We were permanently banned from the Miami-Dade Metrorail for taking photos

July 1st, 2010 · 440 Comments

Update: The National Press Photographers Association is protesting the way authorities handled the situation. The Society of Professional Journalists is also looking into the situation.

By Carlos Miller
We had planned to ride the Metrorail through three stations to see if anybody would try to stop us from taking pictures of the trains.

We didn’t even make it inside the first station.

By the time it was over, three hours after a security guard told us it was against the law to take pictures in the parking lot of the Douglas Road Metro Station in Miami, a 50 State Security Captain had banned us for life from ever setting foot on the Metrorail again.

All because of those photos we took in the parking lot.

Clearly, somebody is going to learn a lesson in all this. And it’s not going to be us.

I was with Stretch Ledford, a veteran photojournalist who is currently pursuing a Masters of Arts degree in Multimedia Journalism at the University of Miami School of Communication.

Check out his version of the story here.

I first heard of Ledford when I saw his video of Overtown after it was posted on the South Florida Daily Blog a few months back. I was impressed with the video and knew I would like the guy.

I met him shortly after when I spoke in front of his social media for journalists class at the University of Miami. I complimented him on his videos. He complimented me on my blog.

Ledford has worked in 50 countries on five continents. He has experienced countries where the government actually doesn’t allow photography of public buildings. So it irks him when he is denied that right in the United States.

When he decided to work on a project about photographers not being allowed to take pictures on the Metrorail for his media law class, he asked if I would like to work with him on it.

He didn’t have to ask twice.

Ledford had done his homework on this project, having interviewed Miami-Dade Transit head of security Eric J. Muntan who informed him that people had the right to take pictures within the Metrorail station with the exception of commercial photography, which needed prior approval.

Muntan also sent him Miami-Dade County Code 30B-5 (2) which states the following:

Commercial photography or recording. No person, unless authorized in writing by MDTA or the County Manager when appropriate under Section 2-11.14 of this Code, shall take still, motion, or sound motion pictures or sound records or recordings of voices or otherwise for commercial, training or educational purposes, other than news coverage anywhere in the transit system.

There also happens to be an exemption towards students and faculty regarding the “educational purposes” portion of this code, which is outlined in Miami-Dade County Ordinance Sec. 2-11.14 (2) (iii).

“[n]othing in this section shall require any permit from: (i) Individuals filming or video taping only for their own personal or family use; (ii) Employees of print or electronic news media when filming on-going news events. This exception shall not apply to simulations or re-enactments orchestrated by print or electronic news media; or (iii) Students and faculty filming exclusively for educational purposes. “

However, Muntan also told Ledford the contracted security guards at the stations are allowed to harass question photographers.

As we spoke on the telephone and as I informed you, in a proactive effort to maintain the highest vigilance of the MDT system, MDT’s contracted security officers and this office’s security supervisors do reserve the right to question those individuals who may be engaged in any photographic activities in or around MDT property.

The county currently contracts with a company called 50 State Security, which apparently only does business in one state. The county previously contracted with Wackenhut but they suffered too many embarrassing scandals. And they weren’t very versed in photographers rights either.

But 50 State Security is much worse.

We were approached by a 50 State Security guard within minutes after stepping into the parking lot of the Douglas Road Metrorail Station a little after 2 p.m. on Wednesday.

Ledford was photographing one of those Coral Gables trolleys when the guard told him it was against the law due to terrorism reasons.

Ledford attempted to show him the email from Muntan, but the security guard was agitated that I would not stop filming him, so he walked away and called the cops. And then he punched out for the day. Seriously.

So then Ledford showed the email to a female security guard who still insisted that we needed prior permission. When we told her that the email proves she was wrong, she barred us from entering the station until a 50 State Security supervisor arrived. And this after we had already purchased our tickets.

Then a Miami police officer arrived and he said there was nothing he could do about it, so Ledford asked him to call a sergeant, who arrived but said there was nothing he could do about it because the Metrorail station falls under county jurisdiction, not city.

So Miami-Dade cops were dispatched to the scene, who in turn called a “Homeland Security” cop to the scene, but it turned out, he was really a Miami-Dade cop who only worked in the Homeland Security Bureau, whatever that means.

Every single one of those cops ceded their authority to the security guards, informing us that if the guards didn’t want us taking photos or riding the Metrorail, then there was nothing they could do to supercede that authority.

At one point, after waiting for the 50 State Security supervisor for an hour, Ledford was about to walk right in and allow the security guard to detain him as she threatened she would, but then the supervisor finally showed.

Captain Elliot Gelber of 50 State had no idea who Muntan was and he didn’t seem to understand the county code that stated we were allowed to take photos.

The Miami-Dade cops demanded our identifications and even though I didn’t think I was obligated to provide ID because I wasn’t being officially detained, I gave it to her anyway because I really don’t have anything to hide in that regard.

I also handed her my business card and told her to check out my blog.

Finally, after the Homeland Security cop determined that we were not on any terrorist watch lists – at least not yet – we were told we were free to go but would not be allowed on the train after all.

The truth is, we could have left whenever we wanted but the goal was to make some sense of the contradictory policies in place regarding photography at the Metrorail stations.

But instead of getting answers, we were told we would never be allowed on the train again. For the rest of our lives. We were told we would be arrested for trespassing If we dared set foot on any Metrorail property for as long as we live.

They could only have managed this by obtaining the info from our identifications. Not that I have any regrets in handing it to them.

The bottom line is, we have a lawyer, a very good lawyer, a former Miami Herald media lawyer who now teaches media law at the University of Miami. His name is Sam Terilli.

This is far from over.

The top video is the condensed version of our escapade. The bottom video is the longer version.

Popularity: 28% [?]

Tags: First Amendment

440 responses so far ↓

1 Rob Molecule // Jul 1, 2010 at 11:11 AM

Isn’t this public property?
2 Ricky Rodriguez // Jul 1, 2010 at 11:14 AM

IT IS ON LIKE DONKEY KONG.
NUCLEAR LAW SUIT JIHAD UPON THE IGNORANT BULLY AUTHORITARIAN POWER TRIPPING 3rd WORLD POLICE STATE OF MIAMI …
I WANT TO SEE HOW MR. MUNTAN REPSONDS TO THIS…
3 xdamousex // Jul 1, 2010 at 11:16 AM

Good work, Carlos. Clearly they are not keen to people asserting their rights.
4 Difster // Jul 1, 2010 at 11:26 AM

I smell an permanent injunction coming along with some forced retraining of the staff.

This is one of those cases where they stepped in it so bad there is simply no recourse for them. They willfully and completely ignored the law. They attempted to ban you from what is essentially public transportation because they don’t like you.

I know you’ve got a big smirk on your face over this whole thing; and well you should.

Excellent work. Keep us posted.
5 hillbillyfunk // Jul 1, 2010 at 11:29 AM

I’m confused, when some onse “askes” for something that request is allowed to be refused, but the cops keep repeating things like “I’m asking you for ID”, or “I’m asking you to turn that off”.

If they are asking and one refuses is that refusing a lawful order?
6 Daniel M. Perez // Jul 1, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Boy, when you set out to find them, you sure find them good.

I’ll be keeping an eye on how this develops.
Daniel M. Perez recently posted..The Gift of Dice THE BONES Blog Carnival
7 Tom Jones // Jul 1, 2010 at 11:31 AM

Bring in the Lawyers!
8 Zach // Jul 1, 2010 at 11:32 AM

“I’m going to ask you one more time” – And then what? They’ll ask again? Use violence? What?

That line must work on most people though or else they wouldn’t use it so much. What a shame.
Zach recently posted..Basic pigeon care
9 Rob // Jul 1, 2010 at 11:43 AM

This will be a lot of fun as the story unfolds and grows. Private security guards banning photography and people from a public transit building is simply a great story!

Nice work with the camera too. It’s nice to see a video like this that’s not all Blair witch style pointed at the ground most of the time.
Rob recently posted..San Diego Trolley Guards Prohibit Photography
10 William Beem // Jul 1, 2010 at 11:58 AM

Despite the fact that you provide daily evidence of this kind of abuse, it still amazes me when I see it.

Any thoughts on what would’ve happened it you just ignored any comment from the security guard? Would they have become frustrated and given up, or would they take a more aggressive posture?

Here’s the thing I’m confused about. How can you be trespassed for life from public property (I assume it’s public) when you haven’t committed any crime?

I look forward to seeing the follow-up to this story.
William Beem recently posted..Review- Artistic Photo Canvas
11 Tom Stedham // Jul 1, 2010 at 12:12 PM

I look forward to reading about your successful lawsuit against these uninformed people.. Start looking at new cameras now; you’ll be able to afford them! Lol…
12 TheSolicitor // Jul 1, 2010 at 12:21 PM

The more and more I follow the blog here, Carlos, the more and more I respect you for standing up not just for your rights, but for the rights of everyone else who simply isn’t as informed and passionate on this topic as you are.

Simply, thank you. I would love to donate to the legal fund, but I’m a broke student studying for the bar exam…so maybe one day! Again, thank you for this blog and your efforts. It is beyond important.
13 Mike T // Jul 1, 2010 at 12:30 PM

So the cops were city and thus had no jurisdiction? Where’s the Sheriff’s Department, then? Why couldn’t the cops call a deputy out to resolve it.
Mike T recently posted..News and links- your government at work edition
14 renegademag // Jul 1, 2010 at 12:49 PM

Awesome. The whole time I’m thinking, don’t they know that by making up laws on the spot, it’s costing the city money? Bravo Carlos, that was a lot pressure to be put under and you stuck your neck out there for everyone. I wonder, would you still hand over your ID in the same situation again?
renegademag recently posted..Dont Miss This Various
15 Carlos Miller // Jul 1, 2010 at 12:52 PM

Yes, I would provide my ID because even though I might not legally be required to do so, I look at it as professional courtesy.

But I also expect that professional courtesy in return, which I did not receive here.
16 Marcus G // Jul 1, 2010 at 12:54 PM

The Miami-Dade sheriff was called in, and they also toed the line and deferred to the security guards, even appearing more belligerent.
Marcus G recently posted..The Champlain Bridge
17 Carlos Miller // Jul 1, 2010 at 12:56 PM

Down here, we don’t have a sheriff but we have the Miami-Dade Police Department, which covers the county.

They were called in.
18 William Beem // Jul 1, 2010 at 12:57 PM

One of the things that confuses me is the differences in Stop & ID laws among the states. My understanding is that we’re not required to provide a DL if not pulled over for a motor-vehicle issue, but what (if anything) is required in Florida if a police officer demands ID?

I understand the professional courtesy. I’ll give my name to anyone who asks, but I’m not about to give out my DL if I don’t have to.
William Beem recently posted..Review- Artistic Photo Canvas
19 Carlos Miller // Jul 1, 2010 at 12:58 PM

I was using the Canon TX1, which is great but a little small so there were many instances where I wish I had a steadier hand.

In hindsight, I would have brought my Canon HG10 because that has loads of hard drive space and it is easier to hold steady.
20 Difster // Jul 1, 2010 at 1:03 PM

By providing your ID when you didn’t have to and waiting around for the cops, etc. it bolsters your case in court. You were very professional and cooperative, you just refused to back down.
Difster recently posted..You know youre an Austrian economist
21 Dodge Ball // Jul 1, 2010 at 1:21 PM

It’s not the refusing that is in question, it’s the order being given that should be questioned. Was it lawful or not?

The word “ask” makes things vague.
22 Les Stockton // Jul 1, 2010 at 1:40 PM

Screw ‘em. If I can’t photograph, I wont go there. There are plenty of other places that I can visit for photographic opportunities. If they are banning one photographer from there, they are banning me. I’ll never set foot in that place or in the city of which it resides.
23 Hazy // Jul 1, 2010 at 2:12 PM

I don’t know what the laws are regarding filming in quasi-government areas. You guys know better as far as filming on rail stations what the law is.

Are places like Amtrak considered public property and therefore covered under 1st amendment for photography rights? If that’s the case this metro falls under similar rules.

The thing that is bad here is that the police do not know what the law is. They were taking their queues from the security guards. Police need to know the law that they are enforcing, not take the word of the security guard.

I’m not sure why this policy is in place. The lame excuse given is to thwart terrorism but that excuse doesn’t stand up against common sense. I could get a decent spy camera in there to take all the pictures I want and no one would be the wiser.

The other more logical reason is they want to control who takes photographs there, just like a Starbucks wants to control who takes photographs in their store.

Either way, you’re gonna see who’s right or wrong in court. Good luck fellas.
24 Matt B // Jul 1, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Awesome. Its nice to see somebody walk the walk after talking the talk. Its too rare.

And I don’t understand how they can ban you for life from public transportation. In fact, I don’t think they can.
25 Marcus G // Jul 1, 2010 at 2:18 PM

Amtrak has similar regulations regarding commercial photography:

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/Page/1241267362248/1237405732517

I was stopped in April from taking a photograph of an Amtrak station before, but was informed that the “common” area of the building was not leased by Amtrak and therefore not covered under the Amtrak policy I mentioned. I didn’t press it much further.
Marcus G recently posted..The Champlain Bridge
26 John Tammaro // Jul 1, 2010 at 2:20 PM

I thought you handled that well. Stood up for your rights and never lost your cool. You make them look even worse if that is at all possible
27 Hazy // Jul 1, 2010 at 2:36 PM

Is the Miami-Dade Metro a public area in the same sense that a sidewalk or a park is public? This is the question that needs to be answered. If the metro receives any sort of funding through taxes then there is a good case here that they infringed on 1st amendment rights.

Where’s Duane Kerzic to put in his comments about this?
28 Clark // Jul 1, 2010 at 2:45 PM

Great job Carlos! You are truly a hero! Are you considering telling local news agencies about this incident? Or are you going to wait until it at least gets into court?
29 George Donnelly // Jul 1, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Terrorist watchlist? I thought that was only for airplane rides?

Kudos to you Carlos for standing firm. This craziness never ceases to amaze.
George Donnelly recently posted..A Million Thankyous
30 Les Stockton // Jul 1, 2010 at 3:03 PM

Why not just ban all out-door photography? Wouldn’t that make us safe from terrorism?

How many civil rights are we going to give up before we realize that we’re no longer a free country.
When I hear people say “land of the free”, I mumble to myself, “what a joke”. “There’s hardly any freedom anymore”.
31 Rob-L // Jul 1, 2010 at 3:15 PM

What I find the most sad in these post-911 days is the police, security etc. using the “terrorist” excuse to limit our freedoms.

If the American public was allowed to photograph Metrorail, public buildings etc. before 911 then we should be allowed to do so afterward too. These dumb bastards don’t realize by using “terrorist concerns” as an excuse to limit our freedoms, they’ve let the terrorist have a partial win.
32 John Howard // Jul 1, 2010 at 3:17 PM

When private security starts spouting The Law or asking to See Your ID – ask them whether they are a sworn officer of the law. Let them answer. Then when they say ‘yes’ point out to them that impersonating an officer is a felony. Ask them if they wan to change their answer.
33 Sydney Carton // Jul 1, 2010 at 4:04 PM

Is Florida a Right to Carry state? Perhaps, Carlos, you should openly carry a gun. You’d be surprised at how polite a police officer can be when he’s talking to a person carrying a gun.
34 Yizmo Gizmo // Jul 1, 2010 at 4:06 PM

I think they don’t want people to
see how slow the trains are in the USA.
In Japan, China, Europe trains go about 120 mph.
Or 75 mph across local rails.
In the USA, about 15 mph.
That’s my take.
35 capn_amurka // Jul 1, 2010 at 4:22 PM

How is the filming NOT commercial in nature when Carlos takes it knowing he’s going to post it on PINAC, a website that bears commercial advertisements??
36 Les Stockton // Jul 1, 2010 at 4:24 PM

I would say the same as when the news media film but they have commercials to pay for their air time.

Commercial use is typically when filming to be used in advertising or some other pursuit like that, where the images are primary to a money making product.
37 Acksiom // Jul 1, 2010 at 4:32 PM

No; how have YOU demonstrated that posting it on such a site inherently and necessarily MUST make the filming commercial in nature?
38 Roger // Jul 1, 2010 at 4:39 PM

What do the lawyers say? I would think that a security guards opinion is just that, an opinion. And you do know about opinions, there are like ass holes. every body has one.
39 Carlos Miller // Jul 1, 2010 at 4:43 PM

There is editorial and there is commercial photography.

This blog is purely editorial. It’s a news blog.

Besides, the pennies I make on the advertising here can hardly be called commercial.

Here’s a more thorough breakdown of the differences between commercial and editorial photography.

http://photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00RlU9
Carlos Miller recently posted..We were permanantly banned from the Miami-Dade Metrorail for taking photos
40 Carlos Miller // Jul 1, 2010 at 4:49 PM

There is action brewing. That’s all I can say at the moment.
41 John Howard // Jul 1, 2010 at 5:30 PM

The law excludes ‘news coverage’. But beyond that it is not a work for hire as would be a wedding shoot, movie, etc.
42 Shawn // Jul 1, 2010 at 5:38 PM

Open carry isn’t legal in Florida, but concealed carry certainly is!
43 Frank // Jul 1, 2010 at 5:46 PM

Hopefully action brewing like the Monty Python Foot Of God(tm) on these clowns. Maybe 50 State Security will lose their license to operate.
44 Michael Owen Sartin // Jul 1, 2010 at 5:52 PM

My optics and physics are only a few days older than Newton’s. Accorolding to what he told me, and with a bright ccd, short lens and just enough light to find your way to the john in a dark apartment, who needs a camera, just a pimple on a knuckle?
45 Hasek // Jul 1, 2010 at 6:10 PM

Ha ha ha, this should be interesting. Hopefully it will be done quicker than your personal legal battles Carlos.

My e-mail to 50 State Security:

Hello,

Man oh man did your employees most probably get 50 State Security in a big pile of dog doo-doo at the Metro Station in Miami in regards to the photographers.
(link to PINAC story placed here in e-mail)

Your bufoon employees evidently are clueless, had no desire to read the policies from the head of Metro Dade Transit security…. Ha ha ha. I can’t wait to see how this plays out. Ignorant employees and the lack of listening, most likely is going to cause 50 State some cash.

I normally would place a “have a good day” or “sincerely” here, but your company deserves no respect.

(name including in e-mail) – an interested internet bystander
46 Hasek // Jul 1, 2010 at 6:12 PM

I forgot, as someone else stated above Carlos, thank you for fighting the good fight!
47 Jeremy Jojola // Jul 1, 2010 at 6:16 PM

Obviously the ignorant security guards don’t know about the First Amendment. What a bunch of buffoons. TAKE THEIR ASS TO COURT!

Rock on Carlos. Rock on. Nice job again.

JJ
48 Erik G. // Jul 1, 2010 at 6:20 PM

Carlos,

Can you list the names of all the uniformed individuals involved?
49 Mike // Jul 1, 2010 at 6:31 PM

Wow, you are brave. That was a pretty tense situation. I probably would have gotten arrested due to their pressure.
50 Erik G. // Jul 1, 2010 at 6:35 PM

P.S.

That line was built with partial Federal funding. Will MDT be returning that $$$ to USDOT now that they have deemed it private?

Also, I hope you get the overhead CCTV recordings subpoenaed ASAP, cuz you know they will soon be “lost, oops”.
51 JR // Jul 1, 2010 at 6:37 PM

What amazing incompetence (!?). If they don’t know the most basic rules and laws how are they supposed to do their job? Was the only question asked when they were hired “do you watch alot of cop shows?”.
52 Ken // Jul 1, 2010 at 6:42 PM

What is it about being a security guard that attracts thugs with an IQ equivalent to their dick size?
53 Carlos Miller // Jul 1, 2010 at 6:43 PM

I’ve been talking to a local TV reporter about it. She’s going to bring it up in the news meeting tomorrow morning to see if they’re interested.
54 Erik G. // Jul 1, 2010 at 6:54 PM

From Stretch’s blog entry, on the recording:

“Eric Muntan doesn’t know the law”

Riiiight!
55 Erik G. // Jul 1, 2010 at 7:10 PM

The “banned for life” bit is rich. I am guessing that only the court can issue such an order. Glad you have it on video!
56 Rance // Jul 1, 2010 at 7:17 PM

Metro may decide to drop 50 State like they dropped the last group, though another ignorant fascist organization will surely move in behind them, perpetuating the cycle.

Great job holding your ground Carlos, I hope to see this in the news! You maintained professionalism throughout, while they gave you ample ammunition to use against them in court. Bravo!
57 Jim P // Jul 1, 2010 at 7:39 PM

Amtrak is an unusual case. Although it is government subsidized, it is structured like a private company. The stockholders of record are the railroads that turned over property and equipment to Amtrak when it was founded 40 years ago. Over the years the equity section of the balance sheet has eroded to virtually nil, leaving the government as the largest creditor and de-facto owner. So you might say that it is a private company which is owned by the government.

