate your starting it up again.

Paul 

 

[zugmann]

No, no, no,no...

 

You're supposed to scream and rant - throw your photog's rights paper at them - call the ACLU - call Jesse Jackson - give the refinery the finger -  call the cop a pig - and then post it all on trains.com!!!

[TimChgo9]

Bergie just locked this topic in another thread.  I don't think he'll appreciate your starting it up again.

Paul 

 

Ooops, I didn't realize that.  I should have checked the forums. 

 

[Midnight Railroader]

The supervisor inquired as to what I was doing, and then very patiently explained his reasons for, as he put it "detaining me for a few minutes".  

You handled it well.

Nevertheless, I'd question this individual's right to legally "detain" you at all if you were not on his company's property.

[wgnrr]

Just goes to show that if you cooperate, explain to them your situation, and do what they say, there will be no problem. Maybe one of the more sucessful Security vs Railfan stories I have heard.

Phil

[eolafan]

A good explanation of a situation handled appropriately and well by all parties involved...no harm, no foul.

[Railfan1]

To make a situation like this go smoothly, both parties have to be resonable. Sounds like this was treated in a very adult manner.

[TimChgo9]

The supervisor inquired as to what I was doing, and then very patiently explained his reasons for, as he put it "detaining me for a few minutes".  

You handled it well.

Nevertheless, I'd question this individual's right to legally "detain" you at all if you were not on his company's property.

I suppose one could question that aspect of it, but, I could have left I suppose, but why make escalate a situation?  Anyway, this bridge is fairly close to the refinery, as well as a power plant, and I can see their concern. I look at it this way: If I were in the refinery security supervisor's shoes, I would have done what he did.  

[cacole]

I've been visited by county sheriff's deputies a couple of times when out photographing trains.  When I show them my retired military ID card, point out my military veteran license plate, give them a business card showing that I'm in a model railroad club, and explain why I'm there, they have always been courteous to me and explained that they were called by the railroad because of past vandalism incidents to railroad property, even though I have not been on railroad property.

 

[gabe]

OK, I am sure this will be to the ire of some on here. 

But, although I would have handled it exactly the same way, does anyone else find it a little troubling that you could be "detained."  I found the comments about Jesse Jackson and the ACLU amusing, but, well I will not go into the legal end of things. 

I will, however, note that it concerns me that a security gaurd that does not report to an elected official feels as though he can "detain" you. 

Gabe

[egmurphy]

.... does anyone else find it a little troubling that you could be "detained."  .......

.... it concerns me that a security gaurd that does not report to an elected official feels as though he can "detain" you. 

I think we may have a semantics difference here.  Detain can have different meanings.  Here are two that popped up quickly in a web dictionary search.

To keep from proceeding; delay or retard.

To keep in custody or temporary confinement: The police detained several suspects for questioning. The disruptive students were detained after school until their parents had been notified.

In this case, I believe the guard was using the first meaning, in other words he was apologizing for detaining i.e. "delaying" the original poster.

I don't believe he was implying that he was detaining i.e. "keeping in custody" the original poster.

I don't have any problem with the event and think it was handled well by all parties.  It's nice to see reports of this type that work out well when people are reasonable.  Fact of life is that we're going to have to deal with this for a long time.

Best regards

Ed

[IRONROOSTER]

... does anyone else find it a little troubling that you could be "detained."  I found the comments about Jesse Jackson and the ACLU amusing, but, well I will not go into the legal end of things. 

I will, however, note that it concerns me that a security gaurd that does not report to an elected official feels as though he can "detain" you. 

Gabe

I agree.  In fact I find it outrageous that they feel they can detain you without cause for an investigation.  I find it sad that so many people find this acceptable. 

One by one, little by little our freedoms slip away until one day we are all prisoners in our own country afraid to venture forth.

How depressing.

Paul 

[Poppa_Zit]

So Tim, what would have happened had you followed the advice given by people here who are totally uninvolved with this incident and therefore will suffer no consequences?

