Slashdot Mirror
Man Arrested For Taking Photo of Open ATM
net_shaman writes in with word of a Seattle man who was arrested for taking a photo of an ATM being serviced. "Today I was shopping at the downtown Seattle REI. I was about to buy a Thule hitch mount bike rack. They were out of the piece that locks the bike rack into the hitch. So I was in the customer service line to special order one. It was a long line and while I was waiting, I saw two of guys (employees of Loomis, as I later learned) refilling the ATM. I walked over and took a picture with my iPhone of them and more interestingly of the open ATM. I took the picture because I'm fascinated by the insides of things that we don't normally get to see. ... That was when Officer GE Abed (#6270) spun me around and put handcuffs on me."
FML
It seems that he was arrested for being a smart ass. Not that it is a good reason to be arrested, but still an important distinction.
Probably just for show, with no past history and no way to show intent they have to let you go. Of course there are those of us who would say 'if it's a secret then don't do it in the open'
as the song goes
I'm curious for what? Cops still have to enforce a LAW, not just a suspicion.
The on duty desk officer assured me that it did not happen today, it was a few days ago. The officer is employed there. And he also assured me that the facts as they were being presented were inaccurate.. However, you can call their media unit at (206) 684-5520 for more information.
By the way, they're getting slashdotted!
I would suspect they might arrest you however it is if they press charges that really counts. The First Amendment protects photography. There is a stupid doctrine of check for "newsworthiness" but that's just a bunch of stupid activist judges overstepping their bounds. The real truth is that per the Constitution of the United States you can take any photo you want so long as you are on public property at the time and there is no expectation of privacy ( an example would be taking a photo of a nude sunbather in their backyard from a helicopter).
Your only defense is an attorney. Get one, sue for expenses and a letter of apology.
You you let people like this get away with it, it becomes the norm.
I know for some reason /. hates the fact that someone can defend themselves with an attorney is somehow wrong.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The courts have ruled many, MANY times that when you are in public, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Therefore, I'd sue the snot out of everyone and anyone who was responsible for my arrest
Since it sounds like there were a bunch of witnesses around, why not get statements attesting to the fact that none of the REI employees asked him to leave, and then sue the pants off the police dept.?
The only wrong thing you could be doing that would require an arrest is refusing to leave the store when asked.
Also, I would have started talking about how it's legal to keep records of anything in public view, not to exclude putting a GPS unit on a car without a warrant, etc.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
They're in a public space; what's visible in public is fair game. What law would someone with a picture be breaking (hint: Offending a security guard's sensitivities isn't against the law.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
casing a bank. It's suspicious behavior. You can say "what's the harm", but they see it as you coming back later and using the information to crack open the ATM. If you aren't big on hot lights and cavity searches I wouldn't run towards the President waving your arms and yelling either. There's an element of common sense here.
I can see one of them might have been of "Native American" heritage and it might be possible that he thought you were taking his soul... or not.
It looks more like being arrested for mouthing off to the cops. Tact not a strong point?
Another dangerous idiot in "law enforcement",plus the idiot that hired him.
If there isn't a law against it then I do have the right. Is there a law prohibiting me from taking pictures of the insides of ATMs or armored cars?
If these people want their devices secret, maybe they shouldn't leave their doors wide open for the public to see. Just a suggestion.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
It seems that he could have saved himself a lot of grief by just going home and looking up pictures of the insides of ATMs on the internet.
As his own article shows, it's not like they're hard to find. But hey, fight the power and all that.
We DO have that right. It's in plain site for Christ sake. They don't like it? put up a fucking barrier.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Exactly which law do you think he was breaking ?
Or, for that matter, would be breaking by taking a photo of the interior of an arnoured car ?
I'm not suggesting that in either case the owners/operators would be happy about it, but the job of the police is to enforce the law, not to make one group happy at the expense of another (unless the two groups are law-abiding-citizens and criminals, of course :) ....
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Go ahead then. I guarantee you're going to need a lawyer though. I hope the fun is worth it.
It is simply amazing how many companies don't understand the true power of the internet. As a result of one single incident like this, REI is going to lose many customers and many sales (I for one won't shop there any more until this gets resolved favorably). Bad news travels extremely quickly these days.
REI spends a huge amount of money on marketing - and this year's entire budget just got flushed down the toilet. Evidently they should spend a bit more on employee training. (Yes, the guilty parties in this case were from a subcontractor - but REI's own security personnel should have stepped in and done the right thing).
REI also promises a 24-hour response time to email - my (politely worded) email about this issue hasn't been replied to, 25+ hours and counting later.
I was in the supermarket and the ATM was right next to the produce section. I had a cart, a bag in my hands and was getting ready to pick out some plums which were right next to me when the Brinks rent-a-cop decided he was Dirty Harry and told me to back away. I sent them an angry letter and got no response.
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
...that people who are stupid enough to pay Apple's inflated prices for their products really are stupid.
And that's why they're shopping at REI.
Oughtta turn out just fine long as you don't go into the vehicle or get in the way of the personnel...
IANAL and all...but...
1) They aren't LEO's or even off duty LEO's
2) it's visible from a public location
3) Even if it's a private location, it's likely a private location in which you have access until an authorized party asks you to leave/trespasses you.
Even in states where a private citizen can arrest you for a felony--they usually have to directly witness you committing a violent felony. The places that have "stand your ground" laws--only really applies if someone threatens harm to you or someone else--it'd probably protect the guy taking the picture, not someone in the truck... It seems doubtful any laws were broken save possibly harassment.
I'm pretty confident you could probably lawfully ...kill them for kidnapping you if the guys in the armored car tried to handcuff you for taking a picture. I mean...not outright just shoot them for coming near you -- but give them reasonable warning that they're about to attempt a kidnapping. Retreat and indicate you're prepared to use force if they close ground... and go from there if they continue to do so.
The moment you've got good reason to fear they might use force--pretty much all bets are off in my state.
Not to defend Officer Abed's overreaction (nor her probably violation of your civil rights) but when interacting a heavily armed lady who's authorized to use deadly force and deprive you of your freedom, it's absolutely the wrong time to cop an attitude. Save the "playing the 9/11 card" rhetoric for your blog.
When dealing with a police officer who you believe is abusing their authority, there is only one sensible strategy: you say, "Officer, would you please explain to me what law I've broken?" If they can't give you a proper answer, you say, "I'm sorry, but if I'm not accused of anything, I don't think I have to talk to you."
Say these things in a respectful tone of voice. And then Shut. The. Fuck. Up. Getting into lame political arguments with a cop is not ever going to accomplish anything useful. On the contrary, arguments and self-justification can give them the legal hook they need to act against you. If you don't believe me, ask Randal Schwartz.
The guy takes the point of view that he was doing nothing wrong, and the rent-a-cops should have realized that, because it's not logical.
On the other side, you have two guys with guns and tons of money. Why do they have guns? Because people with tons of money tend to get robbed a lot. This isn't theoretical, do a search for 'armored car robbery' and you will see a bunch of them. So these two guys have more than a little concern. And in his mind, when someone takes a picture, he thinks, "this is not normal. Something could be bad." Is there a better way to rob an ATM? Probably. But thieves aren't always the smartest guys, and it is possible to think of a robbery scenario that would start with someone taking a camera. These guys are basically going to try to be as defensive as possible, because frankly, it is a scary job, and they could die.
The biggest mistake this guy did was to talk back to the police. Bad idea. Chris Rock did a public information announcement about how not to get your ass kicked by the police. Sure, sometimes police are overbearing and arrogant, and that is annoying, but the proper time to fight back against that is NOT when you are about to be arrested, and the proper way to do it isn't to be arrogant back.
Unless you have a serious reason not to, the best thing to do is cooperate with the police. Unless you want to spend the night in jail like this guy.
Qxe4
Article says that REI is having him charged with trespassing and he can't go back for a year.
Which makes sense since he was on private property, and we don't know what the photo policies are.
For those who might want to make their feelings known, here is the contact page" for the Seattle PD and for REI (who banned the photographer (their customer) for a year from the premises.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
sight, not site...among other things. Also, there's quite a long list of cases where pictures of things that were not obfuscated were still determined to be protected under the twisted First Amendment. What, we'll allow the SPOTUS and its feeders say that personal photography (which didn't exist when the Bill of Rights was drafted...) was intended - even when well outside of "press" - based on some strange "speech" redefinition...but we don't allow the same group to also say that we need to be farking reasonable about the invasion of other people's property?
Ya know, there had better be more to this story that it appears, otherwise somebody needs to get their ass sued.
Now I'm normally a 'first we kill all the lawyers' type and would normally support the cops on the grounds they are too hamstrung by stupid lawsuits and even dumber (or should I say evil? Yes I should.) judges who take the side of criminals over upholding the law. But there IS a line, and this case just has 'abuse of power' stamped all over it and somebody needs to get punished for it. The arresting officer and his superior obviously, and whoever was the officer in charge back at the station who allowed the situation to continue there, all need a demotion.
Democrat delenda est
....Unless the US is in a state of declared war. Then you cannot photograph any military or government facilities or installations.
Since when has the United States been in a state of declared war? Every "war" since Korea has been fought as a police action.
Don't talk to the police! When are people going to get this through their thick heads? There is one question you need to ask the police: "Am I free to go?" and maybe a followup of "Am I being detained?" which is the same question, really. If they say yes to the first, you walk away. If they so no to the second, you walk away! Don't try to justify your actions, you're not required to. Don't try to be smart, or demand your "rights". And don't, under any circumstances, answer any questions.
Personally, I blame all these cop shows on tv. The "interrogation" scenes make for good drama, but only stupid people talk to the police.
How we know is more important than what we know.
The War on Terror(TM) has become the War on Photographers. This is nothing new. Try taking picturs of any government building, any airport, any train station, etc, with professional equipment. Anywhere in the country these days you're likely to be stopped an often arrested. The same applies to bird watchers/photographers walking around in the middle of nowhere - there are hundreds of incedents of small town SWAT teams (or equivalent) being mobilized because someone was walking around with a tripod!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
You didn't say what law would be broken. Because there is none. The fact that someone would be harassed and subject to abuse of police power and/or prosecutorial process for doing so is irrelevant.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Did they ask him to leave? I didn't see that in the article. It seems like A) the officer lied, or B) Implied something was wrong and got REI to make this claim.
Sounds fishy to me.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
That's just sad. And yet, when the cameras are pointed at us, we're reminded that no one has an expectation of privacy in public. Perhaps there are some yet uncorrupted people in power who see the contradiction?
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Dear Bill
Since you have left day to day operations at Microsoft you have probably dropped off a few email lists, specifically in this case "Talking Points vis a vis Apple Computers". Please refer to this as the "Apple Tax" in all future communications.
Sincerely,
The Marketing Department
Seattle Police are out of control ...
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009209116_arrest12m.html
Fucking terrorists!
If their policy is to defend the machine by attacking anyone they see taking pictures, then they are screwed. People who are just walking by, might be taking pictures without it being at all obvious. Ergo, they must attack everyone they see, whether they appear to be taking pictures or not.
That isn't sane.
If you have to hide stuff, don't hide it in plain sight. It just can't work.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
I would really love some rent a cop and/or a real cop to arrest me for taking a picture in a public place. I don't care what it is. I would own that town.
I also doubt that this story occurred. If it did, then I can assure you the fellow has an actionable case.
There
Does your confidence in the impending douche-baggery make it any less douche-baggy?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Is there a law prohibiting me from taking pictures of the insides of ATMs or armored cars?
Dunno about the US, but where I live there are only laws that say you can't (without permission) open up an ATM machine in order to take pictures of the insides. So technically, opening an ATM machine for that purpose would be illegal. But once opened up, taking pictures of the insides should be OK.
I wrote REI yesterday to express my disapproval and this is the form letter I got back last night:
(what I wrote)
I'm very disappointed with how you treat your customers and I will make
a point not to shop at your store when I need outdoor equipment. You
should respect your customers and not treat them like criminals for
taking pictures.
(what they wrote)
We are aware of the incident at our Seattle store in which an individual
was removed by Seattle Police. While it's unfortunate this occurred on
store property, the ATM machine is owned and maintained by an
independent bank vendor. We did not call the police and did not detain
the individual. We regret this situation happened, but feel our team
acted appropriately under the circumstances and are committed to
providing a welcoming and safe environment for all of our customers.
Thank you for taking time to provide us your feedback. We appreciate the
opportunity to respond. For additional information, I'd encourage you to
contact the Seattle Police Department.
Best,
Bethany
Bethany Nielson
Public Affairs | Recreational Equipment, Inc.
Exactly want I was going to say... total hypocrisy.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
They didn't charge him with trespassing, they indicated he'd been "Trespassed" which means if he returns he'd be charged with tresspassing since they've now told him he isn't welcome there. The form he signed is the formal 'yes, I know you've told me not to come back' that they'd use as proof that he knew he wasn't allowed back if they ever did need to charge him.
He should have said he thought they were breaking into it and he was taking a picture to send to the news and police and asked to see their identification. Only idiots would break into an ATM in front of people and not be wearing security guard uniforms.
Is there a law prohibiting me from taking pictures of the insides of ATMs or armored cars?
Dunno about the US, but where I live there are only laws that say you can't (without permission) open up an ATM machine in order to take pictures of the insides. So technically, opening an ATM machine for that purpose would be illegal. But once opened up, taking pictures of the insides should be OK.
I encourage all of the slashdotters to take 2 minutes and call the REI store to express your feeling about this whole deal.
I just talked to the manager, and I let her know that I will personally never set foot on any of their stores ever again.
Go ahead then. I guarantee you're going to need a lawyer though.
Not everyone is as afraid in guys in rent-a-cop uniforms as you appear to be.
AccountKiller
Really now. You think you have the right to take pictures of an ATM's innards? Try taking a picture of an armored car interior when they're delivering money to the bank. See how that turns out.
You're a good little fascist, aren't you.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
Are you saying it is illegal, or are you saying that you'll be illegally harassed for it? I agree that a law will be broken for taking a picture of an ATM's innards, but not by the person taking the photo...
Learn to love Alaska
You would be surprised what comes up when you google image search "inside of atm" with quotes & safe search off.
Which part of the constitution says the stuff about having to be on public property and without a reasonable expectation of privacy? I don't see it anywhere. On the other hand, I don't see any explicit protections for photographers at all beyond the normal first amendment stuff. It doesn't look as clear as you make it sound.
This is called the "first amendment."
http://photography.about.com/od/copyrightinformation/ss/PhotoRights.htm
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Sadly, the police officers involved will go without punishment, the rent-a-cops will go without punishment, and the individual has an arrest on his record( even without a conviction it will still show up in a background check ).
Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
The War on Terror(TM) has become the War on Photographers.
I think more people are just aware of it now and the authorities are less tolerant of it.
A couple of years before 9/11 I went out to take some night shots with a tripod and old TLR camera. It was pretty late, area was dead. In one area a cop came up to me and told me I couldn't take photos there. There was a sign but I missed it. It wasn't a big deal and I just left. I think they might have seen me taking photos in other areas earlier.
Post 9/11 things might have been a bit different such as more thorough questioning. The area was fairly close to the WTC. You could actually see it from where I was taking photos but that's not what I was taking photos of. A number of officers in the area were lost in the attacks.
If I did it again, I don't know that they'd call SWAT. I think that's just more the small town places that got a bunch of new equipment as a result of the home land security spending and needing any excuse to justify it. I wouldn't have been surprised or upset if they asked for my ID or detained me for questioning.
As for the tripod thing, there are a lot of places you can't use a tripod without a permit and that was even before the war on terror. It can be a safety issue because you're blocking the path.
You can't just take pictures where you want either. I understand the frustration of being hassled taking photos in a public place when there is no posted warning, but taking a photo of two strangers filling a cash machine with money in a private store is not exactly the same thing.
Dual Opteron < $600
I would argue that even if there is a law against certain things, you still have a right to do them.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
Sounds like an open and shut false arrest case.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Correct. They didn't have the power of arrest. But the guy wasn't arrested, he was detained, possibly unlawfully.
It wasn't a public location, it was private property. The inside of an REI store.
Which is exactly what REI did.
No arrest was made, the REI guy asked the blogger to GTFO, and the blogger signed papers agreeing to GTFO and STFO.
I'm no fan of cops, but the cops were in the right in this instance. It's complicated by the fact that the private security goons overreacted, and the REI guy also overreacted, and the blogger was a douchebag, but the bottom line is the actual cops in this story were in the right.
Go ahead then. I guarantee you're going to need a lawyer though. I hope the fun is worth it.
It's not about "fun", and it's certainly not about taking the easy way out.
