By Carlos Miller
A Seattle man was handcuffed and thrown in a jail cell after photographing an open ATM with his cell phone over the weekend.
Shane Becker, a self-described anarchist, said he took the photo while two security guards were refilling the ATM in Rei, a store that specializes in outdoor sporting goods.
He said the security guards closed the machine and then demanded his identification, which he refused to hand over.
We go back and forth about why I took it and don’t see it as a problem versus why they think it’s somehow threatening their personal safety and their property’s safety. They’re trying to convince me to give my ID to the Loomis guys to write their report. I’m trying to convince them to go fuck themselves that I didn’t do anything illegal or otherwise wrong and that Loomis doesn’t have any jurisdiction to compel me to give them my ID. Round and round, over and over. Until…
Seattle Police arrived on the scene and brought up 9/11 as the reason why he should not have photographed the open ATM.
When he questioned whether 9/11 was a justifiable reason to not take photographs, one of the officers handcuffed him.
Meanwhile, another customer in the store photographed him getting arrested but that person was not harassed.
The officers transported him to a precinct where he sat in a cell for 30 minutes.
They released him with the orders that he not return to the store for a year or else be arrested for trespassing.
Becker is now hoping to see the photo that was taken of him during his arrest.
-30-
I am a multimedia journalist who has been fighting a lengthy legal battle after having photographed Miami police against their wishes in Feb. 2007. Please help the fight by donating to my Legal Defense Fund in the top left sidebar, which helps pay for the thousands of dollars I’ve acrued in debt since my arrest. To keep updated on the latest articles, join my networks at Facebook, Twitter and Friendfeed.
Popularity: 1% [?]
31 responses so far ↓
1 Jeremy Jojola // May 11, 2009 at 3:42 PM
Wow. That photo really is damaging to ATM security. Take a look at that screen and the little green handle. That’s a security risk! [sarcasm]
What a bunch of fools and a waste of taxpayer resources over a photograph.
I love how 9/11 is always brought up too among security guards.
2 the lone white boy // May 11, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Glad to see the cops didnt erase the pic. Maybe they are learning.
still busted his balls though.
Cops have a saying…. “you can beat the rap, but you cant beat the ride”
3 HA! // May 11, 2009 at 4:01 PM
This story doesn’t pass the sniff test. It’s obvious what happened here. The darling anarchist is taking pictures. He’s told to leave. He refuses. He’s busted for tresspassing on private property. Then he conveniently leaves out the tresspassing part to the whole story. Only a fool would believe this crock of malarky.
4 ClintJCL // May 11, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Yup. The terrorists won on 911. We’ve been scared into having less freedom. They gave Osama Bin Laden *exactly* what he wanted, and he’s laughing his ass off right now.
5 Jay // May 11, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Arrested for trespassing, fine. For taking pictures of an open ATM because of 9/11? I don’t think so. Is anyone else getting REALLY sick of using 9/11 as an excuse for EVERYTHING?!? ARGH.
6 xdamousex // May 11, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Seattle Police arrived on the scene and brought up 9/11 as the reason why he should not have photographed the open ATM.
Wow. That’s all I have to say. Al-Qaeda: Today 100-story skyscrapers, tomorrow convenience store ATMs!
7 Duane Kerzic // May 11, 2009 at 4:46 PM
HA! you are just so smart, not.
That ATM is on private property and those guards don’t work for the owner of the property. They work for the company that put the ATM there. Have you ever been in a Bank Of America where they sell drinks? So those guards don’t have the ability to tell him to leave. Funny how it’s not mentioned he was asked to leave. That’s because he wasn’t asked to leave HA!. You can’t be trespassing unless you are asked to leave by someone with the authority to do so.
If I was him I’d call the store owner next week and ask if they signed an order preventing him from going on the property and if they did ask them to rescind it. If he was actually trespassing he would have been arrested for it.
8 xdamousex // May 11, 2009 at 4:47 PM
This story doesn’t pass the sniff test. It’s obvious what happened here. The darling anarchist is taking pictures. He’s told to leave. He refuses. He’s busted for tresspassing on private property. Then he conveniently leaves out the tresspassing part to the whole story. Only a fool would believe this crock of malarky.
You are one of the most naive people I’ve ever heard. You really believe overzealous security guards and cops don’t do this routinely because they can?