What if you would have said "No way!" and told the security guard you were not about to have your "rights" violated? You would have driven away and then what?

It is easy to be courageous and righteous when you're sitting at a computer hundreds of miles away.

Those refinery security guards work closely with the Romeoville police, I'll bet, and may even have been given the authority by the village to do just what they did. 

[Midnight Railroader]

It is easy to be courageous and righteous when you're sitting at a computer hundreds of miles away.

That's true. It is always more difficult to stand up for your legal rights in person, which is exactly what people who want to curtail them are counting on.

[rrnut282]

If the security guard is a sworn peace officer and friend of the court then it was all right.  If he wasn't, he was out of line by going off-property and interfering with a citizen doing nothing wrong on a public roadway. 

Don't mis-interperet what I said.  I, too, most likely would have cooperated, but, I would have politely asked them by what authority they were operating, just to put things into perspective.

[JoeKoh]

My experience with regular police and railroad police has been this take pictures leave footprints..mind your p's and q's.99 percent of the officers are level headed.An officer stopped by Deshler today and asked if we had any trouble last night.Since i wasn't there I didn't know someone was causing trouble.If people cause trouble other railfans really don't want you around.then he says well if there are any problems just call us.

stay safe

joe

[vlmuke]

I think both of you handled the matter rather well, But I wouldn't hold it against them they were just doing their job When I was in the Coast guard right after 9/11 I would have done the same thing to you as the gov't felt power plants, bridges, and refineries were and still are prime targets if you had pictures of the refinery or bridges by themselves they probably would have taken you in for questioning  look at it this way if you were in their shoes and someone blew up the bridge or refinery and found out that they saw someone taking pics of it and they were part of the attack you would feel pretty bad if you hadn't done something about, just consider it a small price to pay for taking pics

[Poppa_Zit]

It is easy to be courageous and righteous when you're sitting at a computer hundreds of miles away.

That's true. It is always more difficult to stand up for your legal rights in person, which is exactly what people who want to curtail them are counting on.

I'm still not convinced Tim's rights were "violated". The refinery security people may have been doing exactly what they were empowered to do.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot.

How would you react if a stranger parked their car in the public street in front of your home and looked through the windows all day with binoculars -- or a telephoto camera? In the police biz, this is known as a "suspicious person" call.

Police departments get them all the time.

So according to what some of you say. you just ignore the guy because you don't want to trample his rights? Baloney. Even though he may be within his "rights" wouldn't you want to know what he was doing, and call the police to investigate? And perhaps have the police ask him to leave?

That's not much different than what the refinery guards did -- except he wasn't ordered to leave.

[Ishmael]

... does anyone else find it a little troubling that you could be "detained."  I found the comments about Jesse Jackson and the ACLU amusing, but, well I will not go into the legal end of things. 

I will, however, note that it concerns me that a security gaurd that does not report to an elected official feels as though he can "detain" you. 

Gabe

I agree.  In fact I find it outrageous that they feel they can detain you without cause for an investigation.  I find it sad that so many people find this acceptable. 

One by one, little by little our freedoms slip away until one day we are all prisoners in our own country afraid to venture forth.

How depressing.

Paul 

All I'd like to add to this is that complete freedom for everyone results in anarchy.

[tree68]

In fact I find it outrageous that they feel they can detain you without cause for an investigation. 

As has been suggested already - they're responding to a "suspicious person" - that's cause.  And as has been pointed out, "detain" can simply mean delay.  I recall no mention of "we're taking you downtown."  I'll agree that everyone handled the situation appropriately.  It's sad that incidents like this have to happen, but suspicion is high these days.

I was 'detained' not long ago by a state trooper, who stopped me for no other reason than because I appeared to be travelling from a certain locale and had a red light on my vehicle (signifying that I was a fire chief).  He was responding there on a report of ATVs in the road and he wanted to know if I'd seen them...  I hadn't.  We both went on our separate ways.

