Dutch Photographer arrested after shooting in public

Mr_Flibble

Mr_Flibble

In Tabulas Argenteas Refero
Local time
12:37 AM
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
4,678
Freelance Journalist Emiel Elgersma was arrested yesterday and detained by Dutch police for 2 hours after taking street pictures on the public square in front of the Utrecht Central Station in the Netherlands.

Two police officers resolutely told him taking photos of people for publication was illegal without permission, to which Elgersma stated that he was in a public area and could do so.
He then refused to show his ID because he believed there was no valid ground for the police to request it of him. They then claimed that he was obstructing people and arrested him.


After about an hour, the assistant Officer-of-Justice came to his cell and asks him why he refused to ID himself. Elgersma repeats his story that there was no valid grounds for the request. But the officer states that the station is flagged as a security risk area, a potential target for terrorist attack. Which is a valid reason for the Police to ask for the ID of the people in that area. The police officers hadn't told him that.


After accepting to pay the fine for refusal to show ID Elgersma was released.


Thomas Bruning of Secretary of the Dutch Journalist Association (NVJ) calls it a typical case of Police Over-Reaction. Reitterating that it is perfectly legal to take photographs in a public area.

This particular Police Corps was involved in a similar incident in 2007 and had promised to better educate their officers to the NVJ.

Elgersma's arrest led to many questions and much anger amongst his journalist colleagues on Twitter. Elgerma himself considers legal action against the Police Corps.

Elgersma blog on the incident in Dutch
 
In my opinion, the officers should have told him about the security/safety risk area. And not come up with it as an excuse after he was arrested.

[edit]Even with the security risk area excuse it would only have been a valid reason to ask for his ID if he had been acting suspiciously ...
But he would still be allowed to take pictures....

I hope he decides to go to court and ram the point home.
 
Last edited:
This reminded me of the "dancing around Lincoln memorial" incident. Expecting police to know law doesn't work. If they do, most of them probably switched career by now.
 
Well being from Holland, i read this too.

I have mixed feelings about this, having read his blog.

There are multiple ways of telling a police officer that you refuse to show him your ID, the way he used is doubtfull/ not the best way in my eyes. ("I'm not showing you anything, you have no right in knowing what I'm doing, I don't have to tell you anything." )

Did they have the right in asking him what he's doing?
perhaps, perhaps not, I wasn't there.

Did they have the right to ask for his ID?
mostlikely not, the law is pretty clear about this here in Holland, they are only allowed in doing so when:
You're a danger to yourself or others,
You've allready broken the law or in the proces of doing so(i.e. caught red handed),
And when there is a reasonable doubt in you being a terrorist.

I highly doubt he was doing either of those: 1) taking a photo is not forbiddden here only posting them somewhere or using them for commercial stuff without consent of the person., 2) he wasn't in the station itself.(there are signs stating you're not allowed to take photos in the station itself)

Last part is tricky in my eyes: arresting the guy...
why is this tricky? because IF he is a terrorist he's not going to show you an ID (duh, that would be dumb) AND if he blows up the station a week later... the officer is going to be in trouble(to say the least).
On the other hand they mostlikely didn't have a good reason to even ask him...

The police is saying he's taking photos of multiple people with a camera shoved in their faces, the photographer is saying he only took photos of a single guy.(the street artist)
No clue in knowing who is telling the truth.

How would I react? probably in the sameway as the photographer in question...
 
Last edited:
Mr_Flibble said:
In my opinion, the officers should have told him about the security/safety risk area. And not come up with it as an excuse after he was arrested.
Click to expand...

No one could argue with police acting out of concern for security/safety. But that in itself has caused a problem in my country where police and security guards state security risk where there is none. A good example is the South Bank area of London where people who use an SLR (private use and press) have been pestered when all around are people using compact cameras, video cameras and phones. The issue there is image rights (of the London Eye) yet risk of terrorism is the excuse.
 
I'm not a fan of messing with the police too much(I like to keep my fire-arms permit for one thing). And I would probably not have refused showing my ID.