Every transit system has its own structure and rules. Photography on the New York Subway is not just allowed by default – its legality is codified in State Law. Other systems simply allow photography because there is no law against it.
58 Hazy // Jul 1, 2010 at 7:51 PM

They’re doing it in the UK little by little.
59 Al // Jul 1, 2010 at 8:13 PM

I simply can’t get over the fact that they give guns to those glorified mall cops…
60 Virtualfrog // Jul 1, 2010 at 8:28 PM

No. Florida is NOT an open carry state.
61 Rich // Jul 1, 2010 at 8:42 PM

I don’t know about mall cops but because police are allowed to lie to suspects they can lie about what the law says. if you do not know the law then your the one with the problem . They are public servants, it is not the duty of a servant to tell his master his rights. IT is the masters duty to know his rights. The police are not going to spell it out for us.
They know your rights they choose to trick you into giving them away.
Just like any servant will try to do.
62 Oklahoma Johnny // Jul 1, 2010 at 8:58 PM

The simple fact is that they have no right to keep you from photographing the area because it is a transportion hub.

Repeatedly ask what law the police would be enforcing – ask them to specifically name the statute that way when you sue them for false arrest it is cut and dried.

Cheering for you Carlos… you’ve got big brass balls.
63 Bentor Tazenda // Jul 1, 2010 at 10:08 PM

Simple private security guards do not have the authority to “ban you for life” from a public facility. That takes a court order. If it were me I would ignore the order and continue to use the train as I felt like it. Force the issue and make them arrest you if necessary. Then again I am basing this on local law where I am. Florida may be different, but being a public facility paid for by taxpayer dollars you have a right to use it.
64 pod // Jul 1, 2010 at 10:08 PM

Yes. And I’m willing to bet the $10/hr monkey with the plastic pop-gun will respond in the affirmative.
pod recently posted..WMC 2009
65 oscar finch // Jul 1, 2010 at 10:11 PM

If you were so certain that you were right and they were wrong why didn’t you go in? Anybody can get punked out by security guards, its not something to brag about.
66 pod // Jul 1, 2010 at 10:12 PM

Monkeys with plastic pop-guns. I wouldn’t trust them to guard a lemonade stand. Why don’t we have real police on our Metro system?
67 Bentor Tazenda // Jul 1, 2010 at 10:27 PM

That’s correct – at least in my state. If it were a totally private facility; perhaps it may be true but sans a court order they can’t keep you from using the public transport facility. Neither a police officer nor a security guard can make that call.
68 Graham // Jul 1, 2010 at 10:41 PM

If the Miami city cops don’t have jurisdiction over the Metrorail, why did they show up in the first place?

Plus, shouldn’t the security guard who called the police in the first place know which department he’s supposed to call? Was the jurisdiction claim just a cop-out?
69 Jeremy Brooks // Jul 1, 2010 at 11:08 PM

Oh this is going to be a GOOD one! I can’t wait to see how this plays out.
Jeremy Brooks recently posted..June Challenge- 2010
70 the bulldog // Jul 1, 2010 at 11:09 PM

wow…talk about HNIC’s…
71 Roger // Jul 1, 2010 at 11:59 PM

Andrew, think what is involved here. This is the 1st amendment right, there is nothing “better to do”. It is your, mine and every body else’s, ass on the line hear. You fight or lose it.
72 Brian Schneider // Jul 2, 2010 at 12:03 AM

Andrew you seem to have missed the point that photography and videotaping IS NOT banned there. Do you have trouble reading?
73 Richard // Jul 2, 2010 at 12:10 AM

Cheers. Fight the good fight. I’ve been harassed before by the security guards for taking photos on the platform of the rail. That was when Wackenhut was still doing the work. Somethings never change sadly. Bonne chance.
Richard recently posted..Teenager Shot And Killed Over Dice Game
74 Joel // Jul 2, 2010 at 12:30 AM

I hope everyone get called on the carpet and fired over this one, say tata to you jobs.
75 Michaelk42 // Jul 2, 2010 at 12:35 AM

What a cavalcade of worthless security goons and the idiot cops that support them.

None of those fools has any business carrying a badge of any sort.
Michaelk42 recently posted..Pogan sentencing- delayed
76 EdinMiami // Jul 2, 2010 at 12:53 AM

The entire law book?

Best comment ever.

Kudos
77 All Be Damned // Jul 2, 2010 at 1:22 AM

I am sure Carlos has but to inforce a NON exsistent law is a waste of time.. Besides Some one once said and i cant remember who at this moment ” If you give away your rights for a little security you might as well give them all up and become slaves”
Sorry but the 1St amend. gives me the right to Photograph in any public place without any recorse from the government or any ONE individual. guess that TRUMPHS any law i know of.
78 All Be Damned // Jul 2, 2010 at 1:32 AM

I agree it was writen in a difrent time by men who new a day would come when the Gov. would be to big for its britches. Thats why we have the BILL OF RIGHTS. to protect us from that sort of thinking. I have served my time also so i can walk around stating my OPINION and taking pics of things that i think should be changed.
The bill of rights gives us the right to bare arms against the gov. from taking our GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. its not the Gov job to tell us what those rights are. These men that Wrote this Bill made damn sure that the Gov. could NOT take those away from us by placing them in both the Constitution and The Bill Of Rights.
let me ask you one simple ?

Some one breaks into your home with a handgun and starts shooting you need to wait for 15 to 25 mins for the sherrif to get to your home there is no local police……. LAW says you cant have a gun. guess who pays the price.. Now your statment is outdated cause i do live their and the bill of rights tells me i can shoot that basterd dead. HMMMM bill of rights outdated you make absolutly no sence sir check again how many RURAL people think that is outdated.
79 Carlos Miller // Jul 2, 2010 at 1:40 AM

Protect the people from getting photographed in public while there were cameras everywhere in that station filming people?

Hell, I am the people. How come he wasn’t protecting my First Amendment rights?
80 Slip D. // Jul 2, 2010 at 2:07 AM

The camera doesn’t lie! Thank you for the bravery you showed… I’m glad you had the camera with you or else who knows what would have happened to you guys… remember the cop with the “I’ll slap the mexican piss outta you” comment who didn’t know he was on film and then the cop who punched the teenage girl in the mouth. Keep up the good fight!
81 All Be Damned // Jul 2, 2010 at 2:07 AM

It Guys like Carlos that where only there to find out if the information they where given was accurate. So any one who stands up for their rights should be doing janitorial services HMMM . I dare you to tell that to a Marine. All Carlos and his friend are guilty of in my eyes are standing up for OUR freedoms and taking some realy damn good Photo’s.

Oh just for you Carlos. My browser opens up to PINAC upon launch. Muahaha cant wait to see what the payout on this little legal phopa is.
82 George P. // Jul 2, 2010 at 2:16 AM

Yeah, that’s the answer.

Moron.
83 Roger // Jul 2, 2010 at 2:21 AM

Boy, that struck a cord. Carlos you certainly can rouse the rabble, keep after it. Some body has to wake them up.
The Constitution is about the most important paper in existence and the 1st and 2ed amendments are probably the most impotent parts. Any one who does not know this is a dangerous fool.
You had every right to be doing what you were, the guards were way off base and any one who does not realize this is deluded.
84 Roger // Jul 2, 2010 at 2:29 AM

They knew, this was about ego, not the law. They wanted a chance to show every one whose ” ass was blackest ” and did they show their’s.
85 Roger // Jul 2, 2010 at 2:31 AM

And I mean the cops.
86 Osvaldo // Jul 2, 2010 at 2:34 AM

Nothing better to do than waste people’s time you say?Listen dude,more things like this need to get out into the open because its become more than a damn shame what these cops and private security guards are doing.Using “9/11″ as an excuse is beyond old.President Bush never signed a nationwide law saying that photography was to be banned at all public transit areas.

You sound like a jackass as equal to those that Carlos got involved with.Look at yourself in the mirror next time before you decide to shoot your mouth off.
87 Roger // Jul 2, 2010 at 2:37 AM

As to the Constitution, the 1st amendment is to see that we are informed. The 2ed is so we can do something about it.
88 Osvaldo // Jul 2, 2010 at 2:39 AM

“Did you stop to consider it from a law enforcement’s point of view? They’re just trying to protect the people.”

I have only one thing to say to this:HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
89 Osvaldo // Jul 2, 2010 at 2:42 AM

There is no need to see a different point of view when said POV is nothing but a law officers wet dream!
90 Roger // Jul 2, 2010 at 2:47 AM

So did I, the Vietnamese call me war criminal and had( maybe still do) a price on my head. D or A. And I will preach the bill of rights. Any one who thinks any part is out dated is a fool.
91 Osvaldo // Jul 2, 2010 at 2:49 AM

You call what Carlos and his friend did ridiculous!?Watching the video pissed me off and now your having me at the boiling point.They aren’t helping?Oh really?REALLY!? Then what constitues to helping this situation become better?If YOU don’t stand up for your rights,NOBODY will!Screw you buddy!
92 WKC // Jul 2, 2010 at 3:04 AM

As someone who lost friends in the 9/11 attacks, I get angry each time their memory is perverted by those taking away our basic freedoms. Each time a silly restriction is put into place, those that seek to do the country harm has won another battle. Those that seek to throw away freedom for security deserve neither.
93 All Be Damned // Jul 2, 2010 at 3:14 AM

AMEN TO THAT
There someone who has lost someone do to terror attacks and guess what…. THEY AGREE THAT OUR RIGHTS ARE BEING TAKEN
AMEN
WKC thank you for your opinion on this and may God and/or ( place your deity here) Be with you
94 DJ Todd // Jul 2, 2010 at 3:25 AM

Management DID know. It’s the front line people who do not know what laws they are trying to enforce and what laws to make up on the spot. If you ever get charged the incorrect amount at a store do you just say forget it and go home and write a letter?
95 All Be Damned // Jul 2, 2010 at 3:25 AM

Adam
I hate to disagree with that but the WORKERS refused to even LOOK at the law and the paper giving them PERMISION ( writen permision even ) to take photos on the metro rail. Yes their job is security. Yes they have the right to ask what they are doing. I agknoweldge this. BUT GUESS WHAT they must look if some one is trying to hand them a peice of paper giving said person/s stating they have permision and contacting a superior to confirm.

No where in the law that Carlos sited did it prohibit him from taking photos for PERSONAL OR NEWS use. the guards should have known this. If they dont know their jobs they shouldnt be GAURDING a metro rail station.

heres a small exsample for you. Can truck drivers do thier jobs if they dont know that DOT can stop you and check your log book anytime they want to. NO. Should a truck driver be able to drive a truck if he doesnt know that you can only have 40 tons loaded with out a permit. NO. Guess what you go to jail if you dont follow the LAW. sorry but the workers are there to solve those problems on the spot and to prevent such situations from happening again. Any truck driving company worth a damn gives their drivers the ability to deal with things like overloaded trucks on the spot. I am pretty sure these guards could have LOOKED up the law on their cell phones or the office computer, HELL GOD FORBID picking up a phone to check with the CITY/COUNTY security manager.
96 Johnny Law // Jul 2, 2010 at 3:32 AM

The security guards in my city ban folks from our public library all the time. Our city bus system also bans people. I am pretty sure this train system can also decide to ban people from their facilities. If they hired security guards, then those folks are authorized to act as agents of the company and give trespass warnings.
97 Johnny Law // Jul 2, 2010 at 3:37 AM

The cops have no control over the decision of the guards to issue a trespass warning. The security guards are acting as an representative of the transit company. The cops are just there to document it.
98 Shawn // Jul 2, 2010 at 4:13 AM

Even if they’re citing laws that don’t exist as the basis for warnings/bans, plus ignoring one that actually DOES exist?
99 Shawn // Jul 2, 2010 at 4:19 AM

Cops are also charged with upholding the law. If you were in the same situation, would you really let a security guard spout some nonexistent law to you, while at the same time ignoring one that’s actually on the books, and then follow their lead as they used it as a basis for banning/issuing a warning/etc.? Something tells me no.
100 Bob Bishopric // Jul 2, 2010 at 5:00 AM

Carlos, this is going to be a long and hard fight. I do believe that your goal of insuring our freedoms is a very worthy one. However, wouldn’t it be easier to change things through education? I still think that you could work with the police forces in a professional capacity to educate staff and line personnel in the law as it relates to photography. Surely it would cost less to have you develop a mandatory training program than to fight this out in court–and that still would leave every officer untrained for the next situation. Same goes for security firms like 50 State. Just saying.
101 Erik G. // Jul 2, 2010 at 5:32 AM

And to think, all Carlos and Mr. Ledford tried to do was to take a picture of one of those stupid faux-”trolleys”. For this all those LEOs showed up? As usual, they thought they made “the Big Catch” and diverted all of those resources to this. FOr that alone they all should be fired, as they proved that they would be easily manipulated had this been a real emergency.
102 Erik G. // Jul 2, 2010 at 6:24 AM

Carlos,

Make sure you get 50 State and MDT to clarify what facilities you are banned from “for life”. Be sure to make a lot of people waste a lot of their time clarifying your status.

Be aware that you may not be able to rent a car at Miami Airport if this MDT facility gets built: http://www.miamidade.gov/transit/improve_airport.asp

And heaven help you if your local road planning agency gets merged with your transit agency as has happened in Los Angeles; you won’t be able to use the freeways!
103 bgwillia // Jul 2, 2010 at 7:13 AM

“I cannot consider the Bill of Rights to be an outworn 18th Century ‘strait jacket’…Its provisions may be thought outdated abstractions by some. And it is true that they were designed to meet ancient evils. But they are the same kind of human evils that have emerged from century to century wherever excessive power is sought by the few at the expense of the many. In my judgement the people of no nation can lose their basic liberty so long as a Bill of Rights like ours survives and its basic purposes are conscientiously interpreted, enforced and respected so as to afford continuous protection against old, as well as new, devices and practices which might thwart those purposes.”

Justice Hugo Black, dissenting in Adamson v. California (1947)
104 bgwillia // Jul 2, 2010 at 7:42 AM

From my readings here it seems “commerical” gets defined by the “cop on the spot” as the size of the camera lens and/or holding a tripod. I got one old 35mm camera with a telephoto lens that would get defined as “commerical”.
105 Jim P // Jul 2, 2010 at 7:49 AM

What do you mean it should be? Railroad photography is, has been, and will continue to be of key importance in documenting the history of railroad companies from their beginnings in the 1800′s to the present era.

The only country on this planet that ever banned photography of its railroads was the Soviet Union. Do you want us to become like them?

As for police – they should only enforce laws as written and passed by the legislature. So far we are not a police state and I hope we never become one, however my fear is that people like you not only are letting it happen but are encouraging it.

And yes – these photographers DO KNOW THE LAW – there is no law or policy prohibiting non commercial photography on Metrolink.
106 Jim P // Jul 2, 2010 at 7:50 AM

Protect them from what? From their own PARANOIA?
107 Jim P // Jul 2, 2010 at 7:57 AM

The Bill of Rights is outdated? So the police should have the right to overrule it at their whim?

Lets not forget that the Soviet Union had a great written constitution that also guaranteed things like a free press. Unfortunately the police there were given the power to overrule the constitution and we all know what the reality was.

Do you want the US to suffer the same fate, which is what will happen if we disregard the bill of RIGHTS.
108 John Howard // Jul 2, 2010 at 9:16 AM

Andrew,

What’s wrong with it is we are presumed Terrorist until proven Innocent and the Bill of Rights be damned.
109 Dodge Ball // Jul 2, 2010 at 9:49 AM

How about a Holy Hand Grenade in the form of a law suit and job terminations.
110 Dodge Ball // Jul 2, 2010 at 9:52 AM

Banned for what reasons? Show some depth in your posts, simpleton.
111 Dodge Ball // Jul 2, 2010 at 10:05 AM

It’s called using courtesy and being tactful to overcome the feeble minded. I guess that’s why the few that continually show their ignorance don’t get it. Drooling on a chess board comes to mind.

It was sound to act in “Losing the battle, but winning the war”.
112 oscar finch // Jul 2, 2010 at 10:11 AM

Is this private property? If they can ban commercial photography then it must not be a public place. Am I right? They can’t ban commercial photography on a sidewalk so how can they ban it there if its public property? Since you guys made such a big deal about you not being commercial you must agree that they have the right to ban commerial photography.
113 Dodge Ball // Jul 2, 2010 at 10:14 AM

It’s our responsibility to challenge misguided authority, but wisely, if one believes that a neanderthal in uniform decides to display the fullness of himself. If not, the facsist maggots win.
114 Dodge Ball // Jul 2, 2010 at 10:21 AM

Andrew, it’s PROPER policing that needs to exist, not knuckle-dragging imposition. BTW, what’s more important than Constitutional rights?

Wake up, boy.
115 Dodge Ball // Jul 2, 2010 at 10:31 AM

Rogue and wannabe isn’t the case. Responsibility doesn’t solely rest on their shoulders. The stupidity was passed down from the employer.

They need to be jerked in and immersed into some proper training
116 Johnny Law // Jul 2, 2010 at 10:32 AM

@ Shawn

I’m not saying I agree with the ban. I’m just saying that they have the legal right to do it. It’s like that story Carlos posted about the photographer being banned from the mall. A business, even one paid for by public funds, can refuse service for almost any reason. However the fact that it is a pubic mode means they are much more likely to back peddle once the bad press starts up.
117 Paul // Jul 2, 2010 at 10:34 AM

Wow, these two “reporters” sound like a bunch of punks. Visiting a mass transit facility and bossing your way around with an email that has no proof of authenticity is a good way to make a lot of trouble for everyone. When someone with a responsibility for keeping people safe asks you to stop doing something and to explain your presence, play nice, don’t shove a camera in his/her face.
118 Johnny Law // Jul 2, 2010 at 10:41 AM

I think you missed my point. The cops weren’t the ones issuing the ban. As a cop I can’t ban someone from Best Buy. Their employees do that. Even if I disagree with it, I have to enforce that ban because once someone violates it, it is now the crime of trespassing. It’s the same with this situation.
119 Dodge Ball // Jul 2, 2010 at 10:42 AM

Which has more merit, corporate policy or the Constitution? What the police did (didn’t do) was a borderline ommission of action, which is dereliction.
120 Dodge Ball // Jul 2, 2010 at 10:49 AM

Sounds pretty shallow.
121 Roger // Jul 2, 2010 at 10:57 AM

Management does know but wants this, there fore they do not inform the workers. This way they have plausible deniablity and blame others.
122 Dodge Ball // Jul 2, 2010 at 10:59 AM

What basis do you have to say that it’s the same?There is a difference, if you didn’t recognize it. A store is private property. Businesses have the right to refuse service to cutomers.

Duh.
123 oscar finch // Jul 2, 2010 at 11:07 AM

Sounds to me like a bunch of empty threats by a couple of guys who weren’t sure if they were in the right. Either that or they don’t believe enough in their cause to get arrested over it. Not the kind of guys you want fighting your fight for you.

Would we know who Rosa Parks is if she simply threatened not to give up her seat.
124 hamster // Jul 2, 2010 at 11:11 AM

hey paul, try re-reading the post. they were following the letter of the law, and were doing nothing wrong. public place, photography is allowed. the security guards overstepped their bounds. also, first comment!
125 Roger // Jul 2, 2010 at 11:19 AM

Security guards are not the brightest in the bunch and are chosen for this. Management wants obedient slaves who fallow orders and do not think. Orders are deliberately vague, or not given, so as to leave as much wiggle room as possible ( for management) and when something goes wrong the poor guard is sacrificed.
126 Mark Kalan // Jul 2, 2010 at 11:20 AM

I’m continually amazed by the morons who stand up for the unformed morons.

I enter the following as a reminder AND a warning!

“First they came for the trade unionists. And I did nothing because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the homosexuals and I did nothing because I wasn’t a homosexual.

Then the came for the Jews and I didn’ say anything because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for me.

And there was no-one left to speak up.”

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

Keep up the good fight Carlos! There are fewer true Americans out there willing to fight the morons!
127 Roger // Jul 2, 2010 at 11:26 AM

In all likely hood they were told to do this, in spite of policy, then when some one complains it is all a “misunderstanding”. This way management git’s what it wants and covers at the same time. The poor guard is left spinning, trying to figure it all out.
128 Michaelk42 // Jul 2, 2010 at 11:27 AM

Except public transport isn’t a private business, like Best Buy.

But we’re used to you not RTFA and changing up facts to suit your damaged arguments.

http://bit.ly/johnnylaw
Michaelk42 recently posted..Pogan sentencing- delayed
129 Johnny Law // Jul 2, 2010 at 11:29 AM

@Dodge Ball

I think you are being deliberately obtuse (hopefully deliberately). A city library is also public but they can kick out people if they want. The metrorail is in the same situation. They can ban a person from their facility if they want. There is no constitutional right to being able to ride the metrorail. It’s not public property in the same sense as a public street or sidewalk.

