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.

Comments

sue Amtrak and JetBlue

[speedtux]

Those companies have no right to ask you to delete photos. They can ask you to leave their premises... once it's safe to do so, that's all.

Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they have the right to ask you to delete the pictures. It's just that you have the right to refuse :-)

Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue

[MikeBabcock]

Uneducated police officers do harm not just to those they arrest illegally but to the image of law enforcement in general.

Allowing the police to get away with these situations, no matter how small, just because you have the 'smarts' to get out of it is the wrong tack.

I would suggest confronting the situation legally but head-on as an intelligent person who should be able to defend themselves in these situations. The police forces of the world's democracies need to be kept in check, and we must keep our countries away from the slippery slope of random arrests, threats and other totalitarian scare tactics some police forces have a tendency toward.

Keep your country free -- fight improper police procedure openly and in public until it changes.

Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue

[Ihmhi]

Try taking pictures of cops and see how long you go without your camera being smashed or getting arrested on a trivial or obscure charge.

Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue

[rhizome]

As much as I hate to use it as a excuse for them,

Then don't.

However, it isn't the law enforcements responsibility to call every other department after an arrest to find out if something legitimate was being done. They were merely doing their jobs based on what they knew of current affairs.

It's law enforcement's responsibility not to enforce laws that don't exist.

Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue

[91degrees]

"Is it illegal to take photos?" If they claim it is, then ask why they want you to delete evidence. If not ask them why they want you to delete lawfully taken photos.

Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue

[excesspwr]

All right I'll bite.

"Your civil liberties don't always trump the good intentions of the well meaning"

As one of the well meaning with good intentions, yes they do. I want your civil liberties to trump my good intentions. My good intentions are based on my moral/ethical code, not yours. Just the same as I don't want other's moral/ethical good intentions infringing on my civil liberties.

Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue

[neomunk]

Your civil liberties don't always trump the good intentions of the well meaning.

If the "good intentions" of those that are supposedly "well meaning" include my arrest for something that isn't illegal, why then yes, yes they do. Every time. EVERY time. Just because that makes you nervous, doesn't make it not so. Sorry (not really).

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.

Personally I find it interesting (disheartening actually) when something as innocuous as taking a picture of a train can seem so frightening to some people as to be enough reason to curtail civil liberties in order to prevent it from happening.

Personally, I think some people don't have what it takes to live in a free society, as that means someone will be able to kill you if they try hard enough. It's just a natural consequence of people being in charge of themselves. I'm sorry if that scares you (for real this time, I have empathy for that condition), but I promise that the alternatives are far worse and, unintuitively, more dangerous in the long run.

Twentieth century history is full of examples showing how well trading liberty for security works out. Please do not set the bar of expectation as low as taking pictures of trains or buildings, that is entirely too far gone down the proverbial slippery slope.

Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue

[INT_QRK]

I'd just like to propose the possibility that the law enforcement officers in questions may have been thoroughly "educated" in TSA regulations and guidelines implementing applicable law. Could it be that the marketing people who were ignorant?

Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue

[Anonymous Coward]

*We* appreciate the tongue in cheek humor, but the simplest solution is the best -- take out the card after you take the pictures, or pretend to delete them and move on, or delete - then immediately remove the card for undeletion hopes.

Getting in a pissing match with a police is always a bad idea. They are not the judges, and they are usually, in their own minds, doing the right thing and unlikely to be convinced by you. Thus, do your best to get out of the situation and appeal to higher authority, somebody with actual decision or policy making capacity.

I hope this guy gets an apology and a small amount of money. I don't think he should get rich off this incident, but Amtrak police should definitely pay a price for their aggression and misinformation.

I'm a former police office and I disagree with you on getting into a pissing match with the police. If you know that you're doing nothing wrong you should most definitely stand up for your right to do it. Those who would lay down their rights, simply to avoid confrontation, don't deserve to have those rights!

Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue

[riceboy50]

if a law enforcement official asked someone to stop taking pictures, detained the person or asked them to delete the photos of public transportation I'd be happier than if they just sat idly by out of fear of stepping all over their precious dignity

We can't have people running around with liberty and dignity—that's just too dangerous to "the safety of the masses." I hope not, but am afraid that too many people are starting to think like you. You posture yourselves in fear and hope the government will protect you, rather than resolutely supporting the Rule of Law even when bad things happen.

Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue

[Naturalis Philosopho]

Wow, I sure am glad that the law isn't based on what'd make you happier then. Civil rights laws are in place because of people who's "happiness" depended on persecuting others in order make themselves more comfortable for their own twisted ideas. Your being afraid of shadows does not trump our rights to perform lawful actions... yet. Please don't hope for that day.

Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue

[deraj123]

There are times when people with the authority make the decision that civil liberties are less important than the safety of the masses and rightly so.

.... if a law enforcement official asked someone to ....

Law enforcement is NOT the "people with the authority" to make this decision. We have a group of people who make laws. Lay enforcement's job is to enforce existing laws, not to make up new ones.

Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue

[just_a_monkey]

Personally I find it interesting (disheartening actually) when something as innocuous as taking a picture of a train can seem so frightening to some people as to be enough reason to curtail civil liberties in order to prevent it from happening.

The irony is that if I was a terrorist, neither Amtrak regulations nor their police stopping tourists from taking pictures would stop me from taking evilpictures of their trains.

(I would use small cameraphone held discreetly in the hand, or apparently used as a phone and just turned in the right direction when the train comes in. Or a camera disguised as a ring or a medallion. Or a camera hidden in a bag, or my headgear. Or something else, but the point is that the Amtrak police would never see me with a camera or taking pictures.)

Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue

[billster0808]

That's all fine and good if you've got a big pile of money for a lawyer, and don't mind missing a few days of work to spend in court. But what if you're an average middle class person trying to scrape by, you probably can't afford an attorney and can't risk taking the time off of work because they're afraid they'll get laid off. Wanting to fight the Man is great, but doing so just isn't realistic for most people.

Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue

[my $anity 0]

This person had previously been attacked in a men's bathroom, and hence chose the women's bathroom. This is quite important as well.

Besides, going into the "wrong" bathroom is not a legal offense, or even against university policy. I have checked this out since.

Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue

[ultranova]

There are times when people with the authority make the decision that civil liberties are less important than the safety of the masses and rightly so.

Police do not have the authority to make this decision, thought. And even if they did, how does taking pictures of trains endanger anyone's safety ? Do you perhaps think that the photographer is going to use voodoo magic on the picture to make the train crash ?

Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue

[MaskedSlacker]

In principle that's a grand thing, but when the reality is that you will have to pay a price, even if you win, and the officer in question will likely suffer nothing, even if he loses, then it becomes a distinction without a difference. Either way, the civilian loses.

Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue

[NFN_NLN]

In principle that's a grand thing, but when the reality is that you will have to pay a price, even if you win, and the officer in question will likely suffer nothing, even if he loses, then it becomes a distinction without a difference. Either way, the civilian loses.

Freedom isn't free. Your forefathers put in a great deal more effort to attain their freedom. It's not too much to ask that you do something from time to time to retain your freedom.

Like all governments in the past this one will also fail and need to be refreshed. What will you be doing when that time comes?

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue

[chrispycreeme]

I shouldn't have to get tased to stand up for my rights. Since cops are so taser happy these days I'd rather take the sneaky approach. There is no way I can physically stand up to guys with guns, batons, and tazers but most third graders can easily outsmart most cops. I'd rather take them on in a way where I can get what I want and then sue the crap out of them later. Better to let them think they have won and temporarily satisfy their macho self image only to prove to them how stupid they are later.

Now if we start hiring intelligent, trained police officers I might change my tune. But I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue

[Zironic]

Can't we just use "he" for gender neutral, these new pronouns give me a headache.

Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue

[narcberry]

As he said, you still need a big pile of money for a lawyer.

People don't win every lawsuit filed, even when they are right.

Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue

[narcberry]

You're likely to have a lot more problems if you pocket your storage device and lie that you deleted the photos. Police deal with people trying that kind of crap all the time, you want to act like a criminal?

If you're doing nothing wrong, then act like you're doing nothing wrong. Don't piss all over my rights, you're a citizen with a responsibility to stand for our rights, no matter how inconvenient to you, you selfish prick.

Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't be "laid off" for going to court; it's illegal for your employer to even attempt it. The man was arrested and it is his constitutional right to due process.

If it were legal to be fired or laid off over a subpoena then I'd have lost my job about forty times last year alone. I get chain-of-evidence witness subpoenas on a weekly basis from having worked in a police evidence room for six months.

Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue

[Dun Malg]

Publicly-funded how? They've gotten government subsidies, but then again most things have. But doing business with the public isn't being publicly-funded.

Couldn't be bothered to type "Amtrak" into Wikipedia? From the entry:

"The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as Amtrak... is a government-owned corporation that was organized on May 1, 1971 to provide intercity passenger train service in the United States. ... All of Amtrak's preferred stock is owned by the U.S. federal government. The members of its board of directors are appointed by the President of the United States and are subject to confirmation by the United States Senate.
...
Amtrak commenced operations in 1971 with $40 million in direct Federal aid, $100 million in Federally insured loans, and a somewhat larger private contribution.[49] Officials expected that Amtrak would break even by 1974, but those expectations proved unrealistic and annual direct Federal aid reached a 17-year high in 1981 of $1.25 billion. ..in 1997 Congress authorized $5.2 billion for Amtrak over the next five years ...In fiscal 2004 and 2005, Congress appropriated about $1.2 billion for Amtrak..."

