By Carlos Miller
A man who was taking pictures in a public park was confronted by police and told he was not allowed to take photos in the area.
The incident occurred last week in Mark O’Malley Park in Chelsea, Massachusetts. The man identified only as “Joe” in the Bostonist article said he spent ten minutes taking photos of the Tobin Bridge and the boats and docks in the area. When he stepped into his car to drive off, two police cars blocked him in.
Joe says that the two officers got out of their patrol cars and began questioning him aggressively about what he was doing. Joe explained the situation to the officers. The officer explained to him that he was being stopped for taking photos and that the area is “under heavy surveillance” and that “photographing was not allowed” since it is a “protected area.”
The Chelsea police officers asked for his ID and credentials to prove he was a photographer, as if the camera wasn’t proof enough. The only thing credentials prove is that you are affiliated with a media company. Credentials have no bearing on whether you are allowed to take photos in public.
The officers then told him he had to delete the photos, which he did because he felt he had no choice.
Afterwards, Joe filed a complaint with internal affairs who assured him they would look into it. And if you believe that, then I have a bridge in Chelsea I’d like to sell you. The Tobin Bridge. Just be sure you don’t photograph it.
Police also told him he should call the police department and obtain permission before taking pictures at the park.
Ask permission?
I’m sure nobody asked Chelsea taxpayers permission to use their money to fund these cops’ salaries.
Meanwhile, Photographer is Not a Crime reader Jeff Furner came across the Bostonist story and was so enraged, he fired off an email to Chelsea Police Chief Brian Kyes. He even received a response. Of course the chief’s response was laden with references to photographers being terrorists.
Here is Furner’s email:
Chief Kyes,
I read recent coverage where an photographer was told that he was not allowed to take pictures in Mary O’Malley Park (http://bostonist.com/2009/04/01/america_land_of_the_free.php) , and then was pressured into deleting photos from his camera. I am sure you are aware that there is no provision in the Patriot Act, and very few in other other statutes, that prohibits or limits photography while a public place. So, the report that a Chelsea LEO advised a
citizen that he was not allowed to photograph because the park is a “Protected area” was troubling to me. If this story is accurate, the LEO clearly violated the citizen photographer’s constitutional rights under the First Amendment. I would be curious to know if your LEO actually believed there is a law, Patriot Act or otherwise, that limits photography in such circumstances, or did he go too far in his command presence to get the outcome that he wanted, i.e. the photographer stopping his photography and deleting his pictures.I am enclosing a PDF that outlines what is legal to photograph and where. I hope that this will encourage a better understanding of photographers and their rights under the law. I hope that it will also help to dispel the stereotype that photographers might be terrorists that has been perpetuated in our culture. Photography has not played a significant role in terrorism, and certainly any terrorist would not be using a large SLR camera. Instead, it seems to me they would likely get the information off the internet or use a cell phone or very small point and shoot camera to avoid detection. Indeed, terrorists have probably used cell phones more than cameras to facilitate their horrific crimes. So, perhaps we should be questioning people with cell phones instead. Of course, both scenarios equally absurd, as number of
photographers/cell phone users questioned/detained/arrested needed to prevent a crime, would be so great it would be wasting LE resources that could be used elsewhere.I would suggest that your officers be briefed on a photographer’s constitutional rights and that the Patriot Act does not limit photography. Also, to let LEO’s know that photography alone should not be reason to suspect someone of a crime or planning one.
I thank you for your time in considering my opinion and concerns.
Jeff Furner, RN, EMT-P, BSHA
And here is Chief Kyes response:
Good Morning Jeffrey:
Thank you for taking the time to submit this important information. It appears to be extremely helpful.
We are certainly not in the practice of having photographers delete of destroy their pictures. Such a practice serves no legitimate purpose. As you know these are challenging times in which we live in our country. We as law enforcement officers are charged with the responsibility of balancing the rights of our citizens as guaranteed by the US Constitution and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights against being vigilant as it pertains to fortifying our homeland security especially as it pertains to vulnerable targets such as the LNG Tank docked in Everett off of the Chelsea Waterfront.