The fact is that if we want to HAVE rights, it's necessary to assert them. Do you really have a right to take pictures in public if you can be legally harassed, cuffed and hauled in for questioning for doing it? You do not.
Does it matter whether or not you can take a picture of an ATM? Probably not. But it definitely DOES matter that you aren't required to abide by the whims of random company employees, that they can't force you to identify themselves to you just because they don't like the way you looked at them. And it matters that the police be able to understand that citizens who did nothing wrong should not be harassed.
But if everyone is like you, if no one is willing to stand up, even though it's unpleasant, inconvenient and occasionally expensive, over time we'll lose the option of deciding whether we want to go along to get along or not.
Civil rights activists of all sorts are necessary, especially the ones who just want to take the opportunity to assert their right to remain more or less anonymous.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Agreed. A better word in this case might be the freedom to do a thing. The idea still stands: unless there is a very good reason against doing a thing, and that reason is properly codified into law, I have the freedom to do that thing.
Only REI can be pressured by a public outcry. They tell loomis and the police to chill out. REI actually cares what people say and think while Seattle PD and Loomis could give a rats ass.
From the article:
The downtown Seattle REI is located at 222 Yale Ave N, Seattle, WA which looks like this. Their phone number is (206) 223-1944.
I called and asked them if REI was going to be posting their side of the story. When they said no they were not I let them know that neither me nor my family would be shopping there again since apparently it was possible to be arrested and harassed for doing legal things while shopping there.
They guy was very polite and said he would "pass that along" which is probably BS but if a lot of people called it would cease to be BS and they would likely apologize, change their policies and reprimand Loomis and the Seattle PD. In other words, for once, there is a chance that the good guy might win but it does require some people to pressure REI.
if he was illegally cuffed and detained by the armored car company, he should file a lawsuit based on the unlawful detainment. stores have lost similar suits when they detained suspected shoplifters without any reasonable evidence. as long as he wasnt an asshole to the real cops when they showed up, a jury should have no problem sticking it to the high school dropouts with guns and a chip on their shoulder (rent a cops) and the armored car company.
spoken like a true model citizen..
for a police state or tyranny that is
being a smartass to a law officer?
First, they are usually armed. Second, they have the authority to detain you (granted they will need to figure out something if they want to keep you but they can interrupt your day), and third, their job sucks for the most part.
So where do people come off with the idea that it is OK to be anything but polite with them? Frankly if your a smartass to me I won't help you. I won't even talk to you. At least I am not armed; well not as they are. The difference is that regardless of how much an asshole someone else is there is never an excuse to anything but polite in return. This is especially true with people who are doing their job.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I fly fairly regularly (about once a month), and I routinely have my camera out, taking pictures of various parts of the airport, including the aircraft. I don't point it at security lines, but that's mostly because I don't have much interest in them. Never been bothered once in any of the seven or eight airports I've been to or through so far this year.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
This was in Seattle. Home of M$ and retro-geek. Do that and people might just start buying you drinks.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
He should not have hung around. He should have left. And then if they tried to stop him, he could have sued them for false imprisonment.
Sometimes you have to use the courts to beat sense into people.
You should sue the city of Seattle and the Seattle PD for violating your civil rights. The cops aren't allowed to arrest people for no reason. There has to be probable cause that a crime has taken place for a public arrest. There is no probable cause and there is no crime. Again, sometimes you have to use the courts to beat sense into people. And you may even be able to get the idiot cop's badge. He certainly doesn't deserve to be carrying one.
... is how many /.'ers 'apparently' shop at REI. I bet, no one who is claiming that they're calling REI about boycotting is actually doing it, and those that are probably don't even go there to begin with.
And who is eternally behind goatse? Thats right its the Grand Dragon!
Would it have hurt to ask the ATM mechs if he could take a picture of the machine? Maybe if he had explained himself a bit, instead of being a wanker, none of this would've happened. I mean, I might give him some credit... but not to stereotype, let's look at the evidence.
You'll have a great point here just as soon as you can point out what law he violated, how he was threatening the service employees, that this store was a secure area, or the contract he signed with REI stating he wouldn't take any pictures inside their establishment. Until then, you're an ankle grabbing tool apologizing for authoritarian assholes that have no idea what the law is.
The only thing he did wrong not telling the rent-a-cops to go fuck themselves, as they had zero rights to detain or question him. The only right the store had was to ask him to leave. I hope knows a good attorney who can find grounds for a lawsuit against Loomis, REI, and the PD.
Haven't been to Slashdot in a while? Bullshit, Anonymous Coward. You seem to post on every story!
... what can on expect?
If you take photos of secured/secret things or locations, you can be sure someone will be alarmed and probably contact the "authorities".
Getting a blow job is illegal in my state. I think there's a law in some state that makes oral sex illegal if you don't finish vaginally, specifically.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
of stupidity. Loomis, REI and police saw they didn't have anything good charges against him so they let him out with only a civil restraining order. This prove how stupid something like Homeland Security could be twisted way out of it original meaning to tag anyone that is taking photo to be "terrorist". How many "terrorist" are out the in New York taking a photo of the Statue of Library and the Capitol building in Washington, D.C. today.
The interesting quote from Shane's website from Officer Debra Pelic:
"Officer Debra Pelich (#5976)
Remember 9/11? I saw pictures of those buildings. One time when I was in Florida I was wandering around taking pictures. A security team came up and told me it was a high security restricted area. I wasn't supposed to be taking pictures there. I explained that I didn't know that, was a police officer, showed them my ID and complied with them. We cleared it up and I left.
Me (totally baffled)
Since you managed to pull the 9/11 card somehow, does that mean that everyone that took a picture of those buildings--"
When does standing at an checkout line at an retail store constitute a "High Security Restricted Area" and have relevancy to this situation?
Shane should get the ACLU and other freedom rights group and sue all three because they shouldn't not get away with this kind of stupidity.
Yeah, I suspect that there is a lot more to this story we haven't heard yet.
This comment by 'coryboehne (244614) *' leads me to think it was an actual event, but there are not enough facts/data to determine much of anything.
I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be some dude causing trouble and capitalizing on it to generate page hits on his blog.
I'm not defending the cops and security guards, as they may have equal culpability in this incident, but at this stage it's all suppositions and conjecture.
For all I/we know, his account could be factual, partially factual, or anything.
Where's Sgt. Joe Friday when you need him?!?!?!?
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
He should have softened them up first with a base level social engineering attack something like:
Hey Buddy, I've just been learning how to service these, mind if I take a couple of snaps of this one to show my teacher, I've never seen this model before.
or
My boy is interested in the inside of these mind if I take a piccy so he can have a look?
The combinations of bullshit are endless but you get the point. Instead of being confrontational he could of said, Talk to you later? sure buddy. did his business forget it and walk out. If confronted again he could have diffused the situation, or he could have said Talk to you later? I'm not going anywhere in *this* line, what's up? if the security guard revealed he was upset about the pictures, he should of apologised profusely, said he would delete the pictures immediately, fiddle with the phone and not delete them, then look at the guard and say - all done - sorry about that.
It's obvious these guys motivation is 'wespect my horthorita' so he should have played on it and not looked like a threat, the guard might have just been interested in having a look at his iphone as much as he was interested in the inside of an atm. Instead the subject reinforced the marks insecurities by being confrontational instead of comforting them. Frankly whilst our subject probably didn't deserve the treatment he also brought it upon himself.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
REI is private property. They have the right to serve a criminal trespass notice on anybody they think is being an asshole. I'm not sure, but I suspect that requires that they establish your identity. They do have the right to ask you to leave and not come back. I'm not sure why they didn't just call up the special order you just placed to ascertain your identity. I'm also not clear if they have the right to demand you give them ID just so they can file a complaint against you. I'd also expect that if REI won't let you do business with them, they should refund your membership fee. Personally, I make it a rule never to argue with anyone carrying a loaded weapon, regardless of whether or not they are "real" law enforcement. That being said, I don't believe the police have a case (unless he resisted arrest), and he will probably be handed a "no complaint" notice by the court. But he should consider himself lucky. Last time a cop decided he didn't like me and arrested me for driving the FRONT car in a rear-end collision, I got to spend the whole night in jail before going to work the next morning. And worry about it for a month before the court decided there was no valid complaint -- despite the fact that one of the arresting officers flat out lied in the report, putting words in my mouth that I had never said. (Why blame the accident on me? Because the woman who caused the accident, with 6 toddlers in the car without seatbelts, didn't have insurance.)
Anybody who actually claims to be an anarchist on their blog most likely does go around acting like an asshole with an attitude. When you cop an attitude, don't be surprised when karma bites you on the ass.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
"You have been trespassed by REI and can't go back for a year"
i'm not sure what it is like to be trespassed but i'm sure it's not pleasant.
We deny all responsibilities; it's not our fault, and we're prepared to defend ourselves against any legal actions.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
You can call the cop a cocksucking piece of shit and there's jack she can do about it. Just don't scream in a public place so they can hit you with the generic "disorderly conduct" charge.
When dealing with a police officer who you believe is abusing their authority, there is only one sensible strategy: you say, "Officer, would you please explain to me what law I've broken?
No, no, no. It's:
1) Am I free to go?
2) Am I being detained?
Rinse, wash, repeat. And, if the cop is being a cocksucking piece of shit, add
3) Call for another officer to come to the scene.
... that 9/11 didn't change EVERYTHING?
Send your spendthrift head of state this
It's funny how people looking for trouble find it. Arguing with total strangers over political issues, never mind police officers, is one of those ways. What happened to simple respect? Political speech these days is all about bluster and not listening to what anyone else has to say. That works great in blogland but not so well with real people.
Showing a little respect for the person you are talking to gets you a long way. Police have to deal with lots of difficult people all the time, why on earth would you want to try to put yourself in the "difficult person" mental bucket the police officer has?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You mean an armored vehicle being operated by private individuals carrying firearms who are protecting bags whose contents cannot be ascertained visually? Sounds suspicious, possibly terrorist.
A security-minded citizen would indeed take pictures and report this activity to the authorities. If he's asked/told to stop by the guards/gunmen, then clearly these guys have something to hide, and he should run away, shouting "terrorist van!" at the top of his lungs.
hint: Offending a security guard's sensitivities isn't against the law.
Seriously, and this kind of stupid crap happens in even far more innocuous circumstances ("it's illegal to take photos here sir <in public place where it most certainly isn't illegal>, you'll have to delete those pictures")... these days it's kind of like some kind of bizarro security-guard meme.
[Well, presumably it's the guards' idiot managers who are actually at fault; the guards probably don't actually come up with this shit spontaneously.]
We live, as we dream -- alone....
I have a damn near photographic memory as well as extremely good drawing skills.
COME AND FUCKING GET ME.
Also, I'm fairly certain I could get the specs and info on pretty much any ATM or armored car in a matter of days without too much effort.
And I've seen the interior of an armored car on the damn news for christ's sake.
You really are a piece of work aren't you.
Him
I'll call the cops.
Me
I can't stop you.
He has no reasonable obligation to talk to an ATM repair man.
If he has no reasonable obligation or desire to talk to an ATM repair man, then WHY WAS HE.
And of course you have no idea what his tone of voice was when he was giving these supposedly neutral responses.
Taunting (even subtle taunting) is the very definition of smartass.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Folks,
Posting angry comments here on SlashDot can be recreational--but all the ranting and raving anyone does here won't make a bit of difference in the real world.
What WILL make a difference in the real world, of course, is taking advantage of all of the links so helpfully provided in TFA. All you have to do is send a polite email to some of the people involved, pointing out that the two Loomis employees acted really foolishly; that the REI "loss prevention officer" made REI look...well, like losers; and that the Seattle Police Department really, really needs to send a couple of officers off to Constitution Camp.
Here's the email I just sent to the U.S. headquarters of Loomis (employer of the guards who started this nonsense):
Civil rights are like muscles. If you don't exercise them, they waste away.
...people are going to see.
That's pretty much a "No duh!" situation there.
What if they guy had had a lipstick cam behind his ear? What if he just walked up to the techs while they were refilling the ATM and made smalltalk about how he used to refill ATMs as well? He could have gotten MUCH better snapshots and the techs would have been none the wiser.
If companies don't want people to see the innards of an ATM, then put up a curtain around them while you're refilling them. No, I'm serious. Walk into the place with a folded-up room divider and your boxes 'O cash, set up the divider around the ATM, and have one guy go inside and fill the machine while the other guy waits outside and watches everyone. Then you take down the divider and go back to the armored car. Simple.
That way if someone tries to take a picture of the ATM, it's really obvious that the techs are trying to keep it shielded and it's a lot easier for them to tell the person to stop and/or call the police on them.
Second, people who aren't law enforcement agents cannot generally stop or detain people. They may have a license to carry a handgun, and they may dress like a police officer, but they aren't empowered to act like an officer. If someone tries to talk to you or asks you to talk to them, politely refuse and walk away.
In this kind of situation, if a guy with a gun who is not a cop tells me that he wants to talk to me, I'd usually suggest walking away. Put down the purchases, hand them to a friend, ask the woman behind the counter to put them on hold for you, whatever. Just walk out of there.
The benefit of such a situation is that you get out of there, you clear your head, etc... and then you can go back and conduct your business later, hopefully when man-with-gun is gone. And if this armed person who is not a member of the law enforcement tries to detain you (an unarmed person walking away), then the cops, the court, the company, and the crowd around you (yes, I alliterated that for y'all) will probably be much more supportive of your actions.
Unless this guy with the camera was an active danger for them, then I don't see any reason for them to talk to him. The second the armed guys engage him they know that it will put him on the defensive, and considering the fact that there are two armed guys there, the power dynamic is going to get really bad, really quickly.
The only thing these guys should say is something like "please stand back from the ATM," "Please don't take pictures", etc... The only time they should engage with a civilian is when they are feeling actively threatened.
"The Loomis guys wanted me to give them my ID so they could write a report about me for their bosses...The REI security people that had been called in by now wanted the same thing.
Um...no?
Both Loomis and REI have lawyers. And my guess is that both teams of them are (correctly) telling every one of their employees involved in this incident to have a big slice of superglue pie. You can ask anyone for their ID, but only the police can make the request a requirement, and only in certain instances.
Would having the ID make life easier for the Loomis and REI employees? Sure. But so would having each store patron take off their clothes at the entrance to ensure that they aren't carrying-in weapons and aren't carrying-out shoplifted goods. I don't want to be subjected to either of these unreasonable privacy invasions by stores, so I won't patronize businesses that employ them.
Don't try to leave. I will tackle you.
The photographer didn't remove any cash or any other items. Had the Loomis guys tackled him, that would have probably been a threat of assault, followed by assault. Further, the guys are armed, which probably raises the penalty for both charges a few notches.
coding is life
Wrong, that's not a public place, that's a private place of business. Based upon the biased account on the sight, it looks a bit questionable as to whether he was being honest.
I walk by the Loomis guys at work frequently and I'd never pull a stunt like the writer did. For one thing if somebody were to later on mess with or rob the machine, guess who's going to be on the list of suspects.
I would have just left after making my purchase, if one of those rent-a-cops would have tackled and detained me I would file charges of false arrest and kidnapping along with a civil suit. After all, they have no legal right to detain you.
Yes, and compels them into making up something to charge you with. Brilliant idea.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Really now. You think you have the right to take pictures of an ATM's innards? Try taking a picture of an armored car interior when they're delivering money to the bank. See how that turns out.
What could help this guy is proof that this sort of picture is already available freely on the web. If it is then the guy is not exposing anything which is not already exposed.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
We'd have had to put up with police like that for years!!!
:D
If this was in the UK then the OP would still be locked up and his camera confiscated (lost).
Anyone with a camera is a suspected terrorist on recon..
Also in the UK If a police officer asks your name for any reason (even if you are walking down a road and done NOTHING illegal) and you refuse, you get arrested / finger printed / DNA taken (which is held on a Database for upto 10 years even if no charges are made!!) and stuck in the cells till they can prove your identity... they might through in a Section 5 offense for pissing them off...
Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
A Downloadable Flyer Explaining Your Rights When Stopped or Confronted for Photography
© 2006 Bert P. Krages II
The Photographer's Right is a downloadable guide that is loosely based on the Bust Card and the Know Your Rights pamphlet that used to be available on the ACLU website. It may be downloaded and printed out using Adobe Acrobat Reader. You may make copies and carry them your wallet, pocket, or camera bag to give you quick access to your rights and obligations concerning confrontations over photography. You may distribute the guide to others, provided that such distribution is not done for commercial gain and credit is given to the author.
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
How to Handle Confrontations
Most confrontations can be defused by being courteous and respectful. If the party becomes pushy, combative, or unreasonably hostile, consider calling the police. Above all, use good judgment and don't allow an event to escalate into violence.
