Coincidentally, today I saw that there was an incident of that type the other day in Baltimore involving 2 photographers and the Maryland Transit Adminstration's police officers. More coincidentally - I know one of the photographers- Mr. Taremae, who has had photos published, including in Trains ! When the dust settled, the agency - again - agreed that people have a right to take photos of its trains [in reasonable circumstances - PDN's clarification]. Here are links to several articles and blogs on that encounter, together with some comments, some of which are right on point, as far as I'm concerned:
Basic facts:
http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-national/transit-police-wrongly-detain-man-for-taking-pictures
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/traffic/2011/06/mta_chief_repudiates_photograp.html#comments
I can see where an illegal but nevertheless confrontational demand by an officer to erase photos could present a great dilemma (assuming that the officer knows how to verify that you've in fact done that to all of the photos . . . if they don't even know these basics of U.S. Constitutional law, do they even know from cameras . . . ? )
Anyway, if they are unique and irreplaceable/ unrepeatable photos - such as of a steam locomotive passing by - a viable alternative may be to simply hand the camera or the memory card to the officer and tell him/ her to take it into custody until this matter gets sorted out with a supervisor - and to take good care of it, because those photos are valuable property (which they are - to you, at least), which is why you don't want to delete them until ordered to do so by a judge. Faced then with: A) supervisor involvement; B) paperwork on the custody of property; and C) a lack of fear to go to court on your part; the officer may then 'cave in' - or take you into custody and give you that opportunity to 'tell it to a judge". Be sure to get a name and badge number then - the lawyer you're going to hire for the false arrest, Sec. 1983 deprivation of civil rights, and 5th Amendment destruction of property without compensation suit - is going to want it and need it to make sure the correct officer is identified . . .
- Paul North.
Carry this and politely ask him to look it over. Carry several copies, so he can keep it if he wants.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
It all boils down to choosing your battles...if a cop asks for my ID I will gladly provide it...why not? I'm not on anyone's most wanted list and I lead a relatively peaceful existence with no skeletons in my closet. So why risk a confrontation and an arrest record for resisting an officer...for nothing? Where an officer makes other demands...like deleting images from my camera etc...then i would look at it on a case by case basis and choose an appropriate response. That repsonse would most likely involve complying with the request and then following up with legal counsel afterwards if need be.
Sorry to dig up this old thread, I found it while doing a Google search on the Don Phillips article that was the start of the thread. It's very interesting in light of a major police incident I had while photographing aircraft near Boston airport. I followed up on the incident, and I was well within my rights to take pictures where I was.
Skimming through the replies, some of the sentiments seem to be that in a police encounter situation, you should follow the officer's instructions and sort out the issue later with his/her superiors or in a worst case scenario, with a lawsuit. In general, I think this is an excellent guideline to follow. My personal policy is to provide identification to an officer when asked and let him/her know what I'm doing and why I'm doing it.
But, where do you draw the line in following police instructions? In my recent encounter the officer ordered me to delete my images. When I refused, he told me my equipment would be confiscated. He had the upper hand; I suspect if my equipment was confiscated it would be a long, hard road to get it back even if I proved I had a legal right to take pictures where I was.
RudyRockvilleMDI can think of an incident that occurred during the 2007 Altoona, PA Railfest as an example of the latter. Many photographers were waiting to photograph Bennet Levin's E 8's on a sidewalk on the 48th Street Bridge in Altoona when a driver of a van stopped suddenly to see what was going on; the van was rear ended by a driver who was not paying attention, and who didn't notice the van in front had stopped suddenly.
htgguyWas this accident the fault of railfans, waiting in a public place, to photograph a train? Or was it the fault of the driver who stopped on what must have been a busy highway? Or was it the fault of the driver who rear-ended the van that stopped in front of him?
Was this accident the fault of railfans, waiting in a public place, to photograph a train? Or was it the fault of the driver who stopped on what must have been a busy highway? Or was it the fault of the driver who rear-ended the van that stopped in front of him?
I have to agree with htgguy on the rear ending.
If you stop in a active motor lane with no obvious (i.e accident, and even then no guarantees) you are going to get rear ended, let's be honest with ourselves. It's no one else's fault except the two drivers. It could have been anything, even a bunch of firefighters and they most likely would have stopped.