[TimChgo9]

So Tim, what would have happened had you followed the advice given by people here who are totally uninvolved with this incident and therefore will suffer no consequences?

What if you would have said "No way!" and told the security guard you were not about to have your "rights" violated? You would have driven away and then what?

It is easy to be courageous and righteous when you're sitting at a computer hundreds of miles away.

Those refinery security guards work closely with the Romeoville police, I'll bet, and may even have been given the authority by the village to do just what they did. 

PZ...

I suppose I could have jumped up and down screamed about the 1st Amendment and that stuff, or I could have driven away, what would that have said?

It would have said "I have something to hide" or, "I was up to no good" and I would have been pulled down or visited at home by the local authorities, and asked questions in a manner that would have been less than "friendly".  Or, if I put up a fuss with the cops, I would have been the recipient of those pretty silver bracelets that police officers are known to carry.....and a first class trip to the police station, "chauffeur driven" of course.

I must say, the Security Supervisors opening line went something like: "I understand you have rights as a photographer, but you have to understand my responsibilities as refinery security". When someone states their case like that, well, you can't help but be reasonable in return.

For those of you who wish to, go to Google Earth, and look this area up, Find Route 53, where intersects with Romeo Road, take Romeo Road east where it crosses the river, and look at how close the refinery is to the bridge. To find it easier, Type "Romeoville, IL" into the search box, on the west side of the bridge is a large plant, on the east side is the refinery. 

I do not fault the Security Guards.  If I was charged with the security of a facility like that, I would have done the same thing.

[vlmuke]

After 9/11 many things in the US changed as a former Coastie I can tell you if you are even fishing underneath a bridge it is cause to be questioned and being asked to fish elsewhere,  possibly photographing potenial targets such as bridges refineries and powerplants is DEFINATELY grounds to be questioned and lately rumor has that trains themselves are possible terrorist targets as they carry many types of hazardous and flammible liquids that can easily destroy a city also make it grounds for questioning even though many of you think you have protection from the first amendment you've got to realize the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few so if you wish to continue photographing trains you need to realize that being questioned by a law enforcement officer is a small price to pay for your hobby and by not cooperating or giving law enforcement officials a hassle can ruin it for everyone and raise suspicion to you and your hobby, and remember freedom of the press applies to printed material and not photography especially since many of you don't publish your photographs and are not members of the press here's an example I went on a tour of a Naval base we were told we can take our cameras but could not take pictures if we were caught taking pictures we would have to hand over the film or if it was a digital camera erase the pictures in front of them if not we would have our camera confinscated and possibly be arrested the same thing applies with the Railroad it is a privilage not a right to take pictures of trains and all it takes is one person not cooperating to have that privilage taken away from everyone

[steinjr]

After 9/11 many things in the US changed as a former Coastie I can tell you if you are even fishing underneath a bridge it is cause to be questioned and being asked to fish elsewhere,

 I see that a lot of people have a lot of beliefs about what is and is not authorized by law, as opposed to what may or may not be common behavior.

 1) Can you legally refuse someone from taking pictures from or being on public property as long as he or she is not doing anything else illegal and the said public property has not been posted as off limit to the general population ? No.

 You can refuse members of the general public take photos in (or even refuse all entry to) a place like a military base. A military base, unlike a normal street or bridge, is not a place that is generally accessible to the public. 

 2) Is a private company security guard authorized to police the area outside the property of that private company. No.

 No matter how reasonable it is that the guard wonders what you are doing, he is not authorized to tell people to get lost, forbid them from taking pictures or any such thing when the person he is talking to is on public property.

 People are not even legally required to reply to any questions he may ask - no more than you are required to reply to any random person or house owner talking to you on a public street.

 On company property, he is of course legally entitled to refuse you entry, tell you to get lost or refuse you to take pictures. And he is entitled to call the police to have you forcibly ejected from company property, if necessary. 