I appreciate you taking the time to express your concerns. Please rest assured that our Officers are updated on a continual basis on the importance of maintaining this balance.
Thanks,
Chief Brian Kyes
Popularity: 1% [?]
22 responses so far ↓
1 sickntired // Apr 2, 2009 at 7:26 PM
the standard reply, which means he isn’t going to do a damn thing at all. I guess a local photographer will have to stand up and force this issue in the courts
2 matiokawa // Apr 2, 2009 at 7:42 PM
It’s Europe any better? I guess not UK, but what about the rest?
3 the bulldog // Apr 2, 2009 at 7:44 PM
they forgot to tell you that joe was wearing his “nikon professional” turban at the time…
4 the bulldog // Apr 2, 2009 at 8:12 PM
http://www.bulldogneon.com/phototerrorists.jpg
5 Carlos Miller // Apr 2, 2009 at 8:34 PM
Bulldog,
I knew there was something about Nikon shooters that I didn’t trust.
6 Gary Ruppert // Apr 2, 2009 at 8:46 PM
The fact is, he should not have been doing this without permission, it puts USA at risk of terrorism. If he is not a terrorist he has nothing to hide, so why is he so upset, must be a liberal
7 Scott Chamness // Apr 2, 2009 at 9:24 PM
It bloody well does not put the US at risk for terrorism. A public park is a place citizens pay for with their taxes. As he wasn’t doing anything illegal, whats the problem?
FYI, If I was a terrorist bent on total destruction of America, I don’t think my first stop of terror would be in… Chelsea, Massachusetts. Really now.
8 Michael // Apr 2, 2009 at 11:41 PM
Gee, Gary, I am a conservative and about as anti-Obama as it gets.
BUT THERE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AT PLAY HERE AND THE COPS FORCED THE DELETION OF HIS PHOTOS.
Wake up, Son.
Mike
9 Duane Kerzic // Apr 3, 2009 at 12:39 AM
Gary Ruppert // Apr 2, 2009 at 8:46 PM
The fact is, he should not have been doing this without permission, it puts USA at risk of terrorism. If he is not a terrorist he has nothing to hide, so why is he so upset, must be a liberal
Taking a photograph puts no one at risk for terrorism, the drinking of this kool-aid needs to come to a stop. The taking of photographs is a form of protected speech. This whole terrorist thing is way out of control at this point. It’s the LEO full employment and unlimited overtime act if you ask me. Life has some risks. Some risks can’t be eliminated and have to be accepted for what they are.
While the 9/11 ‘victims’ have gotten lots of press it’s really time to put that in perspective. This is going to sound harsh. I lost my mother suddenly at the same time, no one gave me millions of dollars because of that loss. She wasn’t a victim of terrorism but her death was as sudden and unexpected.
There have been tragedies that are far greater then the losses of 9/11
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_toll
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_disasters_by_death_toll
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion
The difference between these other tragedies and 9/11 is that at those times the media reported the news and didn’t make drama out of it. Now we have 24/7 TV media that for the most part creates drama rather then reporting fact.
10 Ron // Apr 3, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Gary Ruppert you sir are a complete and utter idiot, the day anyone tells me what to do in a public place gets a fist in the face.
11 Patriot // Apr 4, 2009 at 1:22 AM
Gary Ruppert is an enabling idiot who does not even recognize his own duty as a citizen.
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their RIGHT, it is their DUTY, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. –” The Declaration of Independence.
If you are not man enough to do your duty, sir, you are not man enough to be called a citizen. You must be one of the “workers” the Government and Media are constantly referring to.
12 marco perez // Apr 4, 2009 at 2:59 AM
“We as law enforcement officers are charged with the responsibility of balancing the rights of our citizens as guaranteed by the US Constitution…”
-Chief Brian Kyes
WTF?! The rights ARE balanced, bitch! I get them all!
13 Dave // Apr 4, 2009 at 6:00 AM
I was approached by a security guard in a mall in Abu Dhabi recently because I was taking photos. Security guards (a lot of them anyway) are well known for being self-important because they aren’t real cops and love imposing their will on anyone they can. Apparently I had been reported to them by someone else who happened to be walking through the mall at 6am.