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
From the City of San Mateo, CA
"11.32.030 REGULATIONS. No person shall stop, stand or park a motor truck or passenger stage on any street or highway in this city for any purpose other than the loading or unloading of passengers or materials; provided that the loading or unloading of passengers shall not consume more than five minutes, and the loading or unloading of materials more than thirty minutes. (Prior code § 73.105). 11.32.040 PROHIBITED -- NO SIGNS REQUIRED. No person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle in any of the following places: (a) Within any tunnel or upon any bridge, viaduct or approach thereto; (b) Within any parkway. (Prior code § 73.71)."
When I was looking up the law regarding pedestrians on highways, federal and state, I chose a random sampling of states.I didn't quote them directly, though I realize that may have helped. But my point is that our right to walk is not a right on federal and state highways and bridges. If we stop and linger at a bridge, be it to take pictures, or to consider jumping over the rail, we place our self in a position where a police officer can question our presence on that bridge. If we skipped across it on our hands, no one would be raising any questions at all.
I do not believe that photography in this country is a criminal behavior nor do I believe that taking pictures implies we are in cahoots with the bad guys. Banning the taking of photographs would be wrong. And rereading my post, I never stated otherwise. The point of my post was this, the questioning and unfortunate misunderstandings between railfans, tourists and other professional photographers and law enforcement officials needs to be rectified. I tried to explain why photographers get questioned because I believe rational people need rational input. But I never condoned the bad behavior of either side. Communication and subsequent clarification of any existing law or preceived law needs to commence. Thus my suggestion that the issue be taken beyond this forum and placed before our various congressional representatives and senators. That is where this issue needs to go.
I realize that researching online doesn't always give clear information about what the terrorists of that awful day did or did not do. I mentioned a reference to a blogger last night; perhaps not a good 2nd person resource. But I do find page after page of blogs where people are displaying their displeasure of this photography issue. Is taking photographs of trains a threat to our national security, no. But obviously, this mindset exists among our law enforcements agencies and some railroads. And with photographers pushing back with increasing agitation, the situation will only get worse.
It's time for photographers to step forward and get involved in the political process. Perhaps, Jim, as passionate as you are about this, that you are just the person to take this issue to the people who actually can resolve it, our elected lawmakers.
tina
mbkcs Jim wrote: What is your take on the opening sentence in the article: "A police officer does not need probable cause to stop a car or a pedestrian and investigate potential crime. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, a police officer may initiate a temporary stop, a level of intrusion short of an arrest, if the officer can articulate a reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed a crime or is about to commit a crime." Here's my take. This is my personal experience. I am driving home from my shift. It's close to 3:00 a.m. I am tired and have 10 more miles to drive. I pull up to a red light with a bit of a delayed response, meaning I stop slightly into the intersection. I check the rear view and seeing it is clear; back up to where I was suppose to stop. Well, the car that was taking the green against me, hesitated when I did that and only after I backed up did they enter the intersection on their green light. I think to myself, “whew...lucky on that one. I need to be more alert.” Then I get the green to go and I no sooner inch forward that an officer flashes his red lights in my rear view mirror. I pull over, turn on the interior lights and wait with my hands on the wheel. It removes instant doubt on the officer's part that I may be trying to conceal something. He approaches me and says, "You almost ran that red light." Now I've been a paramedic a few years at this point so I reply a little sarcastically, "The key word, sir, is almost." Upon hearing this, the officer shines his light in my face, then to the backseat where I have a spare uniform hanging. He asks if I am just getting off shift. I reply, "I am." He tells me that I haven't broken any laws, but he was sure I gave that other driver a moment to rethink his life. "Yes, sir, thank God, I was alert enough to stop." He sends me home with an admonishment to get more rest. I didn't break any rules of the road. But I did do something that caught the officer’s attention. A lot of DUI's occur after the bars close at 2:00 a.m. in most cities. I drove in a manner that flew up a "possible DUI" flag in the officer's mind. It is his sworn duty, the duty that states he his job is to protect people, to follow up on these flags. Without the Supreme Court backing up an officer’s use of this mechanism for stopping people, it was more than plausible, had I been drunk and not stopped, I would have killed someone before I reached home. Now, I will not comment on those officers that abuse this. I have very strong opinions on their ilk and will not comment publicly in such language. When faced with one of those officers, I agree with Gabe and the others that the best thing to do is to defuse the situation by being cooperative and as soon as possible, comply with the officer’s requests. Later, report in writing what you experienced and keep going up the information channel to your local politician until something gets done: either about the officer’s behavior, if they are out of line; or to get new law passed that clarifies the rights of photographers in this country.
