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."
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'
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).
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
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 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.
I had a similar situation. A local photographer was taking pictures of park rangers who wanted to arrest him for taking there picture. They had him in handcuffs. I walked over and said the following
"You are violating this man's civil rights. He has every right to take your pictures because this is a public place (a park) and so long as he doesn't publish the photos in a derogatory way, you have no reason to keep him against his will. And if you continue to keep him against his will I will testify in court that you are violating his civil rights." The rangers talked amongst themselves, contacted their supervisor, and then let the guy go.
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"
Heck, I would photograph the inside of an ATM too - but I'd expect the police might get interested and I'd explain calmly what I was doing, but I'd be OK with being detained over it even if I knew it was wrong.
Sorry, but I wouldn't be OK with this. I'd be quite pissed off. Maybe it's pointless bitching, and maybe it suggests I don't want to live a happy life, but that's how it is.
Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
I have also been advised to ask an arresting officer to cite the law under which they're making the arrest. Nine times out of ten they are wrong anyway.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Civil rights are like muscles. If you don't exercise them, they waste away.
I just talked to someone at Loomis and expressed my discontent with the situation.
Then I called the REI talked to the manager, and she said that REI did _not_ request a tresspass against the customer, and that he was invited back to the store. She also told me that a couple months ago they had planned to remove the ATM because the bank that owned it wasn't making enough money on it, and that the removal of this ATM from their REI had nothing to do with the incident.
Then I called the precinct, and they basically dismissed it as "don't believe everything you read on the internet" and gave me the phone number of the public affairs office. So I called them and he said there are always two sides to a story so don't be to surprised if you have only read one side. He then asked if I had read the police report yet. I agreed that there is always two sides to a story, and then asked how I could get a copy of the police report to get the rest of the story. He said you can come in person to the precinct and request it, or you could send an email to spdpdr@seattle.gov and request it. You need the date (May 8th), the time (4:53pm) and the location to get the report.
The detective also said they wouldn't impose tresspassing on someone unless the owner or a manager of the store requested it, which is in direct conflict to what the manager just told me...
> As I understand it, you can be compelled to identify yourself if requested by a law enforcement officer. You are not required to provide identification: providing your name is sufficient. You are not required to carry identification.
Not true.
My brother was walking home very late one night, when a cop asked him his name and what he was doing. He responded in a very polite manner: "I was not aware I was under obligation to contract?" and waited for the cop.
The cop didn't like this turn of power, and tried badgering him.
He said the same thing again, and again waited for the cop.
The cop got really pissed, but knew that the _first_ thing in any contract is for the two parties to identity themselves. Since my brother was throwing the burden of proof ONTO the cop to proof to show that there was even a contract in the first place, the cop decided to let him go since there was nothing he could legally do.
I had a Lawyer friend VERY begrudgingly admit that "All Law is based on Contract Law.", which is why that particular response even worked.
--
Reddit is the Dig of Slashdot.
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.
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.
being a smartass to a law officer?
First, they are usually armed.
I'm usually armed, too. So what? You think they're going to shoot you for smarting off?
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)
No, they don't have the authority to detain you. Not without reasonable articulable suspicion that you have committed, are committing or are about to commit a specific crime. Lacking that suspicion -- and they have to be able to say exactly what it is, and why -- they have no more authority to detain you than any random person does. Whether they have a gun or not.
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?
Okay, now this we agree on. It's a good idea to be polite, to everyone. It costs you nothing and makes everyone's day a little better. And cops' job *does* suck.
Where we differ, I think, is what being polite means. When dealing with a police officer, to me politeness means keeping a calm, pleasant tone of voice, not being sarcastic or rude, saying sir (or ma'am, as appropriate), not using profanity, etc.
But politeness does not extend to answering any questions I don't legally have to. And I know what I do and do not have to answer, and I know what they are and are not allowed to do. If they cross the line, I'll politely get their name and badge number and file a complaint afterwards (I won't tell them I'm filing a complaint, though, that might be impolite -- and it's pointless besides).
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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.
I'm not a native English speaker; what does "I decline the encounter" mean and why is it appropriate?
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
You should go ahead and get that report. Then, of course complete the story by posting here!
In Australia, an email has recently done the rounds containing a .pdf file about a recent ATM scam. The email contained hundreds of pictures of devices that have been fitted to ATMs which look like normal components that capture both the card number and user's PIN, which are subsequently collected by the scammer not long after that.
.pdf can be found here.
This email was the first thing that came to my mind. I don't really see anybody looking from the ATM refiller's perspective; I am sure they have been told to record events like these; and for this exact reason they had the incident report.
I don't know what is up with America. Every time a police officer arrests somebody over being a smart-arse about something trivial, you all scream FUD. I do not know anybody that even has or has used a lawyer before here. Has your legal system become so backward that exercising your amendments forbade common sense? Yes, i have prepared myself to be modded troll, and yes; i listened to the entire lecture by Professor James Duane (which i found very interesting), but there's no burglary or murder going on here. A simple "I took a photo of your ATM because I like to learn how the insides of things work; Would you like me to delete the photo from my iPhone and Google it when i get home instead?" should have sufficed.
The mentioned
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.
As far as I know (IANAL), even the policy some stores have of "checking of bags on exit is a condition of entry" is iffy. (You aren't trespassing until you refuse to have your bag checked... at which point you were exiting anyway. You might not be welcome back, but that's later.)
Unless you were made to enter a legally binding agreement before entering the store, you cannot be forced to allow them to search your property before leaving. And make no mistake, once you've paid for it, that bag and its contents are your property. Only the police, with probable cause, can search it; and no claim of "refusing to let us look is cause to look" will stand up in court.