Slashdot Mirror
Amtrak Photo Contestant Arrested By Amtrak Police
Photographer Duane Kerzic was standing on the public platform in New York's Penn Station, taking pictures of trains in hopes of winning the annual photo contest that Amtrak had been running since 2003. Amtrak police arrested him for refusing to delete the photos when asked, though they later charged him with trespassing. "Obviously, there is a lack of communication between Amtrak's marketing department, which promotes the annual contest, called Picture Our Trains, and its police department, which has a history of harassing photographers for photographing these same trains. Not much different than the JetBlue incident from earlier this year where JetBlue flight attendants had a woman arrested for refusing to delete a video she filmed in flight while the JetBlue marketing department hosted a contest encouraging passengers to take photos in flight." Kerzic's blog has an account of the arrest on Dec. 21 and the aftermath.
Many transit agencies have their own POLICE force, Check out what a BART police officer did this week. Amtrak maintains an official police force
For partly historical reasons, railroad police of the larger railroads in the US and Canada are actual police officers rather than merely private security forces, with full law-enforcement jurisdiction. See also Wikipedia on the Amtrak Police.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
They can ask you to leave their premises
Even that is questionable. This is a publicly-funded organization (they provide mass transit, after all) and the photographer had a legally purchased ticket. They do NOT have the right to selectively ask people to leave without a just reason for same (eg. threatening others, intoxication, etc.) Civil rights laws passed in the 1960's protect everyone, not just the african americans who fought for them--if others have the right to stay on the train platform, so does he.
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
You don't even have to show them the pictures you took, since photography when you aren't trespassing isn't a crime. (Secure areas of military installations and nuclear facilities aside.)
If you are allowed to be there, you aren't committing a crime until they ask you to leave and you don't. They can say "Stop taking pictures or leave" if you are on private property and that is said by a representative of the property you are on. In public, you can photograph pretty much anything, especially police and other security personnel.
IANAL, and laws might be different in your state, but here is a lawyer talking about this, and a nice little pamphlet he made about this.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
Has "the land of the free" gotten to the point of creating privatly owned police forces now? Or, at least, fixing them as such in the public mind?
Railroads have had their own police forces for as long as I can remember - and I'm 48. This isn't anything new or insidious.
I am bothered by the fact that photographers get hassled - quite often - by overzealous officials who don't seem to know what's legal and what's not. This happened up here in Seattle a bit after 9/11 when a photographer was photographing a railroad trestle. But if you're in a public space, you are allowed to photograph pretty much anything you can see (even people) without permission.
#DeleteChrome
In her blog, there's more about NY City cops harassing anyone with a camera.
So much for living life normally. The terrorists have won.
If you are taking photographs in a public place, know your rights. Take a copy of this with you:
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
$7.95/mo, 200 GB disk, 2TBxfer, MySQL, PHP, RoR.
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/ContactUs
It's a shame how many of our rights are being curtailed in the name of "National Security".
As far as I've been able to ascertain from the article, Mr. Kerzic was standing in an area designated for use by the public. It does not appear to be a restricted area, and from what I can see from the photograph in the article, there are no signs warning against photography by the public.
However, as bad as we may think it is here in the United States (compared to the pre-9/11 world), things are much worse in the United Kingdom. The rights of the Individual in the UK are enshrined in Common Law (i.e., customary law passed down through the ages), and not explicitly delineated in any sort of constitutional document.
For example, in the US, we have a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the right against self-incrimination. A recent court case implies that this right includes encryption keys: If a law enforcement agency impounds your laptop for analysis, but can't get anything out of it because the contents have been encrypted, too bad for them. Handing over the encryption key would be a form of self-incrimination, so you don't have to do it.
On the other hand, laws, ordinances, and Police reactions regarding individual freedoms can and often do change at a whim, depending on what is expedient at the time (8th paragraph, about half-way down). In addition, since the right against self-incrimination is based on Common Law, and not written as an explicit right, ordinances like the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act can easily curtail and eliminate such rights. As usual, some groups say that even these powers do not go far enough, invoking the familiar mantra of "National Security".
And these things are happening in two of the most "open and democratic" societies the world has ever seen...
And on a side-note, here's an interesting question: Who's standing in the "restricted" zone across the tracks taking the picture of the "public" train platform?
I've shot plenty of train pictures in various European countries and so far I've only experienced problems in Marseille this summer. I was asked to stop taking pictures by a gentleman with a somewhat official suit and a walkie-talkie. My lack of French at that point made it smarter to follow the instructions rather than ask him what the exact problems were. In both Germany and Switzerland no one even came to ask what I was doing while taking pictures. Especially Switzerland with all the different railroads and rolling stock is a country where you might end up with a small group of people all shooting the same trains.
Here in good, ol' Europe no cop will ever ask you to stop shooting photos - if he/she's on duty of course. Best they can do is to turn around. You have the right to video them, photo them when they're doing the job you are paying for.