Jim wrote: What is your take on the opening sentence in the article: "A police officer does not need probable cause to stop a car or a pedestrian and investigate potential crime. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, a police officer may initiate a temporary stop, a level of intrusion short of an arrest, if the officer can articulate a reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed a crime or is about to commit a crime."
Here's my take. This is my personal experience.
I am driving home from my shift. It's close to 3:00 a.m. I am tired and have 10 more miles to drive. I pull up to a red light with a bit of a delayed response, meaning I stop slightly into the intersection. I check the rear view and seeing it is clear; back up to where I was suppose to stop.
Well, the car that was taking the green against me, hesitated when I did that and only after I backed up did they enter the intersection on their green light. I think to myself, “whew...lucky on that one. I need to be more alert.”
Then I get the green to go and I no sooner inch forward that an officer flashes his red lights in my rear view mirror. I pull over, turn on the interior lights and wait with my hands on the wheel. It removes instant doubt on the officer's part that I may be trying to conceal something.
He approaches me and says, "You almost ran that red light." Now I've been a paramedic a few years at this point so I reply a little sarcastically, "The key word, sir, is almost." Upon hearing this, the officer shines his light in my face, then to the backseat where I have a spare uniform hanging. He asks if I am just getting off shift. I reply, "I am." He tells me that I haven't broken any laws, but he was sure I gave that other driver a moment to rethink his life. "Yes, sir, thank God, I was alert enough to stop."
He sends me home with an admonishment to get more rest.
I didn't break any rules of the road. But I did do something that caught the officer’s attention. A lot of DUI's occur after the bars close at 2:00 a.m. in most cities. I drove in a manner that flew up a "possible DUI" flag in the officer's mind. It is his sworn duty, the duty that states he his job is to protect people, to follow up on these flags. Without the Supreme Court backing up an officer’s use of this mechanism for stopping people, it was more than plausible, had I been drunk and not stopped, I would have killed someone before I reached home.
Now, I will not comment on those officers that abuse this. I have very strong opinions on their ilk and will not comment publicly in such language. When faced with one of those officers, I agree with Gabe and the others that the best thing to do is to defuse the situation by being cooperative and as soon as possible, comply with the officer’s requests. Later, report in writing what you experienced and keep going up the information channel to your local politician until something gets done: either about the officer’s behavior, if they are out of line; or to get new law passed that clarifies the rights of photographers in this country.
I understand this example. In that case I feel the officer has reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed a crime or is about to commit a crime. That doesn't mean that every railfan out taking pictures falls under this situation. If I am out taking train pictures at 3 AM, I expect cops to be suspicious. Not a lot of good things happen outside at 3 AM.
mbkcs Now here is my take on the right to photograph from public roadways. I ask you to please remember that very mere presence of pedestrians, be it on the shoulder, lane or bridge of an interstate highway and most divided highways, federal and state, is strictly prohibitive. And where pedestrians are allowed, there are rules on the books regarding which direction they walk, against the traffic; where they can cross, usually in the crosswalk; and in what circumstances those rules can change, during an emergency. Also, please remember that while roadways and bridges are “public” in that the public uses them, and while our tax dollars go toward their construction and upkeep, our tax dollars do not give us the right to use these structures. If you remember your "learning how to drive" classes, the first thing that gets taught is that “driving is a privilege, not a right”. The same goes for the method we utilize to transport ourselves upon those roads, be it cars, trucks, bicycles or own two feet.
Now here is my take on the right to photograph from public roadways. I ask you to please remember that very mere presence of pedestrians, be it on the shoulder, lane or bridge of an interstate highway and most divided highways, federal and state, is strictly prohibitive. And where pedestrians are allowed, there are rules on the books regarding which direction they walk, against the traffic; where they can cross, usually in the crosswalk; and in what circumstances those rules can change, during an emergency.
Also, please remember that while roadways and bridges are “public” in that the public uses them, and while our tax dollars go toward their construction and upkeep, our tax dollars do not give us the right to use these structures. If you remember your "learning how to drive" classes, the first thing that gets taught is that “driving is a privilege, not a right”. The same goes for the method we utilize to transport ourselves upon those roads, be it cars, trucks, bicycles or own two feet.
Are you implying that our government has laws that say which direction we have to walk on sidewalks, what the minimum and maximum speed we can walk is, and if we don't walk like they want, they can prevent us from walking? I don't think this is true. I know I have to stay off interstates, and never advocated that people walk or stop on them. Photography from a sidewalk-can you cite a specific ordinance, law, or statute that applies to this?