In the event you are threatened with detention or asked to surrender your film, asking the following questions can help ensure that you will have the evidence to enforce your legal rights:
1. What is the person's name?
2. Who is their employer?
3. Are you free to leave? If not, how do they intend to stop you if you decide to leave? What legal basis do they assert for the detention?
4. Likewise, if they demand your film, what legal basis do they assert for the confiscation?
"I'm The Bounty Bear. I will find him anywhere. I'm searching."
...and tell me that guy doesn't wish one of the officers had shot him. Then he'd be an anarchist martyr, as he's trying to portray himself here. (Yes, he describes himself as an anarchist.)
We should just let /. Justice take its course. According to half the people here, REI is going to lose all sorts of business, and the iPhone Jockey is having his moment in the spotlight. Justice served.
That’s because you live in Russia :) (or France)
Secret police - people who you don't know are police, or aren't allowed to tell other people are police.
I used to work for a major home improvement warehouse chain as the vault supervisor. We had NCR self-checkout machines at my store that I was responsible for maintaining. The inside of this ATM looks nearly identical to the self-checkout machines (I can sort of make out the NCR logo at the top of the monitor). Unsurprisingly, there's nothing special about this machine. The gray boxes with the green handles have bills in them, possibly different denominations in each box. The top rack of the lower cabinet just below the keypad is a rack with coins. Behind the boxes are belts that grab the bills and pull them to the dispenser. The boxes and the rack are both locked in place with a keyed lock, that's not of the highest quality. The outer cabinet is locked with another keyed lock that uses a different key from the rack and the boxes. When bills are dispensed, IR sensors are tripped as the bills pass through the slot to ensure that they actually made it out and didn't get stuck along the way. Although these machines break down more often than I would've preferred, I've never seen them fail to dispense money without the software throwing an error. The couple times that a customer claimed a dispense failure, but no error was thrown, we checked the video surveillance and it turned out they either didn't realize they already grabbed the money or they were trying to pull a fast one.
i was going to post something meaningful but after looking a bit closer at this bitch's page? he should have been beaten with a nightstick for being a douche bag.
And he also assured me that the facts as they were being presented were inaccurate
This from the Seattle police department. They have a somewhat checkered history of abuse scandals and have been going back an forth with the city council for probably a decade over the issue of officer accountability.
However, like many things in life, there is rarely black and white. It is quite likely that this guy was being more of a dick than he was letting on, and the police and the rent-a-cops were more out of line than they were letting on.
Without hearing the SPD's version of the story and knowing the history of the Seattle police department though, I'll play the odds and say they were probably out of line.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
...instead of being disruptive and smarmy with the guys you could have had a simple friendly conversation and not had any of this 'issue' arise.
Please hold on the 'Its his right to abstain from common decency' comments, its not like I don't know the sentiment of a few slashdotters that think the world is all about pushing the limits of written law.
Some here: http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/a/Automated_teller_machine.htm
"The fact is that if we want to HAVE rights, it's necessary to assert them. Do you really have a right to take pictures in public if you can be legally harassed, cuffed and hauled in for questioning for doing it? You do not. "
Ummm, he was on private property. Just because two or more people can see each other doesn't make a place, public.
No No No.
Governments and corporations can take pictures of YOU in public. YOU have no expectation of privacy.
YOU cannot take pictures of governments or corporations in public. THEY have a right to secrecy.
Taking a photo of an open ATM in a public area is not a crime. As the cops had no probable suspicion much less probable cause, he was not properly detained.
The police officer can question anyone they like and handcuff them if they are being an ass.
Exactly, it's also known, in some places, as failure to cooperate with a peace officer.
In other words, if you willingly fsck with a cop, the cop automatically has the right to fsck with you back.
They where not in a public place. They where inside REI which is private property. Which is why REI banned him from returning for one year and he signed a trespass notice.
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
There are several very important differences there. First is that a police officer is a public official with significant power, and thus should be held to a significantly higher standard than any random person. Second, detaining someone is much more severe than being a minor smartass.
As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century,free flow of information is the only safeguard against...
My wife thinks I'm crazy, but I've always been of the opinion that if a police officer tries to assert false authority over me for whatever reason, I would stand up for my rights; but for my wife's sake, I don't think I'd make a scene if she were with me...
(Un?)Fortunately, I haven't yet had an appropriate opportunity to do so.
See, it's a living document.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Batshit irrelevant. Even if he signed a contract with REI beforehand agreeing not to take pictures inside their store, the best they can do is ask him to leave.
I haven't actually laughed out loud (when reading Slashdot, anyway) for quite a while, thanks :)
In all seriousness, though, not everyone can think on their toes like that...
Batshit irrelevant. Even if he signed a contract with REI beforehand agreeing not to take pictures inside their store, the best they can do is ask him to leave.
If I had taken a picture of the inside of an ATM for whatever reason, and the police later suspected me of robbing that (or any other) ATM, I'd probably just cooperate with their investigation - the faster they rule me out as a suspect, the fewer of my tax dollars they waste investigating the wrong person.
I give it 1.5 stars. You really could have made it more believable.
Um no they can't just question/handcuff anyone they like. That'd be unlawful detention, and they could possibly be sued for it.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=unlawful+detention
Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
You are in no way required to be polite or even talk to a cop. He may be nicer to you, and may choose not to exert his right to detain you to question you, which would be beneficial, but that doesn't mean being an ass is illegal or even wrong. Especially when he was being fucked with for doing nothing wrong.
:(){
Around here security guards are referred to as Sphincter Cops ... they think they are cops but they are really just assholes.
D
You know, REI answered your letter (and it was a specific response; just because it's short doesn't make it a "form letter") and took your phone calls, but sounds to me like you won't be happy until they get involved in your legal case, which no business owner in their right mind would do. Give REI a break, and quit acting pissy that their employees didn't jump in the middle of you getting arrested by a uniformed officer when they didn't know what was going on.
The real problem with situations like this is that it stems directly from the ubiquitous self-righteous attitude of law enforcement types that whatever they do is right, even when it's obviously wrong. When you don't cooperate with them they actually get angry because they are so used to getting what they want. (Just like on TV, which is why I hate most cop shows because they actually seem to celebrate this rampant and pointless emotionalism in law enforcement as if getting angry proves that a cop is dedicated and honorable and helps him do his job.)
That's unfortunately how they are trained from the beginning of their careers and it only gets worse as they associate with other law enforcement personnel. There is no humility, there is no emotional detachment. They perceive themselves as being in charge rather than just being tools to enforce the impartial laws of a society. You dare to assert your rights and suddenly you're a suspicious "DB" and a physical threat and you must be "taught a lesson". Can't let the peasants get out of hand, after all.
This attitude is of course quite common throughout history and throughout the world among law enforcement communities. They do have some legitimate reasons for being so cautious, but they all too often simply go too far in their reactions, and it serves no constructive purpose either for them or for the citizens they are protecting. They react the way they do because it's just part of human nature, but such reactions should always be tempered with restraint based on constant training to counteract that aspect of human nature. Any overreactions should be responded to in kind by higher authorities in order to help law enforcement personnel maintain balance and perspective. It's not healthy, either for the individual or for society as a whole, to allow this kind of behavior to go unquestioned. Law enforcement can't do their jobs effectively if they constantly look down on society and society constantly looks back at them with fear and hatred.
Law enforcement personnel have no restraint, no concept of emotional detachment, no perspective, no insight into what they are doing to a human being... and they get away with it constantly. That is what makes me sick to my stomach. They always get away with it, just like all the schoolyard bullies that never get stopped by the teachers standing just 20 feet away. They never learn a damn thing about their behavior being despicable and unacceptable, until someone forces them to stop.
Rather than simply doing their jobs, they constantly mess with people for no reason, and many people have come to expect it and plan for it by not doing anything to irritate any law enforcement personnel. People think they're being smart by putting themselves and their rights in a box to protect themselves from the overzealous police. That's not smart, that's just cowardice. The whole "u desrv it d00d ur a DB" attitude that so many people always show in these situations is nothing but cowardice. It's the inability to realize that basic human decency and logic are important enough to fight for. It's hiding from the fact that the law enforcement personnel are the ones doing something wrong, and they are the ones who need to be reprimanded and corrected.
In my school years I had constant trouble with bullies. But do you know what really fills me with hatred today? Thinking about all the people who always let them get away with it. All the teachers and administrators who never did a damn thing about the bullying no matter how many times I complained or asked for help. All the people who never took me seriously, who thought it was no big deal getting pounded at recess every day. It isn't the bullies that bother me now, they're just idiots that went on with their lives. Some of them learned to be good people, some didn't. I don't have to deal with them anymore. No, it's the people who should have known better and had the power to do something, to say something, and didn't. Those are the betrayers of trust, the destroyers of justice, and
You can't just take pictures where you want either. I understand the frustration of being hassled taking photos in a public place when there is no posted warning, but taking a photo of two strangers filling a cash machine with money in a private store is not exactly the same thing.
Mostly, you can. Taking photos of some guys filling a cash machine is just fine; if an employee kicks you out for doing it, then leave.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Are you saying it is illegal, or are you saying that you'll be illegally harassed for it?
There's a saying from around where I'm from: "You might be right, but you'll be dead all the same".
Granted, this probably won't involve getting shot, but the point remains the same: You can make a huge stink about it, you can raise all manner of righteous holy hell over it, and you might even get some pittance in a lawsuit, but you're going to be the one out the time and energy, you're going to look like an ass to anyone that matters, and nobody's going to care that you were "right".
Enough said, really.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
About 10 years ago, at a local Target, they were refilling the ATM machine. I was also fascinated with the inside of the ATM, but the security guard didn't allow me to go anywhere near to the machine to see the inside. In fact, the security guard politely, but firmly asked me to leave, otherwise, he told me that he would take me away.
So, based upon what I have experienced, it's no surprise that they arrested somebody for taking the photo.
"Is there a law prohibiting me from taking pictures of the insides of ATMs or armored cars?"
No law, just a guy with a shotgun.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
There's a big difference between shopping at REI and purchasing something from REI. I do the former all the time, but never the latter with my own money. Unfortunately, the poor sap in TFA was doing the latter.
Wow, you're quite the arrogant prick. No way, do you talk that way in person to people, coward.
But they banned him for a year, if the author is to be believed.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Have you ever tried the "I don't think I have to talk to you" route with an actual cop? Because I did, a few weeks ago. It's not easy. (And I was the one who called them in the first place - street altercation.)
See, unless you're going into full-on "I have the right to remain silent; I want my lawyer" mode, they have the right to keep questioning you. Which they do, because it's in their interest to find out as much information as possible as quickly as possible - and to get you to incriminate yourself if you have in fact committed a crime. They're on a call; they're not about to sit back, offer you a beer, and say "Hey, that's cool, man. I'll skip the incident report."
Look at the conversation with Officer Abed again: She was engaging HIM in a political argument. To keep him talking. I had the same thing happen to me; all three responders did it at some point. (And with the other guy too, I'm sure.) I like to think I'm pretty sharp in a conversation, but after the tenth go-round, I walked down the garden path a few steps before I'd realized it. I was calm, since I was the one who'd called them; if they showed up bsaed on the word of some guy with a gun who'd just threatened to kick my ass, I think the adrenaline might have won over the Don't Talk principle.
On the other hand, if you DO start self-Mirandizing the minute the cops show up to your local upscale shopping center - well, that takes a lot more balls than I'd have. "I understand, you're just here buying a bike lock, right?" "I have the right to remain silent." "OK, I'm not saying you did anything wrong - but you're here, right? I'm just writing a report; you agree that you're standing here talking to us?" "I have the right to remain silent. I want my lawyer now."
Either way: STFU doesn't work well if they're trying to cajole you to not STFU.
I would have given them the big "piss off!". My one Loomis experience...... I pulled out my pistol (FN FiveseveN) in front of a 2 Loomis guards. I did not know they were behind me at the time. I pulled it out as it was in a holster in the small of my back and that is not comfortable when driving. These two morons didn't even notice. I was 30 feet away. I am not a cop, in fact I was dressed in black and getting into a black truck with a black winch bumper. Don't believe me? I called Loomis and complained that these "guards" are blind and dumb. Anchorage Loomis, fall 2007.
6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
Seriously why do you want to shop there anymore. Maybe I'll boycott too.
The point is, he went out of his way to take the picture. He even admitted to it.
And this is reason to be detained....why, exactly?
I go out of my way to take pictures all the time. If it's a cool thing to take a picture of, then I'll do what it takes, within reason, to get a picture of it.
And walking a couple of dozen feet across a store isn't exactly going a long way out of his way.
The whole lot of everybody involved need a good boot to the head. (naah naah!)
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
So, what happens if this was on a street corner and the googleMobile managed to snap a peek?
arrested for taking a photo of an ATM being serviced
But why would he get arrested for just taking a photo? Was the ATM underage?
coding is life
Unless he is accused of a crime, he has no obligation to provide his information to a police officer.
From The Christian Science Monitor:
US citizens do not enjoy a constitutional right to refuse to reveal their identity when requested by police.
In what may become a major boost to US law enforcement and antiterrorism efforts, the US Supreme Court Monday upheld a Nevada law that makes it a criminal offense for anyone suspected of wrongdoing to refuse to identify himself to police.
Civil libertarians see the decision as a significant setback. And it remains unclear to what extent it may open the door to the issuing of national identification cards...
"It's a green light to explore the bounds of how much personal information can be demanded on pain of arrest," says Timothy Lynch of the Cato Institute in Washington.
The ruling marks the first time the nation's highest court has endorsed a provision compelling citizens to reveal information in a citizen-police encounter that may become a police investigation.
The 5-to-4 decision says that neither the Fourth Amendment's right to privacy nor the Fifth Amendment's guarantee against self-incrimination bars states from passing laws requiring citizens to identify themselves.
In effect, the majority justices say that in most cases it is no significant intrusion for police to request - and a suspect to provide - his name.
"One's identity is, by definition, unique; yet it is, in another sense, a universal characteristic," writes Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority. "Answering a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant in the scheme of things as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances."
Justice Kennedy adds that if a case arises in which the furnished identity provides a key link leading to the conviction of the individual for a different crime, the court will revisit the issue.
Joining Justice Kennedy's majority opinion were Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas.
In a dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens says the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination must always shield a criminal suspect who is being questioned by police. Since police may only request the name of someone they find suspicious (under the upheld Nevada statute), that person is by definition a criminal suspect who may not be compelled to make statements that might incriminate him, Justice Stevens says.
"The court reasons that we should not assume the disclosure of petitioner's name would be used to incriminate him," Justice Stevens writes. "But why else would an officer ask for it?"
Stevens adds, "A name can provide the key to a broad array of information about a person particularly in the hands of a police officer with access to a range of law enforcement databases."
The decision stems from the case of Larry Hiibel, who was arrested in May 2000 after he refused a deputy sheriff's repeated demand that he produce some form of identification.
The encounter took place at the side of a road in Humboldt County, Nev. The deputy had received a report of a man striking a woman in a pickup truck. When the deputy arrived at the scene, Mr. Hiibel was standing outside a pickup truck that was parked on the shoulder of the road. His daughter was sitting inside the truck.
The deputy asked Hiibel 11 times to produce identification. Hiibel repeatedly refused, saying he'd done nothing wrong. The deputy placed him under arrest in accord with a Nevada law that permits police to detain criminal suspects for up to 60 minutes to compel them to identify themselves.
Hiibel refused to comply. He was charged and convicted of violating the mandatory identity law, a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail. His conviction was affirmed by a state appeals court and the Nevada Supreme Court.
In upholding his conviction and the mandatory identity-disclosure law, the majority justices als
Police do not have the "right" to detain anyone. Police are granted special powers by the people through the government in order to protect the people. These special powers are not a right, they are a tool that are required to be used in the least obstructive way. A police officer can seize the immediate legal control over a situation but there will be hell to pay later if that is abused. The more power an officer uses in the moment the more scrutiny is going to be used on him later.
For example if a cop tell you that you must not leave he is using some power and nobody will bat an eye. If the cop cuffs a person and questions them he is using further power and can possibly get in trouble if he does it wrong. If a police officer tackles a person then cuffs them he is going to be further scrutinized. If a police officer beats or shoots or sprays pepper spray on someone then detains them they will of course fall under further scrutiny. Any of those actions can be abuses or legal uses of their power under different situations.
Can you say, "False arrest lawsuit?" I knew you could...
He can only detain you if you're reasonably suspected that you have, or will in the very near future commit of some kind of crime. He doesn't have the "right" to detain you unless there is probable cause. That's called false imprisonment--and in many jurisdictions, you can sue the department, and sometimes even the individual officer(s) depending on the severity of the harassment, and in some cases, it might even be a CRIME--especially if the officer(s) violate one or more of your civil rights.
