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-.
In France, I would definitely be locked up for criticizing Don Phillips . . .
Gabe
Don Phillips writes interesting columns, but I was also taken aback by the "legal advice" in his column in the September, 2009 Trains. As I have said many times before about cops who might wrongly tell railroad photographers who photograph trains from public property that railroad photography is illegal, don't argue, try to note the officer's name and badge number, then leave immediately!
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.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Certainly, the U.S. is still alot better than most countries on this planet, but is no longer the model of freedom and individual rights that it used to be. However, having said that, at least we still have the 'freedom' to criticize (as long as we don't point out too many inconsistencies in the rhetoric of our "leaders"). The Constitution and the Bill of Rights have been relegated to not much more than an advertising slogan.
And yet, from the perspective of Mr. and Mrs. SoccerMom America, which has had their understanding of world events shaped by television media, I can understand how from their narrow perspective seeing somebody standing by the train tracks with a camera must seem rather odd, even suspicious. It's no wonder that people call the cops on us so often. The government, with the help of tv, has made it 'patriotic' to be a snitch.
As was discussed in the previous thread on the topic, moderation is key. Bravado will get you busted.
As I mentioned in one of the Train Fest discussions, I helped out a MI state trooper a bit with traffic control when 765 left on Saturday morning. I'm pretty sure I'd get a pass if I encountered him again and wasn't way off base. On the other hand, there was the guy who walked out into the middle of M52 to get his special picture of the movement and got stern words from the same trooper just moments later...
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...
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.
-Crandell
htgguy Gabe, First off I want to state I have not read the article you are speaking to. If we have rights, but we are intimidated out of exercising them, are they really rights? Jim
Gabe,
First off I want to state I have not read the article you are speaking to.
If we have rights, but we are intimidated out of exercising them, are they really rights?
Jim
Per my post: aboslutely.
The difference is the way that you exercise them. If a cop uses the force of law to make you give us something that you don't have to, and you file the appropriate civil action, you are going to make one heck of a more profound statement to law enforcement than not obeying the officer and getting thrown in jail.
My point is, if you have a legal right, exercise it in the court room, or in a letter to the cop's supervisor--not on the street.
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.
If we have rights, but we are intimidated out of exercising them, are they really rights? I am the last person in the world that wants to get into a confrontation with a law enforcment officer. However, my right to (for example) take a photograph from public property is dependent on it being exercised. If it is not exercised, it will atrophy and die.
There was a thread not too long ago in which many people advocated the identical position you have. It really amazes me that so many of us have accepted that we need to give up our hobby just because it offends some people. 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.
Visit look4trains.com
As I generally like Don Phillips' articles and I am told he is a good guy, I am somewhat reluctant to criticize.
But, after reading his article in the September 2009 issue of Trains, I am saying, "oh my goodness, did he really just say that?"
Phillips basically outlines one's legal rights to take pictures, and provides specific instances wherein you do not have to obey an officer's request--including "you have the right to take photos of anything from public property" and you do not have to provide identification if an officer asks unless you are in a car. Phillips then admonishes the photographer to basically get into a constitutional law argument with the officer directing the photographer to do things he believes he does not have to do. Phillips finally references a general counsel's name who apparently helped give him this information/advice, but indicates that this individual cannot represent you personally.
First, as to the indication that he cannot represent us personally, news flash, for the readers who reasonable relied on this legal advice, he just did in many jurisdictions!
Moreover, although I know why he makes the--legal--contentions that he does, he REALLY over extends the nature of the advice. Yes, there is a Supreme Court case that limits an officer's ability to demand an identification. However, that case has several exceptions to it, and there are several lower state court decisions calling into question the reach of that case. Also, it is applied differently in different states. Moreover, do you really want to put your future of having an arest record on a judge interpreting that case correctly? Judges make wrong decisions all of the time, and even if you are within your rights, do you really want to go in front of a judge who might be the golfing buddy of the cop and ask him to examine the finner points of constitutional law? And, like I said, there are a lot of States that really seem to question that rule--I wouldn't dream of not giving my identification in Indiana.
Don's point seems to be we really all need to step up and protect our rights, and not let overreaching cops rob us of our rights. I have no problem with that. A cop has a badge and a gun and the ability to arrest you. Even if you are vindicated, RETROSPECTIVELY, an arrest record can hurt your reputation and ability to get a job. Don't play Jonny Cochran with the cop on the street. If a cop gives you an order, follow it. If you want to stick up for your constitutional rights, go find a lawyer afterwords and file a civil lawsuit against the cop, or complain to his supervisor.
The last thing you want to do is have a criminal record because you didn't realize there were 12 exceptions to each of Mr. Phillips' pronouncements on the law.
To the friends of Don Phillips, to the extent you think I am being harsh, I am not and am trying to do him a favor. His column has the potential to give him--and others--a much bigger headache than he realizes. If someone whom I trust not to tell the rest of the world wants me to elaborate on this, email me.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.