As far as wanting the police to intervene, if you had actually been a police officer at some point in your Ronnie Barnhardt style life, you would know that the police have to enforce a trespass notice. They can’t over ride the right of management to refuse service to someone.
130 Roger // Jul 2, 2010 at 11:37 AM

A person becomes a guard out of desperation, if he could have gotten an other job he would have. There is often an inferiority complex at work, and you have a person desperate to prove his worth. Ad low intelligence and no education and you have problems.
131 Clark // Jul 2, 2010 at 11:52 AM

They DID explain themselves, they DID play nice, the gangsters in uniform from 50state are the ones that decided up the ante by ignoring the law, ignoring upper management, and ignoring the United States Constitution! IF we don’t stand up for our rights, someone will take them away.
132 Shawn // Jul 2, 2010 at 11:57 AM

Johnny, I think that you missed my point, at least a little. Are you saying that if someone doesn’t even follow their own regulations, that you’re still bound to enforce something like that? They had the proof in their hands that they were allowed to film and photograph, and were still told that it was against the law. As an officer of the law, it may be your duty to enforce trespass orders, isn’t it also your duty to protect people from others who are violating the law, which is what happened here? At the very least, wouldn’t you say to the security guards, “These men are not violating the law,” even if you still had to enforce the order?
133 Dodge Ball // Jul 2, 2010 at 12:19 PM

All the bottom-feeding security guard needed to do was to ask everyone to put things on hold and attempt to work things out in a professional manner instead of making a poor representation of his employer. There is a distinct difference between being contrary to a bogus corporate policy and creating a disturbance or being disorderly in public, which would be a primary reason for being banned from a library. “If they want” is a typical point made by a typical drone. You probably barely squeaked through the academy, didn’t you? Statutes continually include the word “reasonable”, but I guess that your fascist train of thought blocks that out. Did your field training officer get tired of smacking you in the back of the head, Tackelberry?

Can you produce anything to substantiate your statement that it was not a public facility? You should give it a try, for it would be a means to remove your dunce cap.
134 Rob // Jul 2, 2010 at 12:44 PM

To those people that think authority figures should not be challenged, you need to pull your head out of your ass. If a cop or security guard isn’t challenged, then that means they aren’t doing anything wrong.

Cops are allowed to detain “alleged suspects” and detain people because they (the cops) think something might be amiss. Citizens have the same rights to question what the cops do. If I think a cop is breaking the law and I have my camera with me, then I have the citizens equivalent of “probable cause” to document “suspected” illegal activity.
Rob recently posted..Custom Camera Strap For Sale On eBay
135 Johnny Law // Jul 2, 2010 at 12:46 PM

@Shawn

I agree that they weren’t doing anything illegal and the guards failed to follow their own policy. However their policy has nothing to do with the police. Internal decisions to allow filming or giving out lifetime bans is their decision to make. The policy doesn’t concern the police and it doesn’t matter if they like it or not. The only time in a situation like this that the police should be involved is once the decision is made by management to kick someone out. If they do that and the person won’t leave, then a crime is being committed.

@Dodge Ball

Wow you sure are excitable aren’t you? I sure hope you aren’t mad at me because I would hate to piss off a man who can bench 300lbs. *chuckle*

Apparently you incapable of understanding that a public transportation system can still ban people. I can explain a lot of things to you but I can’t fix your case of the stupids so you are on your own here.
136 Hillbillyfunk // Jul 2, 2010 at 12:57 PM

after watching the video again I noticed there are CCTV cameras in the background… so they don’t want US to take pictures, only THEM….. veddy interesting.

I reiterate.. reply to Johnny Law = wrestling with a pig, the pig has fun and you get dirty, stop giving that guy any credit via a reply, he’s obviously an agent provocateur
137 JohnnyX // Jul 2, 2010 at 12:58 PM

I sure am glad Andrew is along for the ride today. It reminds me that people like this do actually exist.

I thank people like Carlos every bit as much as I thank people for service to our nation. I’m sorry the point is lost on you.
138 Les Stockton // Jul 2, 2010 at 1:00 PM

You seem to forget that there are civil rights that everyone has, and there are laws on the books, regardless of what those guards were in charge of.
And contrary to what you might think, the issue of public safety does not take any rights away from people. I refuse to give up any rights just because some moron with a whistle, badge and gun feels threatened. If he doesn’t feel comfortable, he needs to quit and go sell shoes.
139 Acksiom // Jul 2, 2010 at 1:09 PM

Yes, but the thing is, Andrew, as agents of the government in the usa, their primary and most fundamental responsibility is to protect the Citizenry

FROM

the government itself.

If you don’t understand that, then you don’t understand what this country is supposed to be — or at least not yet, hopefully.
140 Roger // Jul 2, 2010 at 1:22 PM

Don’t be to hard on Johnny Law, some body needs to hold up the other side, I makes for good discussion. An unchallenged opinion is not worth much, other wise you are just preaching to the crier
141 John Howard // Jul 2, 2010 at 1:35 PM

Look at the blog banner. Now look at the video’s preview frame. Now look at any of the many other videos/stills.

What is common among them all? It’s the cop/rent-a-cop doing a ‘stare down’ with the most smug, ‘You piece of shit,’ ‘I’m Chevy Chase and you’re not’ expression they can apparently muster.
142 Jim Poulos // Jul 2, 2010 at 1:35 PM

On the contrary challenging police is what is needed. The only reason that the NYPD issued guidelines to its officers reminding them that photography on our subway is legal is because several photographers who did challenge officers and were arrested filed LAWSUITS and kept winning five-figure settlements.

The MTA did try to ban photography here but was met with the combined opposition of railfan groups, artist groups, photo hobbyists, the NPPA and the NYCLU. Guess who won out?

Accepting the photo restrictions quietly is what is enabling them to continue. Challenging them is what will eventually get the harassment to end.
143 Jody // Jul 2, 2010 at 2:30 PM

Banned for life? What a joke. We are talking about a tax payer funded item, you can’t get banned for life, no ban has ever been upheld in a court of law for tax payer funded items, never, even life time bans in the private realm rarely stick. All the security guards and cops involved in this situation need to be fired, fucking filth.
Jody recently posted..Tom Woodss Must-Read Book
144 mia home // Jul 2, 2010 at 2:48 PM

sorry about that. if you stop by the deuce this weekend, holler “i took the pics” when you get in and if i’m currently drinking i’ll be happy to buy you one you can take all the pics of that you like
145 Dodge Ball // Jul 2, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Maybe a rolled up newspaper should be applied with enough frequency to enhance their learning.
146 Dodge Ball // Jul 2, 2010 at 3:25 PM

Andrew, nearly all of the blame is on the ignorant security guards and 50 States, who are NOT law enforcement. This is the core of the problem. A ridiculously low wage, piss poor training, and a shallow pool to hire from will always be the root of a lot of problems like this. Just because a moron dons a uniform doesn’t make him a professional LEO.

The negative view on the police is because they appeared to be incompetent in how they involved themselves. I think that they could have done better.
147 John Tammaro // Jul 2, 2010 at 3:33 PM

“Bringing the war to the police will only result in stiffer, more defined photography laws that will hurt all of us. ”

Marcus

We have a constitution and bill of rights that prevent out gov’t from making up those imaginary laws you foresee coming down on us.

BTW the UK just lost its appeal on their terrorism law. So while gov’t can make laws we as citizens can challenge them if they infringe on our rights granted to us so long ago
148 Roger // Jul 2, 2010 at 4:55 PM

Jody is right, I do not see the ban holding. They probably waited all month for a chance to show there authority. Had hart flutters and pissed there selves.
149 Ryan // Jul 2, 2010 at 5:27 PM

I totally agree that this shouldn’t have happened and I hope you are successful in your efforts to make sense of this madness–the day we cannot film public buildings and when officers can coerce citizens not based on the law, but based on their own misconceptions/idiocy/ignorance has grave implications for a free society. I do have a question, though. Where does your right to film end and the security guard’s right not to be filmed without her/his permission start?
150 TK // Jul 2, 2010 at 6:02 PM

What the hell is happening in the USA? Did I fall asleep and wake up in the USSR?
Fight back people. In the Gulf Coast they are preventing any coverage of the oil spill. This is only one example. Public property means just that.
151 Carlos Miller // Jul 2, 2010 at 6:10 PM

When she leaves her house. Or steps into a rest room. Or any other location where she would have an expectation of privacy.

Her right not to be photographed is no different than anybody’s right.
152 johnl // Jul 2, 2010 at 6:42 PM

Johnny you are right. The cops couldn’t order the security aside. But why did the cops not make an effort to diffuse the situation? Don’t you think it might have been helpful if a cop had quietly told the guard that the boys had a letter from the county saying that county policy is that anyone can film there. And that they were going to possibly lose their jobs if they didn’t leave them alone?

And Detective Bustamante, ID #5362, who lies even when he is on camera, is why people don’t trust cops.
153 johnl // Jul 2, 2010 at 6:57 PM

Agreed. Johnny is a good contributor.
154 Gabriel // Jul 2, 2010 at 7:04 PM

I only went through half the comments so forgive me if this has been mentioned but I would like to pledge my attendance if you decide to organize a protest similar to the ones conducted in London in front of Scotland Yard where a few hundred photographers show up and snap away. They can’t ban us all.
155 Johnny Law // Jul 2, 2010 at 7:06 PM

@johnl

I can’t answer that one. At least they were polite to everyone involved and didn’t get worked up over being filmed.
156 Dodge Ball // Jul 2, 2010 at 7:11 PM

It all depends on the person, whether he’s a booger eating moron or someone who has some integrity.
157 Gible Fog // Jul 2, 2010 at 7:34 PM

While I appreciate your position and agree that morally both of you should have been allowed to take pictures. According to the Miami-Dade County Code 30B-5 (2) snippet you’ve included Stretch Ledford was correctly prevented from /taking pictures for educational puposes/.
158 Hazza // Jul 2, 2010 at 8:17 PM

“…. but this type of stuff will persuade and spur the production of new laws….”

Which when challenged with first amendment violation will fold quicker than a protein.
159 chris // Jul 2, 2010 at 8:27 PM

I’ve been a regular reader of PINAC and this must be the best (or worst!) example of abuse of photographers. One name notably absent from this discussion is Muntan himself — at least I’d expect a grovelling apology and lifetime unlimited free travel on MDT.

I’m looking forward to seeing how this gets resolved.
160 Carlos Miller // Jul 2, 2010 at 8:38 PM

I think that means for employment training purposes.

There is an exemption towards students and faculty, which is outlined in Sec. 2-11.14 (2) (iii) of the Miami-Dade County Ordinances which states the following. Link is below.

“[n]othing in this section shall require any permit from: (i) Individuals filming or video taping only for their own personal or family use; (ii) Employees of print or electronic news media
when filming on-going news events. This exception shall not apply to simulations or re-enactments orchestrated by print or electronic news media; or (iii) Students and faculty filming exclusively for educational purposes. “

http://carlosmiller.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Miami-Dade-Ordinance.jpg
161 Tim Rainier // Jul 2, 2010 at 8:56 PM

The sad part is, everyone is thinking the metro department and police will back down.

But they have been shown up so that won’t happen.

I would expect there will be a new ordinance before the Miami-Dade council banning all photography at public transportation facilities in the very near future.

And it will pass almost unanimously with little or no open discussion.
162 Dodge Ball // Jul 2, 2010 at 9:03 PM

Archer, if you think that’s the problem with alot of cops, apply that to security guards. It’s much worse.

A friend of mine, who is a retired PD captain, worked a short while for a security company. He couldn’t deal with all of the stupid shit that went on among the apes that he supervised and bailed.
163 jb // Jul 2, 2010 at 9:04 PM

You guys ought to start a website that investigates every single instance of this sort of stuff nationwide.

Start policing the police big time. They are way too full of themselves, with power that is not theirs to employ. Expose them, and the petty officials and bureaucrats who hide behind them.
164 Dodge Ball // Jul 2, 2010 at 9:06 PM

Injunction.
165 Hazza // Jul 2, 2010 at 9:17 PM

Carlos, you are well on your way to becoming a first amendment celebrity

@jb: uuuummmmmm… have you looked at THIS web site?… at all?
166 RH // Jul 2, 2010 at 9:29 PM

Thank you for the update Carlos!
167 Arminius // Jul 2, 2010 at 10:01 PM

Of course it works on people…I just saw it work on Carlos Miller!
168 james // Jul 2, 2010 at 11:06 PM

There is a legal difference between asking and ordering/demanding. You can ask the officers if they are asking or demanding.
169 james // Jul 2, 2010 at 11:07 PM

easiest not to even carry it!
170 Tom Jankowski // Jul 2, 2010 at 11:10 PM

I hope you settle fast and get this stupid “lifetime ban” removed in short order.
171 james // Jul 2, 2010 at 11:10 PM

I would like to know what the head of security, with whom the first email exchange was conducted, had to say with regards to the encounter.
172 Jason // Jul 2, 2010 at 11:50 PM

Unless the laws are different in Miami, when a law enforcement official requests your ID, you are required to give it to them. So, by refusing you did break the law.

Not only did she ask you calmly, but politely and repeatedly – and you refused. Case of the pot calling the kettle black there.

Further, many metro areas are privately run and therefore private property. They may be engaged in public use, but are not publicly owned, and unless there’s evidence that this was publicly owned property, they have every right to refuse entry.

Finally, there does seem to be ample evidence that you were antagonizing them at every opportunity. Going down, with snippets of the law at the ready, it’s like you almost “looking” for a fight, just waiting for someone to “dare” you to stop taking pictures.

It’s a double edged sword – if it was journalism, then why is there no video or footage of you walking up to them right off the bat and saying “Hi I am so and so, doing a research/journalism project – would it be okay if I were to interview you for this project?”

You might have gotten a different answer – if the security/police/Homeland security think you are their friend – you’ll probably get a little further.

It’s called more flies with honey than with vinegar…
173 Carlos Miller // Jul 3, 2010 at 12:06 AM

Jason,

Police need to have a reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime in order to demand your ID.

In other words, they need to have enough suspicion in order to detain someone.

This officer claimed that filming the metrorail was illegal and she was dead-wrong.

She obviously does not know the law. Or perhaps she was just bluffing because she could not think of any other reasonably suspicious activity that I committed that would have allowed her to detain me.

The Miami-Dade Metrorail is owned by the county. The security company is merely contracted. They do not run the damn train.

And really, Jason, you believe that by me knowing the law and informing them that I know the law is “antagonizing them”?

Should I just stay quiet and allow them to manipulate the law to their heart’s content?

I’ll let you do that, dude.

And Jason, there are different types of journalism. This project was meant to test out how they would react to photographers taking pictures of the trains.

Had we walked up to them and formally asked for an interview, it would have hindered the accuracy and authenticity of the report.
174 Carlos Miller // Jul 3, 2010 at 12:08 AM

By next week, we’ll have a response.
175 WhyMeLord // Jul 3, 2010 at 12:08 AM

“Unless the laws are different in Miami, when a law enforcement official requests your ID, you are required to give it to them. So, by refusing you did break the law. ”

Law only requires you to identy yourself and even that’s a limtied scope (at least according to the USSC). With the exception of someone driving a vhicle, there is no law requiring you to present you ID aka papers.
176 Roger // Jul 3, 2010 at 1:06 AM

The Supremes have ruled on this in a case from Utah. A cop must have reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in a crime or has information about a crime. Other wise no. Also no ID card or papers are required, a verbile statement is all that is needed.
177 Dodge Ball // Jul 3, 2010 at 1:15 AM

Then I would ask them to please get out of my face.
178 Roger // Jul 3, 2010 at 1:17 AM

I do not care if Carlos set them up or not. If he did they clearly stepped in it. The were out of line and that is all.
179 Dodge Ball // Jul 3, 2010 at 1:23 AM

Then it needs to be determined whether it is in fact private or public…..officially and accurately. The issue should be closed.

As far as the level of integrity the security guards have and the uninformed and wishy-washy cops go, there’s plenty of room for improvement.
180 Roger // Jul 3, 2010 at 1:26 AM

I have lived in the west the whole of my life and do not suffer fools lightly. I will leave you alone and you will do the same for me. If you do not I will hand you your head, this goes for cops, politicians, who ever. I will not bow or call you sir. You are no better than I, no mater who you may think you are.
181 Hazy // Jul 3, 2010 at 2:07 AM

#4 and 5 are pretty important too…
182 Dodge Ball // Jul 3, 2010 at 2:17 AM

Jason, you are correct on having to produce an ID to a LEO, but only if it is a legitimate request. A cop has the legal right to know who he is making contact with in certain situations. This incident could very well have been a fitting situation, as there was an obviuos confrontation taking place. You need to understand that a security guard is not a law enforcement officer and is limited in what he can do and in some cases, even say to the public. Their scope of employment is narrow and they are not protected by qualified immunity. Anyone can wear a uniform. Theater ushers and parking attendants do, with similar duties.

If it is determined that the system is owned by the city, county, or state, that guard screwed the pooch in concert with his supervisor and employer.
183 Rail Car Fan // Jul 3, 2010 at 3:17 AM

Andy said.. “people are so quick to hate police until they actually need them. And when we need them, they’re there for us.”

Ahhhh, actually statistics have shown that in most cases the Police respond “AFTER” a crime has been committed.. and “NOT” as the crime is being committed. This is why we have the God given right and obligation to protect ourselves.

Rail Car Fan
184 Rail Car Fan // Jul 3, 2010 at 3:26 AM

Andy said..

“Just like the fact that the right to bear arms is outdated.”

As a proud backer of the “SECOND” A.. and the Right to Bear Arms, it just amazes me to no end that there are people like you who think the way you do.

It obvious from your comments that you have little use for the 1st A.. and no use for the 2nd.

I wonder then how many of the others you feel we don’t need or shouldn’t apply.

Maybe we should get rid of them all.. Right!!?

Rail Car Fan
185 Jason // Jul 3, 2010 at 3:35 AM

>Police need to have a reasonable suspicion >that you committed a crime in order to >demand your ID.

They never demanded it – they requested it – what’s so bloddy wrong with that, anad if you’re doing nothing illegal, what’s the big deal in giving it to them?

>In other words, they need to have enough >suspicion in order to detain someone.

Detention is very different from validating identity.

>This officer claimed that filming the metrorail >was illegal and she was dead-wrong.

I agree with that, but you are associating one wrongful act with the entire sequence and while nothing occurs in a vacuum, I was not referring to that part of the entire operation.

>She obviously does not know the law. Or >perhaps she was just bluffing because she >could not think of any other reasonably >suspicious activity that I committed that >would have allowed her to detain me.

I know full-fledged attorneys who are not proficient in all nature of laws, and holding a police officer to that expectation is an unreasonable assumption to make.

>The Miami-Dade Metrorail is owned by the >county. The security company is merely >contracted. They do not run the damn train.

No reason to get vulgar, and I am not trying to derail (if you’ll pardon the pun ) your entire episode, but there are elements that were not fully disclosed. Portions of your audio and video have been edited out – why? What was said or done that we have not seen or heard? Also, what evidence do you have that the county owns “the damn train”? If the county does, in fact, own it, and they grant the contracting agency to ensure for the public safety in that facility, then yes, they are charged with that burden – to ensure that people will not endanger others. When someone who is approached begins to act belligerent and refuses to accommodate their reasonable (for the most part) requests, then the matter of public safety does come into question.

>And really, Jason, you believe that by me >knowing the law and informing them that I >know the law is “antagonizing them”?

It’s not just what you know – it’s how you present it. After having my fair share of run-ins with law enforcement, I have found that it’s always best to approach with open palms, a little bit of smiling, nodding, and yes, even showing them my LCD with harmless pictures on it, I am more often allowed to take pictures even in places where I otherwise would have needed a permit or special permission because I was on private property. Like I said – you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. if I was a cop, I probably would have been a little put off by your “know-it-all” attitude too.

>Should I just stay quiet and allow them to >manipulate the law to their heart’s content?

Absolutely not – if manipulation is done with an intent to harm or hinder, then absolutely, document, record, and pursue legal recourse. The thing is, I saw no intent to harm or hinder you in any way.

>I’ll let you do that, dude.

Do what? Let people walk all over me? Like I said, I’ve had my own fair share of run-ins, and am happy to share those as well. It’s a matter of knowing how to conduct yourself, and to do so in a manner that mitigates rather than enflames a situation (these are key words). In recording this, no one ever took a role of saying “I am just trying to mitigate and resolve a problem.” Everyone had egos. The contracting company did, the cops did, and yes, you did too.

>And Jason, there are different types of >journalism. This project was meant to test out >how they would react to photographers taking >pictures of the trains.

>Had we walked up to them and formally asked >for an interview, it would have hindered the >accuracy and authenticity of the report.

That’s not journalism – and you are starting to mince the wrong words with the wrong guy, because I know the two types of journalism (investigative and informative), and this was neither. I am actually more acutely are of this than most because I’ve done papers on this at both the undergraduate and post-graduate levels. You see, I am a post graduate myself (meaning I’ve already earned that precious M.A. your partner is trying to achieve). And mine is in history and political science,while your partner is working on photography…big difference in specialty there.

You set out to see whether or not you could get a story where none existed until you showed up. YOU made the story. What we don’t know is what prompted the officers to approach you in the first place because that piece of the puzzle is missing. What I’d like to see is the video of you taking pictures BEFORE they came up. How did you do that? Was it openly? Did you do it furtively, with whispers and glances? There’s no way to know what you did before you started recording them – there is always bias and given the nature of your website, there is very much a preconception of bias in all your content.

Did you ever offer any information, or a glance at your LCD to show the nature of your shots and explain them? I’ve taken shots at airports and had TSA agents come up to me. After showing them pics, saying I understand and appreciate what they are trying to do, and explain what I am doing – I’ve always been allowed to continue to capture photos (although they never turn out as good as I’d like them…still aspiring in that regard! )

Now, having said that, please understand that I am all for photographers rights and protecting the 1st Amendment to freedom of speech. But there’s no reason to cloak yourself behind it simply to elicit a reaction, which in my educated opinion, is exactly what you did.