In the end, it just turned out that they didn’t want people taking photos of the fashion adverts in the shop windows. I was taking photos of the mall itself (and one of the Ferrari shop) so he had no problems with what I was doing.
It was nice to meet some common sense involving photography in a public place.
It’s also interesting to compare the Middle East and the USA in terms of restriction of rights these days. The differences are getting smaller and smaller.
As for this Gary Ruppert guy, all I can say is: “Successful troll is successful.”
14 CL Jahn // Apr 4, 2009 at 10:27 PM
Gary Rupper is, of course, completely and totally dead wrong. As is Chief Kyes when he claims that the police “must balance the rights” of US citizens. In fact, the police do not have that responsibility: that is what we have courts for. The job of the police is simply to enforce the law. The law says it’s ok for citizens to take pictures in the park.
End of that issue.
Since Chief Kyes does not understand this, this should be the end of his career in law enforcment.
15 ac // Apr 5, 2009 at 10:48 AM
its time for zero tolerance ON POLICE who break the law.
10-20 years in prison. right next to those that they arrested for drug-use crimes.
drug users get that sentence for non-violent ‘crimes’. cops who break the law should have EASILY that much jail time thrown at them.
the only way they’ll learn is if they’re answerable to The People. sadly, they are not, right now.
16 Tim // Apr 6, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Has this guy who was hijacked by these Tax-a-fag-a-poo-shitts cops ever though of putting his disk in a JPEG Recovery program and then post the photos online just to say ‘Up Yours!’ to these cops who flagrantly abused authority they should never have been entrusted with in the first place?
17 Nathan // Apr 6, 2009 at 3:13 PM
For the benefit of the readers here, I was actually in this conversation with Joe. I am glad to see it covered here as well.
Here is the flickr link to the discussion before the Bostonist decided to cover this story.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/bostonmassachusetts_/discuss/72157615934669260/
18 Keith // Apr 6, 2009 at 6:03 PM
I say 1000 photographers show up at that park this Saturday and start taking pictures all at the same time.
The First Annual Chelsea Photo-Cookout!!!
19 riffraff // Apr 10, 2009 at 10:49 AM
No problem with the photo deletion. As long as you don’t use the card after you delete, you can recover all the pics. Should you have to resort to that? Of course not. But not everyone has the time and money to fight such a bogus abuse of power, though. Sometimes, you have to pick your battles.
20 Zachary // Apr 11, 2009 at 11:11 PM
A few weeks ago my friend took some pictures of the smoke stacks on the power station that we live near. When he went home there were two detectives there who questioned him, asking him why he took the pictures and what he was going to do with them. They got his address because a security camera took a picture of his licenses plate. I live in New York State, it looks like this sort if thing happens all over the place.
21 vince // May 6, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Protected area? or listed as potential target? Totally understandable that the person photographing would be questioned and ID’d if the area was listed as a potential target and levels were up. But that’s it unless they determined some form of terrorist activity going along with the photos. I agree they shouldn’t have made him delete photos. Rather thank him for his time and cooperation (assuming they were polite during the conversation) and be done with it. I think the problem wasn’t necessarily with the officers but with their training and knowledge (lack thereof) as it relates to looking for and identifying “potential” terrorist type activity vs. us law abiding citizens who just like to take pictures. I love taking pictures of random things and events.
@ac: don’t know what state you’re in but here in CA drug users get a slap on the wrist, not prison. further, cops aren’t answerable to the people. they’re answerable to their oath of office and their superiors. If that were the case, the fast food cook who burnt my hamburger should be answerable to ME! It’s the elected officials that are answerable to the people. at least that’s how I understand it.
22 tony // Sep 26, 2009 at 12:05 PM
“cops aren’t answerable to the people.” yes they are, if they werent then they would do whatever they hell they wanted to do, oh hell they do. NM
I AGREE, THROW THEM IN THE SAME JAIL CELL WITH THE DRUGGIES THEY PUT THERE! now that would be justice, not the BS that is out there now!!!
Leave a Comment