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."
Unless he is accused of a crime, he has no obligation to provide his information to a police officer. If I were in his shoes, I wouldn't say a damn word as soon as the police cuffed me except to demand a lawyer. I would definitely be looking to consult a lawyer about pressing charges.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
In some states, an adult is legally required to provide ID to any cop who asks - it's actually illegal to walk down the street without a driver's license (or non-driver's ID). We seem to have little regard for the Constitution.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
They wouldn't comment... Give their media department a call, see what they have to say. I'm pretty sure that law of slashdotting phones states that "The delay of their response will be inversely equal to the intensity of incoming phone calls"
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.
Apparently REI's loss-prevention personal stepped in to help harass the man, and he had to sign a form saying that he was banned from REI for a year, so REI absolutely is responsible.
Really?
TFA does not mention refusing to tell the police who he was. He was refusing to give his photo ID to the repair men, despite the police trying to convince him to do so.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
In some states, an adult is legally required to provide ID to any cop who asks - it's actually illegal to walk down the street without a driver's license (or non-driver's ID). We seem to have little regard for the Constitution.
You would be incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes
"Him
Don't try to leave. I will tackle you."
They told him he cannot leave, and they threatened him with bodily harm if he attempted.
In other words, they actually placed him under (possibly illegal) de-facto arrest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada
From the article:
"Nevada has a âoestop-and-identifyâ law that allows a peace officer to detain any person he encounters âoeunder circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crimeâ; the person may be detained only to âoeascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad.â In turn, the law requires the person detained to âoeidentify himselfâ, but does not compel the person to answer any other questions put to him by the officer. As of April 2008, 23 other states[1] have similar laws."
I'm not sure how to react to Hiibel. On the surface it sounds really awful. BUT, the key phrase of "reasonable suspicion about a crime" sounds, well, rather kind of reasonable to me.
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.
I know for some reason /. hates the fact that someone can defend themselves with an attorney is somehow wrong.
What? You might want to read up on NewYorkCountryLawyer's contributions.
.
No, they can't. A store may not legally confiscate your photos. They can ask you to leave, they can sue you to prevent you publishing the photos, but they can not prevent you from taking them nor confiscate them afterwards without a court order.
Confiscating is either theft or conversion, threatening to do so is coercion. A law officer may take custody of your possesions when effecting an arrest, but may not confiscate your film without a court order.
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
That's when you
1) Demand his name and information
2) Call the police and file a report
3) Call Brinks and file a report
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
The Nevada Supreme Court had held that the Nevada statute required only that the suspect divulge his name; presumably, he could do so without handing over any documents whatsoever. As long as the suspect tells the officer his name, he has satisfied the dictates of the Nevada stop-and-identify law.
In Nevada you are not required to produce an ID, of course this doesn't mean you wont get hassled for not doing so (in NV or any state).
I don't know about angles, but it's fear that gives men wings. -Max Payne
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."
calling REI seattle branch (888.873.1938 toll free) directs you to REI Public Affairs information. their number is 253.395.5958 Loomis & Fargo phone number 206.802.0410 in seattle. calling them i got a phone number that goes to someone's personal pager, so i think they may not be interested in having further conversations about this* *call often
This blogger needs to learn some tact. The best way to deal with security guards (who have no real power) is simply to ask, "Are you police?" followed by, "Then you have no authority over me. I'm now going to leave." They cannot detain you from leaving unless you've stolen their property (like Levis jeans) which is not the case here.
As for actual police, the best way to deal with them is to exercise your Miranda Rights (remain silent). Every time you open your mouth, you give them evidence that can be used against you. Better to shut your mouth and keep calm - almost bored.
BTW you're not obliged to show a drivers license unless you're behind the wheel of a car. More Supreme Court cases then I can list here have affirmed this multiple times. Don't cave-in to the police simply because they *believe* they have certain powers. 99% of the time they are exceeding their legal authority as circumscribed by the courts.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
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.
Check out http://www.fmylife.com/. All the stories start with "Today, ..." and end with " FML."
