Photographer arrested on DART property files Federal First Amendment lawsuit

[Euclid]

 

Regarding the red sign saying, “Proof of validated fare required.”  Required for what?  Is proof of validated fare required to be on the platform, or is it required to board the train? 

 

[BaltACD]

Just because you can; doesn't mean you should.

[Paul of Covington]

tree68

I wouldn't necessarily call the officer corrupt in the usual sense of the term.

   Agree.   I think in many cases it's more a problem with ego.   ("Because I said so!")   I keep reminding myself that there are few things more delicate than a policeman's ego.

[tree68]

I wouldn't necessarily call the officer corrupt in the usual sense of the term.

More likely the officer doesn't understand the law, which cause has been suggested a number of times over the years.  I just had to deal with that on a totally different topic, which I won't get into here.  Suffice to say that "folk knowledge" and legends sometimes take the place of facts.

How many times have we heard "but what about the terrorists?" or something of that ilk?

Something not mentioned here, but very real in the world of EMS is patient privacy.  More than a few folks have gotten into trouble because they circulated a picture of an accident victim trapped in the wreckage.

We had a problem here for a bit with first responders taking pictures of traffic collisions - sans patients, just the vehicles.  They would then submit them to a local news aggregator who would often publish them immediately.  The issue was that the images were sometimes published before next of kin had been notified.  We have a military installation here with frequent deployments.  Imagine checking in to see what's going on at home and finding an image of your loved one's vehicle all busted to bumpkus...

So - I fully support one's right to take images pretty much anywhere - subject to trespassing and bona fide security concerns among others.  But sometimes a picture can include more than you might think it does.

 

[7j43k]

It's my belief that when a law enforcement officer insists that a witness making a recording must cease and move along, that that officer is tampering with evidence and should be so charged.

 

 

Ed

[K. P. Harrier]

A linked story about this is below.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/09/23/dallas-photographer-busted-for-taking-pi

The arresting officer was caught in lies, according to the story.  My guess is DART will try to extricated itself from this mess as soon as possible, but the photographer likely will stick to his guns, sort of speaking.

I hate corrupt cops with a passion!  If reports are true, it sounds like that arresting officer should be put on a rocket and shipped to the moon where she can arrest all the rocks she wants …

What I wonder though …

… did the news photographer violate a DART policy like the Los Angeles Metro posted policy pictured above?  In such a case, where does one draw the line?  Can someone with a Press pass ignore the sign?

[selector]

At worst he could be charged with obstruction of some sort, or trespass.  I doubt he'll be found guilty of failure to compy with the demands of a peace officer.  Neither is the case prima facie.  We'll just have to mark time until a decision is rendered.

[samfp1943]

Article in TRAINS Newswire of this date: By Hayley Enoch | October 7, 2016

This is a subject touched on in this Forum on more than one occasion and Thread topics. It has had the effect to raise blood pressure in some and caused others to 'rant'.

 It generally encompasses "ROW Trespass' and encroching on privacy of operating employees, who may or may not suspect ulterior motives in the individual with the camera(?).

 So it seems unusual for the photographer,in this case Mr. Avi Adelman, to seek redress for the Courts on a violation of his First Amendment Constitutional Rights.

Here is some of the infgormation from the article:

FTA: "...DALLAS, Texas — A photographer arrested on Dallas Area Rapid Transit property last February is taking his First Amendment case to the Federal level.

Avi Adelmen, a freelance photographer working in the Dallas area, arrived at Rosa Parks Plaza station after hearing reports of a person overdosed on synthetic marijuana. When DART police officer Stephanie Branch instructed Adelmen to stop photographing the scene, he noted that he had a constitutional right to take photographs in public so long as it did not interfere with the first responders’ activities. Branch arrested Adelmen anyway, even though paramedics and other officers at the scene stated they believed her actions were wrong.

DART contested that Adelman was arrested because he did not comply with the officers’ requests to leave the property, but announced that it was dropping the charges a few days later when testimony and video evidence showed he was maintaining an appropriate distance from the medical activity taking place at the scene..." [snipped]

FTA:[snip]"...In the months since his arrest, Adelmen has contended that DART’s policy on trespassers is in conflict with the First Amendment, and that members of its police force are not familiar enough with U.S. law and DART’s own guidelines regarding photographers' rights..."[snipped]

 Certainly, Mr. Adelman seems to be taking a tact that is different, and pushing a point that could possibly effect anyone who takes pictures  around railroads.  Since his transfgression was, apparently on a publicly accessible passenger platform?  Should be worth following, if it does not take years to proceed through the Courts.