|
My account of a recent incident in Arlington County
 |
I just published the details of a recent incident in which I was involved. This particular run-in happened to be in Arlington County, not far outside the city.
This article includes my version of the events, the results of the follow-up investigation that I requested, and some boring commentary on the absurdity of the entire ordeal.
Enjoy!
Posted at 4:37AM, 11 July 2007 PST
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Nice, measured, appropriate response, Keith. If everyone reacted this way, and questioned their interaction in writing, hopefully they'd see how often they're annoying completely innocent citizens.
This is probably the most disturbing story I've read so far - they've enacted laws (rather than just private property policies) that say that just carrying/using a camera is enough to generate "reasonable suspicion" for a stop and questioning? That's worrisome.
Even you equivocate:
"And to the extent that one of these policies might one day prevent someone from doing something really bad, I’m fine with them. "
Really? Because I'm not. Photographing a site is not even CLOSE to a terrorist act, and stopping someone from taking photos in a public place is *never* going to stop a terrorist attack.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Thanks for that Keith, well done.
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
joseph_mcgarraghy edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
 |
People should use this as a template.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Keith,
Thanks for posting this -- and I'm glad you followed up and filed a complaint.
I'm troubled by what happened to you and by what's in the Arlington County Police Department's Terrorism Intelligence and Prevention document, especially that part that that says that people in possession of "binoculars" or "cameras" or "similar items that might be useful in gathering information about potential targets" would be likely to "warrant an officer's attention."
The document says that "possession" of a binoculars or a camera could "suggest a potential link to terrorism."
The document also says that "officers are cautioned that most of the above factors, by themselves, do not imply terrorist involvement. Therefore, officers shall exercise appropriate discretion when investigating persons matching the above criteria."
Clearly appropriate discretion was not exercised in your case. Being asked to delete the photographs you took goes well beyond the criteria outlined in the Police Department's document -- and it's also something that the police can't legally make you do.
The problem stems, in part, from the mistaken, unconstitutional, and self-defeating notion that photography indicates a potential terrorist threat. (As many people have pointed out, terrorists can take photos a lot more discretely than you did.)
I posted a question yesterday on an ask-the-lawyer forum about whether or not it is constitutional to require somebody to produce identification just for taking photographs of a government building, when that's all the person is doing. Here is the answer I received on that forum:
Such photography as you've described (without more) should not be regarded by law enforcement authorities as having attained the threshold of suspicious activity, and the very idea should be adamantly resisted by all who value free expression and the other precious freedoms embodied in the Constitution of the United States.
Again, I'm glad you followed up with this. Bringing these Constitutional violations to light is important to preserving our liberties.
--Bill
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
billadler edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
 |
Well said, all.... and thank you keith, for posting this to start with.... it's a constant struggle it seems. But fight we must; the only way to preserve liberty.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Sorry, but I think you need to write the Chief again. In the close of his letter, he states that a review found that Officer Malara acted properly. Telling you that you must delete photos, however, was not proper.
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
lightboxdc (a group admin) edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
 |
The problem is this building, I'm told, has DARPA as one of the tenants. Just like Langley, they don't disclose this. Unlike Langley, they don't make it blazingly obvious that it's somewhere your rights are limited.
Being a gov't installation that handles some of the most top-secret technology in the country, I can understand why they'd react this way. Problem is they really should have a better way of going about it. They have to choose between security by obscurity (what they seem to prefer here) or security by legal postings, they can't have both.
Personally, I feel that if they gave us just cause to be considerate of their wish to remain annonymous, it would be much easier to honor their wish. But then again it's yet another catch-22.
Btw, hopefully this helps to shed some light on this problem so that everybody at least understands why this happened on such a random building. Basically, this is a rather unique case.
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
scott*eric edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
 |
Great post, Keith, thanks. Just seeded the link to Newsvine DC Area Living & Photography groups. I hope this gets more attention...