Photographing the guts of an ATM, and being a doofus probably don't constitute probable cause, in most scenarios. He might be able to tell you to beat it, but that's about it. A simple "am I being detained, or can I go now", is all you ever need to say to a cop, and that's ALL YOU SHOULD EVER SAY TO A COP. If the answer is no, and yes, say "have a nice day", turn about face and leave. If the answer is no, CLAP THE TRAP.
and the War on Wall Street...
He was obviously a financial terrorist out to destroy our economy (or was that Bush).
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Says the AC.
I regularly start sentences with "that's because you're an idiot". If the person I'm talking to lashes out at me, it's just further proof that they are an idiot.
Sorry, it's the way I was brought up. I call em as I see em.
How we know is more important than what we know.
A number of "folks" have commented here that the guy was being a dick or jerk or assclown or douchebag. SO THE FUCK WHAT! It is not illegal to be a dick. It's not even illegal to be a dick to the cops. Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.
Like, if they don't LIKE you, then they are allowed to arrest you? Well, tell you what Charlie, fuck that shit. He's allowed to be an anarchist (it doesn't mean what you think it does). He's allowed to take a photo of whatever they hell he wants if it's in a public place. If the store doesn't like it they can ask him to leave, and that's all they can do. He's allowed to be a dick to rent-a-cop ATM repair men. He's allowed to not be fucking detained by the police for no fucking reason.
Being a dick. Hey, fuck the lot of you.
Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
Was acting as if the security guards and the cops were on the same team or something. It's pretty clear that the security guards were being paranoid fucks, but I suspect a bit of conversation took place before the cop brought up 9/11 and you spazzed out on her.
Consider things from the perspective of the police. They probably think the security guards are as much of a pain in the ass as you do, but a call has been made, and they HAVE to resolve things one way or another. Rent-a-cops bickering with a customer at REI? Please. If you had sounded like it was all a big misunderstanding and that you just wanted to finish your purchase and leave, I very much doubt the cops would have gone through the trouble of hauling your ass in.
I think any of the following actions would have been advantageous:
1) Inconspicuously email the photo somewhere and then delete it off your phone. Claim that the security guards were mistaken. Of course, releasing the photo would prove that you lied, but you still "won."
2) Walking out of the store on your own. If you ever manage to provoke a rent-a-cop to batter you for doing nothing, on security camera, in front of an entire store, then that's a lawyer's dream.
3) Calling the cops yourself. You have no idea how much being the first one to call will tip the situation in your favor.
4) Sucking up to the cops. You could have portrayed yourself as the victim of aggression, apologized profusely and just stated your desire to make your purchase and leave (or even just leave).
At the end of the day, you can't forget that no matter what you think of "peace officers", they weren't your enemy here - they were a neutral third party that YOU alienated and the rent-a-cops successfully used against you.
That being said, it's pretty clear at this point that your objective should be to get REI to use a different security company. Nobody wants to shop at a store that hires jackbooted thugs that harass the customers, and I think you make some inroads there.
It sounds like adults and police bullying an innocent kid. We've all been there, so of course we empathize. But, honestly, we don't have any verification that his story is accurate, and we know it is not impartial. I hope the kid finds a lawyer to press his issue pro bono, and I hope slashdot follows up. But I really don't think it is appropriate to immediately pass judgment about the issue.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Call the ACLU, sue the Police department, and then sue the ATM company. This is what the ACLU exists for, they will be happy to help you. They even helped another photographer in your town recently.
Posting the phone number for the ATM company on your blog is a waste of time. Call the ACLU and they will help unleash a can of whoop-ass.
I'm a 2000 man.
It's been my experience that the cops are the ones being asses and overstepping their badges. Perhaps this was more of a case of protecting their immage and the cops just didn't want everyone to think they could be dickheads at will like they are?
Seriously, I'm serious.
If this guy is such an anarchist, then he shouldn't care if the rights he doesn't believe in weren't granted. Meanwhile, back in the real world, everyone should know by now that if you make trouble for the cops, they will make trouble for you.
Every time I've been accosted for photographing a government building I just say that I'm sorry and that I didn't know I was not allowed to photograph certain things. The Officer then tells me that I can photograph it if I have prior permission from someone. I say, "it's no bother, would you like me to delete the photos"? They say yes, and I delete them right there in front of the officer.
Then I go home and recover the deleted photos. Much easier that way.
The whole lot of everybody involved need a good boot to the head. (naah naah!)
Especially when we only have his side of the story.
A month or three ago, someone high up in a locality (NYC? DC? ???), someone with the power to do so, declared the draconian anti-photography laws over in his juristiction. Anyone remember where? Or am I crazy.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Well, no they can't and yes it's illegal. The police has to have a reason to believe that some law was being broken or that the person was about to harm themselves or someone else in order to detain someone. They cannot just walk up to you and handcuff you while demanding identification. This is true whether your being an ass or not and there are numerous supreme court cases surrounding this.
And while a cop won't be arrested for the unlawful detainment, he will see disciplinary action and a right to a lawsuit most likely has opened up. The police has to have a reason to fuck with you period. You being on a public street or in a public area is not reason on it's own. Being a smart ass or a jerk is not reason either.
Coercion, assault, conversion, false imprisonment, and violation of your constitutional rights. The security guard messed up when he threatened to tackle him if he tried to leave. Photographers Rights
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
Yes, it's a matter of principle and law.
Because of you, and those like you, is the only reason we are even having this discussion. Period. Double Period.
Corporations and their rent-a-cops are not part of our law enforcement...whether you ascribe to it or not.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
It seems like the author of the piece who went through the rough time has a big chip on his shoulder when dealing with figures in position of authority. As a self described anarchist, he obviously has a bone to pick with the system and will probably go out of his way to push the boundries of what he can get away with. People in those situations shouldn't be surprised when they get hassled and harassed for their behavior.
It is pretty weak that he got hassled for taking a picture. It wasn't a criminal offense and the Loomis staff didn't have any jurisdiction or authority to detain or question him.
On the other side of the equation, those Loomis guys have one of the most dangerous jobs in the nation. Anything involving the responsibility for large amounts of cash in exposed, uncontrolled areas comes with a high degree of risk. It would not at all surprise me if because of the picture being taken, Loomis decides to change the time of their ATM delivery, puts more guards on the drop for a period of time, or even authorizes their guards to unholster their weapons when servicing that ATM.
The actions of the poster have just made that small part of the world a lot more tense and slightly more dangerous for everyone in it for a while. A little bit of empathy with the guards and their situation would have gone a long way. It could have been as simple as saying, "I understand that you're stressed and that you are concerned by my actions. I'm not doing recon for a robbery. If you need to call the police to feel more secure, by all means, please do."
When you are in the right, you can treat others with respect and act nicely. To act any other way shows a real lack of self-esteem and a fragile ego.
IANAL, but if you refuse to ID yourself, and your state has a Stop and Identify law, then yes, the police can arrest you.
In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada it was ascertained that you do have to disclose your name to a peace officer if your state has a stop and identify law, which Nevada does.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes Washington state does not have a stop and identify law, so if that was correct, he didn't have to even ID himself verbally to the police.
Moral of the story is, if you leave in one of those states mentioned above that has a stop and identify statute, yes, you can be arrested and charged with a crime.
according to his account of what the officer told him, he was arrested for "trespassing" which is bull but they really didn't have anything else to arrest him for....it's not a crime for being a smart ass to a rent-a-cop or to store employees.
(it didn't progress to that level with real cops at the time of his arrest)
please, in the future, RTFA or I will call the Seattle PD to arrest you for "trespassing"
I hope he sues REI (especially since I'm a REI member)
...I'm laughing my ass off at the guy who wrote it. He's an anarchist who conforms to the vegan lifestyle and is a rubyist amongst other things. Wow...way to be an anarchist bad ass. I love how self proclaimed anarchists are often the biggest conformists who take advantage of things that clearly violate the very notion of anarchism.
It's like the UFC fighter Jeff Monson who has the anarchy symbol tattooed on his chest. Seems to have no problem working within a corporation and cashing his paycheck. I guess the definition has changed over the years.
Rent-a-cops have no authority to do anything but take notes.
I would refuse to do squat for rent-a-cops.
And IF the this happened as the blog claimed it happened (big if) then the two cops could be disciplined for arresting this guy before they formally asked him him for his ID.
The only person who is authorized to ask for ID is those real police officers. Nothing the rent-a-cops do beforehand is of concern.
hence I don't full trust everything they say (naturally, they will put a spin on it).
I'd prefer to hear what that witness who took the photo of the arrest as well as other witnesses in the store.
There was a saying by someone....don't remember who nor the exact quote....with a lot of witnesses, there will be a lot of stories....and the truth lies somewhere in between.
Plus, they deal with douchebags all day long (and no one at /. is a douchebag, remember!) and aren't in a great mood to begin with.
Now for the tinfoil summary: there are police departments in some cities (I'm not suggesting this is one of them) which receive financial inducements dependent on the number of perps they send to jail - which in many cases are now private prisons. It is interesting to note who owns the most private prisons in the USA? Very interesting to trace the actual ownership of Prison Realty Corporation, etc. (Hint: same guys who brokered the deal for the WTC just prior to 9/11/01, and then received that Captive Insurance Fund from FEMA ($1 billion), which they structured as a hedge fund --- but I'm sure it's all just a COINICDENCE.)
Neither is the security guard with the hurt feelings detaining you, maybe calling in the real police, etc. and basically making it worth your time to be something less than a douche. Or at least, it is not so against the law that anything will happen to him if he decides to hold you for a while on suspicion of something. There is "against the law" and there is against the law (I'm not sure which is which).
Did anyone else think, from the title, that this article was about some sort of Open SOURCE ATM?
Some sort of Diebold opposite?
A police officer can seize the immediate legal control over a situation but there will be hell to pay later if that is abused.
Umm.. yeah, or not
I also have to admit the reality of trying to fight with low-IQ idiots with guns. In a situation like this, no matter how right you are, you're wrong. I've had many disappointing experiences with cops and hold them in contempt. But I also realize that letting my feelings slip will do nothing more than give them an opportunity to act like pigs.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
...piece...
Protect a 'piece' of 'what'?
Yes, you sound like an idiot...Anyone can proclaim 'Bullshit!', but can you back it up? [citation needed]
'fm6' has a practical point.
You can be firm with protecting your rights, but always be 'professional' and 'respectful' in dealing with cops. I've had this work in my favor many times, and have seen your approach 'backfire' too many times to dispute his advice.
I won't bore everyone with anecdotes, but a good attorney and the courtroom is the best place to use your energy, not 'onsite' with the cop.
Be firm with your rights, but respectful and professional, in dealing with the cops will get you further than most any other tactic.
Using your intellect, and not your emotions will gain you much here.
You are falsely setting up a binary 'either/or' problem, when in reality it is far from that.
Or, you feel you are heavily enough armed and supported to stage a revolution? Good luck with that. ;-)
Okay, I'm a Zen practitioner, so naturally I would prescribe a 'water' approach here. (think: rivulets, erosion, etc....) :-)
Yes! Grasp it tighter!
See who 'wins' in the end.
"Peace", dude.(HahHahHahHoooHeeeHoooHeeehaaa!)
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Designer. Typophile. Rails/Rubyist. Still Vegan. Still Straightedge. And, Baby, I'm An Asshole.
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
Sorry, there does not appear to be a +1 WTF moderation option.
You should sue everyone involved immediately.
Sue REI for not having any "no photography" signs posted but still allowing you to be arrested.
Sue the ATM people for assault and threatening behavior.
Sue the police for wrongful arrest and for forcing you to sign a trespassing admission in order to leave jail.
There are way to many law enforcement officials and security officers who think they are always in the right because they have guns and people died in 9/11. If they wanted some privacy, they should have put a fucking curtain up.
Sue them, get them demoted, and profit while doing so.
And finally, Walmart, err, I mean REI sucks on so many different levels you shouldn't be shopping there anyway.
I called the REI and talked to the store manager. They say that they did NOT ask him to be arrested. They are NOT pressing any charges. They say he is welcome back in the store anytime. I also called Loomis (couldn't reach anyone who could tell me anything) and Seattle PD. Seattle PD said that there "is a lot more to the story" so I sent a written request for the police report. I'll post a link to it here if/when I get it.
My favorite quote doesn't fit into 120 characters. Now no one will like me.
Cops were just helping you see inside of the prison.
Helping you was their fascination.
You got arrested for owning a iPhone and being a rabid Apple fanboi.
I wonder how much of this is singling out someone who looks like they won't fight back (eg. a nerd).
Would the ATM serviceman threaten to tackle someone who would be likely to threaten something similar back?
I'm confused by this because isn't that exactly what Google is doing with street view?
Ahh yes, Google is doing it for Our Own Good... Riiight.
The ruling in Hiibel vs Sixth Judicial Court of Nevada was even discussed here on Slashdot as well as the original story about his arrest for not showing ID on demand.
"Sorry baby... I didn't pull out because its illegal."
Sorry, no. Show me a law that says being a smartass is illegal and then maybe you will have some weight behind your argument.
Yeah, the guy got arrested. No, the police officer isn't in jail. It doesn't mean it was a lawful arrest and the officer will be lucky if she doesn't lose her job over it.
What many people appear totally ignorant of is that the conditions of entry into private premises such as shops are purely contractual (if that... they may be nothing at all in some cases).
If you breach one of their conditions, but otherwise do not break the law, then they have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to interfere with you.
They are completely at liberty to sue you for breach of contract, but what is their loss? In this scenario, nothing. They are also at liberty to tell you to leave, and to sue you for trespass if you do not (or if you are banned and return). Again, this gives them no right to detain you or otherwise physically interfere with you.
Thus, if a security guard asks to search your bags on the way out of a shop, you are quite entitled to say "no, sorry" and leave. At worst you have breached a trivial contract between you and the person/entity in possession of the premises. You are also under no obligation to identify yourself.
Damn it, why don't people learn and use their rights?
Read Pynchon.
anyone knows the full form of rei?
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
REI is supposed to be a COOP. That means for the owners. That means me since 1989. If I were ever in one of their stores again and was harassed by one of their vendors I would expect the store to stick up for and at least put pressure on the ATM operator about the situation. Instead Miss PR WONK sends out corporate drivel.... So much for the cool COOP. Off to Cabella's...
I would like to request that ALL REI members please contact REI and ask them to explain their involvement in this story. Regardless of anything else REI should not force any of their patron's to reveal personal information to a non government entity. So again I urge all REI members to simply ask REI to explain their involvement.
The cop has to have a reason to ask for your ID. In other words, the cops can't just walk up and say let me see your ID. If they are, they are breaking some laws themselves as well as violating your 4th amendment rights.
In Terry V Ohio, the supreme court limited the ability to stop someone to suspicion of breaking a law or posing a danger to someone and the officer needs to be able to back that up with specific and articulable facts. While those two states may have the laws on the books, the enforcement of them will be limited to specifics as outlined by the supreme court.
Now, the first link you referenced where the supreme court allowed for identification to be required is for a "detention stop" which places the cops under the Terry rules. There has to be "under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime" in order for it to be legal. If the cop stops you and can't comply with that, then there is grounds for a complain and possible lawsuit.
The parent said "Who gives a fuck? The police officer can question anyone they like and handcuff them if they are being an ass. It's not illegal (she's not in jail, right?)." that is incorrect, the cops have to have a reason to make the stop. They can't just walk up to someone and say give me you ID of I'll arrest you, even if a state law says so. And if they do, and it leads to finding something illegal out about you, it will all be inadmissible under the poisoned fruit doctrine.
You don't think it's actually the photography that's the issue, do you? Photographers just tend to be easy to marginalize. Any behaviour outside of the "norm" (i.e. sheep) is slowly being marginalized, and the populace is slowly being conditioned to accept authoritarian over-reach.
You are watching the return to feudalism take shape before your very eyes. What are you doing to combat this?
If the SCOTUS declared it unconstitutional in Washington State then it's unconstitutional across all 50 state
Actually, no. The problem is in the wording of the law in Washington versus the wording of the law in other states. Bottom line is, SCOTUS is perfectly entitled to make a ruling that says that one state's law is unconstitutional but another state's law is not.
This is my sig.
What he could have done was to have a carry permit and a loaded pistol. If the rent-a-cop says he is going to tackle the dude, then he would just tell the rent-a-cop that he was just taking pictures, is leaving, and, if the rent-a-cop tries to tackle him, he will be shot. That would leave the rent-a-cop with the option of trying to shoot you first, or tackling someone with a gun, neither of which is a good option. Of course, the renta might actually try either, in which case, you have to shoot first.