Driving is a privelege. You need a license to drive legally. You don't need a license to walk (although maybe some should .) Walking is a right. Governments can't take away rights, because they don't grant them. We just HAVE them, because we do. I can walk, skip, meander, trot, walk on my hands, or waltz down the sidewalk as long as I am not running into other people.
How did photography help the terrorists who committed the crimes of 9/11 help them? How does attempting to ban photography make us safer now? I'm still waiting to hear how railfan photography is a threat to our security.
Jim
Visit look4trains.com
zardoz RudyRockvilleMD.....railfans who are waiting to photograph a train from the sidewalk of a bridge should not be considered a distraction, nor is ordering railfans to clear a bridge because they MIGHT pose a distraction to motorists justifiedUsing "distraction to motorists" would indeed be a completely lame excuse for harassment; heck, most motorists wouldn't even see them, as they are too busy talking on the phone, texting, eating, reading, doing personal grooming, etc. Talk about distractions!!
RudyRockvilleMD.....railfans who are waiting to photograph a train from the sidewalk of a bridge should not be considered a distraction, nor is ordering railfans to clear a bridge because they MIGHT pose a distraction to motorists justified
If people on a sidewalk are distracting to motorists, then maybe they should ban people from using sidewalks. </sarcasm>
Kevin
http://chatanuga.org/RailPage.html
http://chatanuga.org/WLMR.html
It seems like there are traffic laws that apply in this situation. First, I don't think you should stop in the driving lane of a busy highway, no matter how intrigued you are with the railfans who are waiting to shoot an E unit. Second, many years ago in driver's ed, it was pounded into me that if I rear end someone, it's my fault as a driver. My instructor never told me anything about the railfan exception.
In regard to the situation where people had stopped to look at a train as part of the festivities, there are also laws that state at no time can a pedestrian or motorist occupy and thus stop a lane of traffic or cause a change in the flow of traffic. I’ve read these rules. They do exist.
I'm curious how many of you think the above incident is justification that railfans should not be allowed to photograph trains from bridges that have sidewalks? If it's not, what's the lesson to be learned? Is the fact that " there may be situations where the officer might think the location of the photographer, even on public property, might put that person in danger, or it might pose a hazard to others" enough to kick people off the bridge sidewalk? Then should people with unicycles be kicked off too, or those who are dressed stangely, or anyone who may...might...might distract people and cause a hazard? In my opinion this is a dangerous road for us to travel down.
The above mentioned questions are very important and serious questions. I did a quick search online and it is not just railfans that are worrying about photography in this country. But I hope that what I’ve mentioned above will help clarify some of the confusion over what is and isn’t public property. The definition of “public property” is the crux of the discussion. Just because a bridge has a sidewalk, doesn’t change the rules regarding the roadway it is attached to. So, yes, a police officer, can question the presence of anyone on a bridge doing anything except crossing it. It would be responsible on the officer’s part. It would also be irresponsible on the officer’s part if he is a jerk about it.
In the same respect, as you mention, it is wrong to run into someone stopped on the roadway. These rules haven’t disappeared.
And as for the officer being able to stop anyone who is dressed strangely, officers can and do stop people who dress strangely, all the time. When it is 92 degrees outside, and someone is walking down a city street with a long winter overcoat on and is holding it close, that raises some suspicion. What’s under the coat that the person is worried about others seeing? That person may or may not be up to no-good, but his odd behavior and dress possibly warrants a further look or perhaps a friendly question. It goes back to what my mom taught me years ago, you’ll never get in trouble if everything you do is transparent. She’d tell me, “Don’t linger too long, up close to the candy section, someone might think you are stealing candy.” “If you get pulled over, turn on the interior light, put your hands on the steering wheel, and let the officer know you are not trying to hide anything.” Dispel doubt.
The people who caused “9-11” took photographs and videos of all kinds of places here in our beloved USA. I read a blog by a photographer this evening that reminded me that the very officers that frustrate photographers today were connected professionally to the very officers that gave their life that September day. When an officer stops you to ask why you are taking pictures, you can know that in the back of their brain, they feel they are doing the right and patriotic thing.
And while we still have threats to our security in this country, there does seem to be an overreaction to these situations by some of those in charge. Perhaps this subject in this forum today will persuade some of you to take your patriotism to work by contacting your local congressional representative and senator to get law passed that clarifies, defines and assures our rights to take photographs in public places. Such a clarification would assist both civilians and police officers. And the process you undertake will be a testament to our country’s wonderful democratic process.