Amtrak hasn't turned a profit in any of its 37 years. It's not even self-funding, like the USPS. They made a show of it being a "corporation" when it was formed, but it might as well be named the Federal Bureau of Passenger Rail Service.

Re:OMG

[dmomo]

Even if this didn't involve technology, who is to say that this isn't "news for nerds" or something "that matters"? Nerds are interested in more than just the latest tech. Here on Slashdot many of us also like to talk about copyright, privacy, civil liberties. I'd say that this site is as much about a culture as it is about tech. Hopefully I'm not alone here. I don't feel alone.

Unwarranted hysteria

[clang_jangle]

According to his blog, he was in a posted "no trespassing" area at the time. The only real defense he has is that the signs are not very conspicuous. I agree the amtrack cop's behavior sounds bad, but it's hard to say whether or not he was provoked by his "victim" -- not that that's any excuse, but it does suggest the incident may be overblown and the cop's actions somewhat understandable, if a bit over the top. Amtrack cops are human too.

Re:Amtrak Police!?!

[icegreentea]

For all it's worth, Amtrak is owned by your federal government. Amtrak having a police force is is really just the federal government operating another specialized police force. Nearly all major transit systems employ some form of transit police. To not do so is simply irresponsible (there are real safety concerns on a transit system, just like how there are real safety concerns out on a street). Sometimes, if the system is local, its just a specialized unit of the local police force, other times the system has its own force composed of officers who are sworn in with local police forces (so really just a difference in bureaucracy and funding). In nearly all cases, its kind of moot cause many transit systems are government own, or heavily funded by the government.

In Amtrak's case of being a nation-wide system, you really can't expect anything other than Amtrak employ its own police forces. The FBI won't just create a Amtrak unit, and dealing with multiple police forces (crime occurs on a train moving between jurisdictions?) is just silly.

You're over reacting.

The point is

[toby]

Is that how you want things to be? With public authorities abusing that authority without legal basis?

Dissent *is* still an option, this side of another Revolution.

What should have happened

[Teancum]

I would have to agree that citing reasons of "national security" or "potential terrorist threat" as rationale for stopping photography of public places is about as lame as it gets. Once the photos are taken, the photographer should simply move on and be done.

This said, I have seen photographers abuse their "1st amendment rights" by setting up what is arguably a campsite with tripods, light meters, lighting, and other equipment that takes up space and can interfere with other patrons or members of the public that need to use those public spaces. Clearly even this photographer was doing more than simply taking a quick snapshot of a friend and moving on, even if he didn't pull out all of the toys of a genuine professional.

In a situation like this, obtaining a "permit" in terms of organizing a more protracted shooting session and letting the station manager know what you are going to be doing there would certainly have at least some value, and they might be able to suggest some more optimal times to take the photographs or locations that would reduce or eliminate interference. You might even be able to get access to areas not normally deemed "public access" as well. Rather than being something of a problem, you might have an escort that would even be helping you out with the shoot.

What really should have happened here was the officer politely but firmly saying: "Excuse me, sir, but you are standing in the way and could you move along and do that somewhere else?" or even "I would rather you be standing over here" (pointing to a logical location that is out of the way). A photographer that insists at that point in being an ass can have multiple charges thrown at him, including failure to obey a lawful order, disturbing the peace, and more. The lawful order here would be to move along and stay out of pedestrian traffic lanes.

Other than having the photographer getting in everybody's way, I don't see any other rationale for prohibiting this sort of photography. Even a rough "move it, buddy" would have at least given a proper message. Clearly this officer needs to have a good indoctrination of what the law actually is in this situation.

Re:Amtrak Police!?!

[Psion]

"Actually, this is exactly in line with what many of the libertarian-minded slashdotters would like to see (whether they're aware of it or not)."

Bull. Libertarians have always recognized defense (including from criminals) as a legitimate purpose of government.

Re:Better link to what happened

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Photographers have it really bad in this country... more than ever.

It is very important to have something like this with you, or to at least read it and have a copy. There are other resources online about Photographer rights and how they pertain.

Cops dont like to be challenged. They especially do not like to be outsmarted. So before you spring one of these papers on a cop and say "gotcha!", you should be polite and as nonthreatening as you can possibly be.

Make the officer feel comfortable with you, even if the officer is being a complete dick. You can often diffuse their attitude with politeness because people respond to respect and politeness.

I've taking pictures on public places, doing outdoor photo shoots etc and I've had cops check us out to see what is going on. They usually just observe to make sure you're not causing trouble or destroying property. All they really want to know is if you're trouble or not.