Bottom line is, if that confrontation isn't worth it to you, or to anyone, then renta-cops are just going to get more and more out of control. The only way to reason with a bully is with your fist.
This is my sig.
But goddammit, this round is on me
Nobody learns no nothing from no history.
That which does not kill us makes us... st
In the fine article, the photographer says "He took me out of the cell and took off the cuffs, had me sign a You have been trespassed by REI and can't go back for a year form".
Does this mean that REI has banned him for a year, or is this something the police came up with? Ideally, the REI security personnel should have defended their customer, but that doesn't seem to be the case. If they had, the karma flow would definitely be in the other direction.
-ec
never mind, reread TFA and i missed the line about the LPO trying to get the guy to give his ID to a private corporation with no oversight on what they do with it. Bleah. Screw that.
That which does not kill us makes us... st
Try taking a photo on a beach these days.
Remember that they can't just do this to anybody on the street - they need to have a reasonable suspicion that they have or are committing a crime and have specific facts to back up that suspicion.
Arguing with rent-a-cops, and making a major scene out of something that needed no scene.
Talking to cops. This is the worst thing the OP guy did. He should have instead followed this very good lesson.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865
In no instance should he have spoken to the police officer, in no instance should he have made cyclic arguments with the officer.
From what I understood the OP wanted to make this a big deal possibly for blogging purposes (I've seen this happen with other fellow bloggers). This is what I got from reading the blog entry.
hey Sadler121
good post. but not complete. I'm no lawyer and this is not legal advice. The law is different in all 50 states, each one has different cases that may have made it to the state court of appeals.
In Oregon they just tried to pass a stop and ID law. These laws should really be called stop and say your name laws or get a ticket laws.
In Oregon a cop can manipulate you within the law. They can ask you your name, and you don't have to say your name. THey can't write you up with a citation for that alone, but they can hold you for a short time and make your life miserable.
And as most people here have said. THe #1 thing to say is
"am I free to go"
It works on so many levels.
Here is the oregon proposed law, it failed. Half way down the page, aka Democrat Jeff Barker woof woof
http://www.portlandmercury.com/news/in_other_news_/Content?oid=33205
REI may have a posted no-pictures-in-store policy. Or they may not. In any case, the only thing they can do when you take a picture violating their policy is ask you to leave (permanently if they choose). You aren't trespassing unless you refuse to leave. They can't take the camera or force you to erase the picture.
I suspect this person has a case against the Seattle PD, if he wants to go through the trouble of going through with it.
Police and other government officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity..."but not when they fail to act on their considerable law enforcement powers in a reasonable way and take into account all factors present at the scene."
The Seattle Police department might be in for a tough ride here.
Act Up! Portland v. Bagley, 988 F.2d 868, 871 (9th Cir.1993) Tests whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity and turns to a two part inquiry: "(1) Was the law governing the official's conduct clearly established? (2) Under that law, could a reasonable officer have believed the conduct was lawful?"
In Mackinney v. Nielsen, 69 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir.1995) Mackinney was arrested [partly] for writing on the sidewalk with chalk, and [mainly] for being an asshat. The 9th circuit decided that writing on the sidewalk with chalk did not qualify as a crime and [more importantly] being an asshat was not sufficient grounds to arrest and reversed the lower courts decision that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity.
More reading
Seriously, the only good thing to come out of it is music and Bruce Lee. I don't think I missed anything.
Since this happened down the road from me, I had to do a little more research. Now, not a fan of jack-booted thugs myself, in this particular story apparently the kid had shot a house up earlier (as in with a firearm) and was trippin acid when the cops Tasered him. If that was indeed the case, then the cop subsequently being cleared of any wrongdoing makes a little bit more sense - especially since, allegedly, the kid was muttering "shoot the cops" over and over again. The lesson here, when you drop acid and ever have to talk to cops, don't talk about shooting them. Lets save our vitriol about cops for when they kill people's granny's, shoot pregnant women, or kill harmless pets for fun.
Don't worry about the mule, just load the wagon.
What would we want their story for?
Unless he pulled a gun or threatened violence in some other way it was clearly unreasonable to call the police. If they want secrecy they can get the store and bank to provide them with a privacy screen they can deploy.
Otherwise the same rules (roughly) apply to them as to anyone else. If you take a photo of me in a public place and I call the police when you won't delete it, they should haul me away for the groundless complaint and wasting emergency resources, not you for merely exercising your right to photo what you can see.
ATM thieves take notice though, Loomis guards are so untrained you can distract them with a hippie and a cellphone.
Expecting a country of law? There is only one real law - people will do as much as they like that they think they can get away with.
If you are a cop, you can get away with a whole lot, and you are a pretty good judge of what you can get away with and what you can't. Pepole will give a cop the benefit of the doubt in many cases. They don't want to piss off a cop, and cops do put their lives on the line and are given slack for that reason.
Off topic, but I really have to ask this of the Parent poster.
The whole lot of everybody involved need a good boot to the head. (naah naah!)
Where did that come from ? I remember seeing it donkey's years ago on TV, and it's been a mental trigger ever since ... everytime I see "boot to the head", I subconciously fill in the "naah naah".
Dude... you just cited Wikipedia for a matter of criminal procedure.
IANAL and this is NOT legal advice but it was my understanding that officers can request ID if they have enough facts to reach the reasonable suspicion standard in Terry v. Ohio. i.e. if they can Terry stop you, they can demand ID. Of course, your states can provide you with more rights than the Constitution.
I'd be VERY careful about refusing to ID yourself; you could be in a state where you do have to ID yourself.
I'd also be VERY careful about basing your legal knowledge off of either 1)wikipedia or 2)slashdot posts.
Just because you're more intelligent than Boobus americanus doesn't mean you're a lawyer.
http://www.rei.com/help/feedback/memberhelpfb.html
I once took a photo of a guy opening up a BSODed ATM in france. Bad photo and angle, but he still looked pissed off, so I left swiftly. Nothing particularly interesting other than seeing an ATM with the windows boot screen.
I was with you until you blew it here:
Personally, I blame all these cop shows on tv.
Yeah, take the responsibility of personal choice out of the picture.
We are entitled, enabled, and should not be responsible for our own actions and choices.
We are victims of marketing and advertising, and should not be responsible for our choices and actions...it is society's fault, not our own.
Cry me a river!!!
When you want to point blame at someone, look in a mirror first. Period....Period again.!!!
Anything else/less is just fooling yourself.
Complacency is an excuse, not a cause....GET OVER IT!!!
Take some personal responsibility for your choices, or STFU and deal with it!
Tuck your ankles behind your ears, lube your asshole, and deal with it if you think otherwise...I've no sympathy for you and your mindset...I actually hope you enjoy your violation if that's what you want/need/desire.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
I heard it on a Dr. Demento CD I once had. Here's a version of it (static picture) on youtube.
Frantics - Tae Kwon Leep (Boot to the Head): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Y6231uAmo
Under provisions of the Patriot Act all they need to do is charge you with terrorism. Then unlawful detention turns lawful.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
You have been charged with the crime and the mental illness of curiosity. You will be beaten, and your property taken, until you choose ignorance about the world and all things in it.
At least that's how it worked in the thatcher-era English school system.
I urge people who do a lot of photography to print this out and keep it with them. It is a page that details the rights of photographers.
It can be found at http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Have you seen his flickr portrait:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/veganstraightedge/3507675011/
No wonder the ATM guys were a bit wary...
I've found the Seattle Police Department to be very non-dickheady.
Go 10 miles in any direction and the story completely changes. But the Seattle police department tend to be pretty cool. And they're fast. Freakishly fast. I had to call 911 last year to report an assault in progress and they arrived in less than 40 seconds. I saw an accident last week and before I could even make a U-Turn to go a block around a patrol car had already pulled up and was checking on the drivers.
They seem more interested in keeping traffic moving than making some sort of ticket quota. In all of my interactions they've been incredibly friendly and bent over backwards to be patient.
I don't know anyone personally in the police department and I'm not in any way employed. I've just been so pleasantly suprised and impressed by the Seattle Police Department since moving here that I think they deserve some recognition for not being complete pricks like other places I've lived (I'm looking at you Lynwood PD).
and get me coppers! http://cuesskybox.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/11/28/enabled_atm.jpg
It's a lot easier to make trouble for a normal citizen rather than a hardened criminal because a hardened criminal may well figure the violent option is the best one straight off the bat where a normal citizen would be thinking "I've done nothing wrong" and try remonstrating verbally.
So they pick a fight with a citizen because they can more easily bully them.
Remind them that just saying "Please" or "Sir" doesn't make it a request. If you can say "no" and be allowed to refuse THEN it is a request.
And even more amazing that a large part of the posters here seem to somehow blame the event on the 'douchebag' guy because he didn't bend over and say sir yes sir to the security people.
Sad.
If I were a guy with a wife and kids and a fake uniform and no real power and a lot of money on and around my person on a regular basis, I would definitely not want my picture plastered all over the internet. You just never know when some lowlife might recognize you from real life, figure out who you are, kidnap you wife or your child, and demand some kind of crazed ransom. It doesn't matter whether the crazed ransom plan could actually work, it only matters whether some drugged-up lowlife might briefly think that it could, until the hostage drama takes on a life of its own.
Here is where things get a bit tricky for the family man with the fake uniform. In a reasonable business environment, you wouldn't be opening micro-vaults in quasi-public spaces in full view of the general public, which as everyone knows who has ever worked with the general public, is 10% batshit.
Bottom line: it's a stupid place to put a cash machine if you aren't willing to arrange service during off-hours. (Bonus offered for a picture of a cash machine in a gun shop with a liquor license, with a legitimate bank on either side.) But the guy with the fake uniform has no control over this.
Family man with fake uniform could go up to asshole with camera and say "I'd really prefer you not take pictures which potentially expose my identity to the general public". Asshole with camera might infer from this that it is OK to take a picture of the inner workings of the machine, as long as family man with fake uniform is not personally identifiable. This would be bad. Family man with fake uniform find soon be unemployed family man with no uniform, since the employer might take a dim view of the implied consent to photograph the machine.
So what is family man with fake uniform supposed to do? He can't go up and say "I understand that it is within your rights to photograph this machine, but I'd prefer that you didn't" without risking his own job. Family man with fake uniform has no protection under America's "at will employment" regime. The fact that he made an effort to respect the rule of law won't get him his job back.
He can probably be fired just as quickly for not getting the ID from the asshole camera guy, even if the camera guy refuses to buckle under intimidation that crosses the law. His main protection is the cost of his replacement (permits and training, however minimal) and pissing off everyone else who works for you (do they really have any power to disrupt the business?) In America, the potential loss of health benefits keeps a lot of people biting their lips on ethical niceties and thinking "better him than me".
Aside from the "tackle" threat, which was not recorded, fake uniform did a good job of letting the cop show up and cross the legal line, which the cops are generally quite happy to do. From the cops' perspective: let's suppose this guy sues and wins. Do they really care? Odds are low it ever gets that far. In the long run, losing those cases is just more ammunition to get the laws changed to something a lot more repressive, which they would prefer.
While we still have these freedoms, is this the kind of thing we want it squander it on? Isn't the purpose of becoming an anarchist to provoke fascist behaviour from the rest of society? It's great fun for the anarchist, because it proves the anarchist was right in the first place. The anarchist doesn't actually want the system to work, so being proved right is about as good as it gets.
It would be cool if America was a society where guy with fake uniform could stand up and openly state "this whole thing sucks three ways from Sunday" and not lose his job. But no, let's write another 500 finely reasoned posts on Douche Bag vs Brush Cut.
Did anybody but the cops who tasered him hear him muttering that? Didn't think so.
"It is simply amazing how many companies don't understand the true power of the internet."
Yeah! Just look at how Microsoft's going out of business due to all the negative Slashdot comments over the years.
"From what I understood the OP wanted to make this a big deal possibly for blogging purposes (I've seen this happen with other fellow bloggers). This is what I got from reading the blog entry."
So in a world were bloggers are the new "newspapers", this would be akin to a journalist creating the news, not reporting it.
"A police officer can seize the immediate legal control over a situation but there will be hell to pay later if that is abused."
Sorry to butt-in here, but can I just ask, what planet are you from? It sounds lovely.
What a wonderfully US'ian idea !
Turn the taking of a couple of photographs into the Gunfight at the OK Coral.
Capturing light that is freely flying around in the air shouldn't be a crime. If it's secret, cover it.
That's the one ! Not sure how old that is, or if it's the original, as it must be 20 years since I heard that.
But a big thanks anyway :-)
1 - Maybe a promise to blank out the people involved would have helped. I wouldn't like my picture on the Net either if I'm somehow associated with lugging cash around. However, that's something they could have reasonably asked instead of trying to play fake cop (the 9/11 story is crap - quite a lot of those pictures were actually helpful afterwards in ebvent reconstruction, so who knows what is right?). Anyway, in short, the people thing *may* have helped defuse this - I would not consider that unreasonable from either party.
2 - On the tech side, yup - plenty of public data available. Heck, if you happen to go to Zurich and wander down the main shopping street you'll find at the lake end the big Zurich Kantonal Bank - and inside public area they have a fully transparent ATM - and this is Switzerland..
As an aside, as technology goes this thing is actually close to art, it's beautifully put together - I can imagine whoever built that thing to be damn proud of it. AFAIK there are no signs prohibiting you taking a picture, despite the fact that it is 100% functional (I used it to see what actually happens when you take out money :-))
I can see that there is sometimes reasons to argue with someone taking a picture, but it has to stay reasonable. I too would tell you where to stick it if you just tried to bully me, especially wrongful arrest. However, such things never happen to me, probably because they sense that I don't get excited - that appears to frighten people :-).
The guys were just doing their job, loading an ATM with money. Obviously some thieves might like to know how the thing works and in any case, I don't suppose those guys enjoyed having their photograph taken. Maybe they over reacted; maybe they didn't. In any case, it was you who had the 'attitude', unable to discuss the subject in a level headed way, but more inclined respond with comments, answers and questions primarily intended to piss them off.
They didn't beat you. They didn't lie to entrap you. They didn't wrestle the iphone from your grasp and delete the image - yet you manage to twist that fact to support your own twisted view of the event.
If, as suggested in your article, they were merely exerting their power, then it is also true that you were merely giving them the finger by doing something you knew might upset them.
They have a boring job and I doubt they are paid much. Get off your high horse and learn to have some sympathy and understanding for others.
You, obviously, aren't indulging in a fit of self importance, by plastering the story all over the internet... yeah, right.
If he really was saying such a thing, the cop should have taken note of it and have him prosecuted for that, if it's illegal over there. Tasers are vicious and dangerous weapons, and should be used as an alternative to guns, ie when the cop is in danger or if a suspect is trying to get away, not as a mean to teach a harmless teen a lesson. The cop is clearly at fault here.
In a jurisdictional sense, there are 7 elements to Subject Matter Jurisdiction, where one of them (just like a car mechanic needs a broken part to reason his hire to fix said non-op) there needs to be an injured party or "damages" as well as the actual accuser making the accusation. Of course, 1 element is to require the true name (not legal name, so know your definitions). To ask for "identification" would be the only right of an "accuser" to solicit private administrative remedy pro-per, while otherwise the two in conflict would attend into a county court to fight it out in common-law rather than by the pretendered prior-arraingment of Statutes (incorporating encrypted copyright private law for aliens to the common law). In this case, an alleged "officer" asks for ID because he is not an officer trusted and sent proxy by the accuser but is an accuser itself and deceptively using his wardrobe to gain confidence. In otherwords, "I send myself to solicit ID on behalf of myself the accuser." Identification being an article of association would cause the manner to elevate to that of a federal offence because federal Statutes over-riding State statutes would reveal that a crime be committed with use of a street address. Looking at this pervision, you would find that to be such a dunghill because none associate to a street address but by said prior arraingment with a company granting licenture to a private carrier in complete disregard to the right of "public vehicular travel."