For the narratives of my run-ins, feel free to read the following links:

http://www.canonblogger.com/2009/12/14/theres-a-fine-line/

http://www.canonblogger.com/2007/12/26/wednesday-web-links/

I don’t mean to diss you here because I understand what you are trying to do, and can respect the endgame – but think I would have handled it just a bit differently, but that’s just me. And I am willing to be that I would have gotten on “the damn train”!

Happy Shooting!
Jason recently posted..Contests- Contests- and yet more Contests-
186 Carlos Miller // Jul 3, 2010 at 4:14 AM

Jason,

We were held up three hours with me shooting video most of the time. I can assure you, if I put all that footage in a series of clips to give my readers the “real story”, they would be bored to death and not get through it.

There is a lot of camera shake, a lot of discussions being repeated and a lot of us standing around wondering what they’re going to do next.

Did you see the extended version of the video at the bottom of the post? That has an additional 3:30 minutes of video.

If you can see through the video, we continually tried to show them the email from the top boss of security in the county and they continually refused to read it.

And I gave the cop my ID but I didn’t really have to. And I wanted her to know that I knew that. I wanted her to know that I am aware of my rights, so to be careful when trying to manipulate me, as she obviously tried to do by lying about the law regarding photographing trains.

This actually falls under investigative journalism, if you need to title it.

And if I have to explain why, then it’s already lost upon you.
187 reader_iam // Jul 3, 2010 at 4:15 AM

We had planned to ride the Metrorail through three stations to see if anybody would try to stop us from taking pictures of the trains.

This was your mission/goal statement?

Well, based on the story, you got an answer to the silly, gotcha question—in other words, a response to the silly premise–you set up.

What’s next in your quest to commit actual journalism?
188 Carlos Miller // Jul 3, 2010 at 4:17 AM

Yes, so silly, this First Amendment thing.

Happy Fourth to you too, bro.
189 Carlos Miller // Jul 3, 2010 at 4:21 AM

We didn’t call the cops. The security guards did.
190 Jason // Jul 3, 2010 at 4:30 AM

Found some interesting reading on Wikipedia and the Florida law requirements for Terry Laws:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes#States_with_.E2.80.9Cstop-and-identify.E2.80.9D_statutes

and

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0856/SEC021.HTM&Title=-%3E2006-%3ECh0856-%3ESection%20021#0856.021

So, we are really getting into gray areas as to whether or not you have the right NOT to give your ID…the situation was clearly beyond that of a general conversation as they (whether wrongly or not) had raised their suspicion levels on you.

This (again) is why I always encourage open, friendly, and cooperative attitudes. A condescending smirk saying “but this isn’t commercial which is what this paper says is prohibited so why can’t we….” doesn’t go nearly as far as saying,

“Hi officer, we’re here to do a little project on the reactions we get from law enforcement agencies on taking pictures in public, specifically near metro stations. Here’s my ID and the specifics of the project we are working on. From my conversations with the Station Chief and other supervisors, I understand that there’s no specific prohibition on photography and videography for non-commercial use. Since this is for a school project, I’d like to continue. Is that ok?”

If they say no at this point, then yes, they are just being dicks. But by insisting and demanding to not be detained, in a way, you’re also being dicks. Inflaming the situation didn’t help – you had ten people tied up for the better part of three hours. What if someone was being raped or something all while you postured for the cameras at “calling out” these horrible officers?

So you have to shut down and go get a flippin permit – big whoop. It’s not like you are shooting a crime scene for a paper – it was done under the auspices of being a personal project for a college class.

Speaking of which – what was the class? Did you turn in the video to be graded? What was your grade? Did you pass? Who was teaching the class? At what school? Oh wait, it wasn’t for any school! (Even though you told them that)

Your stated goals were:

1. We had planned to ride the Metrorail through three stations to see if anybody would try to stop us from taking pictures of the trains.

and

2. The truth is, we could have left whenever we wanted but the goal was to make some sense of the contradictory policies in place regarding photography at the Metro-rail stations.

You accomplished your first goal by getting security to screw up and prevent you from using the transit – mission accomplished! (Good thing too or you would not have had a blog post for the day, right? ) Your “journalism” was to create a story, which you did…so, like I said, mission accomplished!

On #2 though, did you really think you were going to make sense of things by having a face-to-face confrontation in the streets? The only way to “make sense” is to get all parties together at senior levels and find out what all the senior positions are, then ask to attend the next briefing given to disseminate the information to the working men and women and document that. THEN, I would say you are performing investigative journalism and “making sense” of it all. But that wasn’t your goal, was it?

In the grand scheme of things, I certainly hope no illegal activity was taking place elsewhere that could have been avoided if these ten cops weren’t spending their time dealing with you two. While photography is not a crime, many other things are, and I’d rather see them defending against those than dealing with self-serving photographers who have a law book in one hand and a camera in the other.
Jason recently posted..Contests- Contests- and yet more Contests-
191 Jason // Jul 3, 2010 at 4:40 AM

This was not investigative journalism – you did not investigate all sides. I saw no interviews, I saw no documentation of how policies are disseminated. I saw no conversations with senior officials or requests to go on “ride-alongs”. Nor did I see any discussions of alternative or opposing points of view. It was your point of view, and how you were able to use that position to get a reaction.

Big whoop – I could do that with abortion, gun control, immigration, health care or religion, politics or any one of a number of other issues, but that doesn’t make me an investigative reporter.

What makes a good investigative reporter is conducting serious research and remaining unbiased while interviewing viewpoints from both perspectives. Your perspective was quite clear from the beginning, and while I don’t necessarily disagree with the perspective, I do disagree with your approach to “journalism”. But that’s just me and my opinion, and we all know what opinions are worth!

In my opinion though, true investigative journalism involves a lot more than just going down to a metro, point your camera around and waiting for someone to come up to you and start asking questions.

You were not investigating a story, you were creating a story where the subject was YOU (and how YOU were treated when YOU dealt with the security and officers). Investigative journalism is much more in-depth and less biased than this.

You had a motive and a goal to deliver a “gotcha”, which you did admirably.

However, don’t make the mistake of believing you are performing investigative journalism because this was nothing more than a story you created (albeit entertaining) for your blog.
Jason recently posted..Contests- Contests- and yet more Contests-
192 Josh // Jul 3, 2010 at 4:46 AM

Michael, the security guards called the police. Not Carlos.
193 Bentor Tazenda // Jul 3, 2010 at 5:40 AM

Point of order: the government, or its agents do not have any “rights” to do anything. They don’t have “right” to ban. The have the “power” to ban, there is a big difference. Only the people have “rights.” The governments and “artificial entities” “re: legal fictions” have “powers.”
194 Bentor Tazenda // Jul 3, 2010 at 5:42 AM

No doubt Mr. Carl, I stopped reading when I got to, and had to read, USC Title 26. And 26 CFR was worse.
195 ChillyDogg // Jul 3, 2010 at 6:19 AM

As previously posted it was the guards who pulled the cops away from their duty elsewhere. Also cops don’t defend against anything. Their job is to arrest criminals, AFTER they have committed their crimes. That’s what makes them criminals after all. Cops are not legally required to help you at all. They don’t even have to respond to your 911 call.
196 Michael J // Jul 3, 2010 at 6:26 AM

Do you make profit off of this website?
197 Michaelk42 // Jul 3, 2010 at 7:26 AM

What Johnny Law also conveniently forgets about is that pesky “due process” thing, and he just assumes the guards have the power (not the “right”) to ban anyone from public transport in the first place.
Michaelk42 recently posted..Pogan sentencing- delayed
198 Geoff Hall // Jul 3, 2010 at 7:30 AM

“Miami-Dade Transit, one of the largest departments of Miami-Dade County government, is responsible for planning for and providing all public transit services in the county.”

http://www.miamidade.gov/transit/about_facts.asp
199 Atticus Finch // Jul 3, 2010 at 7:57 AM

Did you used to be EdinTally and then went to law school?
200 Brundle Fly // Jul 3, 2010 at 8:01 AM

I suggest you watch the video again. This video at the very least is about officials acting outside the law.
201 Jim P // Jul 3, 2010 at 8:25 AM

“I know full-fledged attorneys who are not proficient in all nature of laws, and holding a police officer to that expectation is an unreasonable assumption to make.”

I really hate it when people excuse police officers in this manner. Why don’t civilians get to say the same thing if we break a law that we did not know existed? Instead, the courts tell us that “IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE”. I hold enforcers of the law to the same standard. No ifs, ands, or buts!
202 Audrey // Jul 3, 2010 at 9:36 AM

As previously posted it was the guards who pulled the cops away from their duty elsewhere. Also cops don’t defend against anything. Their job is to arrest criminals, AFTER they have committed their crimes. That’s what makes them criminals after all. Cops are not legally required to help you at all. They don’t even have to respond to your 911 call.
203 Grapost // Jul 3, 2010 at 11:22 AM

I worked for the Federal Government and encountered the same thing. The people in authority were always TOTALLY ignorant of the laws and regulations concerning most issues.

They were all enamoured with their “authority” and self importance and had no interest in considering the “rights” of the individual, only in abusing their authority to have things their way.

The all operate on the “monkey see monkey do” premise rather than actually educating themselves about the laws and regulations they are charged with enforcing.
204 Hazy // Jul 3, 2010 at 11:45 AM

You are not required to carry ID if you’re just walking around.
205 the bulldog // Jul 3, 2010 at 11:46 AM

yup! the ole’ monkey see monkey do premise!
206 Grapost // Jul 3, 2010 at 11:48 AM

To the guy who blames Carlos Miller for “tying up the authorities for 3 hours and wasting their time.”

THE FAULT IS WITH THE AUTHORITIES! They are TOTALLY IGNORANT of the the law!

IT IS THEIR JOB TO KNOW WHAT THE LAW IS! If they KNEW the law and how it applied in this situation, NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED!

They caused the problem by being ignorant, inept and incompentent buffoons. Which resulted in a law abiding citizen engaging in legal behavior, being bullied, threatened, accosted and detained for NO GOOD REASON!

Their Superiors should fired for failing to train their employees properly.

No citizen using public transportation should be subjected to this type of unjustified harrassment.
207 bgwillia // Jul 3, 2010 at 11:58 AM

Since you mentioned Terry, I found a .pdf document on the web titled “CONFESSIONS, SEARCH, SEIZURE, AND ARREST A GUIDE FOR POLICE OFFICERS AND PROSECUTORS MAY 2010″ by Pamela B. Loginsky, Staff Attorney, Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.

Page 87 give a detailed description when asking for ID is legal and citing case law behind it:

d. Identification

While laws requiring persons to provide reliable identification to the police, or face arrest, violate the Fourth Amendment, police may demand to know a suspect’s true identity during Terry stops so long as the request is reasonably related to the detention. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court, 124 S. Ct. 2451, 159 L. Ed. 2d 292 (2004); United States v. Christian, 356 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); accord State v. Madrigal, 65 Wn. App. 279, 282, 827 P.2d 1105 (1992) (when an officer has a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, he or she may stop a suspect and ask the suspect for identification and an explanation of his or her activities).

Determining a suspect’s identity is an important aspect of police authority under Terry. Neither interrogating a suspect regarding his or her identity nor a request for identification, by itself, constitutes a Fourth Amendment seizure or a Fifth Amendment violation. Ascertaining the identity of a suspect assists officers in relocating the suspect in the future. Ascertaining the identity of a suspect protects the officer from harm, as it allows an officer to determine whether the suspect has an outstanding warrant, or a history of violent crime.

A suspect who refuses to provide his or her name during a Terry stop has not committed a crime. State v. Moore, 161 Wn.2d 880, 169 P.3d 469 (2007) (defendant who was not wearing a seatbelt could not be arrested for giving a false name as the officer was not affirmatively investigating the traffic infraction when the officer asked the defendant his name). A suspect, however, who gives a false name or other false identifying information may be arrested for the crime of obstruction, RCW 9A.76.020(1). See State v. Williams, 152 Wn. App. 937, 219 P.3d 978 (2009), review granted, 168 Wn.2d 1022 (2010) (theft suspect gave brother’s name and false date of birth); State v. Malone, 136 Wn. App. 545, 150 P.3d 130 (2007) (a passenger who gave false name and date of birth to officer who was preparing a notice of civil infraction for not wearing a seatbelt).

After several pages descibing case law on Terry, the manual gives a checklist when to do a
Terry Stop:

Terry Stop and Search Checklist

To STOP – You must have reasonable suspicion that a suspect is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime. Reasonable Suspicion must be based on specific, articulable, rational facts (Less than probable cause but more than a hunch.)

Articulable factors justifying stop. (Need multiple factors, at least one of which must come from the second group.) [note: the second group was in a second column which I seperated out and placed in a second group for clarity here]

___ hour
___ high crime neighborhood
___ appears lost or to not be a resident of the area
___ unusual presence
___ standing on street corner
___ nervousness
___ flight-manner of movement
___ drug trafficking neighborhood
___ other

And at least one factor from this column:

___ hand to hand movement
___ eyewitness information
___ concerned citizen
___ CI information
___ co-defendant information
___ personal knowledge of d’s drug use
___ personal knowledge of d’s license suspension status
___ smell
___ defendant statement

To FRISK – You may frisk outer clothing for weapons and may search if you reasonably believe you are in danger.

Articulable factors justifying search for weapons.

___ high crime neighborhood
___ CI information
___ guns common in neighborhood
___ co-defendant information
___ feel of weapons
___ personal knowledge of d having weapons
___ shape of weapon
___ defendant’s movements
___ sight of weapon
___ defendant’s statements
___ sound of weapon
___ sight of ammunition
___ concerned citizen information
___ other

To QUESTION – You may demand the suspect’s name and address and an explanation of the
suspect’s actions. You may detain him for a reasonable period of time to verify his answer. If he says nothing or
tells you to jump in a lake, that’s your tough luck; you cannot do anything to the suspect.

BOTTOM LINE – You must be able to articulate reasons to distinguish the suspect from someone who just
may happen to be there.
208 bgwillia // Jul 3, 2010 at 12:03 PM

The Anarchists trying to disrupt the event is wanting more government involvement to impose tarrifs and other restrictions on free trade.
209 Jim P // Jul 3, 2010 at 12:35 PM

And what about railfans who missed important, historical photo opportunities while being harassed by police. During the period 2001-2005 whole classes of subway cars in New York were taken out of service and scrapped while the police were ILLEGALLY interfering with our rights under the law. (In New York 21 NYCRR 1050.9(3) specifically gives anyone the RIGHT to take pictures in the subway.)

Can you rebuild the cars so that we can document them and then re-scrap them for us? And no – New York’s MTA does NOT issue permits to amateurs because they said that a permit was not needed. Catch 22 – the law said we could photograph but the police attempted to DESTROY OUR HOBBY!

If not for the fact that a few railfans got arrested and then sued the NYPD, and won tens of thousands of dollars, we would still be in the same predicament. One of the most expensive settlements was for $31,000 for 20 minutes of detention – $1500 PER MINUTE) Today, while there continue to be isolated incidents, the overall situation is much improved.

After 9/11 the government told us to return to our normal lives. They did not insert a qualifier that read “EXCEPT RAILFANS AND PHOTOGRAPHERS”.

If I am ever stopped or harassed in the manner that Carlos was believe me I will sue – can you spell HASSELBLAD at taxpayer expense!!!
210 Dodge Ball // Jul 3, 2010 at 1:01 PM

You’re right, they were polite and didn’t get worked up. They didn’t do anything really wrong because they didn’t do anything.
211 Rail Car Fan // Jul 3, 2010 at 1:34 PM

Grapost has a point..

Why is it OK for the Cops to tell us.. “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” when we innocently do something (while not realizing we’ve broken a minor rule or regulation).. but then (as Grapost pointed out), those same Cops can be TOTALLY IGNORANT of a law (yet that same reasoning for them doesn’t hold true)?

I’ll bet that most any person who’s really into a particular hobby (photography as a example.. and Carlos in particular), most likely knows more about the laws, rules and regulations that pertain to that hobby than most Cop’s do.

What really gets me is when you point out their mistake/error (even in a friendly way), the get all P.O.’d and fall back on the old “Contempt of Cop/Disturbing the Peace”!

If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it dozens and dozens of times before..

..”And Cop’s wonder why people feel so negatively about them!”

Rail Car Fan
212 Dodge Ball // Jul 3, 2010 at 1:46 PM

Quite an eloquent discertation, Jason, but my take on the “incident” is this. The proximate cause of the escalation of action in what took place was the imbalance of integrity and quite frankly, intelligence by the guard. A very common concept and term contained in all levels of law is “reasonable”. In the application of this, which direction were the scales tipped?

With reason, I believe that an old saying did apply here….. “You get what you pay for.” Is that feasable?
213 Michael Rivero // Jul 3, 2010 at 2:22 PM

Back when I was working on “LOST” I needed to take some reference photos from the top of the parking structure at the Dole Pineapple Building (now converted to offices and a shopping complex) in planning to make it look like the LAPD for an episode. I was actually detained by the building security while the local DHS called the production office to verify I was really taking pictures for a “legitimate” reason. As a result, we all had ID tags issued to us. I requested that they say, “Don’t shoot me, I work for LOST!” (A reference to the infamous Chiat/Day ID tags during the Los Angeles Olympics) but my request was denied by the rather humorless security droogs.
214 ChillyDogg // Jul 3, 2010 at 2:22 PM

They might not have been ignorant of the law. They may have know perfectly well that the photographers were not committing any offense. Most people don’t realize this but cops are absolutely allowed to lie to you in the course of their duty. They can say any kind of fantastical thing they can think up. You can see it all the time on cop shows. They tell the suspect that they have prints or the weapon or their partner as talked or whatever. When they really have nothing. But god forbid you lie to them. Then you’ll be doing time in the pokey.
215 Nate K. // Jul 3, 2010 at 2:57 PM

I missed the part where any American is even required to *have* ID when walking down the street, let alone produce it on police request.
216 Roger // Jul 3, 2010 at 3:01 PM

They are not ignorant, they lie. This is to confuse and gain an edge, to trick you into making a statement that they can use. Cops are not your friends, use care and shut up.
217 j r // Jul 3, 2010 at 3:10 PM

The problem is most cops are just stupid thugs in uniforms. They don’t know the law. They just enjoy intimidating and harassing innocent citizens.
218 Bluecollar // Jul 3, 2010 at 3:14 PM

Hey Rail Car Fan,

How about “everybody hates a cop until they need one”

What would you rather the cops know? Laws about violent crime and drugs? Or laws about photography? It is clear to me that the cops do not even want to be there. Do you really think they want to arrest somebody for taking pictures?

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the donkeys working security are only trying to do their job? It is clear that they are ignorant. I understand that Carlos Miller and Stretch Ledford are not doing anything wrong.

Here’s another one for you Rail Car Fan, and Carlos Miller:

“Don’t wrestle with a pig; you both get dirty, and the pig likes it.”

I could tell from the instant I hit play that trying to explain anything to those ignorant security guards was pointless. You guys could have just put the camera away and tried again elsewhere, or on another day. But noooooooooo, you guys so had to prove something. And you had to prove it right then and there. Now nobody who is looking to do personal photography on the metrorail can do so. I’m sure Sam Terrili loves you.
219 Rance // Jul 3, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Hell, I’m still hoping for Democrat intellectual consistency. I’m not holding my breath though.

Try to stay focused though WR, and Michael Reynolds. This isn’t about left or right.
220 Bluecollar // Jul 3, 2010 at 3:30 PM

Sure wish there was an edit button, as I cannot delete this sentence:

“Now nobody who is looking to do personal photography on the metrorail can do so.”

Anyway, enjoy disguising yourselves whenever you ride the metrorail until this situation is fixed.
221 Erik G. // Jul 3, 2010 at 3:50 PM

To be clear, the above is valid in Washington State and may not apply to other jurisdictions.
222 Dennis // Jul 3, 2010 at 3:51 PM

Who would want to Photograph anything in This CORRUPT,Evil ,SWAMP is beyong Me,Florida is the Most Corrupt STATE IN THE UNION outside of NYC..Dont SPend a DIME IF YOU GO THERE,Oh and watch out you will most likley get mugged,Stabbed,Shot,Raped,Or Be SOLD DRUGS
223 Dennis // Jul 3, 2010 at 3:52 PM

They will get away with it,They always lie about what happened….All CROOKED ,ALL of them are CROOKED
224 Erik G. // Jul 3, 2010 at 3:59 PM

Another irony is that MDT contracts out the security on their facilities to 50 State because it is cheaper than hiring the existing city (Miami) or county (Miami-Dade) officers to do the job.

(Or set up its own police department like BART did-oops, bad example!)

I hope Carlos and Stretch prove MDT to be “penny-wise but pound-foolish”. Contract security in public places is a menace to free society
225 DJ Todd // Jul 3, 2010 at 4:17 PM

Michael, I was originally going to write “What’s your point other than to say you worked for “Lost”? But I thought that might be over the top. So I decided to ask this instead – “What the hell is your point other than to tell us you worked for “Lost”"?

Clearly a case where a permit would be needed – if local laws required them of course.
226 oscar finch // Jul 3, 2010 at 4:37 PM

The guards didn’t waste the cops time by calling, they have a right to call when a crime is taking place, the crime of tresspassing.

I guess photographers are like cops, you have good and bad. Jason is an example of the good.