I've not seen Don Phillips writings yet(I will read asap) But I will offer the following.
Personally I've been kind of intimidated by the last few years of post 9/11 "security responses" . The 1st time I'd felt this was in 2002 when I was picking up a load in Petrolia, Pa. After I'd gotten load a Buffalo & Pittsburg train rolled in. The 2nd unit was an unrebuilt GP-9. I had to get at least 1 photo.(I got several). In the meantime 1 of the plant workers saw someone taking pictures at an OIL REFINERY, obviously a potential whatever.
Anyway local police showed up.(All 3 police cars !!!) Questions were asked. Well you could be a potential um this that oh yes you have a foreign sounding name(Japanese). When the railroad crew was asked their response was ho hum, another foamer.
I drive a truck for a living as I said. My company was called about this & safety was questioned. It is too easy in this kind of thing to get blackballed. I've been simply waiting for a better enviroment. In the interim I've left my camera at the house have not bought a newer camera(I would like one of the new digitals one of these days.) & have had to enjoy train watching from a distance.
It has been very frustrating. I would like to get photos of BNSF's new facilities in Memphis(they are massively expanding their facilities there, and during the construction all kind of things are within range of a good camera). There are other things and places I would love to have gotten pictures of. I've heard tales of drivers having to leave there cameras with security when picking up loads only to find that when they got back that someone had gone thru camera memory.
Comment about Police , at the side of the road they have the ultimate authority in a way, a variety of weapons. Starting with the simple granting of authority to act(the badge). The flip side of this is the old saw , Give an idiot a .... and what do you have an idiot with a ...
We do live in a country with free speech. If only people would respect that right.
Thx for the space. IGN
Disclaimer:I have not read the Phillips column this month and my comments might reflect a lack of understanding of the situation. I will not say the columnist acted or wrote "stupidly" without reading the article....but....
Don Phillips is a member of the media and is used to having the "free speech" amendment at his disposal and more than likely very good legal counsel to back up that amendment. I do not have that legal counsel at my disposal....or at least on someone else's dime.
I personally weight risk and reward in nearly everything I do, either consciously or nonconsciously. If an officer asks me to move it, I weight the risk/reward of either moving or not moving and make the decision. The fact that I am a single parent and my son will probably need to be fed and other parental services makes the risk/reward equation easy to process.
I simply dont have the time, energy, nor the resources for a "cause."
Let us not forget the two reporters that were released from North Korea today. When we complain of our lack of rights, it is very important we compare our rights with other societies.
I do not expect a beer summit in Milwaukee with Mr. Wrinn preciding over this matter. To some it might be important, to me there are other fish to fry (and catch and clean).
ed
htgguyJust as I expected when I posted that, I'm still waiting for someone to explain the security issue that railfan photography creates.
aegrotatio When the photographer baited the Amtrak police a few months ago (well after Amtrak's photo contest deadline) some people asserted that because Amtrak owns NY Penn Station, then by that definition the station is public property. While this might be true the logic does not follow: you can't walk onto a military base, airport concourse, Area 51, the White House lawn, and start taking pictures with impunity.
When the photographer baited the Amtrak police a few months ago (well after Amtrak's photo contest deadline) some people asserted that because Amtrak owns NY Penn Station, then by that definition the station is public property. While this might be true the logic does not follow: you can't walk onto a military base, airport concourse, Area 51, the White House lawn, and start taking pictures with impunity.
So is or is it not legal to take photos in/from an Amtrak station? Are you saying Penn Station is the equivalent of the White House or a military base? Everything I have read says that shopping mall concourses, for example, are valid venues for photography. Seems like an Amtrak platform is closer to a mall concourse than the White House.
I said, in the second post on this thread:
"No one has yet given me one shred of logic as to how a railfan photographer can create a security issue when he is obeying the law by taking pictures from a public place. I am waiting to hear someone-anyone-try to substantiate that position.
I expect to be waiting for a long, long time."
Just as I expected when I posted that, I'm still waiting for someone to explain the security issue that railfan photography creates.
While Zardoz has a point about the self-inflicted distractions motorists have, there is some validity to the "distraction to motorists" issue.
Anyone ever been caught up in stop-and-go traffic on the freeway, only to discover that there was nothing blocking traffic on your side - the problem was the rubberneckers looking in the accident on the other side of the highway?
Or played the game where you stop on the street and stare at "nothing" at the top of a building - causing others to stop and stare also?