Before referring me to the "public affairs" for "more current" information, the manager told me, that REI have not in fact accused the guy of "trespassing":
In other words, it seems like the pig lied. Surprise, surprise...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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?
http://www.rei.com/help/feedback/privacyfb.html
That is the link to send them an email about "privacy". I am sending them an email outlining that if the details are true as they are being presented that I am shocked and embarrassed that REI loss prevention would help with this.
I am an REI member and I shop at the downtown Seattle location often. I am providing them with my membership number and I hope to hear back from them. As a coop they really don't have any interesting in pissing off their members so we will see how this goes.
At the same time if it is false then this guy is accusing them of something false. I am however inclined to believe him.
Also recently I looked up some of the laws around this completely unrelated to this. In Washington state there was once a law requiring a citizen to present ID to a police officer without a crime being committed. Refusing to show ID was a crime itself. This law was struck down as unconstitutional by the WA state supreme court. If there really was no law being broken it is not obstruction to not present ID, the court was very clear about that.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Sheindlin
She may look fake, but she's a judge, although retired now. However; the cases are *real*, albeit her rulings are in the form of binding arbitration that both sides agreed to.
Personally, I think she is extremely irritating and do not watch that show. I don't need to hear from a judge to know that 'being an ass' is not, by itself, illegal though.
Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
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
In some states it's illegal to refuse to show ID to the police. Washington was at one point one of those laws until the state supreme court overturned the law declaring it unconstitutional.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
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.
All you need to say are five magic words: Am I free to go?
If the answer is yes, then you go. Now. Leave.
If the answer is no, then they have charges they plan to file/etc and that changes the ballgame immediately. Miranda rights come into play if it's the cops, or false imprisonment or kidnapping charges if it's just a rent-a-cop or Loomis worker. If it's the cops, that also means the ticker starts on how long they can detain you without charging you with something. Generally this is only a few minutes up to half an hour in some cases. That's not to say they won't outright lie or invent charges.
But any time someone tries to detain you, just say AIFTG? and watch the wheels of justice spin.
Sig for hire.
BTW you're not obliged to show a drivers license unless you're behind the wheel of a car.
It depends on your state, but at least in Nevada, you must identify yourself or you can be arrested.
You have to identify yourself; this does not necessitate providing a drivers' license. That interpretation would make it illegal to not have a drivers' license; it's perfectly legal to never obtain any form of federal- or state-issued picture identification. (It might make some things harder - opening a bank account, for example - but it's legal.)
What you are required to do is provide your name and your address, so that the police can verify that through some other means. That fulfills the needs of "required to identify yourself".
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.
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.
"Am I free to go" can (often does) result in a practiced non-answer, where the answer should be "yes."
In which case "I decline the encounter" is the appropriate follow up.
Excuse me?
At this point, 'twere me, i would activate the video recorder in my phone and say, "Please, Sir, repeat that threat you just made, and when you're done, explain why you believe you have the right or authority to detain a citizen in a public location, or threaten them with violence. I want to make sure your boss and my lawyer have the facts straight."
In fact, i did pretty much that, when i was detained for having a video camera at a security checkpoint. In the National Constitution Center. That's right folks, i was detained for a "terrorism check" for having a camera in a museum... devoted to our Constitution. At a "Security checkpoint" that was in front of huge honking glass windows you can see in to from half a mile away.
I want to see the Loomis training manual or contract with local law enforcement that says "you are permitted to take violent action against anyone who doesn't comply with your self-important dick-waving."
I hope the writer of TFA sues Loomis and the PD to hell and back again. This is utter bullshit.
That which does not kill us makes us... st
Actually, the phrase is: "Am I being charged with a crime, or am I free to go?"
There's an actual reason for that exact wording. If they say "Yes", what are they answering? The police are trained in using this double-speak against you all the time. Use it against them as well.
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.
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.
Declining the encounter is telling the officer that you are not consenting or agreeing to participating in the contact with them voluntarily, and directly informing them of your intention to leave without further consensual interaction.
The reason to decline explicitly is to avoid implying consensual (voluntary) participation after they didn't clearly answer your question.
You may end up being detained or arrested (the second and third categories of interactions, along with consensual), but it forces an answer to the original question "Am I free to go?" And it establishes the latest moment that those events could have occurred.
The sequence of events can be very important. If you have "volunteered" something in consensual conversation, there was no need to inform you of your post-arrest Miranda rights.
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.
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.