9 Bran // May 11, 2009 at 5:15 PM
If laws are consistent with those I am aware of the police cannot ban him from the store that ability rests with the owner/management of the place. the police would be able to enforce it if that was the case.
10 the lone white boy // May 11, 2009 at 6:16 PM
In response to bran….
I think some PDs have blanket agreements with the merchants in a city/town that allow them to ban people from stores/parking lots & enforce trespassing laws on people. Like when a store is closed & people are hanging out in the parking lot. The police dont have to get the store owner’s permission. This may or may not be the case in this situation.
I once watched a copwatch video of a denver colorado man who was filming the police arresting someone & the first thing the cop asked of the filmer was “do you live there” …. he was referring to the apartment complex where the alley he was standing in while filming. The reason being he was gonna arrest/threaten him for tresspassing just to get him to move on & stop filming.
11 Bran // May 11, 2009 at 6:23 PM
@lone white boy
Of course legality plays little role in what police do in many situations.
I am lead to wonder where the free world is these days.
12 genewitch // May 11, 2009 at 8:41 PM
Bran: Budapest.
13 Ari // May 12, 2009 at 1:06 AM
His photo was dangerous, no one should know what the inside of an ATM looks like. Which is why wikipedia includes diagrams and an image of an open ATM… er oops.
14 Kurt // May 12, 2009 at 1:21 PM
@Lone white boy:
Depends. Most likely the store owner would have to expressly make the police agents of the store, with only the ability to ban people or whatnot. I sure as hell wouldn’t do this as a store owner.
15 jimb // May 12, 2009 at 4:57 PM
C’mon, the guy was photographing armored guards who were servicing an ATM on private property. PRIVATE PROPERTY. The 9/11 line was a dumb thing to say, to be sure, but guys like this cell phone photographer aren’t fighting for civil liberties — they’re just making it harder for the real photographers to be taken seriously. A self-described “anarchist”? Please.
16 ClintJCL // May 12, 2009 at 4:59 PM
Jimb: Do you have any point whatsoever?
Anything in view of the public can be photographed. How do you think the paparazzi exists and posts photos of celebrities all the time?
Or is your point simply that people you don’t like should have less rights than the rest of us?
17 Scott Chamness // May 12, 2009 at 8:17 PM
I’m not sure how to take this one. This story only seems to have one side right now, and even with that it almost looks as if he was looking for a reaction from the security guards, which would evaporate any sympathy I have for him.
jimb,
Pray tell, what is wrong with being an anarchist?
18 pj // May 13, 2009 at 2:21 PM
ClintJCL: “Anything in view of the public can be photographed. How do you think the paparazzi exists and posts photos of celebrities all the time?”
This is only partially true. Legally you have to be on public property (or have the permission of a property owner) when you shoot a photo of private property.
So if the person with the cell phone camera is standing inside the store when he shot the photo, then he is not covered legally.
19 Carlos Miller // May 13, 2009 at 2:27 PM
PJ,
You’re wrong. There is no law that specifically states that a person cannot shoot a photo from inside a private store, especially one that is open to the public.
If they don’t like you taking photos, they can ask you to leave.
But they can’t confiscate your camera and they can’t have you arrested for the act of taking photos.
20 Mario // May 13, 2009 at 11:30 PM
In this particular case, I think the guy acted like a jerk. If it were an armored truck transporting money, does he have the right to stand next to it and photograph it what’s inside?
While 9/11 is a dumb excuse, any security gurad or police will assume that someone taking pictures is going to try to break or hack his way into the ATM and take it’s money.
The store owner is hte one who would have the right to ask him to leave, and most likely he will.
Anyone taking a picture of an open ATM is a potential robbery suspect. That’s logical.
If I see the guy doing this, I won’t use that ATM if I need money. The last thing I want is people stealing my pin and/or bank information.
I agree completely with jimb and Ha!.
21 Jonathan Rockway // May 14, 2009 at 4:39 AM
“Anyone taking a picture of an open ATM is a potential robbery suspect. That’s logical. ”
How is that logical? Is anyone that wants money a potential robbery suspect? Is anyone that owns a gun a potential murderer? (Also, how can someone be a “suspect” without there being a crime committed”?) If you are going to use the word “logical”, please explain your logic.
It’s sad that so many people brand the curious as criminals. Criminals are people that commit crimes, not people that want to share their life with their friends on the Internet.