I think the funniest thing is carlos trying to pass himself off as a journalist.
227 Dodge Ball // Jul 3, 2010 at 4:41 PM

Trespassing. Yeah, right, bozo. What’s funnier is attempting to pass yourself of a LEO. Call your village, it’s looking for you.
228 Dodge Ball // Jul 3, 2010 at 4:43 PM

that’s “off as a LEO”.
229 Johnny Law // Jul 3, 2010 at 4:49 PM

Dodge doesn’t have a very good grasp of the law. You would think such a hot shot ex-cop *chuckle* would understand the concept of trespassing but here we are.
230 Frank Enfurter // Jul 3, 2010 at 5:06 PM

It depresses me on how much a nanny state our country has turned it to.
231 Dodge Ball // Jul 3, 2010 at 5:07 PM

Trespassing on public property. Hmmmm. Only a doughnut-eating fat ass running radar at the city limit sign would consider that. Snicker.

No, not the candybar, Buford T.
232 oscar finch // Jul 3, 2010 at 5:09 PM

Maybe he was in weight lifting class the day they covered trespassing.
233 Les Stockton // Jul 3, 2010 at 5:26 PM

As an attempt to get to the point of why any municipality or other government body would want to ban photography, consider that it is merely a knee-jerk reaction without much thought behind it. Until you approach it this way and discuss it with the decision makers, nothing will change.

Here’s the reality, someone decided, “Oh, my, terrorists could photograph sites that have lots of human activity; where lots of people congregate, and then plan terrorist attacks in those places”. “We better ban photography in those sites.”
Now, consider a ban on photography at some place like Disneyland, the Grand Canyon, any state park or national park, ball parks, zoos, etc, etc, etc.
You know that a terrorist can just as easily pick one of those sites as the metrorail. Yet no one with a brain would suggest banning photography in those places.
And truthfully, if you really want to case a site and plan a terrorist attack, there are plenty of ways to do spy photography and/or video. So these bans provide nothing except to make some brainless bureaucrat feel better.

You are going to have to sell them on the merits of we’re supposed to be a free society, not a police state.
234 Oklahoma Johnny // Jul 3, 2010 at 5:35 PM

Just because there are some 6th century moralistic Luddites with an aversion to Gillette products doesn’t mean that we, as a country, are going to surrender our rights. Ever. Got that Andrew? What a tool…
235 Oklahoma Johnny // Jul 3, 2010 at 5:52 PM

The number of citizens who have no knowledge of, or desire to protect our basic freedoms is shocking.

Surprising how many haters there are when you are fighting for their freedoms too. Some people are just angry I guess. I would suggest a pint of Newcastle but something tells me you would prescribe Guinness.

Keep fighting the good fight bro and have a great 4th!
236 Ariel // Jul 3, 2010 at 6:11 PM

Some open-carry states do allow private establishments to ban open-carry on their property as well as concealed carry. Usually, but not always, involves a liquor license though. The Warsaw Wallys bar in Phoenix had a clear “no colors, no guns” policy posted that the Police and statute certainly backed.
237 Geoff Hall // Jul 3, 2010 at 6:25 PM

For the little or no benefit, onsite and open, photography realistically provides “terrorists,” the benefit to law enforcement in engaging photographers is enormous given the keen sense of the unusual and a trained eye to notice what others overlook.
238 Ariel // Jul 3, 2010 at 6:27 PM

Nope, I’m of the right and thought the arrest was bogus. I thought it was a bit much for POTUS to get involved as it would certainly cause an escalation and political mess. Not even all cops agreed with the arrest or attacking POTUS, though I didn’t find a LEO comment that didn’t say he should have stayed out of it.

There is no such thing as an “entire right wing” or an “entire left wing”. Then again the terms left/right are near meaningless anyway.
239 bgwillia // Jul 3, 2010 at 6:32 PM

True, but there’s similar laws in other states that can be found with a little research. Federal laws apply throughout the land. What’s displayed here is representive of the thinking. Washington is similar to Florida and other states in it doesn’t have a “stop and identify” law. But if you lie about your identity then it’s obstruction which likely is common in every state.
240 bgwillia // Jul 3, 2010 at 6:36 PM

Now in some state biometric devices are in field use where you put your thumb on a pad and it’s checked against the central unit. No need to ask if you got ‘printed before.
241 IH8Zionists // Jul 3, 2010 at 6:52 PM

its not about wanting a picture its about wanting what you want anywhere you want to take a picture. The Gov’t has no say in it, its public property so they can go to hell. The cops are the real enemy of us citizens, if you feel you are in danger by cops, YOU MUST TAKE EM OUT. BE SAFE AND CAREFUL.
242 Johnny Law // Jul 3, 2010 at 6:55 PM

It’s kinda depressing that he can’t understand an entity can still restrict access to property even though it is owned by the govt. I don’t know how to get through to him.

Isn’t a city spots stadium also owned by the govt? Doesn’t that make it public property? Nobody seems surprised that you can restrict people from entering that. Either he is deliberately misunderstanding the situation or he is an idiot.

Based on his previous posts, I am leaning towards idiot.
243 IH8Zionists // Jul 3, 2010 at 6:58 PM

I live in Los Angeles, Azusa. me and my friend went out in the night in his car to go buy some sodas and chips from 7/11. we noticed a police car behind us so i told my friend to drive under the speed limit so that way we dont get a speeding ticket. well, we still got pulled over and the cop came and asked 4 my friends ID and Insurance, at the same time they asked 4 my id. I told the cop”why should i? im just the passenger” they said they have to check 4 safety and everything. I told them its Bullshit and that they cannot be doing that if they dont have a probable cause. So i got more involved by asking them what was the purpose of them pulling us over, like did we break any laws? the cop said that they have to check and see if anyone is on parole or wanted. I got so mad inside that if i had a gun, i would have shot the mofo in the face but thank the lord i didnt.I feel the cops are not our friends and that we should take em out when they pose a threat to us, even if we have to be jailed for it. knowing i took out a cop will give me big respect in prison. anyone dealt with this kinda crap?the cops said now they have the right to check anyone anytime but i still told them i dont believe them. email me. striker_x270@yahoo.com
244 IH8Zionists // Jul 3, 2010 at 7:05 PM

hey idiot oscar, the photographers didnt break any laws. what do you mean “when a crime is taking place?” what crime did they commit? stupid ass sheep. you retards make me sick, thats why we are losing our freedoms everyday because of cowards like you who are afraid to question the authority, its either that or your illegal in this country and cant talk back to them.
245 IH8Zionists // Jul 3, 2010 at 7:14 PM

i think most cops i’ve been approached by are pretty lousy and ignorant. I cant believe the city would hire thugs like them. i used to work at Holiday inn and cops would come and ask for special rates we had for anyone working for the gov’t. these punks would come in drunk and ask rudely for a room and i bet they were the ones driving under the influence. whose gona police the police???? we need a Militia and we need to get armed to the teeth.
246 Hazza // Jul 3, 2010 at 8:09 PM

Only in movies do terrorists check out a potential target with photography. Have a read of real terror attacks, including 9/11, none of them used photography.

Policy is set by Hollywood, “oooh….. look what they do in the movies we should protect ourselves against that”
247 Dodge Ball // Jul 3, 2010 at 8:20 PM

If no I.D. is carried, a name and date of birth would do. An officer who’s properly earning his salary wouldn’t ask for one unless he had reasonable cause. On the other hand, while in a position of authority, doing something just because one thinks he can is an act of a jerk.

If a refusal is made with the cop having cause it could escalate into being hit with what a lot of cops dirtily resort to: disorderly conduct and/or obstruction.
248 Dodge Ball // Jul 3, 2010 at 8:40 PM

Jim, I’m not a lawyer, but If one truly believes that his civil rights were violated, he should, or have his attorney contact the local United States Attorney Office or the F.B.I.. I would also consider a civil action.
249 tomhoser // Jul 3, 2010 at 8:42 PM

Right, what would have happened if one of the party had said “I don’t recognize your authority” and just walked on ; would they be shot??
250 Dodge Ball // Jul 3, 2010 at 8:45 PM

Dave, there’s nothing dumber than a pissed off cop who paints himself into a corner.
251 Jim P // Jul 3, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Check again about how SEPTA is organized. According to their own documentation

http://www.septa.org/reports/pdf/strategic.pdf

it is described as an “Instrumentality of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania”.

NJ Transit is actually organized along the lines of a private corporation owned by the state yet they caved into pressure by the ACLU and railfan groups to rescind their photo restrictions.

The Long Island Railroad Company in New York is actually a true private company with the only exception that the State of New York owns all of its capital stock. They too allow unrestricted photography after being faced with potential lawsuits from the NYCLU

The problem is that all of these entities are publicly funded. If they want to act like private companies then they should stop taking our tax dollars!
252 oscar finch // Jul 3, 2010 at 10:33 PM

No shit they didn’t break the law that’s why they weren’t arrested. They would have been tresspassing if the went in after the guards told them not to. The cops did there job by preventing a crime.

Your such a pod, get a life.
253 Rush Limpball // Jul 3, 2010 at 10:36 PM

All you hippie druggie artist types should have to submit to bodily searches! You are always siding with the terrorists anyway? Why do you hate America?
254 Alex // Jul 3, 2010 at 10:54 PM

They don’t hire Whites – obviously there there going to be problems just by looking who they hire.
255 ChillyDogg // Jul 3, 2010 at 11:13 PM

” But noooooooooo, you guys so had to prove something.”
Are you that dense? The whole purpose of the exercise was to PROVE SOMETHING! That being what the guards would do when confronted by photographers at the station. I think we found out.
256 Adam // Jul 4, 2010 at 1:57 AM

I watched the video and the one thing that Carlos didn’t do correctly is fail to hand over identification to the officer when asked. It doesn’t matter if you’re doing something wrong or doing everything right. When an officer asks for your ID you have to do it.

I’m in the process of telling the city of Houston they do not have the right to confiscate my equipment at an event on Public property according to their website because of some contract with the performers. The emails are below. It just upsets me that people think they can just say something and expect everyone to believe it.

From: Adam
To: Tatum, Melissa – MYR
Sent: Sat Jul 03 23:17:47 2010
Subject: Can film and tape be confiscated?

Melissa, I’m planning on attending the Freedom over Texas festival this weekend. I’m an amateur photographer and I noticed on the website it says “SORRY, DUE TO PERFORMER’S CONTRACTS, NO RECORDING DEVICES (AUDIO, VIDEO, CAMERA) ARE ALLOWED DURING LIVE PERFORMANCES. ANY PERSON FOUND IN POSSESSION OF SUCH EQUIPMENT WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE VENUE. ALL FILM AND TAPE WILL BE CONFISCATED”.

My question is how does the performers contract allegedly allow the confiscation of my property and why would I be asked to leave if I am on public property not breaking any laws?

From my understanding of the law the ONLY reason law enforcement can confiscate my equipment is with a search warrant or taking illegal photo. No one else has the ability to touch my equipment. Photos of performances for personal non for profit is not against the law.

I strongly encourage you to look into this matter and update your website based on laws and not intimidations.

Thank you.

Adam

From: “Tatum, Melissa – MYR”
To: Adam
Sent: Sat, July 3, 2010 11:22:13 PM
Subject: Re: Can film and tape be confiscated?

The cameras are allowed – the only way they would be confisc is if u were blatantly photographing a lead entertainer. But gen photos are perfectly fine. You are not allowed to phot pat green

From: Adam
To: “Tatum, Melissa – MYR”
Sent: Sat, July 3, 2010 11:33:58 PM
Subject: Re: Can film and tape be confiscated?

No. I’m sorry but a performers contract with the city does not allow the confiscation of my equipment on public property nor does it dictate what I can photograph on public property. Like I said I’m an amateur photographer that has never sold nor has any interest in selling my photographs for a profit but I must raise the issue of inaccurate information on the website.

Like I said the ONLY WAY my equipment could be confiscated is with a search warrant or I’m taking illegal photographs (up skirt, inappropriate child photos, etc) BUT NOT a performers contract on public property.

I once again strongly encourage you to look into this matter from a legal standpoint and update your website based on laws and not a performers contract. Just because something is in writing does not mean it’s true.

Adam

From: “Tatum, Melissa – MYR”
To: Adam
Sent: Sat, July 3, 2010 11:40:20 PM
Subject: Re: Can film and tape be confiscated?

I will certainly share this w/ the producers of the concert and appreciate you bringing our attention to this matter.
257 alex // Jul 4, 2010 at 2:08 AM

Education? Har! Bob, I am educated_thanks_to Carlos.
Carlos asked for clarification and received it. Ergo, the education. Are you suggesting HE should have contacted all the local mall cops at the rail system to inform them not of the law, but what needs permission? Isn’t this a simple fact of he had natural rights to film?
Wake up mate, why is it requisite of a citizen to educate a private security firm of what natural rights people have? Do you pull police over to educate them that you are able to sit on your toilet and wipe your butt? Or should Carlos write to them and tell them he does not need permission to do what he is entitled to do?

You’re not just saying? You are abrogating responsibility from the state to the citizen to protects its “inalienable rights” Heck, Im from Australia and I know your Bill or Rights and Constitution better than you do. I hope you don’t expect your clients selling houses to .oh, forget it. You wont get it anyway.
258 Dwayne D.C. Tucker II // Jul 4, 2010 at 2:10 AM

I was trying to send you an email but it didn’t work so I’m going to post the comment here please get in contact with me here’s what I wrote:

I hope you’re doing fine! You’re probably wondering why I am emailing you at 2:03 a.m. on July 4th with a topic about photography. That’s because I live, breath and will die for it =]

That last video WOW those cops..no more comments to that, they are pushing it way too far.

Last week at a photo shoot I had a guard SPIT at a skateboarder I was shooting here in Miami, Florida (can you believe that!) take a look at my article here: http://dwaynetucker.com/how-to-photograph-skateboarders/

Pass it on to the other photographer as well for me please!

By the way – My name is Dwayne Tucker I’m a 21 year old photographer from Nassau, Bahamas I went to the Savannah College of Art and Design for Advertising Design transferred to Miami International University of Art and Design and I’m the writer of the blog Photography For You by DwayneTucker.com keep in contact I would love to go to lunch with both of you photographers sooner than soon!

–
DT.
Dwayne D.C. Tucker II recently posted..Skaterboarder Cop Spat At My Skater-
259 alex // Jul 4, 2010 at 2:11 AM

papier, bitte

when did you lose the will to resist Paul?
260 alex // Jul 4, 2010 at 2:16 AM

roger the poor guard perhaps should stick to what they_know_is enforcable, rather than deciding to make up rules that they_think_are enforceable

then perhaps they might grow some brain mass and find a job that offers a little more hope.

alas, they’d have to hand back their limited authority, as they perceive.

this is more about the condition of our self imposed prisons and control reflex as it is about legality to photograph.

some want the safety of the matrix plugged into the back of their head, some see a greater vista of the human condition being possible.

she is the sentinel.

orders are vague? i care little that they are vague, only if they are legal and enforcable. in both cases they were not.

they were VERY lucky that this man chose not to simply walk onto the train. of course, he knows about US police and mall cops and their proclivity to express their innate insecurities and fears through tasers and guns.

ask that poor guy in Philly who got shot in the back while being arrested.
261 Me Here // Jul 4, 2010 at 9:41 AM

Paranoia and hysteria in the mad mad world of the US …. you people are just to funny its damn near harmful.

You push the paranoic, into being more paranoid and you then ask why !??

Your country is obviosly on the slippery slope to oblivion …… you have the biggest Oil Spill known to man in history, ….your country involved in multiple illegal wars of agression killing civilians daily costing billions chasing resources, ……economic troubles that are sucking the life out of the rest of the planet …. and your all worried about taking photos of trains ….. You are being serious aren’t you ?? or is this just a p*sstake ??

I love America, this is funnier than watching you trying to find WMD’s in a country you provided them to, and then NOT being able to find any !! ROFLOLOLOL … you people are just to much ….

Good luck … you retards are gonna need it ! ….. Obviously !
262 SteelToad // Jul 4, 2010 at 9:56 AM

One minor correction, most states require you to identify yourself, but not specifically to turn over your ID. Usually you only have to provide identification (drivers license) if you are being stopped while operating a motor vehicle. It’s a subtle difference, but an important one, especially if you’re out shooting and don’t have identification with you when stopped. It doesn’t make much sense though to not provide your ID if you have it, provided you give the officer accurate information, they could quickly look up any of your license information.
263 Les Stockton // Jul 4, 2010 at 10:42 AM

The only retard here is one with little reading to back up what he has stated, and no logical thought process before writing. Consider that regardless of whether or not WMDs were found, the reality is that Iraq killed hundreds of thousands of people in Iran, as well as a similar number in their own country (mostly kerds), and they didn’t do it with bad language. They had WMD to do it.
Whatever happened to those remaining, we don’t know, but we do know that the Iraq government refused to account for them for 12 years and violated 18 UN sanctions before someone decided to do something about it.

Criticize your own country and keep your mis-guided typing fingers to yourself.
264 Roger // Jul 4, 2010 at 10:42 AM

So, what else is new? We always manage to muddle through and will this time. Do sell the US short.
265 Roger // Jul 4, 2010 at 10:43 AM

So, what else is new? We always manage to muddle through and will this time. Do not sell the US short.
266 Les Stockton // Jul 4, 2010 at 10:52 AM

I should add that our freedoms are just as important as our environment. Erosion of either is a catastrophy and people need to speak up about it.

It might seem petty to be talking about being hassled for taking a photograph in a public area, but the reality is that erosion of freedoms happen a little at a time, not all at once, and we have to take a serious look at them.

Are there other issues? Of course. However, the overall issue of continued erosion of our freedoms is no less important than any of the other issues.
267 oscar finch // Jul 4, 2010 at 10:56 AM

Sadly a lot of what you say is true but is lost in your sarcasim. Every day our kids are getting killed in a war for oil and these people don’t give a shit but a criminal accidentally gets shot by the police on the subway and they get in an uproar.

Maybe if we issued everyone in the military a camera these people would start to care.
268 Les Stockton // Jul 4, 2010 at 11:01 AM

So you can read their minds and know that they don’t care about people killed around the world and the multitude of wars that are going on right now?

Just because this thread originated regarding a person’s struggle with legal issues regarding photography, doesn’t mean that he or anyone else here doesn’t care about any other issue.
Don’t presume that you are holier than thou just because he seem to care. Fine. If you care, blog about it and get people to chime in. Just don’t rain on someone else’s parade because you don’t deem their issue as important as your’s.
269 Roger // Jul 4, 2010 at 11:01 AM

O ye of little faith! Before you go to far in US bashing keep this in mind.
The US population is 300 million, that is 6% of the worlds. Of that only 6% is involved with the production of food. The US feeds 60% of the worlds people and often at our own expense, I guess we are just a bunch uncaring ass holes. Go on, destroy the US and 3.6 billion people starve.
270 Les Stockton // Jul 4, 2010 at 11:03 AM

I’d like to hijack this hijacked thread back to the original subject.
271 ThePatriotMuckraker // Jul 4, 2010 at 11:46 AM

Lets make one thing clear to the dolts out there who still believe in “peaceful resistance”, it is OVER. It was a nice idea that was also necessary. But, that time has passed. The sooner you understand this the quicker we can restore our democratic republic. The insistence for non violence will result in more violence. With that said. This video is proof that there is a void in leadership and rule of law. These creatures called “the police”, and the minimum wage rent-a-cops cannot be reasoned with. This will only escalate to violence committed against the PEOPLE , as these criminals commit more injuries as they abrogate our NATURAL BORN RIGHTS.
272 bitterblood // Jul 4, 2010 at 11:47 AM

does people in our country get more stupid everyday, this is for takin pics
273 Cody // Jul 4, 2010 at 11:50 AM

You ought to organize a flash mob of photographers to converge on this location, see how they handle it when suddenly there are 50+ cameras pointed at every nook and cranny of the station.
274 Oklahoma Johnny // Jul 4, 2010 at 12:09 PM

After hurricane Wilma I was on the metrorail when a guy dropped trau and took a dump right in the car we were in. No hesitation or anything. Biological terrorism indeed.
275 Johnny Law // Jul 4, 2010 at 12:37 PM

So you are saying that since a couple of security guards decided to use their legal authority to ban a couple of photographers who were looking for a fight, it is time for violence against the government?

I actually don’t think a person has the natural born right to right the metrorail. Do you also have the natural born right to chocolate ice cream and a pool membership in the summer?
276 oscar finch // Jul 4, 2010 at 1:17 PM

You have a right to ice cream as long as you have a camera.

We could end unemployment by giving away cameras and calling everybody a photographer. Then they can start a blog and beg for money.
277 Les Stockton // Jul 4, 2010 at 1:27 PM

I fear that this thread has reached it’s critical mass; that point where sideline issues have hijacked rational discussion of the original topic. And those hijacking the discussion neither care, nor are they willing to allow rational discussion of the original subject.
I am interested in hearing how this issue turns out later, but will probably tire of these other issues and will stop watching the thread because of it.
278 wtfo // Jul 4, 2010 at 1:27 PM

Sounds like the local gov’t and private security forget that this isn’t private property. If it was, everything that had transpired would have been unremarkable. However since this is public property, they don’t get to make up the rules.
279 Acksiom // Jul 4, 2010 at 3:15 PM

You appear to lack a certain fundamental awareness of history. The usa is the most powerful nation in the world, and could quite easily dominate all of it in an American Empire.