 3) Is it smart to refuse to answer polite questions from a security guard near the property of a RR or a oil refinery or some such place ? No.

 The security guard will then call the local police. A police officer is authorized to ask people questions to ascertain whether a crime is in progress.

 4) If a bona fide police officer asks you questions about what you are doing, then answer the questions. He is entitled to ask, and although you can refuse to answer the questions (refering to the fifth amendment about not being forced to give evidence against yourself), that is not a good strategy - you will be arrested.

 The police officer does not have a legal basis for telling you to get lost or for refusing you to take pictures from public property, unless you are also doing something else illegal - obstructing traffic or some such thing.

  

it is a privilage not a right to take pictures of trains and all it takes is one person not cooperating to have that privilage taken away from everyone

 No, it is not. Taking pictures from a publicly accessible place it is a right protected under the freedom of speech clause of the US constitution. You may not believe that taking pictures is a form of free speech, but the US courts has upheld that interpretation of free speech.

 There is a significant difference between you being civic minded enough to want to make life a little easier for police officers (or security guards) - who have an important job, and you laboring under the misapprehension that your rights are only priviledges.

 If a private company security guard ask you to move or stop taking pictures, then politely ask what legal basis the person has for his request, and calmly inform him that taking pictures from publicly accessible places is protected by the US constitution.

 If he insists on his own wrongful interpretation of law, politely ask him to please call the police and get a police officer to the place.

 If a real police officer asks you to move away from a public place or stop taking pictures from a public place, then politely ask what legal basis this person asking this has for making his request, and calmly inform him that taking pictures from publicly accessible places is protected by the US constitution.

 If the police officer insists on his own wrongful interpretation of law, then get his name, and leave peacefully.

 Then you chose whether you want to just let it go, or whether you want to get his name and any other relevant identification you need for a later contact with his superiors to have him set straight about how things are supposed to work.

 You don't have to make a fuss there and then. And you also do not have to meekly accept anything a police officer claims. How (and if) you want to react when someone steps on your rights is your decision to make.

 There is no need to be unneccesarily belligerent when being politely questioned by a police officer (or a security guard). Cooperate politely, and there usually will be no problem.

  But there also is no need to actively work to undermine the rights of everyone else by making ill informed statements about constitutes "priviledges, not rights".

 Edit: just realized that I forgot to say this explicitly. In the situation described, there was not any trampling of anyone's rights whatsover. A member of the public (the security guard) is perfectly entitled to approach another another member of the public (the railfan) in a public place and say something like "excuse me for interupting what you are doing for a moment, I was just wondering if you could tell me what you are doing?".  As the railfan chose to answer equally politely and calmly no rights were violated for anyone.

 Now, if some people can get over their urge to make snippy remarks about how other people insists that their rights are their right, not priviledges they have to earn, then this thread should be allowed to die a quiet death.

  Now, that should cover pretty much all possible angles I can think of here. Can we all now please move on to something related to trains instead of amateur legal night ? Before Bergie has to close this thread too.

 Thanks,
 Stein, who is not American, but apparently still knows quite a bit more about US laws than many Americans

 

[IRONROOSTER]

In fact I find it outrageous that they feel they can detain you without cause for an investigation. 

As has been suggested already - they're responding to a "suspicious person" - that's cause.  And as has been pointed out, "detain" can simply mean delay.  I recall no mention of "we're taking you downtown."  I'll agree that everyone handled the situation appropriately.  It's sad that incidents like this have to happen, but suspicion is high these days.

I was 'detained' not long ago by a state trooper, who stopped me for no other reason than because I appeared to be travelling from a certain locale and had a red light on my vehicle (signifying that I was a fire chief).  He was responding there on a report of ATVs in the road and he wanted to know if I'd seen them...  I hadn't.  We both went on our separate ways.

Sorry, but I fail to see how engaging in common lawful activity qualifies as "suspicious".  You could just as easily argue that walking by a train station or sitting on a park bench is suspicious. 