If they ask you what you're doing, say its for school, and you're learning photography. If you have GEAR... real gear, they're probably going to figure out you're telling the truth. Who the hell is lugging around soft boxes and strobes to public places, intending to anything illegal or harmful? Permits are smart if you can get them. But lets be real... sometimes we dont shoot with permits in "low risk of being arrested" situations :)

I can understand how police may not want you taking pictures of trains or the station but there really isnt anything wrong with it. Especially since AMTRAK was holding a contest. People have historically taking photos of trains and family members boarding or arriving at stations. Its so common that I cant imagine not being able to shoot a photo in front of a train or of a train.

I would never delete a picture a cop told me to. Thats ridiculous. I grew up skateboarding, and we would record ourselves street skating all over and I had to deal with many cops, and in general they've been nice. Most just want you to leave, and then there are some who are just assholes. In general, most of the cops were good natured folks... stern and authoritative but... good folks.

Its the dumb assholes that ruin it. Unfortunately most people dont really care about their personal freedoms anymore, and police sometimes dont act with "civil rights" in mind. Theres a video somewhere online where a cop slams a female photographer on the street, she hits her face and is seriously hurt. She wasnt even doing anything wrong other than being witness to a civil protest. Things like that make me sad and make me wonder just what America is anymore.

Anyways... be nice, know your rights and CONVERSE with the officer if possible. Make them feel comfortable with you. Ultimately if they want you to leave... its best to leave because it will just cost you a lot of money to fight it in court... even if you're right. The time wasted, the headaches, the nonsense... its not worth it sometimes.

I've been saying America is dead for a long time. It just goes to show you that your rights dont mean shit and everyday you need to make sure you stand up for them.

George Carlin said it best... just google Carlin "You have no rights" on youtube.

Re:More to the story?

[glitch23]

Why didn't he just follow the orders, leave, then file a complaint? I'm not defending Amtrak here, since it sounds like they were in the wrong, but it's like getting pulled over by the police. The side of the road is not the place to argue your case. The officer is not a judge, and you aren't the jury.

So if you get pulled over for no legitimate reason you are going to accept getting arrested (if that is the punishment for the fake reason you were pulled over) and complain later? The officer is not *the* judge but he is a judge and sometimes they make poor decisions. Stop the stupid decisions from even being made. Explain your rights up front. There is such a thing as false arrest. I'd prefer to tell the cop myself instead of letting him find out by the case winding its way through the court system.

Re:Amtrak Police!?!

[MaskedSlacker]

I've developed the habit of whenever I am doing anything I know someone will object to strenuously but is fully within my legal rights of printing out the relevant statutes and carrying them with me. Hasn't failed me yet.

Re:yeah but with that line of thought...

[SethJohnson]

SuperKendall,

While I believe that your perspective is well-thought-out and backed with experience, I have to chime in with support for aepervius. Yeah, for people with families and 'things-to-do,' confronting police or security and making an issue out of them trampling our rights is a real pain in the ass. I'm one of those people who doesn't have the time to get arrested, go downtown, get bailed out, then follow up with a court visit, etc.

But I also think if you yield to the excessive demands of a security agent, making phone calls the next day to complain isn't likely going to get a policy changed or justice served. Cases like this Amtrak situation help draw public attention to the overall problem of hysteria-fueled security-theater that's propagated post-9/11. Now that this photographer has shouldered the burden of resisting these unreasonable police requests, it will make it easier for others to resist similar incursions on our freedom.

The thing contemporary America doesn't understand is that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not something that is suspended due to the climate of today. They are the guideposts for getting through difficult times. People who think it's acceptable to surrender their rights for the time being don't appreciate those rights for what they are.

But to the literal situation of refusing the 'delete your photos' request. Cops and seasoned security guards have developed an eye through experience how their authority will be accepted or rejected. They can tell who can be pushed around and who will call bullshit on them. Many stores will hire off-duty cops because it extends the authority of their security force to actually arrest people and issue unreasonable commands (at the behest of the store) that must be followed lest a visitor be accused of 'refusing to follow the orders of a police officer.' These officers have all kinds of verbal techniques they'll use to imply force such as, "Are you going to make a problem here?" to coerce you to do things they have no legal backing for. When you are told to delete the photos, you say sternly, "No. This memory card contains photos of my daughter who was killed by a drunk driver three days ago. These are the last photos I have of her. If we must go to the police station to discuss this matter, by all means, let's go." When cops or security guards realize you are dead serious about making this a situation and understand the limits of their authority, they back the fuck down. The funny thing is, when you take that attitude from the get-go, you never have to press an issue like this with a security guard or cop because they can sense that they can't push you around.

Seth