The reason it doesn’t — the reason it is, in fact, the greatest organized secular benefactor of humanity in history — is precisely because of Citizens like Carlos and Stretch doing things like this.

And I think deep down you actually realize this, and are horribly conflicted between wanting to be like us OOH and not having enough self-confidence to make that fundamental leap into liberty OTOH, and so, OTGH, are behaving so nastily as a means of trying to deal with that internal struggle.

It’s okay. We understand. The degree and kind of freedom that is the fundamental nature of the usa DOES look scary and intimidating — from the outside.

On the inside, though, it’s amazingly strong and uplifting. Just look at all the support Carlos and Stretch are receiving. And the best part is that you can have that too; you can be a part of it; in fact, we WANT you to be a part of it. We WANT you to have the freedom and courage that is fundamental to the character of the Citizenry of the usa.

Why? Because we’re just that damn good.
280 Roger // Jul 4, 2010 at 4:17 PM

Consider this, all who would bash the US, in 1945 there was no possible combination of forces that could have stopped the US Army. The British were re equipping to US standards and preparing to place there army under US control so as to invade Japan
281 Roger // Jul 4, 2010 at 4:28 PM

and China. The German high command offered to place the Germain army under US command and go back to Russia. We could have established the largest empire ever known, being in effect the whole world, we did not. Instead we returned or freed all territory we had ceased. We also aided our former enemies in re building. So, please tell me what SOB we are.
282 Roger // Jul 4, 2010 at 4:30 PM

And by the way we still could.
283 Michaelk42 // Jul 4, 2010 at 4:52 PM

Unfortunately, your assertion that the security guards even have the legal authority to ban anyone has yet to be borne out. You’re also still forgetting about due process.

Photographers checking to see if security guards will actually obey the law and their own rules isn’t “looking for a fight.” It’s looking to see if they will break the law.

But then, you’re not much of one for thinking, are you Johnny? http://bit.ly/johnnylaw
Michaelk42 recently posted..Pogan sentencing- delayed
284 Brian Schneider // Jul 4, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Maybe you should finish Iraq & Afghganistan before you start on the rest of the world.
285 Roger // Jul 4, 2010 at 5:26 PM

We could, all we would have to do is extend a small fraction of our capability. We are not even starting to try.
286 Johnny Law // Jul 4, 2010 at 5:28 PM

You are incapable of understanding the concept of trespassing and I’m the one who has trouble thinking? Hoookay.

Due process? You don’t get a hearing in something like this. You may be able to plead your case to upper management and have your ban overturned but you aren’t to get a formal hearing (unless the management has made that their own policy).

I get a kick out of how it is a violation of civil rights to get kicked out of a place by security guards acting as agents of the owners/management. I hope you get that ice cream and pool membership soon.
287 Roger // Jul 4, 2010 at 5:32 PM

All I want is to point out a few points about this country that you seem to selling short and get back to the subject of this thread. If you want to fallow this line start another thread.
288 Jim P // Jul 4, 2010 at 5:57 PM

The analogy is very different. A sports stadium is generally not open to the public when no event is playing there. During an event the stadium is effectively “leased” to the team or other organizer, which in turn collects ticket revenue.

A rapid transit or mass transit system is a common carrier that functions more like an extension of the city streets. Being that there is no law or rule against personal use photography there is no legal basis to bar entry. The criteria for barring entry are very different.

NYPD tried that on the New York Subway and some railfans and photographers are now enjoying new professional grade camera equipment at taxpayer expense! One subway photographer even took a trip around the world at taxpayer expense thanks to the NYPD
289 Brian Schneider // Jul 4, 2010 at 6:14 PM

Sure Roger, you keep on believing that if you like.
We in the rest of the world might have something to say about that.
290 Michaelk42 // Jul 4, 2010 at 6:49 PM

LOL Johnny.

We know from the outset that the guards are acting against their superior’s policy as evidenced by Miller and Ledford talking to their boss in the first place. We’re not even to the part where you have yet to prove your assertion that they even have the authority to do so.

“I get a kick out of how it is a violation of civil rights to get kicked out of a place by security guards acting as agents of the owners/management.”

Would it be clearer-cut for you if they kicked them out because of their skin color? discrimination is one civil right. Guess what violating 1st amendment rights is?

“Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples’ physical integrity and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as physical or mental disability, gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, national origin, age, and individual rights such as the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, and movement.”

There’s a kick for you Johnny! XD

http://bit.ly/johnnylaw
Michaelk42 recently posted..Pogan sentencing- delayed
291 Acksiom // Jul 4, 2010 at 7:03 PM

Maybe you should comprehend that we’re not in either country to just conquer them; we’re trying to make it possible for their people to become Citizens and create their own democracies — i.e., Enlightenment nation-building.

Which is whole orders of magnitude more complex and difficult than just subjugating them, and what makes your comment a girly pantiesload of ignorant bitchy nonsense.
292 Michaelk42 // Jul 4, 2010 at 7:09 PM

In fact – the security guards are specifically told by management that they can only question photographers, not throw them out. And the laws that the owners (the public) have enacted specifically state the photography of this nature is allowed…

So your “security guards acting as agents of the owners/management” is a blatant falsehood. They may work for that management, but they are not acting as agents when they defy that management’s directives in addition to breaking the law.
Michaelk42 recently posted..Pogan sentencing- delayed
293 johnl // Jul 4, 2010 at 7:22 PM

Steve the police, except for Detective Bustamante ID 5362, were not the problem. They really were not in a strong position to argue with the authorized reps for the Metro. It’s 50 States that is fraudulently replacing its own policy with the Metro’s.
294 Roger // Jul 4, 2010 at 7:26 PM

The point, that you seem to miss, is we did not do it. We did not even consider it.
295 Rail Car Fan // Jul 4, 2010 at 9:48 PM

Jason..

You sound more and more like “Johnny Law” every time you post.

I’m so glad (like Johnny’s Brothers in Blue), you can do NO wrong!

Rail Car Fan
296 Chuckkel // Jul 4, 2010 at 10:44 PM

I’m plan on buying one of these pen style spy cams to try and catch this police crap. This one looks good, anyone have experience with it? http://www.securitysystems.com/spypen.htm
297 Jim Ramsey // Jul 4, 2010 at 10:53 PM

Carlos: I believe a great class project would be for the entire class to video an outing on the train–see how they react to an obvious educational class project. Why do these petty, ignorant, uneducated bureaucrats act so stupidly? Is their basic education, reading and comprehension so poor they cannot understand the spoken and written word? It is incomprehensible that they do not even know for whom they work.
298 Johnny Law // Jul 4, 2010 at 11:06 PM

“Cops are not legally required to help you at all. They don’t even have to respond to your 911 call.”

Well this is certainly going to make my job easier! And to think about all the time I wasted going to 911 calls.
299 Johnny Law // Jul 4, 2010 at 11:19 PM

Mike while metro management may override the security guards and get rid of the ban, that is an internal issue that doesn’t change the fact that the security guards were within their legal right to issue a trespass warning at the time.

It was in no way an illegal act or a *chuckle* violation 0f their civil rights to kick them out. It’s the same thing as if a city bus kicked someone off the bus for causing a disturbance or a library kicking someone out for surfing inappropriate sites. I’m not sure what the disconnect is with your thinking that makes you incapable of understanding. There are only so many ways to explain it.
300 Dan Cleveland // Jul 5, 2010 at 12:39 AM

What scares me,. are that these are the people who are suppose to be protecting us against REAL security threats. A bunch of dumb assholes. No wonder ‘we’ are such easy targets. These people only have one thing on their mind and that is NOT the facts. It is being badge carrying bullies. Hey ‘officials’,.. spend some more time in training and not the gym trying to impress the opposite sex with your job. Do your job correctly,. with knowledge,. or expect to lose your job. After all,. WE THE PEOPLE are STILL your boss,. regardless of what the government are trying to make you believe. Get it right or get out.
301 Roger // Jul 5, 2010 at 2:34 AM

When I was in the army my training was all in unconventional warfare, I could get in and out just about any where. As the attacker will chose the time and place, there is no truly effective defense. The attack will be at a time and place of his choosing, when and where you are most vulnerable. This whole thing is just a show to convince every body that some thing is being done.
302 Sydney Carton // Jul 5, 2010 at 3:04 AM

Carlos,

I think you may have blogged about this video of a cop wrongfully arresting someone for asking for his badge number.
Turns out, the Cop resigned over the video. Here’s the news about it, hot off the presses. Looks like another episode of the camera working to police the police.

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/Cop-Quits-After-False-Arrest-Caught-on-Tape-97689179.html

Here’s the video of the false arrest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPpCdeL_0Qs&feature=player_embedded
303 None // Jul 5, 2010 at 3:31 AM

When they start transporting people to concentration camps, they don’t want people filming it.
304 thebronze // Jul 5, 2010 at 3:41 AM

Carlos,

I’m a former cop and there’s nothing I hate more than cops that don’t know their job and worse, don’t know the law.

I hope you sue all involved parties into oblivion!
305 Pradeep // Jul 5, 2010 at 5:37 AM

ridiculous!
Pradeep recently posted..Model Portfolio
306 Chris N // Jul 5, 2010 at 10:59 AM

I await with interest the details of the case where you set out to get yourself arrested to test the regulations.

You did do it didn’t you? No? Gosh.
307 Chris N // Jul 5, 2010 at 11:02 AM

Dis you stop and consider that law enforcement’s job is to enforce the law. Not to enforce laws that they make up as they go along.
308 Dodge Ball // Jul 5, 2010 at 11:26 AM

Chris, it’s not about the cops enforcing law. They didn’t. The security guard company was, and without authority, trying to enforce what it thought was a law that was applicable to that setting. On top of this, I seriously doubt that there were any complaints made by any of the other passengers in the area and that there was any disturbance being created by the photographers. Contrary to what a couple of nimrod cops who post here drool out, it was a case of “because we said so”.
309 anon // Jul 5, 2010 at 11:44 AM

Fuckin’ screw the fascists!
310 Richard // Jul 5, 2010 at 11:54 AM

“The bottom line is, we have a lawyer, a very good lawyer, a former Miami Herald media lawyer who now teaches media law at the University of Miami. His name is Sam Terilli.

This is far from over.”

You are so naive. You are like a German Jew observing the goings-on on KristallNacht and bragging about how he is going to sic his lawyer on the perpetrators. Welcome to Amerika.
311 Dodge Ball // Jul 5, 2010 at 12:23 PM

It’s like a chef not knowing how to fry an egg. Ah! Another former cop with his marbles arranged correctly.
312 Byron in Miami // Jul 5, 2010 at 12:40 PM

The Miami-Dade Metrorail system is owned and operated by the County. It is a PUBLIC transportation system. This is clearly outlined on the miamidade.gov website. Why are people repeatedly questioning this?
313 Bluecollar // Jul 5, 2010 at 12:44 PM

ChillyDogg,

The point is that it was stupid of Carlos and Stretch to try and educate the security guards on how to do their job. Read it again.
314 Les Stockton // Jul 5, 2010 at 12:44 PM

You can’t seem to take a photograph on a bridge or of a bridge anymore. You can’t take a photograph of a train anymore. Soon you wont be able to photograph at the mall, on the street, downtown, the park. Where does it end?
315 RichM // Jul 5, 2010 at 1:04 PM

There’s a difference between “requesting the person to identify himself or herself” and having to produce a form of identification. Identifying yourself is as simple as giving your name, address and birthdate. The carrying of papers is not necessary unless you’re driving a car or something along those lines.
316 jorge // Jul 5, 2010 at 1:25 PM

As a student in miami, please let me know if i can help you guys in any way.
317 alex // Jul 5, 2010 at 1:37 PM

years ago, I started being hassled by a local hospital security staff for photographing on the sidewalks outside of their building (not photographing the building). And things really have gone down hill since then.
318 ian // Jul 5, 2010 at 1:45 PM

Sounds like they need a flash mob of photographers to show up one day.
319 oscar finch // Jul 5, 2010 at 1:45 PM

Nobody has proven these guards didn’t have the authority to ban them. That question can only truly be answered by the courts and it will probably take months. Yet you people expect the cops to make that determination instantly. You fail to comprehend that the issue the cops were there for is not whether or not they violated policy. They were called there on a tresspassing complaint.

If they were called there for a guy who got caught smoking nmarijuana in the bathroom and was now refusing to leave they wouldn’t have to prove he was smoking in order to make him leave. Now if they wanted to charge him with the marijuna then they would have to prove it.

Even if it turns out the guards over stepped their authority the police still acted approprietly.
320 Les Stockton // Jul 5, 2010 at 1:53 PM

The police are supposed to enforce the law. That includes protecting the rights of everyone. The metro is a public property. The cops knew this. They just made a determination that the rights of a few individuals don’t matter.
321 Londoner // Jul 5, 2010 at 2:03 PM

This is how it happens in London, and under the legislation first being quoted, you do not have to identify yourself to the Police.

Independent on line article.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/officers-claim-they-dont-need-law-to-stop-photographer-taking-pictures-2012827.html

Photographers Victorious,

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Photographers_flashmob_Scotland_Yard_over_terrorism_law_news_299749.html?offset=&offset=1
322 RobertMfromLI // Jul 5, 2010 at 2:28 PM

Regarding the laws of filming in train stations and such, the laws may vary per each operational firm and/or state and/or county (or other jurisdiction).

In NY, the MTA has made it clear that photography of non-vital/non-secure areas is indeed permitted, and even issued statements to that effect. They have even addressed this on their website in Rules of Conduct.

Section 1050.9 Restricted areas and activities.
Photography, filming or video recording in any facility or conveyance is permitted except that ancillary equipment such as lights, reflectors or tripods may not be used. Members of the press holding valid identification issued by the New York City Police Department are hereby authorized to use necessary ancillary equipment. All photographic activity must be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this Part.

A similar MTA law/rule applies to other MTA owned or operated properties (LIRR, Metro North, etc).

The problem isn’t the laws or metro rules, the problem is officers who dont know them, and/or who dont enforce them properly.

There is another problem here as well – the officers involved asked Carlos and Stretch to *VIOLATE* the law in order to take pictures.

Here’s why I state that.
(1) They claim, that in order to take ANY pictures, they must obtain a permit.

(2) The law states that a permit to take pictures can be obtained for COMMERCIAL purposes (as none is required for personal or educational purposes).

(3) In order to obtain said permit, Stretch and Carlos would need to perjure themselves by applying for a COMMERCIAL photography permit – which varies from a misdemeanor to a felony depending on jurisdiction (I dont know which applies in theirs) – regardless, it means they are being instructed to break the law in order to obtain a permit to take pictures.

Starbucks is not a good example, btw. Starbucks is a privately owned entity where different laws regarding photography on someone else’s property would apply. The metro system(s), on the other hand, are bound by the (very different) laws and rules they enact – which clearly state that non-commercial photography is permitted.
323 Peter Demain // Jul 5, 2010 at 2:36 PM

This is a downright atrocity and myself and my staff at dirtygarnet.com ‘s blog have both sympathy and experience with what you’ve described in this well-written entry. As such I’ll be keeping an eye on developments.

The majority of our staff are British including myself; anybody can be prosecuted for taking a snap of a police officer in the British Isles.

The reason for this glorious law isn’t hard to predict…

That’s right. ‘Aiding terrorism.’ Not forgetting the plethora of pisspoor ‘public order’ laws they can easily tack on for more weight behind the charges.
324 RobertMfromLI // Jul 5, 2010 at 2:38 PM

I could be wrong, but I believe there is a difference between trying to trick a *suspect* into a confession or into providing information – or not properly enforcing the law.
325 RobertMfromLI // Jul 5, 2010 at 2:41 PM

“There’s a reason why photography and video taping is banned at places like these.”

Ummm… photography and such are NOT banned at places like these.
326 Per // Jul 5, 2010 at 2:44 PM

Seems like we need a flash crowd here… Thousands of people all filming and photographing everywhere on ‘their’ property, making it clear that some of the footage goes live on the Internet so that anybody – including people on any stupid watchlist – can watch as things happen. They cannot arrest everybody and they’re bound to get aggressive and violent with so many offenders at once and we’ll have that on tape. Then we go sue them for everything they’ve got – and then some.
327 ashevillein // Jul 5, 2010 at 2:45 PM

so, let’s see… hypothetically, if you were, say, drunk and drove home because you could not take the train because the big, bad (in)security boss said so…
328 RobertMfromLI // Jul 5, 2010 at 2:45 PM

Andrew farted “It should be then…” and other nonsense.

Andrew, others have touched on other areas of what you said… I will only touch on this part.

- IT ISN’T

- “We” enforce laws that ARE

- What “should be” doesnt and shouldnt matter in how we ENFORCE the laws.

- If the laws are wrong, then they should be repealed, modified, etc… until then, they need to be enforced as written, otherwise there is no purpose for having laws.
RobertMfromLI recently posted..Andrew Koenig- Son of Trek Actor Walter Koenig Remembered
329 oscar finch // Jul 5, 2010 at 2:47 PM

They did enforce the law, the trespassing law. The guards have the authority, or at least aparrent authority to kick people out.
330 RobertMfromLI // Jul 5, 2010 at 3:00 PM

“Don’t preach to me the bill of rights – I served my time defending our nation. The BOR was written in a different time…”

Then, having been in the military, you should KNOW that until the Bill of Rights is rescinded, it still exists and applies.

You should also know that law enforcement, just like military personnel, should be held to a higher standard.

You should also know that enforcing the existing laws is just that – enforcing the existing laws… and NOT enforcing “gee, I think THIS should be the law, so I will ignore the law and enforce it instead”

You also said: “For everything that can be argued regarding our rights, one must weigh the pros and the cons.”

One can (a) *argue* the pros and cons. One enforcing the law (as you should well know) cannot make up their own laws and apply those, as you suggest. One can also (b) try to get the laws changed (in NY, when they tried multiple times to ban photography on the MTA properties, it failed, btw).

What *you* want is irrelevant. Reality just is. And the reality is, taking non-commercial photographs in the Metro *IS* currently legal. If you dont like that, move to Florida and pressure the politicians to change that. Until then though, it is LEGAL, and the police and their representatives are bound to enforce the *law* and not your wishes.

Again, having been in the military, you above all, should know this.
331 oscar finch // Jul 5, 2010 at 3:01 PM

Good luck finding that many people that give a shit.
332 RobertMfromLI // Jul 5, 2010 at 3:06 PM

Johnny Law wrote: “I agree that they weren’t doing anything illegal and the guards failed to follow their own policy. However their policy has nothing to do with the police. Internal decisions to allow filming or giving out lifetime bans is their decision to make. ”

Huh? First, “policy” as you call it, in such areas, holds the weight of LAW and is treated as such.

Second, “internal decisions” (by whom? The Metro apparently hasn’t decided this) dont trump Metro Law and Rules.

Third, have you read up on what reasons the Metro is allowed, by their own rules and by law, to ban people from using it? You probably should before you begin speculating…
333 slashdot // Jul 5, 2010 at 3:12 PM

what were you doing before you started recording the police? Don’t tell me you were taking photos, no one believes you took a photo and the police rushed out to stop you.
334 RobertMfromLI // Jul 5, 2010 at 3:34 PM

Jim P wrote: “I really hate it when people excuse police officers in this manner. Why don’t civilians get to say the same thing if we break a law that we did not know existed? Instead, the courts tell us that “IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE”. I hold enforcers of the law to the same standard. No ifs, ands, or buts!”

I *MOSTLY* agree with you.

I believe, as enforcers of the law, such people should be held to a HIGHER standard – *especially* since they are granted additional powers that non-enforcement (ie: citizens) are not granted.

While I would settle for them being held to the same standard, I am in full agreement that they should never be allowed actions of a lower standard.
335 RobertMfromLI // Jul 5, 2010 at 3:40 PM

Go back to trolling on slashdot… but AFTER you read this:

““[n]othing in this section shall require any permit from: (i) Individuals filming *OR VIDEO TAPING* only for their own personal or family use; (ii) Employees of print or electronic news media
when filming on-going news events. This exception shall not apply to simulations or re-enactments orchestrated by print or electronic news media; or (iii) Students and faculty filming exclusively for educational purposes. “

Then ask yourself that if all the security goons and police were complaining about was the photography, what else do you suspect they were doing? Why wouldnt they complain about some other violation (real or otherwise) if there was one?
336 rec9140 // Jul 5, 2010 at 3:49 PM

In FL if you are requested to provide ID you must provide a valid GOVERNMENT ISSUED ID… DL or otherwise… Failure to do so COULD result in you being detained, ie: taken to jail, until your identified.

Many states is not a requirement to carry your DL until its requested and even then most allow a grace period to produce it if you don’t. That is most states except FL…

If your out and about in FL you best have ID and prepared to produce it on demand, or your going to have a very miserable day or more.
337 Dodge Ball // Jul 5, 2010 at 3:50 PM

Can you accurately state that there was an actual trespassing law that was being violated? Apparent authority? Just what the hell is that? So “Duh, I guess I can do it.” is included in their job description.
338 oscar finch // Jul 5, 2010 at 5:01 PM

What are you saying ash, if the guards kick out a drunk they are responsible for his actions after he leaves?