Choose your battles, just knowing that handing someone Identification would waive your ex-parte to exercise private administrative remedy, even-so to call for a hearing to a cause of "actual damages." I know a photograph of Mickey Mantle was worth quite a bit when he was "in his person." A photograph of a mall-cop or ATM technician would be worth only perhaps U$ 120 /hr of "it's" employer's time to distract him proper to another subject matter unless that photograph detained him in such a way, yet we see here that there seems to be a conflict of interest to avoid doing one's job to send someone through the courts; processing, housing, orange-colored clothes, food, medical, etc adds up to an average prisoner prosecution and containment fund from a foreign trust accounted CUSSIP averages USD 30K per year low to an average at USD 50K and as high as USD 200K for the ones that are silenced by clever psychiatrists for political reasons.
was attached to an Embasy :)
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
My name is Shane Becker and I'm the one that took the picture. I wrote an update to the story to clarify some things. ( http://iamshane.com/2009/05/13/what-happened-at-rei-an-update/ ) Feel free to feel me any more questions that linger ( veganstraightedge@gmail.com )
maybe their members will have convinced them to get ATMs from a company other than Loomis and Fargo.
slashdot running this story on the front page is important becuase it should send an explicit message to every company who hires private security. Dealing with the public means you don't threaten to TACKLE someone.
If Loomis and Fargo is operating on REI property, they should abide by REI rules and stipulations. if REI doesn't want customers assaulted in the store, then get new contractors. i'm sure there's more than one company interested in making $2/transaction.
The article says Trespass.
Nooo. It's not trespass, (you don't ask a trespasser to stay, and come on over when finished). and what happened was wrong. However a lawyer probably wont get involved as not enough money. But there is now a major PR Fiasco, and one might now. And is is insulting they did not apologize - straight away.
Did you know raspberry jam and ATM card reader heads are don't mix. 2nd definition of giving them a raspberry.
This guy is a self-proclaimed Anarchist, obviously militant vegan, and Che Guevara wannabe... I doubt it went down quite like he described it did..
Look, all we need to do to clear it up is get hold of the store's security camera footage ...
Don't go to a brothel if you want to buy broth
I think we all need to review this: Don't talk to the cops
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
I wonder how they would react if 50 people suddenly showed up, took pictures of their ATM, and left.
I see it on the cops tv show every single day. Cop pulls over some young male (either a minority or a redneck) and after talking to him for one second says "Sir I'm going to need you to step out of the car." then after a quick search says "Sir, you are not under arrest, but I am placing you in these handcuffs for your protection.".
Then he searches their car, finds they have warrants and a half a ton of some illegal substance they blame it on their friend who let them use the car and go to jail.
REIs photo policies aren't law.
FGD 135
Comedy group The Frantics from a quick little ditty called Boot To The Head. Believe it comes from a Canadian sketch show called Four On The Floor. Not Sure about that, only have the CD (also called Boot To The Head). Funniest comedy CD I've ever heard
When all of your wishes have been granted, many of your dreams will be destroyed - Marilyn Manson
Old comedy routine/song.
You may have seen a skit originally done by The Frantics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Y6231uAmo
The guy needs to get a lawyer involved. Or take it to the press. I was once detained on the suspicion of shoplifting based solely on surveilance. The thing is they never saw me take anything (because I didn't). I was pretty scruffy that day, though, and hadn't shaved and was in an old t-shirt. They took me in back, made me empty my pockets, and let me go. I never got an apology or anything. I sent them a letter explaining (nicely, I might add) that I tend to spend a lot in that type of shop and that they might want to consider their practices. I also explained that this incident wouldn't keep me away but I thought they should know. Their response was curt, to say the least, which DID effect my patronage of their store. They didn't stay in business long either. This guy should find a lawyer.
Are you white and affluent?
Ok, this is really simple:
(1) did this guy commit a crime or otherwise break an existing law?
(1a) No.
(2) was the Loomis guy a dick?
(2a) Yes.
(3) is there possible grounds for a lawsuit?
(3a) Fuck yes. I'd get the ACLU on the horn, a lawyer, and go to fucking town. If for no other reason to see all the people involved lose their jobs. Ahh, the satisfaction of civil-rights slamdunks.
And that is the difference (in my mind anyway) between "cops" and "law enforcement officers"
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Of what possible relevance to this story are the details of what he was buying (right down to make and type), the fact that they were out of stock, the fact that he queued to order one, or the fact that the queue was long?!
Which is why I dislike tasers and pepper spray. If used properly, they are a wonderful alternative to lethal force in many situations. However, because they AREN'T guns, police are more likely to use them in situations where they really shouldn't. There is never a reason to stun someone who is not a threat. There are stories about police using tasers and pepper spray to force compliance with police orders from individuals already in custody ("do what we say, or we'll hurt you", sounds like torture to me).
Police need to be able to control situations when it is needed, but they also are human and as prone to anyone to abusing power. Whenever an officer discharges a taser, there should be the same type of review as if they had fired a gun.
psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo
Hey Moron,
With the economy in bad shape. There has been so many incidents of robbery, theft, scams, etc.
Nobody is taking any chances any more.
I looked up my state's statute and interestingly, it states refusal to identify one's self as suspicious and therefore adequate reason to detain. Wow, talk about a self-protecting clause. (b) Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether alarm is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon the appearance of a law enforcement officer, *******refuses to identify himself******, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or any object. Unless flight by the person or other circumstances make it impracticable, a law enforcement officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this Code section, afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted by requesting the person to identify himself and explain his presence and conduct. No person shall be convicted of an offense under this Code section if the law enforcement officer failed to comply with the foregoing procedure or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person was true and would have dispelled the alarm or immediate concern.
Well, if you look around his website, he does seem a little dangerous, if not likely to knowingly violate any criminal statutes. Also, stupid. It sounds like he was trolling the Loomis personnel, and then he was actually idiot enough to attempt to troll police. After that, he continued his total and utter display of lack of common sense by spending a good deal of time shooting his mouth off at the police, instead of keeping his mouth absolutely shut the moment he was arrested, until conferring with his lawyer. Obviously the Loomis people in this situation were jerks, and the police, not uncommonly, were behaving in an abusive fashion, but I don't think the ACLU or anyone else is going to want to expend much effort on defending this guy. Let's face it, he mostly got into trouble because he was being an asshole at the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong people. Which doesn't make them right, but it doesn't make him an innocent victim either.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Allow me to rephrase and extend. If this person doesn't fight back, they are ruining it for the rest of us. You have to fight back, or you effectively make it legal for people to do this.
I know people who have gotten arrested and jailed for things that the US supreme court has ruled would be unconstitutional to enforce. But if your lawyer doesn't point this out and that first judge isn't aware of the ruling, you're going to jail. By not enforcing your rights, you're letting the executive branch of government have power they should not have.
Blog posts are one thing, and the number of e-mail inquiries and phone calls seems to be impressive for such a story, but my point is we have to make sure we make enough noise that this won't happen again. Maybe this has been enough, maybe it hasn't. Let it be a reminder either way: Know your rights and exercise them, or you're ruining it for everyone.
Oh disciplinary action, if I did that I would be arrested so should the cop. We have eroded our rights mostly for the "war" on drugs. Trouble is we have way to many laws and they are way to open to interpretation.
No sir I dont like it.
wtf?!? Has anyone actually witnessed this in real life? (I know you saw it on TV. I don't watch cops much.) How can you be handcuffed if you are not under arrest? If true, that is scary as hell.
"Long time listener, first time caller."
If you RTFA'd you'd see it was a rent-a-cop, not a police officer (and the victim was a man), and the Slashdot story title is also misleading as he wasn't *arrested*, the rent-a-cop put handcuffs on him (I guess because he gets his jollies that way), but the dude wasn't thrown in jail...too bad a large part of the discussion is already off the rails.
It looks like what happened is, the guy was a smartass vegan anarchist fashion designer (and a RoR fan at that, not kidding, RTFA) and the rent-a-cops were power tripping authoritarians, and the personalities collided violently. If the rent-a-cops were *responsible* they would have left this itching-powder-keg of a personality alone since he did nothing wrong, instead of taking full advantage of the situation like schoolyard bullies who just found a weak hemophiliac kid who thinks he's a jujitsu master.
Question for lawyers BTW: Tell me about the legality of security guards detaining people (ideally give examples in some different countries).
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
It's OK for Google street view to take pictures of all our houses and throw them up on the internet for anyone to use as they please. But this guy innocently takes a picture of an ATM and they arrest him. Just another example of how the people with the most money win.
They have as much right to call the police as he has to take a picture. It might seem unreasonable, but maybe they didn't feel safe. (It's a load of crap, I know, but that doesn't diminish their right.)
The real question is what happened when the cops arrived? It's not outside the realm of possibility that the security guards filed a complaint, and he was uncooperative when questioned (read: obstructing). If he refused to identify himself (meaning wouldn't give his name - which is distinct from producing ID) that in itself might be sufficient for an legitimate obstruction charge. I think that gives the police a right to detain him. It's not clear why he was detained, or if he was arrested, so that's why we want the other side of the story.
Of course we aren't getting the entire story...stories like this NEVER show both sides.
Before tasers and pepper spray there were batons and night-sticks.
It's possible that the physical act of hitting someone provides more of a deterrent for the police to use "less than lethal" force, but let's not pretend that police didn't abuse "uncooperative" citizens before the taser.
Uh, that "rent-a-cop" is clearly packing. Go ahead and pick that fight if you want. I'll take on any middle-aged, overweight mall cop packing pepper spray and a stick, but I'm not taking a dude packing a 9mm on his hip.
After reading more carefully I see that it was the cops who slapped the cuffs on him and took him to the police station in the end. In my defense, it's still morning and the guy's writing style reminds me of the dog from the Beggin' Strips commercial :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CErapf79rqM
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
My entire point is that when highlighting police brutality people need to stick to stories that are clear and not ambiguous. Its not like its hard to find these stories, so why use bad examples? Once again, stories like Kathryn Johnston's are good examples of police brutality, why no-knock warrants shouldn't be issued as easily as they are now, and how paid police snitches are bad.
If you want this crap to stop - don't use examples that are easily picked apart after 10 minutes with google.
Don't worry about the mule, just load the wagon.
I love the hypocrisy of slashdot. The ATM is in plain sight so it's fair game. BUT...your driveway and front yard (also in plain sight) filmed by Google Street View is somehow an overt violation of your privacy rights!!!
While we're on the subject, can someone please direct me to a free country? Thanks!
And that is exactly the problem. If I were to unlawfully detain somebody, it's jail time for me or, at the least, a painful fine.
On the other hand, we have a caste that has the opportunity, means and often an inclination (not to mention guns, handcuffs, badges, uniforms) to perform illegal acts with relative impunity. "Disciplinary action" is a joke, as in every system that tries to regulate itself. I hear it on the radio all the time: officer such and such was suspended (with pay) pending an internal investigation... The internal investigation cleared officer such and such from all allegations of wrongdoing... Basically the power tripping criminal gets an extra paid vacation.
Not a good idea. There are so many laws on the books, some of them subtly conflicting, that you are bound to be breaking some of them [insert Ayn Rand quote here]. If you sue a cop, his friends will make you their personal hobby and will fuck up your life until you decide to quit and then some. There are legalized way of harassment at their disposal and even if they utilize illegal ones, it is usually your word against theirs and every judge will side up with the police version 99 times out of 100.
You know the difference between theory in practice? It's been said that there isn't any (in theory).
Theoretically, the police are there to "serve and protect". In practice, it is a state-sponsored mafia (with a strong union) that looks after its own interests, not yours.
You: in this particular story apparently the kid had shot a house up earlier (as in with a firearm) and was trippin acid when the cops Tasered him.
Link: "They tested his system. He was clean of drugs and alcohol. We don't know why unless just being in shock and the whole thing in itself caused him to forget everything," said Hutchinson.
So who do we believe?
If someone calls the police on you (which the security guards apparently did - even if it was bullshit) doesn't that give the cop a reason to ask your identity.
Maybe he was arrested for wearing his, "No Gods, no fucking masters" T-shirt. Certainly there are laws that forbid obscenity in public places, no?
Let me google that for you
To recap, the parents claim he was clean but refused to release any blood test to the police. Hmmm, who should we believe?
Let me reiterate my point - again. No one, me included, wants dirty cops. This case may have involved a dirty cop. However, the facts of the case are ambiguous. So, for people wanting to point out the jack-booted thugs in law enforcement would do well by picking unambiguous stories, i.e. stories in which there is no doubt that the cops acted beyond their authority.
Is this really so difficult to understand?
Don't worry about the mule, just load the wagon.
They can only cuff you if they suspect you as the culprit of a crime. In this situation there is nothing criminal. The cop needs to be chewed up and spit out by a good lawyer. Fuck him.
You know, someone behind Goatse would have made it difficult to take the photo.
COME AND FUCKING GET ME.
Ooooooh! Swearing! You're a baaaaaaad boy! *smooch* I want you to rape me.
My brother was once hauled off in Philadephia for taking pictures of the subway - it turns out that was the money train, loaded with armed guards. I'm not sure what exactly they wanted to charge him with, but there's bviously a lot of people who transport/handle money that don't like being photographed. They only let him go after SEPTA certified that he was indeed working for the manufacturer of their busses, which apparently wasn't too easy after the usual office hours.
For reasons that have nothing to do with who I am, I get harassed by cops on average about once a year.
They come to my apartment door in the middle of the morning, three or more of them, in those black swat uniforms that say either Police or Parole on the back (I'm not on any kind of parole or probation).
They bang loudly on my door and yell loudly as well, screaming that I should come and open the door immediately.
Sometimes I open the door. Sometimes I do not (I have nothing to hide but I believe in privacy). I never speak to them civilly, since they've set the tone for the conversation. I yell back at them. I tell them that if they don't have a warrant they need to leave.
I live in a garden apartment complex on the edge of a druggy community, and from time to time there have been accusations that drugs are sold in our complex. For some reason :) my street creds in this complex, in fact the neighborhood, have risen dramatically. And the police have never come back with a warrant. Of course I do live in the U.S. If you don't, or if arguably you may be guilty of something, then you should probably not try this at home.
No.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
*sigh
Yep, you and I agree but sadly it's over something that screws us both. OTOH, I wouldn't want a cop to be second guessing every contact so I can see some leeway built into it. It just shouldn't be so much that it allows abuse like we see readily practiced with some officers.
Think about how many people this happens to. Then think about how many have money enough to hire a lawyer to sue them and even then their overall success in winning would still be slim.
Around here a person can usually be detained for no reason at all for about 3 days. Maybe just to scare you into talking or something like that but they don't have to tell you their reasons unless you are charged. They can hold you under suspicion for a while. The FBI can do this for a very long time when they wish (K. Mitnik or some other person that scares them).
After looking at the photo online. If I saw this filling an ATM I would have gotten my camera out too, but...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Photographer_at_2007_AEE.jpg
Yeah, I don't really see what was so suspicious about the guy?
Here's a photo:
Scene from the REI ATM
.
you're going to have to expand a bit.
If the police are called to the scene, they're supposed to investigate the incident, right? In the course of investigating they have a right to ask who's involved, right? If you're involved, and you don't cooperate you're obstructing official police business, right?
If the party who called the police is making frivolous claims, the appropriate response is to deal with them, not to fault the cops before they gathered the most preliminary of data.
I guess the question here is, "was the call and complain worthy of the officer's legal investigation"? If the answer is no as in the security guards called 911 because McDonald's was out of chicken nuggets, then no, the cop doesn't have reason to ask you- a second or third party for ID. According to the Terry Rules, the cop has to have has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. If the complaint has nothing to do with a crime that a reasonable person could associate with one, then it's not a valid stop.
Now keep in mind, there are operatives at work here. The cop has to be legitimately investigating a crime or a suspicion of a crime about to happen with reasonable suspicion of your involvement or potential involvement to approach you. You don't know if this is happening until your interaction with the officers so your probably better off providing ID and following up on the situation later by either seeking disciplinary action against the officer or a lawsuit (which will force the same).
Look at it this way, a cop cannot pull you over and give you a speeding ticket if he didn't observe you speeding. He can't wait in a parking lot until you come out of the Video Store and issue a citation for speeding because he knows you have at some point in time and didn't get caught. The cop has to have a legitimate reason to be in contact with you which is considerably more restrictive then what the GP said with "The police officer can question anyone they like and handcuff them if they are being an ass. It's not illegal (she's not in jail, right?)."
Actually, yes. Terry gives a police officer 'investigatory' discretion. Since they were called to the scene, they could have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (also potential and/or prior criminal activity). But, this is implicit upon a suspicion that the suspect might be armed, and so the justification for a "Terry stop" is one of personal safety of an officer. From the OP's account, it seems that there was no threat, but that's a subjective observation. The real intent of Terry was to redefine the Exclusionary rules of evidence, which doesn't appear to matter here. It's more dependent on state laws about self-identification to a police officer then it is on Terry vs. Ohio. Once the OP was handcuffed, he was arrested and subject to laws outside the scope of Terry vs Ohio.
But they 0wn3d the Mayor and probably also some members of city councils, who DO 0wn3d the police. So in a manner of speaking, they do 0wn3d the police.