Plain old sigh.
I'll use it because it is a legitimate concern jackass.
The law might not exist but one of the tenets of law enforcement agencies is "to protect and serve". If they did nothing while someone was taking pictures and that person ended up being part of some kind of terrorist scheme people would be up in arms that nothing was done.
I always find it interesting when people have this Utopian view of things when in reality risks have to be taken to ensure the world runs smoothly. Get your head out of your ass. Your civil liberties don't always trump the good intentions of the well meaning.
What use is your argument, when Amtrak literally invites people to take pictures:
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Copy/News_Release_Page&c=am2Copy&cid=1081794202583
You did not even bother to read the summary, did you?
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
You mean the same Canada that taxes anything even vaguely related to music or movies -- including blank media and concert halls -- and sends that tax money straight to the RIAA/MPAA?
We're kind of running out of "enlightened" countries to run to. We need to make a stand and fix things, here and now.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
You mean the same Canada that taxes anything even vaguely related to music or movies -- including blank media and concert halls -- and sends that tax money straight to the RIAA/MPAA?
You know, I live in a Canada, but it's really nothing like that at all. I've never heard of the Canada you're talking about (I even searched Google for it.) Frankly I'm a little surprised that there is another country called Canada.
The Canada I live in has a levy on blank CDs, just like the USA. However none of the money goes to the RIAA or MPAA - it goes to the CPCC (Canadian Private Copying Collective) who distributes it to music artists and labels (not all of which are CRIA members.)
(Seriously, if you're going to criticize something, get your facts straight first.)
assume it's true that the NY/NJ PA has a no-photos policy on property they own and operate; assume Amtrak (or whoever else you like outside of the relevant legislatures) has similar policies. and assume they're unambiguous that you're violating them. taking photos is still not illegal because - and this is important - none of these organizations make law. the photographer in this incident was charged with Trespass, as per NY State Penal Code Part 3, Title I, Article 140.05. go read it - the entire 140's a relatively easily-comprehensible piece of law. the photographer had a legal license to be on the where he was, and while a violation of the PA's, Amtrak, or whoever's rules might give them good grounds to ask him to leave, there is simply no trespass until he refuses such a lawfully given request.
remember, always: laws, in democracies, are made by those with legislative authority, not policing authority or private individuals or organizations. neither airlines, nor amtrak, nor the police, may make or redefine laws.
i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
You are definitely wrong. All the lawyers I've talked to say that the less you say the police the better. Basically, they've already decided you are doing something wrong, and talking to them about it rarely changes that . On the other hand, if you try to talk them out of it, since so many things are illegal, you may unknowingly incriminate yourself.
The best thing to do is say "yes, officer" "sorry officer" and "it won't happen again". Take you ticket and go. No matter how wrong you think they are, they have the guns and the authority and you have nothing.
Natives in Canada are treated by far better over the course of our nation's history than they have ever been treated in the US. And for the oversights and bad judgement shown in the past, our parliament has been addressing these issues over the past several years -- most recently providing significant settlements for those affected by aboriginal schooling.
Nunavut is a territory set up specifically to address issues of self government for the Innu. Its probably a territory larger than any US state (maybe Texas is bigger).
I'd be willing to compare and contrast Canadian vs American native policies any day of the week.
As for complete freedom of the press...care to enlighten us as to what's lacking?
The fact that your comment is modded as insightful is a sad statement on the effectiveness of moderation points IMHO.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
Unfortunately, when I tried to stand up for my rights, I was taken into a back room, verbally assaulted, told to shut the f**k up and do exactly as they say because there were no witnesses and they would do everything the wanted to make sure I did exactly like they said, so I should get smart really f**king quick. All the while, the Tucson Police Dept officer's hand hovered over the holster of his weapon, his face inches from me, while my hands are cuffed behind my back and I'd already been thrown about. What I'd done? I had asked why I had just been jumped by three security agents, handcuffed, dragged about and threatened with pepper spray. I'm a law abiding citizen, had made no threatening movements or gestures. When they tried to offer diversion at my arraignment? I declined, preferring a trial, at which point all charges were dropped, dismissed, and the arrest was stricken from my record. In short: I had done absolutely nothing at all wrong. This is in short, why I remain incredibily paranoid and distrustful of law enforcement. I get very nervous and very uncomfortable around your badge wearing brothers. They no longer receive my donations.