If they detain him to make sure he doesn’t drive are you going to cry that they violated his rights?

How would you suggest they handle that situation.
339 oscar finch // Jul 5, 2010 at 5:51 PM

Can you accuratly say they were not trespassing. I believe they were but as I already said, sorry you couldn’t comprehend it the first time, it is going to be left up to the courts to decide.

Apparent authority has to do with searches and consent, I’m not surprised you never heard of it.

I used it here for the lack of a better term. What I meant is a reasonable person would believe that a uniformed security guard has the authority to kick somebody out. Whether or not that authority exists is irrelevant to the trespassing complaint. If the janitor was trying to kick somebody out a reasonable person would not think they have the authority and the police should not issue a trespassing warning from the janitor.

However in other situations a janitor could issue a trespass warning, it all depends on the cirumstances.

So even if the guards were overstepping their authority the police still had probable cause to make an arrest for trespassing if they tried to go in. If it turns out the guards didn’t have the authrity the arrest is still valid even though the charges would most likely be dropped.
340 John Howard // Jul 5, 2010 at 5:51 PM

Public intox is a crime. Photography is not.
341 Hazza // Jul 5, 2010 at 6:06 PM

Your an idiot and know it, smoking illegal drugs (maybe even smoking) inside the premises is against the law and the policy of the place.

Taking photos is neither.
342 oscar finch // Jul 5, 2010 at 6:52 PM

Its only a crime if your drunk AND disorderly. It is not a crime just to be drunk.
343 oscar finch // Jul 5, 2010 at 7:01 PM

And even if the drunk was being disorderly, unless the guards have misdemeanor arrest powers their hands would be tied as far as detaining the person. Sorry but the guards would have zero liability for the drunk once he was kicked out.
344 Michaelk42 // Jul 5, 2010 at 7:21 PM

Police are civilians.

The photographers did nothing offensive; the only people acting in an offensive manner were the security guards and the police officers.

Or would you care to point out, exactly, what the photographers did that was actually offensive? Then explain why that’s an excuse for unprofessional behavior on the part of the police and guards?
Michaelk42 recently posted..Pogan sentencing- delayed
345 Michaelk42 // Jul 5, 2010 at 7:28 PM

Security guards can directly contravene the standing orders of their superiors and ban someone for whatever they feel like? Sorry, nope. Not if they want to keep their jobs.

“It was in no way an illegal act or a *chuckle* violation 0f their civil rights to kick them out.”

You still don’t understand what civil rights are, do you?

I’ll be amused to see what you say after the legal proceedings. I already know you can’t ever man up and admit you’re wrong, so we’ll have to settle for your entertaining spin.

“It’s the same thing as if a city bus kicked someone off the bus for causing a disturbance or a library kicking someone out for surfing inappropriate sites.”

One’s disturbing the peace and the other is also a limited form of that. Neither is the same thing.

“I’m not sure what the disconnect is with your thinking that makes you incapable of understanding. There are only so many ways to explain it.”

You keep making erroneous statements, and you think it’s the truth. That’s the really sad part.

Don’t you have some women to harass on the internet?
Michaelk42 recently posted..Pogan sentencing- delayed
346 Gaspar LeMarque // Jul 5, 2010 at 7:47 PM

Happy Independence Day!
347 David // Jul 5, 2010 at 8:23 PM

Not allowing photography because terrorists might use the photos is the worst excuse for not allowing photography that has ever been created.
Unlike film and TV, terrorists seldom scope out a location, photograph it, create elaborate blueprints and computer models depicting their plans and execute a well timed, strategic strike.

Terrorists get 40 pounds of the best explosive they can get their hands on and strap it to some kid, tell her/him to walk into a crowded area and press a button.

Take the September 11, 2001 attacks as an example. This was probably one of the most sophisticated terrorist strikes in recorded US history. After the attacks, the homes and workplaces of those involved were raided and evidence collected. The only photographic evidence that was found were video tapes the terrorists made of themselves explaining their actions.

The very notion that photography of any kind can lead to terrorism is on par with thinking that the earth is flat because Jack Bauer only stands on flat ground.

That statement only makes you and anyone who listens to you less informed. Stop making that arguement today and become a smarter person for it
348 David McOwen // Jul 5, 2010 at 8:25 PM

There is no such thing as public property in the U.S. since the Eminent Domain decision. All land belongs to the Government. Also all photography is illegal unless given prior written permission from the Government ever since 9-11
349 Jason // Jul 5, 2010 at 8:38 PM

Had a similar experience on the Boston subgway (MBTA), culminated in my arrest, a cop lying his *** off about what transpired and a judge chewing out the prosecution, suggesting I should have been hired instead of prosecuted.

http://badcharlie.blogspot.com/

The good news is that we changed a 30-year unwritten rule on photography on the subway.

The bad news is that even after the rule change, employees were still stopping me.
Jason recently posted..Once More Into the Fray
350 David // Jul 5, 2010 at 8:46 PM

What you fail to realise is that the opposite of “wasted time” has occurred here. The fact that this is being tested and argued out now and over a non-vital circumstance, by people who are well informed of their rights means that the obvious abuse of power by both the private security firm and the tax funded police means that the next person who takes a few photos at the train station or in the future (be it a student looking to take a photo of some natvie birds that have decided to nest at this train station for a school project, or a father who wants to take a photo of his daughters first train ride) will not be harrassed and/or illigally detained because some rent-a-cop didnt read that induction training manual correctly.

Ill leave you with this. America was founded under the ideal that the rights of the individual were higher than the rights of the institution. The public officials are duty bound to represent the people involved, who committed no crime and did not even break the rules of the semi-private property that it entered and not the institution that made false accusations about these men
351 MadMikeScott // Jul 5, 2010 at 8:50 PM

To hell with giving up your drivers licence, give them your picture ID for Costco or any other such non governmental ID. Let’em go fish for other details. Re: the call to the WRONG cops, the job of the Sec Guard is to KNOW which brand of cop to call, and calling the wrong set of cops should be grounds for dismissal all by itself.
352 Dodge Ball // Jul 5, 2010 at 10:03 PM

David, the primary point that a few of the idiots that post here don’t grasp is that the security guards are not public officials. Attendant is a more fitting title.
353 Jody // Jul 5, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Ignorance of what freedom really is, is no excuse. You live your life and I’ll live mine until such time you decide to use the guns of government to force me to do something, like, put up with stupid security guards and cops, then we have a problem.

People in Germany ignored what the Nazis did, they did not want to get involved, they told other people, like you are telling us, just to put up with it, to chill, to get a life. I can’t understand why there are so many idiots out there right now who fail to understand that the conversation we are having right now as a society is the same conversation the people of Germany had in the 1930′s. The only difference is that instead of the scapegoat being the Jewish people, today the scapegoat is terrorism, everything in the name of terrorism, and we have become such a bunch of spineless and brainless automotons that we let the government do whatever it wants so that we are “protected,” from terrorism, yeah right. The most technologically and militarily advanced country on the planet could not stop two jets from crashing into two big ass buildings, really, you actually believe that bullshit? They decided not to send jets to intercept those airlines, they did not give a toss about 1000′s of lives, what makes you think they even know you exist, let alone care about you? Now ask yourself why would they do stuff to protect you? It’s not about you, it’s about them, it’s about them having total control but a lot of people are too stupid to see the conditioning that’s going on right in front of their faces. Wake up. Carlos and Stretch have the brass balls to put it on the line so that your pathetic excuse for an ass can stay free.
Jody recently posted..Public Schools Are Anti-Mind
354 Johnny Law // Jul 5, 2010 at 10:07 PM

Being a public servant has nothing to do with this situation. They were acting as agents of the property, not as agents of the state. They didn’t arrest anyone. They simply told them they didn’t want them back on the property they are responsible for. Big obvious difference.
355 Jody // Jul 5, 2010 at 10:11 PM

I have yet to meet a cop that actually has enough brains to even begin to think about a plan B, it seems they purposely hire the meatiest of the meatheads these days.
Jody recently posted..Public Schools Are Anti-Mind
356 Johnny Law // Jul 5, 2010 at 10:12 PM

@Michael

You calling this a violation of civil rights is just like when folks call every law they disagree with as unconstitutional. It is simply dramatic rhetoric intended to get people all riled up. It’s ridiculous and you know it.

Now if you will excuse me, I am going to go find some women to harass and some bike messengers to mess with.
357 Jody // Jul 5, 2010 at 10:16 PM

Pants on the ground.
Jody recently posted..Public Schools Are Anti-Mind
358 Dodge Ball // Jul 5, 2010 at 10:25 PM

Just who’s property is it that you claim that they were responsible for? They were acting as agents of what amounts to squat. What they wanted and told the photographers amounts to squat as well.
359 Jody // Jul 5, 2010 at 10:34 PM

When are you going to retire from the police force? Your logic leads down the path that it would be okay for a cop such as yourself to shoot and kill a suspect because they are running away. You said that security guards had the right to do what they did to Carlos and Stretch despite what their managers told Carlos and Stretch, wrong, that is bad logic. It does not matter if some people did not get the “memo,” you can’t go against the rules Johnny “Law.” Arguing about the trespassing thing to, no thanks. It was clear to me that the security guards in this case were being bitches, they wanted to feel good about themselves, they wanted to feel like they were stopping “terrorisim,” so they ruined Carlos and Stretch’s day. Give a little power to people and they lord it over others, especially black women over white men, talk about an opportunity to get back at your opressor’s.

When Carlos and Stretch get a six figure settlement I think the money should come out of the salaries and pension funds of the security guards and police officers. There is a way to make sure this kind of bullshit stops, this bullshit would stop right fucking quick if that’s how this shit played out all the time. “What was that officer?” “You didn’t get the memo?” “Sorry, because of your ignorance, snot nosed attitude and down right stupidity we are going to have to empty your pension fund and cut your monthly salary by 30% so we can pay this here victim of your aggression, maybe next time you’ll learn the law, ignorance of the law is no excuse officer and we did not just make this law up, it was on the books, did you not read all the laws when you were given your job manual?” “No?” “To bad, whoops!”
Jody recently posted..Public Schools Are Anti-Mind
360 Tommy // Jul 5, 2010 at 10:41 PM

Carlos,

You and others involved in this at UM need to call the media, and hopefully some station will pick it up.
I’ve been following your blog for a few weeks, and I think it’s time to contact local and national media to air this story which, from what I’m seeing, is a national problem where photography is being treated as a crime by authorities.
361 Jason // Jul 5, 2010 at 10:43 PM

The solution isn’t to tuck tail and run, the solution is to demand your civil rights. This isn’t Denny’s undercooking your eggs dude.
Jason recently posted..Once More Into the Fray
362 Johnny Law // Jul 5, 2010 at 11:17 PM

Umm the Metrorail. Try to pay attention.
363 Johnny Law // Jul 5, 2010 at 11:56 PM

Oh good grief.
364 ChillyDogg // Jul 6, 2010 at 12:18 AM

Trying to show the guards that the head of security said it was o.k. WAS part of the process though. If they had just turned around and left right when the guards told them to it wouldn’t have been a very good video. They were purposely being provocative.
365 ChillyDogg // Jul 6, 2010 at 12:20 AM

“Can you accurately say they were not trespassing.”

Yes. Because we know for a fact they never entered the station. This all happened in a public parking lot.
366 Michaelk42 // Jul 6, 2010 at 1:23 AM

First amendment rights are part of our civil rights. It’s almost astounding that you can’t comprehend this.

But then I shouldn’t expect you to know that, as you’re not trained to even respect peoples’ rights, you’re trained to get around them as much as you can. And you’re apparently not smart enough to comprehend what civil rights actually anyway.

What is it with you and bike couriers? What do they have to do with anything?

You forgot to mention being slightly more clever than drunks (which is pretty much the bulk of the stories on your blog, at least up until your incident) and being a troll and spreading FUD.
Michaelk42 recently posted..Pogan sentencing- delayed
367 Jason // Jul 6, 2010 at 2:15 AM

Carlos, you are a hero. All real Americans thank you for standing up for our civil liberties.
368 Jason // Jul 6, 2010 at 2:22 AM

Btw, folks may wish to check out bambuser.com, which has a cool little Android (and probably iPhone too) app that lets you broadcast live video from your phone to servers in Sweden. No record-then-upload cycle, it all goes to the servers the moment it is recorded. Afaik, the Swedes have higher regard for civil liberties than we Americans do, so it’s a nice option if you’re filming something you suspect badge-toting thugs may wish to suppress.
369 Johnny Law // Jul 6, 2010 at 2:46 AM

@ Michael

Bike couriers have as much to do with things as some of the nonsense you are flinging around. I figured I would join the party.

I’m flattered that you took the time to read my blog. I hope that you learned something about the real world from some of my stories. I’m thinking about starting it back up again. After all, I’ve outsmarted a lot more drunks since I hung up the keyboard and I need to brag about it. I can see how much you enjoyed it so I will let you know as soon as I start writing again.

@Jody

Wow. Way to go racial on this topic. You stay classy San Diego.
370 Michaelk42 // Jul 6, 2010 at 4:02 AM

I’m at least talking about the topic, and not dodging questions, as you always do. Really, where does that bike courier thing even come from?

And of course, your being consistently wrong and abusive is a matter of record and entirely relevant. Do you miss selecting comments that cheer on your allegedly true tales of outsmarting people who are drunk? Or can you just not contain your need to brag?

You still have yet to tell us how you know security guards have the authority to ban someone permanently from this public transit facility in the first place. You dodge by talking about getting management to “reverse the ban,” ignoring how they can possibly have that power in the first place via management policy or the law. Your assertion, your responsibility to back it up.

You also have yet to cite how First Amendment rights are somehow not civil rights.

Two simple things, it’s only your entire position that hangs on them. Strange how you keep shifting away from that.
Michaelk42 recently posted..Pogan sentencing- delayed
371 Osvaldo // Jul 6, 2010 at 4:25 AM

@slashdot:Oh no?I’ve had the same thing happen to me on many occasions.The last couple of times have happened in Fairfax County,Virginia.
372 Osvaldo // Jul 6, 2010 at 4:27 AM

@oscar”Oh believe me,there are THOUSANDS of people that “give a shit” as you so put it.
373 Osvaldo // Jul 6, 2010 at 4:31 AM

“Can you accuratly say they were not trespassing”
Considering they never had a chance to go through the gate at Douglas Rd,no they were not tresspassing.
“Apparent authority has to do with searches and consent, I’m not surprised you never heard of it.”

And said searches are not authorized by law enforcement person unless they have a court order.No court order,no can do search.No buts,ands or ifs about it.
374 Osvaldo // Jul 6, 2010 at 4:34 AM

“Nobody has proven these guards didn’t have the authority to ban them.”

Get it through your damn head Mr I Know It All Jackass!Contracted security guards don’t have ANY authority whatsoever to ban people from anywhere thats public!Only the police with proper authorization can do that.
375 Michael J // Jul 6, 2010 at 4:54 AM

If you make profit off of this website, and created that video for the purpose of this website, I feel like your video-taping was for commercial use.
376 Londoner // Jul 6, 2010 at 8:05 AM

Then you don’t fully understand the term ‘commercial use’ Michael.
377 sinlinlin // Jul 6, 2010 at 8:13 AM

If only Obama’s administration was so vigilant with the “no-fly” list.
378 BubbaV // Jul 6, 2010 at 8:55 AM

The Society of Professional Journalists eh? Yeah, I sure they’ll get to the bottom of it.

Has anyone suggested a flash mob as a form of civil disobedience? Tens, hundreds, thousands with digital cameras, enter and then all start taking photos. These police would have to arrest a lot of folks and if the numbers are high it would make it quite the public affair.
379 Joey // Jul 6, 2010 at 9:04 AM

“THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

Can we stop running please?
380 Brian // Jul 6, 2010 at 9:17 AM

Since Eminend Domain there is no such thing as “private” property, since it can all be potentially be public-ized “for the public good”.
381 Londoner // Jul 6, 2010 at 9:30 AM

This was a similar thing in London’s Trafalgar Square from back in January,

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sinister-pictures/sets/72157623150375053/with/4301111200/

When some photographers were approached by a couple of officious officials, everyone else just gathered round and started taking photographs. As was mentioned earlier, they can’t arrest everyone.
382 Paul A'Barge // Jul 6, 2010 at 9:31 AM

What a pathetic, craven libertine. Of course you should be kept from taking pictures of systems of public conveyances. Did you expect next to be allowed to take pictures of a nuclear power plant?

You know full well that even the First Amendment is not absolute (try yelling fire in a crowded theater). After the Muslims killed 3K on 9-11 did you really not expect there to be some reaction? And frankly I think the reaction has been light-handed.

I would have thrown your sorry asses in jail.

Stick your cameras where the sun doesn’t shine.
Paul A’Barge recently posted..Everybody Draw Mohammed Day
383 Dowlan Smith // Jul 6, 2010 at 10:12 AM

It was the cops choice to waste the time. They could have taken 2 minutes to look up the law and tell the security guard to stop harassing the photographers or they would be arrested for kidnapping.
384 locomotivebreath1901 // Jul 6, 2010 at 10:30 AM

The solution is simple, Mr. Miller.

You & your party should’ve simply informed the security guards and the police that ya’ll were aliens entering the country illegally, and merely doing some reconnaissance.

That information would’ve instantly inspired Janet Napolitano to order homeland security to turn a blind eye, and triggered the full force of the Obama justice department to sue the entire state of Florida on your behalf.

In short, your story indicates that the terrorists have already won.

God save this Republic.
locomotivebreath1901 recently posted..The Pledge of Allegiance by Red Skelton
385 jgreene // Jul 6, 2010 at 10:36 AM

The “reality” of this situation is that there is neither communications between the various security organizations “protecting us” in Miami-Dade county nor is there any understanding of the relevant statute/s or law regarding public photography.

This should be a continuing “interesting” story, and the police and security dopes are going to have their butts handed to them. What a terrible waste of time and money.
386 rootsounds // Jul 6, 2010 at 11:04 AM

I’m all for exposing the over-zealousness of some security and law enforcement officers in cases like this (keyword: some!). Some use the threat of terrorism as an excuse to justify their power trips. Others hide behind it so as not to expose their ignorance or laziness. To be fair, there is no way anyone can be expected to be familiar with the entirety of the letter of the law off hand. There are however means of checking and this should certainly come before harassment.

The approach used could have been a little less hostile. It was definitely good to have confirmed policy with the head of security, but you could have tried to actually work with him to test whether the policies are being correctly applied. At the very least a “call me/designated person immediately if you run into trouble” kind of arrangement. A security representative may have been willing to head the effort as an investigation and education sort of experience. You never know. He might have been up for it.
387 Johnny Law // Jul 6, 2010 at 12:43 PM

@ Michael

“Do you miss selecting comments that cheer on your allegedly true tales of outsmarting people who are drunk? Or can you just not contain your need to brag?”

I have an insufferable urge to brag. Thank goodness we have the internet so I can share my knowledge with others.

“You still have yet to tell us how you know security guards have the authority to ban someone permanently from this public transit facility in the first place.”

I know you have little experience in the real world (not that that stops you from commenting on everything though) so I can understand your ignorance. However it is common knowledge that security guards are legally considered agents of the owners/management of a property. Since owners/management have the ability to pick and choose who they allow on property, this authority extends to their agents, e.g., security guards.

The fact that the Metrorail is a “public transit facility” does not change these above facts. I’ve given you several examples of other public facilities kicking people out but you chose to ignore them.

Your continues assertions that it is a violation of the first amendment for them to ban photography inside their facility shows me that you don’t really know what civil rights and the 1st amendment really means. Once again I must point out that just because you disagree with something doesn’t mean it is unconstitutional.

Here is the wiki link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Please find something that shows that Carlos has the right to go inside this facility and videotape. As you say, “Your assertion, your responsibility to back it up.”

I will say that I think the actions of the security guards were dumb and I think it would have been better off if the guards had just let them videotape instead of giving them the confrontation they were looking for. However I maintain that the guards had the legal right to do what they did, even if I think it was in poor judgment. I understand that my opinion doesn’t change the way the law works. I wish other folks here understood that.
388 Sean M. // Jul 6, 2010 at 12:50 PM

Here is the email I’ve sent as of this AM:

Mr. Muntan, MDC Tourist Development Council Members, and Greater Miami Convention & Visitors Bureau,

My wife and I live in and had planned a trip to the Miami-Dade area later this year. We expected to spend a week and a bit more there, with day trips to various venues including taking in quite a few of the more common tourism sites and sights, and planned to spend several thousand dollars in what has been, for all of us, a tight economy at best. Hopefully, our travel there would have had a positive, albeit understandably fairly small in the grand scheme of things, impact on the local economy.

I am writing to let you know that as of now, we are canceling our plans for a trip to Miami and the greater Miami-Dade County area and will spend our money elsewhere. Specifically, I am writing as we do not wish to travel to a city where we might fall askance of the security personnel manning the MetroRail or other Miami-Dade Transit systems. You see, we sometimes take photos while we travel, as many people do. I am not nor have I ever been a commercial photographer and my skills are, at best, below par. However, it seems that although it appears to be quite legal under the local statutes to take personal/non-commercial photography on or around the MetroRail sites, and although it is possibly even a reasonably welcomed activity by the Tourism boards (Many of the pages at the BMCVB and TDC pages or linked sites show people carrying and/or using cameras as they enjoy the city), there have been repeated events taking place inside the city’s transit system and more specifically inside the MetroRail system that have made it quite clear and with no chance for confusion that visitors are at risk of being asked to leave the MetroRail sites, banned from their use w/o refunds of any previous payments for passes, and possibly even face arrest.