Police that patrol freeways in many jurisdictions have taken to setting up their rooftop lightbars to flash only to the rear - because they know that traffic coming in the opposite direction will slow down to see what's going on, even though there is no need to do so.
A bunch of people standing on a bridge, taking pictures of something that is out-of-sight to the motorists is very likely to cause traffic problems. If the police understand (or are made to understand) the unique reason for the photographer's activities (as well as the brief and transient nature of the activity), they may be willing to play along. Can't hurt to talk to them in a civil manner and see what transpires.
htgguy RudyRockvilleMD Was this accident the fault of railfans, waiting in a public place, to photograph a train? Or was it the fault of the driver who stopped on what must have been a busy highway? Or was it the fault of the driver who rear-ended the van that stopped in front of him? It seems like there are traffic laws that apply in this situation. First, I don't think you should stop in the driving lane of a busy highway, no matter how intrigued you are with the railfans who are waiting to shoot an E unit. Second, many years ago in driver's ed, it was pounded into me that if I rear end someone, it's my fault as a driver. My instructor never told me anything about the railfan exception. I know that my position is not popular, but we need to stick up for our rights. I'm curious how many of you think the above incident is justification that railfans should not be allowed to photograph trains from bridges that have sidewalks? If it's not, what's the lesson to be learned? Is the fact that " there may be situations where the officer might think the location of the photographer, even on public property, might put that person in danger, or it might pose a hazard to others" enough to kick people off the bridge sidewalk? Then should people with unicycles be kicked off too, or those who are dressed stangely, or anyone who may...might...might distract people and cause a hazard? In my opinion this is a dangerous road for us to travel down. Jim
RudyRockvilleMD
I know that my position is not popular, but we need to stick up for our rights. I'm curious how many of you think the above incident is justification that railfans should not be allowed to photograph trains from bridges that have sidewalks? If it's not, what's the lesson to be learned? Is the fact that " there may be situations where the officer might think the location of the photographer, even on public property, might put that person in danger, or it might pose a hazard to others" enough to kick people off the bridge sidewalk? Then should people with unicycles be kicked off too, or those who are dressed stangely, or anyone who may...might...might distract people and cause a hazard? In my opinion this is a dangerous road for us to travel down.
Regardless whether your position is popular or unpopular you have the right to express it.
To answer your questions. The accident was not the fault of the railfans on the bridge.
In my opinion railfans who are waiting to photograph a train from the sidewalk of a bridge should not be considered a distraction, nor is ordering railfans to clear a bridge because they MIGHT pose a distraction to motorists justified.
zardoz Kiwigerdwhat exactly is a peace officer, I am not quite familiar with the term? It is a "friendlier" version of "police officer"; used perhaps as an attempt to minimize the overbearing persona the cops sometimes try to project. After all, it is easier to dominate and control someone if you have already intimidated them.
Kiwigerdwhat exactly is a peace officer, I am not quite familiar with the term?
It is a "friendlier" version of "police officer"; used perhaps as an attempt to minimize the overbearing persona the cops sometimes try to project. After all, it is easier to dominate and control someone if you have already intimidated them.
A peace officer has the right to detention, arrest, search, and seizure. It includes, but is not limited to, police officers/constables, customs agents, etc.
-Crandell
What is your take on the opening sentence in the article: "A police officer does not need probable cause to stop a car or a pedestrian and investigate potential crime. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, a police officer may initiate a temporary stop, a level of intrusion short of an arrest, if the officer can articulate a reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed a crime or is about to commit a crime."
I added the bold. Do you think railroad photography from public property gives an officer "reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed a crime or is about to commit a crime"? I'm just curious about other's views on this issue.
Thanks for the article.
I think that while a law enforcement officer (police officer/sheriff (and deputies)/state trooper) is generally considered a peace officer, not all peace officers are considered law enforcement officers.
The specifics vary by state. The Wikipedia entry mentions that in New York State, certain court officers are considered peace officers.
It's entirely possible that a security guard could be considered a peace officer.
This article may be instructive to those reading this thread:
http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&issue_id=42007&category_ID=3
Quotwe from above ------------------
"I have always taken the position that a peace officer has the right to command you to do just about anything short of an unethical or illegal act. Producing identification, hieing my backside another 10 yards away from the tracks, or lowering my camera are not included in those last two exclusions.
In Canada the charge is, "Interfering with a peace officer in the execution of his duty," or "Refusing to comply with the demands of a peace officer in the performance of his duty,", or something close to those. Judges might or might not be sympathetic, and if the latter, one is in for many months of angst and inconvenience while one tries to get it laid to rest."