I wonder what would have happened if he had show his ID, would have been allowed to continue taking pictures? (doubtful). Would they have sent him way? or wrote him a fine?
 
Well mostlikely they would have just send him away...
in the audio you can clearly hear the officer say "why are you acting like this, if you would just show us your ID there would be no problem".

He didn't get a fine for photographing, he got a fine(and arrested) for not identifying himself....
 
I think rick makes a good point, that showing his ID would not have solved the situation, it would have resulted in the officers using other means to remove or arrest him.
When your mind's made up, it's made up.
 
I think it's pretty foolish of him not to show his ID. It takes 2 seconds to pull it out and could have prevented this situation from going any further. Seems to me like he was just antagonizing them by refusing without a reason. If however they continued to pester him after he showed his ID that's another story. But I think the photographers actions were pretty stupid.
 
The Dutch Compulsory Identification Act was introduced a few years ago with clear rules for those requesting the ID. The officers did not offer him a valid reason when he asked, eventhough there supposedly was one according to the Justice-department.

So he refused on principle and suffered the consequences of badly-informed police officers. I wouldn't go as far as calling him stupid....pointing a gun/toy at the police is stupid. ;)
 
Jup that's why I would act in the sameway as he did... Only I would state my case more politely, 'cause stating it the way he did, probably wasn't his smartest move.

I don't mind showing my ID to a police officer(I would like to see his too though, he isn't allowed to refuse) BUT there has to be a good reason for it... the whole terrorist stuff is crap anyway, you can't see from my ID if I want to blow something up or not...
 
I understand wanting to stand up for your rights. I get that, but really it's not such a big deal to show an ID. To me it does seem suspicious if you're taking photos of people on the street but unwilling to identify yourself. It just sounds like a matter of pride in his case us what got him in trouble. HOWEVER, if he did show his ID and they continued to bother him and he put up a stand then, I would support that decision.

As photographers we understand what he's doing is of no harm. However many non-photographers police or otherwise sometimes think street photographers look really suspicious. Most people are afraid of what they don't understand and therefore the cops might have been simply checking to make sure he wasn't a threat.
 
True, showing an ID is not a big deal and a 2 second job... BUT how's that going to help any one?

What's the officer going to do with that information? he knows your name and the fact that you take photos, so now what?

There is no use for the information, that's why the created a law stating they are only allowed to ask when they have a good reason, i.e. when running the red light, so they know who to send the ticket to...

There's no point here, at the end of it all, all they know is that Emiel is taking photos.
 
If they are worried about terrorist they may simply just want to find out if he's a citizen or not. Also his ID with a business card would prove he's a journalist. So that would make sense to an officer as to why he was taking pictures.

I've got asked by an officer why I was shooting on the street in washington dc. I pulled out a business card which clearly states I'm a photographer and an ID. Showed him both and he left me alone.

If they were still paranoid they could even call his employer or whatever. But I highly doubt they'd do that. As I said before, police just want to know why. Give em a simple to understand reason and they'll leave you alone (most of the time)
 
the whole 'worried about terrorists' is crap anyway, you could use that when ever you want, where ever you want... it's just a bullcrap clause in that specific law.

Don't have a good reason for asking? ah just say you're worried about terrorists...


But still the easiest solution would be just to show your ID.
 
I agree, it doesn't make anyone safer and claiming anything in the name of terrorist is usually a joke. But when all you're asked to do is present an ID, just show it and most of these situations can be avoided. It just makes them feel better whether its logical or not :p
 
It is really easy to work with police...I wear a leather business card case on a lanyard around my neck with my business card showing through the clear face and my State-issued picture ID (not a driver's license) on the opposite side.

Not only are you more professional in appearance but it makes it very easy to give a card and ID to the police without a confrontation. It has happened to me and they wind up asking for photos of a movie production that occurred two weeks before.

Easy.;)
 
If a policeman asked me for ID I don't think I would refuse to show it to them. If I have nothing to hide then why am I hiding my ID? It's just wasting both my time and the cop's time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom