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
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
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)."
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.