You're saying the same thing but missing the point. His position is its perfectly legal. Your position is, while its legal cops don't have any qualms about breaking the law.
Its a public facility (open to the public) which is privately owned. That means he can be asked to leave and be arrested if he does not comply. At the same time, since it is a public facility there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. He was well within his rights to take a picture.
If anyone is curious, the name of the store manager is Kara Stone.
Who gives a fuck? The police officer can question anyone they like and handcuff them if they are being an ass. It's not illegal (she's not in jail, right?).
No. If they want to ask me questions I have every right to be a smart ass. I don't have to supply answers that they like, or any answers at all.
Next item- he did not trespass because they did not ask or tell him to leave the property, and in fact threatened him with violence if he tried.
IANAL, but this looks like a good case against the store, the security company, and the police for a variety of reasons. Including intimidation, attempted assault, making false statements to the police, perjury, false arrest, etc.
HOWEVER- notice that he never posted a copy of the police report. I think there is a lot more to this story than the blogger is admitting to.
You are speaking of what should occur and not what does. Just because a cop does something like lock you in chains, or kill or abuse you or your family -does not mean he will have hell to pay or that he will even be scrutinized much. They should be scrutinized, but they are more often protected.
Lets save our vitriol about cops for when they kill people's granny's, shoot pregnant women, or kill harmless pets for fun.
Or a road-raging off-duty cop who assaults a taxi driver at the airport in full view of 30 other drivers, flashes police ID and behaves like he's above the law, then gets special treatment when other officers arrive on scene.
Allegedly, of course. Allegedly.
For chrissakes and you are using an iPhone, then you should pretend you are listening to music on it and covertly take the damn pic, otherwise you are a not so subtle idiot.
It is like standing there with a bull horn announcing you are taking a pic if you are moving the phone around like you are taking a pic, guy should take some lessons in being subtle.
It's hard being a gangsta in Lynwood.
The ATM repair, too, man must learn the lesson of Ed Gruberman.
Method of processing duck feet
Alright. For whatever reason, this stuff fascinates me, and I've been following up on a couple of links.
The case on point isn't Terry, it appears to be Hiibel. But it looks to me that Hiibel only establishes that a stop-and-identify law isn't unconstitutional - and it appears that Washington doesn't have a stop-and-identify law. So, depending on how Washington's obstruction law is drafted, or if there's some case law in Washington to provide guidance, it would seem that the applicability of an obstruction charge to a failure to identify case is untested.
SCOTUS rulings trump ALL lower court rulings and ALL government laws where the exact circumstances have been ruled on. I haven't checked their "Stop and ID" rulings, but assuming the GP is correct, SCOTUS rulings are germane to the conversation.
Now states may have "Stop and ID" laws that have not been tested, and they may believe given different wording that they are still lawful, but until they are tested up to SCOTUS, they may be determined to be unconstitutional or otherwise unenforceable.
From the blog post, "had me sign a âoeYou have been trespassed by REI and canâ(TM)t go back for a yearâ"
Kinda goes against their response..
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
If you are questioned by the police and you don't want to cooperate, you can ask them if you are being arrested. If they say no, tell them you are late for an appointment and then leave. To arrest someone requires probable cause (a fairly strong doctrine) or a belief that you are a danger to yourself or others. If you are calm and polite and walk away (don't run) and aren't carrying a weapon, they can only detain you for cause. And since you are innocent, they aren't likely to have then, now are they?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/veganstraightedge/3513998015/
I know I'm posting this kind of late, but there it is.
Hosting and Domain name coupons
I'm guessing you don't live in a small rural town, deep inside a Red State.
There is a guy named Trevor Paglen who takes photos of secure military installations like Area 51 (seriously!) with telephoto lenses. He is legally justified and never been charged because he stands on public property to take the photos. If it is secure enough for Area 51 it should be secure enough for ATMs. The ATM photographer was on public property, acting within his rights.
Here is what your missing that I think will put this all together in a more understanding way.
Terry determined that there was three basic types of interaction with the police in which a person can have. All interaction will fit into one of these categories. The first is a completely voluntary where you or I walk up to the police and just talk with them or the police walk up and just talk with us. The second is a detention where the police is has a good and reasonable reason to suspect your involved in a crime or might become involved in a crime. Then finally there is an actual arrest.
Terry determined that being detained by the police was in fact a seizure (because you are not free to walk away and leave) and being patted down or required to answer questions was indeed a search and the fourth amendment as well as any other restrictions applied. The court stated that the fourth doesn't protect you from all search and seizure, just unreasonable search and seizure so it allowed specifics to how a terry stop could be performed.
Hiibel stated the law was legal insomuch as it involved a terry stop or a lawful detention and or an arrest. The facts of Hiibel made it a terry stop and because the supreme court had defined what is necessary for a detention stop in Terry, the stop and identify was constitutional in that extent. The ruling did not reverse Terry's premise but legitimized the stop and identify law based around the terry circumstances.
What we are left with because the fact Terry still stands is that despite the naming of the law or the general attitude of the police, the police has to have a reason in compliance with Terry to "detain" (seize) you in order to search you or compel you to give your name, or the forth amendment kicks in.
I hope that clears it up a little. Hiibel didn't override Terry, it actually looked at the law as applied under the Terry circumstances in which Terry made it clear that there has to be a reason to detain someone. They are both interdependent on each other. The prominent point is when the police "seize" (detain) someone and they aren't able to freely walk away.
Here is the syllabus of the Hiibel case and you can see that it validates it through the Terry ruling.
Sure sure bring the patriot act into it, but what happens when they try to do that and you're not a terrorist? I'm sure you can bring some sort of suit against that cop and/or the department for both unlawful detention, and false criminal accusations and stuff related to that.
Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
It's Lynnwood, WA (two Ls). And yes, the cops there are ones you very much want to avoid. Now just to the west, the Edmonds, WA cops are decent.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
Miller v DC Police are not there to protect you, only enforce the law after the fact.
Yeah well not everything on tv can hold water. In any case though, it's more than likely that they have probable cause that the person is under the influence or drugs and/or alcohol, hence they ask them out of the car. Then thats when they ask them if they can search the car, which you failed to mention, and if they don't ask and do it anyways, then anything they find wouldn't be admissible in court. So assuming they asked even though you didn't mention it, they find a knife, gun, drugs, whatever, that's usually when they get put in handcuffs, which if they aren't under arrest I don't see how that is legal for the same fact that I mentioned earlier.
I'm not getting handcuffed if I'm not under arrest, neither are you going to detain me if you're not going to charge me with something.
Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
2 points:
First, Terry requires, "specific and articulable facts" to carry out a Terry stop. I think this burden is probably met, since the security guard "felt threatened" (which is BS, but besides the point).
Second, neither Hiible nor Terry rule on whether the police can compel you to give your name if the state doesn't have a stop-and-identify law, as is the case in Washington. Since the police took him to the station, handcuffed him, and provided him with his Miranda rights, it would seem, for all intents and purposes, that the PD elevated this from a terry-stop to a full fledged arrest, which requires the higher burden of probable cause. The Seattle PD is going to have a hard time making the case that they had probable cause to believe a crime took place based on the picture taking incident, so they'll probably fall back on obstruction. It doesn't seem that Hiible provides any guidance on whether failing to identify yourself constitutes obstruction.
It seems to me that the photographer in this case, if he so desires, (possibly pro-bono support from the ACLU) could file suit against the Seattle PD in an attempt win a settlement, err I mean flesh out a legal gray zone.
(Standard IANAL disclaimer)
Obstructing justice is NOT the same thing as declining to be interrogated. You have see WAY too much "law" TV and they stretch things to the extreme for the sake of 'good' TV. He declined to provide identification to the rent-a-cops. No where does he state that he declined to identify himself to the police officer.
You have the *RIGHT* to remain silent. This is a fundamental constitutional right in the USA. You can not be forced to explain yourself, your actions, or say anything at all other than to identify yourself and shut back up. A cop can not (legally/legitimately) arrest you for doing so.
Go look up the actual definition of obstruction of justice.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
There is detainment, then there is arrest. A cop can put you in handcuffs (afaik) when you are detained - particularly if s/he feels there is a flight risk. Detainment has a much lower threshold than arrest. I believe it's something along the lines of 'suspicion without evidence of a crime' while they investigate.
When detained a cop can pat you down for weapons but CAN NOT search you, your belongings, vehicle, or house. 'Plain sight' still applies though so keep the heroin under a blanket, eh?
Arrest is when evidence of a crime is available and is then turned over to the judiciary system. You and your immediate area can be searched without consent or a warrant at that point.
P.s. Please *PLEASE* don't use entertainment TV shows to get your legal knowledge.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
On the one hand, the rent-a-cops behaved like baboons. Not only did they make demands they had no right to make, they threatened bodily harm if Becker attempted to leave.
On the other, Becker himself is admitted anarchist. Do you really think he was simply being a smart ass? Or did he make a big scene? I suspect the later. In most jurisdictions, that's disorderly conduct. So I think Becker got off easy. If he didn't have such a problem with authority to begin with, he should have simply declined the request to see his ID, and then walked out after telling the baboon that if he's harmed he'll file charges for assault. Let the idiot tackle him. Then he'd have a truly good story for his web page.
That doesn't excuse how the baboons behaved. These guys have serious self esteem issues. If they truly felt Becker was doing something wrong, they would have called the police prior to taking any action.
Ti Kwan Leep/Boot To The Head by The Frantics, and frequently heard on Dr. Demento
I've found that nurturing one's Zen nature is vital to dealing with technology. Violence is pretty damn useful too.
Ok boys and girls, there's the scoop from the other side. I am an armoured car guard, and my principle job is refilling ATMs...some of them in public access areas. People doing my job have been attacked, robbed and murdered for the contents of ATM safes...that's the reason for the guns, body armour and all our other equipment. For this reason we take a VERY SERIOUS ATTITUDE toward people who show too much interest in what we do, or give us a hard time about it.
If Shane Becker had had the simple courtesy and decency to co-operate with the Loomis guards it would have taken a minute out of his day. Instead he was an asshole and acted suspiciously. Believe it or not, some robbery attempts start with people pretending to be harmless assholes, getting in arguments with truck guards or otherwise distracting them from their jobs. That ATM was being loaded with tens , if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, right out in the open. Why would any sensible person crowd up to an armed guard going about dangerous business? Sure, maybe he was simply curious...but why should any guard take a chance?
I'm a Canadian, so I can't comment on the specifics of Seattle police procedure or American laws that come into play. However I will say that if somebody's day gets upset because he acted in a suspicious and unreasonable manner around armed guards handling money, that's real tough shit. Maybe it didn't get handled 'right'..and that's real tough shit too. He was lucky he didn't get worse.
People who stand on their right to be unreasonable assholes are the ones who make reasonable people's rights fragile. Having a little sense and discretion would make things better for everybody concerned.
Likewise. Then again, I'm caucasian with only medium-dark hair. Call me cynical, but $10 says that if somebody with dark hair, darker skin and Middle-Eastern features did the same thing, there would be plainclothes security people casually walking by but watching that person really carefully within two minutes.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Its a good thing the cops were so honest in stating their justification! So how many witnesses heard the kid "muttering"? It sure worked out for the cops that he muttered, otherwise it would have been excessive use of force. Lucky cops... err...
The tripod/SWAT team thing is mostly a problem in rural areas, not where blocking a path would be an issue. People see a tripod over a stranger's shoulder and think it's some weird sort of gun, and therefore call the police. Seriously.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Do you have a point-n-shoot or a "big" camera. People with typical consumer cameras don't seem to get hassled, which shows just how immensely stupid the whole thing is.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I still can't believe that some people seem unable to grok what I'm saying. I am not defending some fucking stupid cop who got taser-happy. That was not and is not my purpose. My purpose was to point people in the direction of instances where NO DOUBT exists that the cops exceeded their authority. Where their statements have proven false and their actions have been extremely egregious - even leading to murder. Of course, if you want the current functioning of our system to continue the way it has been, then by all fucking goddamned means keep harping about cases where it is only arguable that police brutality occurred. Yeah, that makes a lot of fucking sense. Let me spell it out for you in even simpler terms. As you mention, it is indeed often a matter of a cops word against someone else's. Unfortunately, many people - probably older and who think all cops are andy griffith - will believe the cop over someone who can be characterized as a punk. Note, you fucking idiot, this is not a value judgment, but an assessment on how things work. So, the better strategy is to talk about cases where no reasonable person would support the abuses which the cops have done.
Its no wonder that cops have lost respect. Part of it of course is their own problem, the other part comes from people like the above AC who in their "righteous rage" focus on cases that reasonable people can disagree about. Thus, when these types of public debates do occur (which only happens rarely) people use the latest alex jones/alternet/wacko idiot cause célÃbre to argue their point - instead of instances where only the most jackbooted thug would see any justice. Then, people who are reasonable as well as fence sitters on the issue think less of the point you're trying to make - which I assume is that cops lack serious oversight and that their cowboy tendencies need to be reigned in. Why, please tell me, is this simple concept so hard to understand?
Don't worry about the mule, just load the wagon.
I generally have a Fuji S5100, which has the general shape of a professional camera (extended lens, opportunity for lens mounting, for which I have a zoom lens), but I have also on occasion borrowed a friend's Nikon D70 SLR, which cannot be mistaken for a point-and-shoot. Locations where I've taken pictures with the D70 have included LAX and JFK, both reported targets or prospective launch locations for post-9/11 attacks.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Wrong.
While this may be a place of business and owned privately. The fact remains that if the premises are open to the public and there is a general invitation to entry (open doors without having to be screened to get in) then the place qualifies as a public location. The only difference between this and true public property is the fact that the owner of the business or their employees can request/demand that you leave and/or request/demand that you stop doing something (like taking pictures).
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
But the point here is that the stores do not legally accuse you of any such thing. They demand to search everybody who buys something from them without any evidence of wrongdoing beyond having already given them money (they don't demand to search people who didn't buy something). They also are careful to never actually accuse you of theft, as doing so can potentially open them to lawsuits if they are wrong.
If they are actually accusing you of theft, they have the right to detain you until police arrive... but it comes right back down to the fact that if their only "evidence" against you is that you wouldn't let them rifle through your personal property, they (should be) toast in the upcoming civil case for illegal detainment you bring against them.
This is why they have video cameras and undercover security staff; if they don't get it on video or have a direct eyewitness they're just asking for trouble.
My favorite tactic? When the guy at the door demands to look in your bag you demand to look in his wallet, since some of your money might be in there. After all, the door guy could have pickpocketed you on your way in, and if he's innocent, why would he have a problem with it? If he refuses, obviously that's proof that he did steal from you, right?
So (from the photo) these ATM repairmen in the USA carry weapons.
I ask thee; is this a good or a bad thing?
Hivemind harvest in progress..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boot_to_the_head
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
It's a fairly simple fix, an officer should have not have any more rights than any other person to point a firearm at you or handcuff you. I'm not saying they should not be able to do it but it's it's shared by the rest of the populace people will look at these powers a bit closer. The big problem to this is unions cops are setup to be above the average citizen by requiring review boards and being to close to the DA's office.
No sir I dont like it.
Question: what happens if he doesn't sign the form? (Just thinking the signature could be used as proof of "he knew he did something bad")
Then the duty officer notes in his log "Mr X was informed that he has been told he is not allowed to be on the Premisises of REI etc., etc., etc." and when it comes to court, instead of using the form as evidence, the officer involved has to actually testify.
Or something to that effect, in traffic court I noticed that another officer is allowed to testify in the partipating one's place if they have the log/notes. It's part of the "LEO's are officers of the court and asssumed not to have lied" deal.
I worked for a financial institution for a long time. Here is what is inside the ATM.
-A place to put receipt paper
-Locked safe area with cartridges of cash
-Some sort of PC (even winxp)
-Maybe a crappy modem if there is no NIC
Its really lame in there...not worth getting arrested. No special hardware unseen by normal people.
pretty boring huh?
For you first point, i feel threatened by you right now, can the cops come over to your house and search it, demand your identification and stop you from leaving until they are finished with whatever they are doing? Of course not. So even if a security guard is scared, there still are limits to how a Terry stop is handled and what can be "specific and articulable facts" that meet the requirements for it. The court also said that the "specific and articulable facts" must be pointing to the person breaking the law, has broken the law, or is about to break the law and those "specific and articulable facts" must be able the behavior to make the cop believe the law in question was being broken.
Now keep in mind, I was originally replying to a parent post which said "The police officer can question anyone they like and handcuff them if they are being an ass. It's not illegal (she's not in jail, right?)." My point was that they need a valid reason to stop and question you. That's what Terry said.
For your second point.