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The state of paranoia encouraged by the current regime has gone a long way to cause people to consider all sorts of ordinary behavior to now be "suspicious".

[Poppa_Zit]

Worth another say: It is easy to be courageous and righteous when you're sitting at a computer hundreds of miles away.

I do not fault the Security Guards.  If I was charged with the security of a facility like that, I would have done the same thing.

It's ironic how much free legal advice is made available on this forum by non-lawyers and where it comes from. Thing is, even a lawyer's opinion on this incident is non-binding -- which the Constitutional scholars neglect to tell you.

I do know this -- another citizen (most security guards) CANNOT violate your Constitutional rights. Only the government or its agents can do that.

The only opinion that would count is the ruling handed down by a judge, who is paid to interpret laws created by legislatures. The interpretation of Freedom and Speech and where it ends based on the circumstances of each individual case are vast -- how a person who does not have a JD could advise anyone here is ludicrous.

Time to end this one, too, Bergie. Before the hobbyist legal beagles get us all into trouble.  

[Poppa_Zit]

The state of paranoia encouraged by the current regime has gone a long way to cause people to consider all sorts of ordinary behavior to now be "suspicious".

With all due respect, I would think a lot of the paranoia is rooted in the events of 9/11, Paul. One view is that the current administration fosters this paranoia. Another is that the security changes that have been made since 9/11 have prevented another attack on U.S. soil and mass murders for almost six years. Both have some merit.

What is indisputable is that the gang is Washington has kept us safe so far, which is hard to argue -- and makes it easy for them to ignore those who see the glass as half-empty. For evidence, look at those who are blaming the government's lack of pre-emptive action on the bridge collapse in the Twin Cities.

Ramping up national security is a lose-lose situation for the citizenry and administration, but what they're doing so far has kept people safe.

[eolafan]

In fact I find it outrageous that they feel they can detain you without cause for an investigation. 

As has been suggested already - they're responding to a "suspicious person" - that's cause.  And as has been pointed out, "detain" can simply mean delay.  I recall no mention of "we're taking you downtown."  I'll agree that everyone handled the situation appropriately.  It's sad that incidents like this have to happen, but suspicion is high these days.

I was 'detained' not long ago by a state trooper, who stopped me for no other reason than because I appeared to be travelling from a certain locale and had a red light on my vehicle (signifying that I was a fire chief).  He was responding there on a report of ATVs in the road and he wanted to know if I'd seen them...  I hadn't.  We both went on our separate ways.

Sorry, but I fail to see how engaging in common lawful activity qualifies as "suspicious".  You could just as easily argue that walking by a train station or sitting on a park bench is suspicious. 

OK, try this one on for size...it is 9:00 p.m. on a weeknight and some *** is standing outside of your house on the public sidewalk looking up at the second story window that happens to be where your fifteen year old daughter has her bedroom...the blinds are drawn and although this guys is not breaking the law you have two choices (1) you can let him go around looking at houses like yours from the public sidewalk or (2) you can call his activity "suspicious" and call the local police.  What do you think most people would do (no, using your shotgun is not a good answer here)?

[canazar]

Well, I am not going to get in the comment game or Monday Morning Quarterback, like some of the others have...all though, it is nice to see so much support!

I just wanted to say Thanks for posting the story.  One, it showed how a regular person should handle the scenario, just like you did.  Also shows, that not every securuty guard out there is a power tripping jerk.     Kuddos!

I personally look forward to the chance to interact with Law Enforcment or security gaurds, train peronal or who ever.  Since I know I am always in the right, (i.e. public places or safe distances) I have nothing to worry about.  Through these meetings, I have gotten to know people, learned cool facts, gotten tours and even got a cab ride with my son in a GP-40 on a local.  At the least, I got to prove to these guys, who are doing their jobs, that I am not a high horse, self righeous, paranoid foamer and they wont take out their frustraions on the next guy.