In the US also.
Referance the incident of the professor having to break into his own house, the cops arriving to a "break-in in progress", the cop saying "Please exit your house for a few moments" so they could sweep the house to make certain there was no actual break-in, the professor lippinf off the the officer about it being his house and he won't leave it, the professor being arrested refusing to obey the officer and lipping off to him.
Believe me, you won't get to have a "Beer Summit".
One of my "lives" has been Security, and both Public (Cops) and Private Security Officers have the legal right and in come cases the legal obligation to tell you these things, and if you do not obey, to authorize your arrest.
As has been suggested above, defend your rights in court via a civil law suit. That way you do not get a criminal record (which WILL result in job denial issues) and the officer(s) will have a negative record. Makes it so much easier to get a cash settlement from the offending department. You - and your lawyer - will be very glad you did.
Gentlemen, I have once again read all your statements carefully.
Everything considered, I can understand why people do not want to be hassled while just exercising their rights. On the other hand, if the situation is as bad as Selector has said, as far as the powers of peace officers are concerned (what exactly is a peace officer, I am not quite familiar with the term?) we are probably not so far away from what ordinary german soldiers used for excuses after WWII after being questioned by the victorious allies. Most of them always said, I was told so, I was under orders, and they were rightfully condemned. But isn't this attitude, do what the officers say regardless, a step towards such a mentality?
Please excuse my bad english, it isn't my mother tongue, but I nonetheless hope that you get my point, the point simply being that I think if you abandon your peaceful rights it won't be long and they will be gone forever.
zardoz ...Cops are just people. And thus there are really nice ones and there are real jerks. Unfortunately, these jerks have somehow been given authority over others, and that makes them dangerous to our freedoms.
...Cops are just people. And thus there are really nice ones and there are real jerks. Unfortunately, these jerks have somehow been given authority over others, and that makes them dangerous to our freedoms.
Absolutely. And, as people, they are subject to the same vagaries and whims as any of us who rises with a bad mood, a stubbed toe, or a sleep-free night...worse if all three. If they overstep their lawful authority, they should be subject to sanction to the extent that you and I are subject to it.
I do agree with the central premise, or point, that Philips wants us to understand....use it or lose it. But, just as these rights were hard-won, they must be hard-maintained. Nothing's free in this day and age where even water and resources are acquired by the transfer of value....money, goods, services.... (look for air to be the next commodity). Our rights are no different. They can be commercialized and reframed by all sorts of influences...and authorities.
I think that, at the platform or the roadside, when confronted by a peace officer, one should not be servile or cowardly, but neither should one be obdurate or obtuse. Negotiate if that is to be possible, inform, explain, and if the threat comes down to the high likelihood of arrest, you then have a choice; stand on your principles and in your understanding of the Law, or appease the person challenging you and get a badge number....and the cooperation of any witnesses. Then prepare for the fight that many have undertaken at considerable expense, including their very lives, in ages past.
With a whimper or a bang...Philips is saying we have to decide.
Murphy Siding zardoz The fact that we have this discussion at all indicates to me how much we in the United States operate with the illusion of freedom-. And yet, the fact that we can have this discussion at all, without being hauled off to jail or worse, indicates that we have a lot of freedom that the average citizen in the United States takes for granted.
zardoz The fact that we have this discussion at all indicates to me how much we in the United States operate with the illusion of freedom-.
The fact that we have this discussion at all indicates to me how much we in the United States operate with the illusion of freedom-.
Third World countries? Yes. Communist countries? Yes. Western Europe? No. The United States pre-911? Definitely not!
And yet, we must realize that it is no longer 1999, 1959, 1909, or whatever year you wish to compare with. The world is not the same anymore. There are extremists who's entire mission in life is to terrorize. Whether it is the result of political or religious fanaticism, these people only want to do harm to others. And because of these types, we potential victims need to take some measures to try to reduce the likelyhood of it happening. As to whether restricting the taking shampoo on board an airplane or banning railfan photography will have any effect in reducing potential terrorism.....
I would like to hear the other side of the story regarding some of these railfan-police encounters. As you know, there are three sides to every story: my side, your side, and the truth. I've had run-ins with the Barney Fife-types who seem to have gotten their worldview from Fox 'News', and therefore see everyone that does not fit into their tiny perception of reality as a potential jihadist. I've also had encounters with cops who, after quickly observing what I was doing, would ask questions like, "What kind of film are you using?", or "Anything interesting coming?".