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Thanks to all for your comments. In the interest of saving time and space, I'll reply to all individual points/comments right here:
@Miscelena: I'm fine with these policies to the extent that they might, someday, be enough to allow an officer to stop someone doing something clearly out of the ordinary. For example: The subject in question is three blocks away, hiding in a bush with a huge zoom and binoculars. This is certainly not normal, and might legitimately frighten people. And this policy gives police the charge to stop and temporarily detain such a suspect. These cases are rare, but are the very reason that policies like this are often put in place. That they are mis-interpreted and improperly enforced is another issue entirely. But the policies, I can live with, assuming that they are refined and the enforcement guidelines are made more clear.
@billadler: The request for ID in this case is part of the Catch-22. I agree that it's unlawful to ID photographers for taking pictures. At the same time, it is unlawful to refuse to produce identification if it is requested by an officer of the law. You might not be charged with a crime if you hold out, but you may be detained and booked until they can determine your identity, or until a judge intervenes. I am, for a number of reasons, unwilling to go to that length to prove my point. But thanks for the follow-up, to be sure. I haven't gone in search of a legal opinion. Yet. But I'm considering it.
@lightboxdc: I was a little bothered by that outcome. However, I'm more concerned with the policy enforcement guidelines than I am with making a mark on this officer's record. To his credit--and the credit of the ACPD in general--I was never once treated rudely, nor was I ever under the impression that my complaint and requests were being given anything but serious consideration and attention. I've spoken at length with the investigating officer, and continue to communicate with him.
@glass window: Dead on. Put up a sign, and I'll gladly move right along. That, essentially, is my point in very few words. Don't hold me to a standard of which I'm not aware. Period. The end.
Again, thanks to all for your comments, and for spreading the word. I'll be back :)
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Even if they put up a sign saying "No photography permitted" I would take exception. If they don't want that building photographed they should move someplace else where it is not publicly accessible, like the inside of a secure military installation.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
No signs will go up because a) it attracts attention, which is the opposite of their goal, and b) as far as I can tell, there's no legal basis for prohibiting photography from a public place - which is the entire point of this group.
I don't want warning signs, I want some reason and logic applied here so that I (and everyone else) feels like we've got some security from things more dangerous than cameras.
Keith: Re:
... this policy gives police the charge to stop and temporarily detain such a suspect.
Actually, "reasonable suspicion" exists there, which is the test for whether a stop/questioning is Constitutional or not. (Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure) That's more than good enough to address anyone truly acting suspicious - we don't need stricter "policies" that are dubiously legal (to the extent that they're overstepping Constitutional bounds) and which restrict the freedoms of the innocent.
That said, I keep reiterating this: it will do no good to stand on a soapbox and argue the Constitutionality of something until all sides of the issue are understood by all parties.
I think until a) everyone here realizes that the terrorists are not going to hide in the bushes, they're going to look like tourists (which is the logic behind the policies...and what is generating the fear driving them...) and b) security/law enforcement comprehends that there's absolutely *zero* imminent threat from a camera (which is why it's ludicrious to harrass tourists and photo students/enthusiasts), no real change is going to happen.
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Miscelena edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
Many acts of terror involve photography beforehand. This is what security officials repeat, and I have no reason to doubt that. Someone wants to chat with me, see what I'm up to? No problem. Tell me I can't take photos on public property, let alone instruct me to delete images (or hand over pricey camera)? NOPE, that's a violation of the very rights that are supposed to be at issue behind all the jingoism tossed around currently.
As said previously, if they don't want photos taken of the building in a very common public area, then perhaps the GSA should reflect a little when scouting locations for office space for more sensitive functions. And the entire trajectory here is towards fear and constriction of rights. I'd prefer to maintain the rights and pursuit of happiness, while Osama swelters in a cave. I call *that* victory in its own right.
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
lightboxdc (a group admin) edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
Many acts of tourism involve photography. Many works of art involve photography. Most acts of photography never involve any terror at all.