Transgender actually does not mean "of the opposite gender"...that doesn't really even make sense there. The meaning of the term "Transgender" is that you are somehow non-normative in your gender identity or expression, i.e. in some way shape or form, your gender identity or expression do not match the gender identity you were assigned at birth by a doctor/your parents. (and yes we are all assigned one of these in our society, its the gender marker on our birth certificates and the gender role we are rasied in). Transgender can include anything from "cross-dressing" to changing your body to more match your true gender identity (commonly known as being transsexual). Being intersexed is a physiological condition that doesn't have much to do with gender identity except that gender identity cannot be simply assigned at birth (though it often is anyway, removing or hiding or downplaying characteristics that don't fit the simple binary). Therefore its very simple for someone to be intersexed & transgender, all they have to do is express a differet gender identity than the one they were handed on that birth certificate, or even simply act outside their prescribed gender role to some large degree. Also, there are more than just two binary gender expressions/gender identities. There are many people who are in one way or another not just 'male' or 'female' in their own internal gender identity, and these people tend to use these pronouns, as a way of showing they are not simply one of the two binary genders. To disclose my personal stake here, I have many transgendered friends, and I myself am transsexual, what's known as "mtf".
Nunavut is almost exactly three times as big as Texas. Nunavut is 808,190 square miles according to wikipedia, and Texas is 268,820 square miles.
I think the point is not that people don't want to stand up for their rights, but that the police officer has the upper hand in any confrontation. They come equipped with weapons (pepperspray, tazers, guns) and if you were to ever try to defend yourself if they were in the wrong you'd still get in trouble (not guilty? trespassing. guilty? striking a police officer)
Years ago, I was walking around campus late at night. I hadn't been drinking, hadn't done anything wrong. I was just pulling an all nighter and looking for some coffee or something. So I went walking around looking for something, ANYTHING that would be open -- gas station or whatever.
A cop saw me and just decided to be a dick, or maybe he was bored. He came up to me and started asking me questions. I tried to be polite but when he asked to see my id, I said no, and he insisted. So I told him this wasn't communist russia and I could very well walk around without an id if I liked.
I ended up taking a ride in the police car that night and spending a night in jail until the judge saw me the next morning. The judge immediately let me go and I have no idea what exactly I was arrested for.
But what should I have done in that situation? When he started handcuffing me I could have refused and punched him in the face, right? But then instead of just having handcuffs on that were too tight I would probably gotten bruised and skinned my face when he pushed me to the ground.
And did the cop suffer? A lawyer told me there wasn't enough to go after the guy (I complied when arrested so wasn't exactly bruised up).
I think the whole point of my rambling is that there needs to be a way for the plebs to fight back against police who overstep their bounds, and I don't think that exists...
It takes a lot of looking on the photographer's self-serving web site, but the photographer was not "just taking pictures". He was walking across active tracks in Penn Station which IS trespass. No ticket allows passengers to leave the platform and walk on active tracks.
The Transit Police were NOT legally wrong to ask him to delete the pictures - he had the right to refuse to do so. That the pictures have been published n his web site indicate they were not confiscated or deleted by the police.
His summons was for Trespass, and that appears to be a legitimate charge, he WAS trespassing. He is acting like a 3-year old when he argues that since there were no "No Trepsasing" signs he was not trespassing when he walked across the tracks. That's absurd.
I'm a photographer, and I support the free taking of pictures in public spaces, but this was NOT an arrest for taking pictures in Penn Station. This was an arrest for irresponsible trespass and endangering his own and other's safety in Penn Station. As proof, he was in a picture-taking group, many people had been taking pictures at the same time he was, pictures were even taken during his arrest on the platform by members of the group, and NONE OF THEM were arrested.
In order to be a policemen in New York City, you have to pass the exam at the end of a tour through the Police Academy with 60 college credits (a two-year AA degree) with a 2.0 GPA. These guys aren't lawyers.
But that's the NYPD. Kerzic was detained by Amtrak Rent-A-Cops. These guys are just a whiff of respectability up from Mall "cops."
What has happened here is that the Federal Government has now got these guys all jazzed up about the concept of a terrorist attack on trains or train stations and they have created "rules for behavior" that are based on rights deprivation.
The unfortunate fact is that the local police are called upon and "deputized" by the feds (either the Secret Service or some other federal agency) to enforce the unenforceable. So the Amtrak police arrested Kerzic when he refused to comply with an illegal order. So suing Amtrak actually hurts one of the victims.
In this case, it's pretty near impossible to follow the orders up the chain of command to the federal government. Just like it was in the case of the release of the Abu Graib torture photos, the feds who actually made the decisions to promote these actions will create an aura of "deniability" that will last until they are out of office.
We need to prosecute Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and so on for their crimes -- after they leave office. We need to do this for the same reason why we need to prosecute Agusto Pinochet for his crimes against humanity: Pinochet thought and this administration thinks that once one has retired from office, they are free to pursue their lives without fear of any adverse consequences -- save perhaps vilification.
Nixon believed he was above the law. The US Supreme Court disagreed. Now, we have another opportunity to test the maxim that no man is above the law in the United States. We should prosecute so that never again is our Constitution threatened by someone who believes, as Nixon did, that "when the President does something, it's not illegal."
I suppose he should sue. But he should sue for the purpose of exposing the chain of command that set these dogs loose, and not to dismember Amtrak.
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.