Cops are just people. And thus there are really nice ones and there are real jerks. Unfortunately, these jerks have somehow been given authority over others, and that makes them dangerous to our freedoms.
RudyRockvilleMD Let me the devil's advocate. If I am not mistaken the Supreme Court ruled in 2004 a law enforcement officer may ask a person for their identification, and that person must comply. Then there may be situations where the officer might think the location of the photographer, even on public property, might put that person in danger, or it might pose a hazard to others. I can think of an incident that occurred during the 2007 Altoona, PA Railfest as an example of the latter. Many photographers were waiting to photograph Bennet Levin's E 8's on a sidewalk on the 48th Street Bridge in Altoona when a driver of a van stopped suddenly to see what was going on; the van was rear ended by a driver who was not paying attention, and who didn't notice the van in front had stopped suddenly. Nevertheless I agree with Don Phillips' opinion (and the opinions of many editors of railfan publications) of Amtrak's photography policy, it is wrong.
Let me the devil's advocate. If I am not mistaken the Supreme Court ruled in 2004 a law enforcement officer may ask a person for their identification, and that person must comply. Then there may be situations where the officer might think the location of the photographer, even on public property, might put that person in danger, or it might pose a hazard to others.
I can think of an incident that occurred during the 2007 Altoona, PA Railfest as an example of the latter. Many photographers were waiting to photograph Bennet Levin's E 8's on a sidewalk on the 48th Street Bridge in Altoona when a driver of a van stopped suddenly to see what was going on; the van was rear ended by a driver who was not paying attention, and who didn't notice the van in front had stopped suddenly.
Nevertheless I agree with Don Phillips' opinion (and the opinions of many editors of railfan publications) of Amtrak's photography policy, it is wrong.
gabe htgguy No one has yet given me one shred of logic as to how a railfan photographer can create a security issue when he is obeying the law by taking pictures from a public place. I am waiting to hear someone-anyone-try to substantiate that position. Jim There are several statutes that indicate that there are particular things you may not photograph regardless where you are taking the photograph--military rail movements come to mind. I mean this respectfully, because this is an honest disagreement amongst us, but as much as I like druming up legal work for me and my ilk, although you might eventually prove that the various statutes are unconstitutional, if you want to run the risk of not winning that argument and spending $100,000 in legal fees in the process, you are a braver man than I. Gabe
htgguy No one has yet given me one shred of logic as to how a railfan photographer can create a security issue when he is obeying the law by taking pictures from a public place. I am waiting to hear someone-anyone-try to substantiate that position. Jim
No one has yet given me one shred of logic as to how a railfan photographer can create a security issue when he is obeying the law by taking pictures from a public place. I am waiting to hear someone-anyone-try to substantiate that position.
There are several statutes that indicate that there are particular things you may not photograph regardless where you are taking the photograph--military rail movements come to mind. I mean this respectfully, because this is an honest disagreement amongst us, but as much as I like druming up legal work for me and my ilk, although you might eventually prove that the various statutes are unconstitutional, if you want to run the risk of not winning that argument and spending $100,000 in legal fees in the process, you are a braver man than I.
Gabe
Are you saying that when I took these photos, I was breaking the law? If that is true, I honestly wasn't aware of it. Is it a Federal Statute? It's something I need to be familiar with, can you provide a resource that describes it?
Hummers
More Hummers
If it's the law, it's the law, even if it is stupid. My OPINION is that any law that prevents an overweight 49 year old from taking pictures of a few flatcar loads of HUMVEEs passing through central Minnesota (on the way to the battlefront in Montana, perhaps?) accomplishes nothing for national security. It does, however, interfere with my rights as a photographer.
To me, this whole discussion seems to come down to whether we have rights that cannot be interfered with, or whether any rights we have exist only because a benevolent government decides that they will grant them to us. I contend that the rights come before the government, but I sense that I am in the minority here.
Maybe I'm wrong, but the sense I'm getting is that if a law enforcement officer questions anything you are doing, you stop doing it because it has been questioned. You have no business questioning anything you are told. My instinct would be to politely ask if there is a law prohibiting what I'm doing. I am not advocating being confrontational, or making a scene. I just want to make sure that if I'm told to stop something, it's not just because it makes it more convenient for the cop. Is that wrong?
I'm still waiting to hear the logic behind policies prohibiting photography from a public place. In World War 2, before a convoy is sailing, I get it. When military equipment is passing through Minnesota in 2009, not so much. What is the threat?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.