The Hiible case was over a terry stop and the court said it didn't violate any constitutional protections to require or give your name. Most states (all that I know of, there may be a few who don't) have laws about interfering with an official police investigation. Again, this has to be a terry stop or more severe but if you don't identify yourself (at least verbally by name) you could be charged with that type of law.
I agree and think it will be somewhat subjective to whatever the officer can cook up. However, I'm concerned that someone can cause a police officer to open an investigation for taking a picture and being an ass. I mean he would have to be in an active investigation for obstruction to work. Even if it's a terry stop, the cop still has to believe that a law is going to be, has been or is being broken. I'm confused to where that comes into play over taking a picture and being an ass.
While it doesn't spell it out, I think it is somewhat implied. Hiible said that it wasn't unconstitutional under a Terry stop or better. Even without a specific law, if the officer has the ability to investigate and through that investigation ability, the officer can ask questions, and the interaction with the subject is a terry stop or better, then your pretty much required to answer anything that doesn't tread on your constitutional rights which Hiible already said giving you name wasn't. The big question here is whether or not there was some specific and articulate fact that lead the officer to believe a law has been, is being, or is about to be broken in order to make it a detention and then an arrest.
The sad thing is that the person in trouble described themselves as an anarchist which means they won't have the abi
My position is that if you call the police and tell them that I'm threatening you, the minimum burden for a terry stop has been met. That means they can detain me and perform a cursory search of my person. They can't come into my house or search it - that would require a warrant. They can ask my identity, whether I'm obligated to answer depends entirely on state law.
If I refuse to identify myself and the state has a stop-and-identify law, I can be arrested because the police would have probable cause to believe I've violated the stop-and-identify statute. If the state doesn't have a stop-and-identify law I can be arrested if the obstruction law is drafted to cover the situation. If the state obstruction law can't be construed to compel me to identify myself, I can sit there with my mouth shut.
The officer does have the right to ask me any question he wants. I'm not obligated to answer any of them, with the possible exception for biographical information. I have the right to remain silent.
Well, they can perform a terry stop, but beyond that, unless the person they stop has a weapon or drugs, confesses they intend to hurt the person, or otherwise gives the cop probable cause to believe a crime is about to be committed, the police are powerless to do anything (especially if the accused gives his name.)
I fully expect the cops to respond every single time someone calls them. They can then question and frisk the accused. I don't view the fact that the police can frisk anyone they've received a complaint about as an abuse of police powers. If someone is calling in false complaints, they're the ones abusing the process, and should be prosecuted. (One side note: if the police are found to be manufacturing complaints so they can meet the "specific and articulable facts" burden, that would be an egregious abuse of power.)
I don't think there needs to be an stop and Identify law once a Terry stop or worse is in play. I think that's just some tool cops can use in the stated in which the law exist to feel more macho. Once the criteria for a Terry stop has been established, the officer is involved with a full blown investigation, even if it turns out to have been nothing wrong happening.
As for searching the house and whatever, that's sort of the point in how this turned into nonsense so quickly. You call the cops and say I was threatened, the cop shows up and asked you how, you say well he said he took a picture and when I told him to remain there until I was done, he said no. Then when I said I would chase him down and tackle him, he said good luck with that and said he would treat it as an attack. Now, where is the hint of the law being broken by anyone other then the ATM guard? But if the guard said he threatened to take the money, the a law is in jeopardy. From my understanding, it didn't reach that far though, the guy didn't break a law and did little more then anything other then be an ass in the way he talked to the people and took a picture or two. I don't think a Terry stop could hold in this.
Well, this is the part in question I guess. You are most likely not allowed to lie by answering questions that don't stop you from using your right against self incrimination or of being secure in your person, papers, and effects with false statements. You are not required to answer questions that could violate your constitutional rights, but the courts already said that in a terry stop, giving you name doesn't violate any constitutional rights. So it would appear that your not protected from not giving your name in the least regardless of whether there is a stop and identify law or not.
Well, lets be clear on this, I know what you were attempting to get at but I just wanted to point out that possession of a weapon or drugs isn't an automatic problem without showing intent to use them illegally. There are many legal drugs and weapons people can have, some of which double as tools or toys and medications for animals (horse tranqs are speed in people) as well as prescriptions for people. I won't be arrested if you left your prescription vocodene in my car and I was taking it to you. But yea, illegal drugs or illegal weapons, they fill the bill.
I'm sure you can bring some sort of suit against that cop and/or the department
Nope. That's what Patriot Act enables. Indefinite detention without charges, no right to face your accuser, no right to speedy trial or to contact the outside world.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
I think all that depends on how the state law is drafted. SCOTUS has held that giving your name does not violate your fifth amendment rights, but unless a state has a law criminalizing your refusal, they cannot punish you. Same goes for lying to the police. To be fair though I think the obstruction laws in most states probably do make it illegal to lie to an officer performing an official investigation. It looks to me, that the safest legal ground would be to give your name, then refuse to say anything further.
If you can articulate reasonable facts that a crime has occurred or is about to occur to the police officer, in my mind, that meets the requirements in Terry, since the police officer can turn around and articulate "Sumdumass said:..." So I guess it falls to the police officer's judgment to determine whether your statement meets the terry requirements.
That is a very low bar. If you tell the cop that I threatened to hit you, that qualifies. If you tell the cop that I'm hovering, pacing near you, making you uncomfortable, and your afraid I might try something, that qualifies as well - in fact the actual case in Terry was quite similar to that.
I guess the limit is, if in the course of accusing me you say something that calls into question the reasonableness of a crime occurring. Something like, or "Venus is in line with pluto so now I'm threatened."
We don't really know what the security guard in this particular case said to the police officer, "he threatened me by taking my picture in public" probably wouldn't cut it, but "he was hovering, leering, taking pictures, and acting aggressively" probably would. I have no problem believing that the security guard inflated the incident, or, for that matter, that the guy who got arrested was acting a lot more irately than he lets on.
That's what Obstruction laws specifically do. They criminalize your lack of participation with the cops during an investigation. You don't need a specific law saying X when X is part of another law. And either, the specific law or the section of another law, require a set of circumstances to be true in order to be applicable.
Well, in Terry, the cop in question described a situation where it looked like they were casing the join for a robbery and the group of people somewhat matched a reported group of suspects. I'm not sure that hovering or pacing near someone on it's own meets the requirements. As for "sumdumass said", well this again will be subject to later examination. What would happen is that after nothing was said to indicate a law being broke, then a potential lawsuit situation opens up. Your not really going to win in a direct fight with the cops, they will force your into an actual violation of the law so give the name and follow up later.
That could be. However, what if it was just a "he took my picture and then talked back when I told him to stay put? Would the questioning then be legitimate or the subsequent arrest for refusing to cooperate with the officer? That's the question I want answered out of this. Can any complaint, regardless of if a law being broke in any way was involved or not, be enough reason to detain someone and then escalate it to an actual arrest? I don't think it is.
Did you miss the part about
Again, as many people have pointed out, no crime was committed here, nor was a crime about to be committed. A person was taking a fucking photo of something - that's all. Being an asshole is not a crime - and I oughta know!
I wonder, as I have seen no explicit verbiage, does the ID have to be accurate? "Yes, officer, Smith, Bob Smith's the name... No I left my wallet at home..."
Those are two different things. Not participating (especially if you're the suspect) is not illegal. Lying which is "what Obstruction laws specifically do" is actively foiling the investigation and is illegal. So if you want to legally compel a suspect to participate in the investigation against him, by giving his name, you do need a law saying so.
ANY complaint surely won't cut it. Any reasonable complaint that alleges a law has been, or is about to be broken (with specific articulable facts), provided the police don't have reason to believe the complaint is fabricated, probably is sufficient.
I don't think we're going to get the satisfaction of a definitive answer from SCOTUS anytime soon though.
There is a federal law in the books that says if you fail to report a feloni, you have commited a crime. It's called misprision of a felony. I was actually thinking it was any crime originally so I will concede this point to you. I guess the exception might be when you committed the crime or can incriminate yourself in the reporting of it.
I agree but the way the story unfolded (and yes, it was one sided and I never do anything wrong), it didn't seem like anything was actually against the law, just concern over someone seeing the secrete inside of an ATM.
I think your right. That brings me to another question, which would be better to interpret the situation, a strict constitutionalists court or a "living document" court. I'll refrain from going liberal or conservative seeing how both seem to be acting opposite as if trying to set the definition for oxymoron in how they act compared to what they say recently.
It's not clear why he was detained, or if he was arrested, so that's why we want the other side of the story.
If events happened as described, photo -> harassment, there's nothing relevant they could say.
They have as much right to call the police as he has to take a picture.
No, not really. Snapping a picture is pretty harmless, making useless calls to emergency services is a serious crime.
It might seem unreasonable, but maybe they didn't feel safe.
You're right, that would seem unreasonable. Not only is it a lie (if it was they'd have run for the protection of their truck) but they were both armed and by the time they reacted it was clear that he was not.
They might have felt uncomfortably between a rock (his rights) and a hard place (their boss's demand for them to collect ID from photographers) but that doesn't mean their actions became right. Using that as an excuse is craven.
Personally though, I doubt this is a job requirement - a company the size of Loomis surely has lawyers who would tell them they can't demand to see people's IDs. (Except voluntarily, as in before giving them the money.)
It seems like more of the same fear-driven excusism we always hear from security/police/the government - "since 911 terrorists have been kidnapping kids by pictures from cellphones and using them to blow up ATMs, and ponies!!"
Call me a fool, but... this kind of things is one more reason for me to ever step foot in your country. Speak about freedom, free speech, constitutionnal rights, democracy ... bah, just let me laugh.
It's not brighter in here (France) but, at least i'm not afraid to walk in a mall and take photos... yet.
I'm saying when they realize you aren't a 'terrorist' unless they just plan on holding you forever even when they know you aren't...
Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
We've raised a lot of different questions in this conversation, (a)Was a terry stop justified in this specific situation, (b)Was an arrest justified in this specific situation, (c)In general can a police officer effect a terry stop on second hand information, (d)In general, can a police officer effect an arrest based on a second hand complaint and refusal of the suspect to cooperate. Now you're adding two more (e)which would be better to interpret the situation, a strict constitutionalists court or a "living document" court, and, implicitly, (f)would a strict constructionist and a subscriber to the living document theory come to a different conclusion on any of these questions.
Starting with (e), the one you explicitly just asked, I think if you're a constructionist you always think strict constructionism should be followed, and if you think the constitution evolves with society, you always think social realities need to be taken into account. If you're asking me personally, I think the people on the court right now who call themselves constructionists/textualists/originalists have their heads up their collective asses. I think of the three philosophies, originalism is the only one with any merit, but all to often originalists ignore clearly articulated positions of the founders. This is especially obvious when we talk about things like school prayer and whether the US is a "christian nation." Many (most?) of the founders were clearly either atheists or deists, notably Jefferson, Madison, and Washington, and surely would have bristled at the notion of public institutions tacitly endorsing one religion over another. So-called-originalists, however, seem more interested in what the think the constitution should have originally been.
Now with that rant out of the way, as for the rest of the questions, I think constructionists and living-document-proponents should, in theory come to the same conclusion on questions a-d, in order Yes, No, Yes, No. In reality, I think questions b and d would result in split 5-4 decisions.
Incidentally, things like sworn eye-witness testimony that a crime has occurred, while technically second hand information, is more appropriately treated as evidence when examining question d.
I think we covered a though d pretty well and while we might not be in total or complete agreement, I think we are at the same conclusions in principle which is why I thought the last question was deserving and connected. After all, we are talking about what the courts have allowed the cops to do, how our rights have been intertwined into it, and whether or not the courts interpretations are limited to the specific scope of a specific situation or not. It would appear that if the questions were answered by the highest court, the type of the court's makeup and how strict they follow the document giving government authority as well as restricting it's actions, would be detrimental to estimating the outcome of the decision.
(* question D should read more like, In general, can a police officer effect an arrest based on a second hand complaint _that doesn't suggest the breaking of any law_ and refusal of the suspect to cooperate.)
I guess you would consider me a constructionist because I see the means to amend the constitution in all but two specific ways that could create an unconstitutional amendment in order to reflect the people of the time. If it can't be amended because there isn't enough support then it's obvious that the interpretation of society and social realities aren't really there. Well, at least they aren't there in enough force to warrant the population or it's elected officials to do anything about it. Imagine if the living document was taken to the detriment of society and it was used to justify the "war om terror" actions as constitutional and proper and society needed the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments to not apply. It's not out of reach when it's a "living document".
Well, I agree with you to a point. School prayer should be outside the reach of the federal government however. It should be in the realm of the state or local communities so Jefferson and all probably shouldn't be included in their interpretations of anything outside the 1st amendment. So if a school and local community determines that prayer in school is appropriate, it should be left to them to do as long as the make no law requiring it. In other words, as long as it is voluntary and originated with the students or the student's parents, the government and constitution has no role in it.
This is sort of an issue I have. Making no law has turned into you can't do something your free to do in public. This isn't the case at all in the original intent of the constitution or the founding fathers even if they were atheist or deist.
Maybe I'm missing something. I agree that t
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/17/cops-gone-wild/
I think there are similarities to be drawn between "strict constructionists/textualists" and biblical literalists. I fundamentally take issue with the idea that it is even possible to read a text without interpreting it.
Specifically, the necessary and proper clause and the commerce clause are almost comically open-ended, and it's better to couch your interpretations in something (e.g. the intent of the founders or contemporary social understanding), rather than to just wash your hands and pretend that your interpretation is reflected, right there on the face of the document.
In cases where the law or the constitution are clear, social values don't trump the constitution. But clear cases aren't taken up by SCOTUS, so I'd prefer those justices don't tell me that their interpretation is clearly in the written document.
Part of this problem is that literary styles and definitions have changed from before and after the constitution was written and adopted. However, we are not at a loss because there are tools like the federalist papers, records of debate, dictionaries, letters between architects of the nation (with Jefferson being the most common because of his station in France at this time). What this allows us to do is to find the common and proper interpretations to near enough accuracy that the intent can be established.
This again goes to the tools availible that I mentioned above. Most of the founding fathers were greatly influenced by the idea of liberty which is outlined greatly in detail in concept in several works preceding the founding of the nation. They even went to great lengths to express the idea of liberty in contrast to tyranny in the absence of it. People like John Locke spent a great deal of time creating and expanding on the concepts of liberty and sovereignty and natural rights. Things like the necessary and proper clause or the to promote the general welfare clause need to be examined in not only this lite but in the literary styles of the times. It's sort of like the second amendment, a well regulated militia meant a militia that could hit their targets not disciplined soldiers as well as the wording was reasoning to why the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed instead of how it specifically couldn't be infringed as some have attempted to claim in the past. (see the DC gun ban supreme court case for more on that).
Anyways, face value is pretty much what is needed except we need to understand the face value at the time it was written.
The problem I have is that it can almost always be clear on both the intent and the letter. What sometimes becomes unclear is when a specific circumstance is involved. Is burning a flag free speech? if the fire code that is currently used to persecute flag burners capable of hampering the unrestricted free speech? And when it's a long standing military custom to make surrendering or defeated forces strike or destroy their own flag (colors) as a sign of submission, does that influence any of the speech that is restricted from being free?
BTW, most people think a colorless white flag means surrender but it actually means no allegiance in the specific actions and infers a request for a truce. Colors are used on the flags to show allegiance in both battle and protection (think of why ships fly flags). Anyways, this isn't really connected but brings up another possibility of conflict when flying a white flag could have the same speech value as burning a flag.
Well then it seems you are an originalist, not a "strict constructionist," nor a god-forsaken textualist - so don't take my little rant personally.
Which is sort of my point, judges don't rule on abstractions, they rule on actual fuzzy circumstances. If Federalist No. 59 provides insight into the matter at hand, by all means use it to illuminate your understanding. But if previously unforeseen circumstances arise, e.g. the EPA's regulation of air pollution, I feel it is impossible to avoid applying contemporary standards.
I think we are on the same pages then. Well at least close enough to know what the other thinks about the subjects anyways.
I've been wanting to ask, the OSU in your moniker, is that a reference to the college you attend (attended) or is it something else. You don't need to explain if you don't want. Anyways, I was wondering if it was a reference to a college, if it was Oregon State or Oklahoma State or Ohio State or whichever.
Yes, I'm an Ohio State alumnus. Go Bucks!
Ha.. Me too.. well sort of, I finished my education at a community college 10 years ago but I live about 30 miles from the main campus and pop up to show the youngsters how to party a couple of times a year. Although the cops have been pricks lately (a couple of strange incidents on campus over the last few years like flashers and rapist and trashcan fires after home games which they blame on outsiders) so I haven't been around in a while.
Go Bucks!