For one specific and very recent event that details the issues tourists or travelers face in the MDC system, please see the stories of two of the users of the Miami-Dade MetroRail system (which have influenced our decision not to spend our dollars in the MDC area). You can read these at http://stretchphotography.com/blog/2010.07.01/banned-from-metro/ and http://carlosmiller.com/2010/07/01/we-were-permanantly-banned-from-the-miami-dade-metrorail-for-taking-photos/ and can determine for yourselves if potential tourists who are now rethinking their travel plans are somehow being unrealistic in their concern for their ability to use the MetroRail system, especially if they may travel with a camera in their possession or use one on or near the MetroRail or MDC Transit systems grounds or routes.

If you’d like to contact me to see ‘how much’ my wife and I might have spent on my trip or for more details on why I might cancel a trip for something like this, please feel free to reply to this email. If you have a clarification or an explanation of exactly how my wife and I might travel to the city without concern for our use of the MDC Transit system, I’d welcome that, as well. Frankly, given the lengths that the persons in the stories I’ve linked went to in advance of their excursion and still had these issues, I’m forced to say that I can’t imagine I’d have much faith in any specific set of ‘instructions’ on how to safely navigate the myriad layers of security.

Again, I had greatly looked forward to a week or more in the Miami-Dade County area, and regret that circumstances there are resulting in our canceling our trip and the loss of our dollars into the MDC economy.

Sincerely,
389 nevernot // Jul 6, 2010 at 12:51 PM

Thank you Carlos, I’ve had numerous encounters with the same two guards at that station. The first one who confronted you in the parking lot tried to remove me from the train because he said Bikes weren’t allowed, even after I showed him my metrorail bike permit. Must’ve been his first day… The second one, that barred you from entering the station gave me grief for taking a closeup photo of my wheel after it was damaged by some glass. That photo was taken six inches from the tire pointing down towards the sidewalk…. Big threat there. Thanks again for sticking your neck out there for the rest of us.
390 Sean M. // Jul 6, 2010 at 12:54 PM

the first line read:

My wife and I live in (our city/state) and had

I had placed it in GT/LT and I think the blog software parsed it as HTML and stripped it silently. Probably makes more sense now, I hope, as we don’t live in the Miami-Dade Area.
391 nevernot // Jul 6, 2010 at 1:28 PM

Name a time and place (preferably Douglas road station) and I’ll be there.
392 WhyMeLord // Jul 6, 2010 at 1:30 PM

ent a polite something along the same lines but included the Chamber of Commerce and the mayor’s office.

This was last week and have yet to receive a response.

Perhaps a follow up to the local news media and the governor’s office is in order?
393 Londoner // Jul 6, 2010 at 1:37 PM

Paul, you need to stop watching Faux News mate.
394 Raph84 // Jul 6, 2010 at 1:47 PM

Amazing how many people don’t even try to read the comments they simply make the same arguments over and over again (and assume they’re such unique snowflakes that no one else has thought of it in some 400 comments).

If you want to engage in the debate please follow the conversation, the comments section is not here to show how witty you are.

It would seem, as mentioned before, that the trespassing issue is questionable in that an officer/security professional would not be acting under legal authority if they arrested/detained someone for trespass on say a public sidewalk. So the notion that the police could uphold the trespassing statue here seems to ignore the main facts that this is at least a semi-public if not completely public place (so there would need to be a lawful reason for the order to leave/not enter). There may have been some other statue police/security could claim (disorderly conduct seems to be the flavor of the day) but trespassing… based on the facts doesn’t seem kosher.

The real issue here is the police felt willing to get involved without knowing the pertinent laws and rather than saying “this is a civil issue see you later” they tried (and failed miserably) to sort it out.

As to the above the people that suggested a flash mob…that would be awesome, wish I was closer to FL and could take part!
395 Raph84 // Jul 6, 2010 at 2:36 PM

The guards were not diffusing the situation. They were refusing to allow 2 passengers with tickets access to the station/train.

They were trying to avoid being taped and also avoid answering questions by Carlos & his friend as well as the police whom they called.

Security escalated the situation every opportunity they had. They refused to allow photography even outside the station. They harassed people lawfully going about their business. They called the police (a call that resulted in multiple officers from 2-3 different agencies showing up). then when all of that escalation did not provide the desired result they called in a supervisor (who was apparently so busy protecting and serving for 50 states security that the cops beat him there by hours by the way) and banned the two gentlemen with tickets who were attempting to lawfully enter the station to catch their train.
396 Michaelk42 // Jul 6, 2010 at 4:47 PM

“You still have yet to tell us how you know security guards have the authority to ban someone permanently from this public transit facility in the first place.”

“–lame attempt at belittlement snipped– However it is common knowledge that security guards are legally considered agents of the owners/management of a property. Since owners/management have the ability to pick and choose who they allow on property, this authority extends to their agents, e.g., security guards.”

When the guards explicitly ignore and go against the policy of their employers, they are ignoring the wishes of their employers, and acting on their own authority at that point. So your point does not stand.

“The fact that the Metrorail is a “public transit facility” does not change these above facts. I’ve given you several examples of other public facilities kicking people out but you chose to ignore them.”

You gave examples of a library throwing someone out for creating a disturbance or surfing inappropriate sites. One is against the law anywhere, the other is a violation of library policies. The photography in this real case we are discussing is neither a crime nor is it a violation of policies. Once again, your point does not stand.

“Your continues assertions that it is a violation of the first amendment for them to ban photography inside their facility”

This is false, as the facility itself has not banned photography, and I have not made that assertion. The facility has made reasonable time/place/manner restrictions that are not overbroad (no commercial photo without a permit, etc.) and Miller and Ledford were in compliance with those restrictions. It is obvious that their rights were violated. The security guards sought to increase restrictions outside the boundaries of their employers mandate and the law. It is patently obvious the photographers’ rights were violated.

And what this tells me is that not only do you not understand the 1st Amendment or the laws involved, but you obviously also don’t understand this particular story itself.

“Here is the wiki link:
-snip-”

No worries, I read it a few times in communications law class.

“Please find something that shows that Carlos has the right to go inside this facility and videotape. As you say, “Your assertion, your responsibility to back it up.”

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You might want to have a look at that bold part there. As stated in the article, reasonable time/place/manner restrictions are in place in the public venue of the station. Otherwise, Carlos by default has a right to videotape in that public place. You’re aware that rights are already in our possession and we are not granted those rights, aren’t you? The government is granted certain powers by the people in order to function… just as police officers are not given special rights, but limited powers to be used as necessary in the commission of their duties.

Rights are affirmative; the state must show clear reason for limiting or otherwise abrogating those rights that the people by default already possess. Burden of proof is on you to show why those rights should be limited by the state; we don’t have to prove to you that we have the rights we have, especially those specifically enumerated in the constitution. As I said, it is your assertion, it remains your responsibility to back it up.

“I will say that I think the actions of the security guards were dumb and I think it would have been better off if the guards had just let them videotape instead of giving them the confrontation they were looking for.”

First sensible thing you’ve said. Too bad it’s for the wrong reasons.

“However I maintain that the guards had the legal right to do what they did, even if I think it was in poor judgment. ”

Except your demonstrably wrong, see above.

“I understand that my opinion doesn’t change the way the law works. I wish other folks here understood that.”

I wish you could understand that you obviously don’t understand how the law works. You certainly have no special insight simply by virtue of claiming to be a cop on the internet.
Michaelk42 recently posted..Pogan sentencing- delayed
397 Jason // Jul 6, 2010 at 5:29 PM

When I was a 14 year old kid, just getting interested in photography, I took pictures of the local nuke plant. Because I thought it “looked cool”. No one gave a damn — probably because I was outside the security perimeter, and obviously posed no threat.

See, nuke plants are *really really dangerous*, that’s why they make it extremely difficult to get into one. A “system of public convenyances”, otoh, is not very dangerous. People are allowed not only to get near it, but in fact to ride inside it.

I’m really surprised you’re so anti-Muslim, since you seem very much to hate freedom. You’d probably *love* living under Sharia law. Those religious wingnuts would no doubt punish “unauthorized” photography (in quotes because the photography in question was, in fact, authorized by the big bossman of Metrorail security) with draconian cruelty much more to your liking.
398 The Monster // Jul 6, 2010 at 5:44 PM

If you served in uniform, then you took the same oath I did to defend the Constitution. The Second Amendment has not been repealed or otherwise superseded by any subsequent amendment, which means it’s still operative. Short of some mass disenfranchisement like during Reconstruction, I doubt it will ever be repealed.
399 alex // Jul 6, 2010 at 6:03 PM

anything
400 Bluecollar // Jul 6, 2010 at 6:33 PM

Jody,

Did you seriously just compare the security guard’s treatment of these photographers to the way Jews were treated in Germany? Wow.
401 Johnny Law // Jul 6, 2010 at 6:44 PM

@Michael

“I wish you could understand that you obviously don’t understand how the law works. You certainly have no special insight simply by virtue of claiming to be a cop on the internet.”

Well obviously over a decade of actually dealing the law, the court system, and similar situations on a daily basis gives me no special insight compared to some guy who took a communications law class. Carry on professor.
402 Seth // Jul 6, 2010 at 6:56 PM

If a passenger were to ride the train without paying for a ticket, he’d be charged with “theft of services”. If a person purchased a ticket and was wrongfully prevented by a security guard from riding the train, isn’t that likewise theft of services? The exact same services are being stolen in both cases.
403 Donald Haase // Jul 6, 2010 at 7:01 PM

When I was in high school in Miami, we had to do a project and chose as our subject the metro-rail system. This was a 10-person or so collaboration to measure various impacts of the stations. One person did sound analysis, another did mini surveys of passengers, etc.

My task was to measure radiation levels. Let me tell you, if you think those private security and MDX guards don’t like cameras you can’t imagine what their reaction was to a geiger counter. This was in 2002 and 9/11 was still fresh.

I believe the exact words of the only guard who managed to see me to harass me were ‘Whats the fucks is that? GETS THE FUCKS OUTS!’ I remember clearly because it became a meme amongst my friends.
404 RH // Jul 6, 2010 at 7:20 PM

Not to derail the topic, but someone mentioned Spypens. I bought this one on ebay and it works good, better than I expected. Videos are similar to 40 dollar webcam and I can take it with me, pen works good too.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170503639342&ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT#ht_3738wt_1282
405 Michaelk42 // Jul 6, 2010 at 7:35 PM

So, basically you’ve got nothing. Good then.

Just because you’ve been doing something for a long time doesn’t mean you’ve been doing it right, I might add.

I’m sorry if educated people bother you* but that doesn’t invalidate my position in any way, nor does it validate yours.

*this is a lie.
Michaelk42 recently posted..Pogan sentencing- delayed
406 Askmelater // Jul 6, 2010 at 8:23 PM

The police there when they’re needed? Really? I don’t know a single person who has had a positive experience with the police force in the US, either from the perspective of a person subject to their wrath or their assistance. Most of us live in fear of the police hoping we will go unnoticed lest they figure out a reason to drag our butt to jail, and we drown in lawyers fees as a result.
407 Frank // Jul 6, 2010 at 8:35 PM

Just in case it was missed, Simple Justice commentary on the event:

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2010/07/03/just-making-it-up-as-they-go-along.aspx?ref=rss
408 Johnny Law // Jul 6, 2010 at 9:12 PM

“I don’t know a single person who has had a positive experience with the police force in the US, either from the perspective of a person subject to their wrath or their assistance”

You must associate with some winners then.
409 Roger // Jul 6, 2010 at 9:47 PM

Welcome back Johnnie Law, missed you, need your cynicism. Keeps every one honest.
410 Rance // Jul 7, 2010 at 1:12 AM

I watch Fox regularly, and I’m pretty sure my elevator goes quite a few floors higher than Paul’s. I’m not an authoritarian fascist like he is either though.
411 Johnny Law // Jul 7, 2010 at 3:38 PM

@marcusoo

Very well said.
412 capn_amurka // Jul 7, 2010 at 4:00 PM

I agree to a point: the security guards aren’t going to budge. Unless educated they’re going to continue to act in a manner inconsistent with photographers exercising their rights.

You have some options for addressing this.

You can go gripe to their supervisors in private where they will say things like “you’re absolutely right” and “we take your rights seriously” and then proceed to do nothing differently.

You can use that against them by exacerbating the situation to the point that all of the supervisors find confrontation of photographers to be so uncomfortable, inconvenient, and/or embarrassing that they are motivated to educate their security guards to respect photographers.

I don’t think these guys are going to be real eager to confront another photographer. That’s progress. We should be thanking Carlos.
413 Michaelk42 // Jul 7, 2010 at 4:47 PM

And capn_amurka says something even better.
Michaelk42 recently posted..Pogan sentencing- delayed
414 Johnny's Whim // Jul 7, 2010 at 5:14 PM

But completely ignoring that the police have only one job to do: enforce the law!
415 I smell BS // Jul 7, 2010 at 5:23 PM

Funny how things should be civilized and respectable — to the security guards’ and police officers’ benefit only.

Why shouldn’t the police and security guards back down?

Had everyone involved simply obeyed the law, this video would be pretty boring.

And no one would need to sue anybody.
416 Jim P // Jul 7, 2010 at 5:42 PM

And what does that accomplish? NOTHING! The management will simply “apologize for the inconvenience the photographer experienced” while at the same time doing NOTHING to correct the behavior of the guards.

AFAIAC security guards “upholding the law to the best of their understanding” is not good enough. Ignorance of the Law is NO EXCUSE! Neither is “following orders”.

The only reason that NYPD finally stopped harassing photographers is because they were faced with multiple protests and lawsuits. Photographers here did not simply back down and walk away – some were arrested and the resulting lawsuits and bad publicity forced NYPD to change its tactics.
417 the bulldog // Jul 7, 2010 at 7:39 PM

for some unknown reason, mr mutan wont take or return my phone calls or emails…
418 the bulldog // Jul 7, 2010 at 7:41 PM

mr muntan rather…
419 Johnny Law // Jul 7, 2010 at 7:43 PM

@dodge ball

“You’re right, they were polite and didn’t get worked up. They didn’t do anything really wrong because they didn’t do anything.”

That’s good because they were under no obligation to do anything.
420 SmellyCat // Jul 7, 2010 at 10:02 PM

@ Johnny Law

Very true. The police weren’t legally obligated to help Carlos and Stretch in this situation.

But preventing them from going into the Metrorail under threat of arrest? A big no-no.

A good attorney should have an easy time nailing the PD for that.
421 OBEY // Jul 7, 2010 at 10:07 PM

“A business, even one paid for by public funds, can refuse service for almost any reason.”

It amazes me that an LEO can be this ignorant. Kinda scary too.
422 mrX // Jul 8, 2010 at 7:58 AM

Silly Americans. One more reason to never set foot in your silly country.
423 random.user // Jul 8, 2010 at 10:56 AM

wow,,, i cant belive the way these rental cops treated you. the whole situation is twisted. they are abusing their power, straight up.
424 mark // Jul 8, 2010 at 3:42 PM

VERY nice. i’ll be interested to see how this progresses
425 Chinh Le // Jul 9, 2010 at 11:29 AM

This country more and more like freak’in North Korea. Citizens being harassed by bunch of dump f***. So what about 911 we chicken out because of that. Everything we do know being watch, being harass, being labeled as a terrorist. I don’t mind the watch but stop the f***ing harassment.
“Serve and Harass” now is on every cop’s vehicle.
426 Bentor Tazenda // Jul 9, 2010 at 11:52 AM

So, Carlos and friends, when are y’all going to get tickets to ride and return to that publicly owned station and film some more? You know that without a court order their “Order” is little more than puffery. If the guards try to stop you. Just ignore them and transfer to the next train.
427 WhyMeLord // Jul 9, 2010 at 12:25 PM

Appariently someone is not getting the message to the security guards on the ground

http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=789990

From: Kapoor, Harpal (MDT
Sent: Tue 5/26/09 11:25 AM
To: newshawk@gmail.com
Cc: Muntan, Eric (MDT); Chen, Hugh (MDT); Forbes, Clinton (MDT)

Thank you for your electronic correspondence in which you advised Miami-Dade Transit (MDT) that you would like clarification as to whether or not individuals are allowed to take photographs of the Metrorail system. In your correspondence, you indicate that you were told that you could not photograph unless you possessed a permit.

MDT regrets any inconvenience or embarrassment this incident may have caused you. MDT is not aware of any federal, state, or local law which would prohibit personal photography at our facilities. The incident that you experienced appears to have been the result of the misinterpretation of local county law, specifically Miami-Dade County Code 30(B), which requires permits for commercial photography. MDT also requires permitting for photography when it involves equipment other than a hand-held camera (i.e. tripods, cables/wires, screens, etc.), which could pose a potential safety hazard to other patrons. Although not prohibited, security personnel and/or any MDT employee are encouraged to inquire as to what objects/images a patron is photographing. This is done not with the intent of harassing patrons or station occupants, but rather as a means of ensuring the security of our infrastructure and the general public and ensuring that commercial activity is not being performed.

Miami-Dade Transit certainly acknowledges the efforts of your work. We have advised the MDT Office of Safety and Security and our security contractor, The Wackenhut Corporation, that there are no prohibitions against taking photographs for personal purposes and that the public should not be prohibited from doing so, as long as taking these photographs does not violate Miami-Dade County Code, Chapter 30B.

On behalf of MDT, I thank you for bringing your concern to our attention. Should you have additional questions or concerns about security on the MDT system, please call the MDT, Office of Safety and Security at 305-375-4240.

Harpal S. Kapoor
Director
Miami-Dade Transit
701 NW 1st Court, 17th Floor
Miami, Florida 33136
428 Tommy // Jul 10, 2010 at 6:58 PM

I found this link, which I’m sure some of you have already found, and thought I should post it here. Any issues with photography, or anything else, should be entered on MDT’s initial complaint site. The more complaints they get on photography issues, the better it will be for all:

http://www.miamidade.gov/transit/about_concerns.asp
429 Roger // Jul 11, 2010 at 1:13 AM

As I said, in a very sarcastic way, it is about money. The post, some how, wound up on the first entry about the Canadian photographer. Read about there.
430 Brian Steblen // Jul 12, 2010 at 9:29 PM

Thank you for doing this. I left photojournalism before 9-11, and knew it was bad working around public spaces, but this is insane. Good for you for standing up to the police. As THEY like to say, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Sadly, too often I followed our chief photographer’s dictum, “You can’t shoot the story from a jail cell,” meaning do whatever the police say, even when you know its wrong. Again, thank you for doing this.
431 jimmy // Jul 16, 2010 at 2:33 AM

After reading this and attempting to understand the why’s of this whole thing I still do not understand. So from what I see, you set out to take up allot of time from busy people includeing the police. Honestly its sad no matter who the guilty party is. This was a waste of time, Although I will give credit to everyone involved both officers, security, the the people filming everyone kept there cool. A few times well watching I thought some one was going to loose there temper.
432 Seth // Jul 20, 2010 at 7:26 PM

Man this makes my blood BOIL I can’t stand seeing this sort of thing happen. Ridiculous!
433 Andy // Jul 29, 2010 at 6:57 PM

Jimmy: Why are you wasting my time with your post? i am busy
434 nathan lam vuong // Aug 6, 2010 at 4:17 PM

i feel like miami has been through the photo + law stories sooooo many times, and it never gets old. but it is sad. why is it so hard to say,” im not making money off of this, just leave me alone.”
435 findsomethingtodo // Aug 12, 2010 at 9:05 PM

Get a life. This is really that important to you? I rather be safe.
436 Tom Jankowski // Aug 12, 2010 at 10:03 PM

To findsomethingtodo in the words of Ben Franklin “Anyone who would sacrific liberty for safety deserves neither”.
437 swampthing // Aug 14, 2010 at 7:55 AM

Miller you’re a thriller.

Red-light cameras, coming soon to an intersection near you.

Painful truth is surveillance has become a one-way street.
438 Janie Coffey in Coral Gables // Aug 16, 2010 at 8:40 AM

I could never have guessed that something as innocuous as photos at the metro station could cause such an issue! I’m glad you have a great lawyer behind you! Good luck!
Janie Coffey in Coral Gables recently posted..Missing Person Alert in Coral Gables! 29 year old man – Thur- Aug 5
439 Gustavo Romero // Aug 18, 2010 at 5:38 AM

good luck with politicians
440 Jackie Pistacchio // Aug 27, 2010 at 9:35 PM

Hahaha ignorance of the law makes those metrorail people soo stupid. Law enforcers should bloody know the law, get some lawyers on the scene I hope you really went ahead with that lawsuit.

Photography is Not a Crime

It’s a First Amendment Right

Please donate to my Legal Defense Fund

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Popular Posts

Testimonials

Recognition

Attorney blogs

Cop blogs

Cop watch blogs

First Amendment

Friends out West

Journalism Links

Photography Links

Videography Links

Help Fund PINAC (as well as pay off my extensive legal bills)