22 Duane Kerzic // May 14, 2009 at 4:30 PM
Seems REI didn’t ban the guy from the store. This is from another blog on this issue, http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/05/13/this-is-why-you-dont-arrest-people-for-taking-pictures/ maybe Carlos will contact REI and be sure it’s a valid letter.
John,
I wanted to share a comment from REI regarding the Shane Becker situation. Feel free to post it, if you wish. Thanks.
Speaking for REI, the incident that occurred between one of our customers and a security company servicing an ATM in our Seattle store was unfortunate. For those who may not be aware of the details, the situation between the two parties escalated to the point that the police were called by the ATM security officers and the customer was detained.
We’ve heard from people about what should or should not have happened at the store, which we’ve appreciated. The one thing that is clear from the discussion is that the outcome was a bad one for all involved. We regret that the matter couldn’t be defused before the police became involved.
It’s not our intent to ban the customer from the store, and he is welcome to visit our store and shop with us. We’ve appreciated people sharing their varied points of view so we can avoid situations like this in the future. One step we are taking is to discuss with the ATM security company ways to prevent the circumstances that led to this problem.
Libby Hutchinson, APR
Recreational Equipment Inc – REI
Director – Corporate Communications
23 Mario // May 14, 2009 at 6:29 PM
Whether he’s doing it because of boredom or for an art project, taking pictures the way he did of an open ATM will be construed as suspicious. Police and security will have reason to believe that the man will attempt to come back later and try to hack into the ATM. That is my logic, I don’t know what yours is.
24 ClintJCL // May 14, 2009 at 6:31 PM
Seems like failed logic to me. You don’t need a picture of something to hack it; you can google for ATM plans.
25 Mario // May 14, 2009 at 6:36 PM
So tell me, would you go to a bank, and try filming the employees when they try to enter the vault (assuming you can see the vault from the service window), and then get mad when the security questions your odd behavior?
26 ClintJCL // May 14, 2009 at 6:38 PM
Apples and oranges. ATM != bank. You’re trying to equivocate an apple with an orange.
Tell me, if I photographed you, would you assume I’m coming to take your kidneys in the night? That’s about the same logic.
27 Mister DNA // May 14, 2009 at 6:55 PM
No, I’d logically assume you’re trying to steal my soul.
28 ClintJCL // May 14, 2009 at 6:55 PM
That’s pretty damn funny. I once chased after someone who took my photo yelling “give me back my soul” as a joke. This was in college…
29 Duane Kerzic // May 14, 2009 at 7:03 PM
I once went to an old bank (building 100 years old) for the USA anyway, that was still a bank. I asked if I could take some photos of the inside since I was on private property. They got the manager for me. Sure no problem take all the photos you want. Then I was told. The Vault is in the basement down those steps. The door is really cool. Be sure to get some photos of the Vault while you’re here.
Just because some jughead security guards get bent out of shape because someone takes photos doesn’t mean they know anything about anything.
30 Mister DNA // May 14, 2009 at 7:34 PM
You make an interesting point, Duane. Most bank robbers don’t overtly photograph their targets, just as most terrorists don’t overtly snap photos of their targets.
Therefore, it naturally follows that police and security guards should be especially suspicious of those who appear to be NOT taking photos.
31 organize // Aug 1, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Just outragious. It is time to take our country back. 9/11 has been used as an excuse for authorities to take their gloves off and intrude on our liberties. ALL government, cops, sheriffs, authorities of any kind are empowered with that authority by we the people. And we can limit or take that authority back as we see fit. We need to do more than merely post comments on a website. We need to organize political action groups, field candidates for office and sheriff, lead referendum efforts to force changes in local and state laws, and to remove/recall candidates and sheriffs who forget who is really in charge. They represent us, and are empowered only to serve and protect us. When they exceed that authority, it is up to us to mobilize and take it back, and to punish them. In this case, everyone should write to REI and threaten to take their business elsewhere until REI makes a statement that their security guards were in error and that corrective measures are being taken. Meanwhile, Seattle police and King County sheriff and deputies have a long list of behavior that easily exceeds the threshold of illegality, but it’s allowed to continue because citizens do not mobilize and change the law, so that rogue cops/deputies are held accountable to the people they serve. Too often, people just look the other way. Now is the time to stand up and teach authorities how to act and to show some respect for the people who pay their salaries.
Leave a Comment