I understand that the government has been given a difficult job that's going to require a lot of hard work, and is probably entirely impossible anyway.
Terrorists generally aren't suspicious, after all. If they had been, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. It's just that people can't possibly accept the idea that it was unpreventable - that it was an act of evil. We'd rather blame ourselves and our neighbors; we'd rather decide that we can prevent the next one and start making rules to keep everyone from doing anything suspicious. They can't tell the American public that we very likely can't. Not without breaking all the rules we set to preserve our freedoms.
Anyway - I object to any policy, any rule, any law that says that pointing a camera at something from a public place should be considered "suspicious". Photography is not a threat.
Sure, that guy taking pictures might be a terrorist. And there might be a sniper waiting for you while you're pumping gas, that moving van parked across the street might be full of fertilizer, the guy next door could be a pedophile, and that guy your sister's best friend met online could be an axe murderer.
But probably not.
My objection: We, as a nation, have grown entirely TOO afraid and the powers that be are encouraging it. I don't understand why to fight "terror", we all have to be more afraid, more wary, more concerned about what evil is going to happen next than we are about our own happiness.
Telling people that "some terrorists take photos, therefore anyone with a camera might be a terrorist" isn't just bad reasoning, it's ridiculous. It's like saying that just because one guy in London had a bomb in his shoe, we should (spend millions of dollars and) all take our shoes off at the airport.
As someone else mentioned: terrorists make cell phone calls, too - what's next, stopping random people walking past federal buildings, insist that they hang up and then explain who they were talking to and why?
Ok, sorry for the rant, but this is one of those things that just offends me as nonsensical.
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Miscelena edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
In 2004 there were 17.7 million people who visited Washington, DC. Many people who visit Washington, DC have cameras -- and use them!
Photography alone cannot and must not be considered a "suspicious activity." Even pointing a camera at an unmarked federal building, or a building that houses a secret agency, can't be considered suspicious because it happens too often.
Stopping and questioning people for doing normal, innocent, commonplace things is both un-American and illegal.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Although it comes up fairly often in these discussion, I always love to throw this in as a reminder. Have you every noticed how many "security cameras" are trained on *us* as we walk down a public street? How come they can take our picture, and we cannot take theirs?
The sentiment seems childish to some, but is a fundamental question about the rights of governments, businesses, and instiutions versus the rights of the individual.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I received another response to my query about if just taking photographs alone constitutes reasonable suspicion, providing grounds for the police to stop you and ask you for identification. To put the answer in context, here is the question I posed:
In Washington, DC, where I live, private security guards and the police often try to stop people from taking photographs of Federal buildings. There are no laws against taking photographs of Federal buildings from public streets.
Sometimes the police ask for identification from photographers who are taking photos of Federal buildings and other facilities.
In light of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada in which the the Supreme Court ruled that requiring somebody to show identification ''under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime,'' or to ''ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad,'' is asking a photographer to show identification legal? Can the police ''stop and identify'' somebody who's legally taking photographs and who is engaging in no other activity other than taking photographs?
Does photography itself rise to the level of suspicious activity, especially since photography is a very common activity among tourists and others in Washington, DC?
And the response:
The First Amendment is of paramount importance in your question.
However, keep in mind that Hibel said that if the police had reasonable suspicion ( does not violate the 4th Amendment)and asked only a minimally intrusive question (does not violate the 5th Amendment) that it was permissible.
Keeping your case in mind...If the police do not have reasonable suspicion to question your journalistic photography I would get a lawyer if you are challenged by District police.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Saw the Marc Fisher blog post on this subject yesterday and based on the comments there (or maybe it was DCist) it sounds like someone is planning something for there as well.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
So, this seems to be raising quite a stink. First the Post, then Wired. If nothing else, I'm glad to see that people are talking about this!
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
absolutely!
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
DC Photo Rights /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to DC Photo Rights discussion threads
|
Deutsch
|
English
|
Español
|
Français
|
