Again with the Photographer Harrassment

[bmattock]

At least this one ended fairly well - the photographer was released and even apologized to by the local district judge - but he still spent two hours in the clink for committing no crime. White Plains, NY - and it was just this last weekend that I had a run-in with the NYC Park Rangers over taking one of their photos - again with the 'you can't take my photo unless I give permission first' nonsense. It has to stop.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=4012289

Photographer held for hours by police

Spokesman admits the officers were out of line, union disagrees

Eyewitness News' Joe Torres

(White Plains, Westchester County -WABC, March 21, 2006) - A local photographer is looking for an apology after he was held for hours by police. He was taken into custody for questioning because of what he decided to snap a couple of shots of.

Eyewitness News reporter Joe Torres is live in White Plains with the story.
As a freelance photographer, Ben Hider carries his camera with him just about everywhere, and so it was on Friday, as he was heading to the train station in White Plains he stopped to snap some beauty shots on the flags in front of the court house. That's when his trouble began.

Ben Hider, Photographer: "Three police officers ran at me, immediately, telling me to stop where I was."


And that's exactly what Ben Hider did. He even showed the court officers the pictures he took and offered to delete them. Moments later they escorted him inside the courthouse for two hours of questioning.

Ben Hider, Photographer: "Emptied my pockets, searched me, frisked me, started telling me about the recent terrorist threats in America over the past five years and 'haven't I been watching the news?'"

The 27-year-old is a graduate of SUNY Purchase. He's lived in the states for eight years and he has a green card, but he says his British citizenship only raised the officers' suspicion.

A spokesman for the office of court administration admits the officers were out of line.

David Bookstaver, Office of Court Administration: "Yes, they went too far. Picture taking in itself is not suspicious behavior, detaining someone for two hours for taking pictures was wrong and we've apologized to Mr. Hider for what happened."

The New York State Supreme Court Officers Association strongly disagrees with that assessment and instead blames the office of court administration.

John McKillop, the union president, told us: "There is no policy anywhere in the unified court system, in New York City or Westchester, dealing with this and officers are left to fend for themselves."

Caught in the middle is Ben Hider, who received a formal apology from the state's first deputy administrative judge. Now he'd like an admission of wrongdoing from the officers themselves.

Ben Hider, Photographer: "I spent two hours in a police cell doing nothing, feeling threatened by them, and for them to get away with that is ridiculous."

The court officers union president explained to us that in a previous and similar situation, the court officers were berated by an administrative judge for not detaining an individual.

That's why they want a policy explanation and that's why today a memo was issued offering very clear specifics on what to do with people taking pictures in public places.

(Copyright 2006 WABC-TV)

 

[FrankS]

Come on Bill, we need a photographers' rights association. You are the just the guy to organize and run this! I'll be happy to start the Canadian arm of this organization.

 

[JoeFriday]

that's not a bad idea.. forming a photographers union for real.. setting up a membership with dues to handle legal issues like this

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

Amazing.

It's clear to me that some form of uniform guidelines would help both officers of the law and photographers.

I think it gets more than a little dangerous when any individual (oreven small groups of) police officer(s) (park police, and others) cansimply determine for themselves what is law and then act on it.

9/11 has become a catch all for the disintegration of civil liberties.

Bob H

 

[cp_ste.croix]

wow...good find Bill. I feel for the law enforcement as well as for photographers like us. There needs to be clear and well communicated directives about the sanctity of freedom of (photographic) expression.

With the abundance of all manner of photo recording devices these days, it might make sense just to abandon the ridiculous idea that photography is an integral part of terrorism, and that even if it is, it is the part the should be least concentrated on.

 

[peterc]

Didn't he know that taking a picture of a building steals its soul, taking away its will to remain standing, causing it to crumble into dust! 😀

Peter

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

Didn't he know that taking a picture of a building stealsits soul, taking away its will to remain standing, causing it tocrumble into dust! 😀

Peter

If only it were so easy. There are tons of architectural monstrocities that belong as dust.

I could wait until the wee hours of the morning, de-bag my Argus C44and with a mighty "crack" of it's shutter urban restoration would begin.


Disclaimer: the previous comment does not reflect the views of RFF orit's members. Nor does it constitute a call to action on the part ofphotographers anywhere. Any similarities to living individuals or realor virtual locations are purely coincidental.

 

[BrianShaw]

9/11 has become a catch all for the disintegration of civil liberties.

Even a Republican would have to agree with that!

 

[bob cole]

Again with the Photographer Harrassment

I emphathize with any photographer who gets hassled by law enforcement but my own unwavering mindset in dealing with it is to accept -- and, if appropriate, complain later... If, on the other hand, it's not law enforcement, all bets are off...You protect yourself as best you can...regards, bob

 

[bmattock]

I could wait until the wee hours of the morning, de-bag my Argus C44and with a mighty "crack" of it's shutter urban restoration would begin.

My wife threatened to 'de-bag' me if I didn't stop drinking furniture polish and howling at the moon. And she said she'd 'radish' me as well. Scary woman, really.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[JoeFriday]

Even a Republican would have to agree with that!

yeah, I would.. but the erosion of civil liberties began long before that.. over 200 years ago

"He who would give up essential liberties for temporary security shall have neither." ~Ben Franklin

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

My wife threatened to 'de-bag' me if I didn't stopdrinking furniture polish and howling at the moon. And she said she'd'radish' me as well. Scary woman, really.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

I had to laugh out loud- good thing I wasn't in my cubicle at work.

Good luck on the "radishing"

 

[FrankS]

My wife threatened to 'de-bag' me if I didn't stop drinking furniture polish and howling at the moon. And she said she'd 'radish' me as well. Scary woman, really.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

She didn't say "radish" Bill, she said "ravish!" 🙂

 

[peterc]

9/11 has become a catch all for the disintegration of civil liberties.

I'd say the Patriot Act has already consigned the Constitution and Bill of Rights to the category of historically interesting pieces of paper.

Peter

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Its one thing to make an honest mistake .... maybe these officers really didn't know the law.

It is another thing entirely to not have the courage to own up to those mistakes once they have been pointed out to you. These officers, and their union rep, should apologize immediately rather than behave like NBA union reps who habitually feel compelled to defend ANYTHING their members do.

What a sad state of affairs. Meanwhile we are in the largest deficit in our history and nothing is secured. And this is the best security measure they have, harassing photographers ... laughable if it weren't so pathetic.

 

[peterc]

"He who would give up essential liberties for temporary security shall have neither." ~Ben Franklin

I guess we should add Thomas Jefferson as well: "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither."

Peter

 

[bob cole]

Along with all the fortune-cookie aphorisms on liberty, the one I like is the one from the anonymous cop who said, "He theatened me, so I defended myself.'' --Pay the two dollars... and then tell your story to the local newspaper...Law enforcement hates unfavorable publicity and always responds...

 

[ch1]

Its one thing to make an honest mistake .... maybe these officers really didn't know the law.

It is another thing entirely to not have the courage to own up to those mistakes once they have been pointed out to you. These officers, and their union rep, should apologize immediately rather than behave like NBA union reps who habitually feel compelled to defend ANYTHING their members do.

What a sad state of affairs. Meanwhile we are in the largest deficit in our history and nothing is secured. And this is the best security measure they have, harassing photographers ... laughable if it weren't so pathetic.

Yes, it is correct that the union reps did the usual "knee-jerk" reaction that "our members are never wrong".

FWIW, court officers are under enormous pressures (they are the ones who bring the bad guys in to court each day etc.) and are often not well-trained. Also, they tend to be looked down upon by the Office of Court Administration (I think you can see that in the news report) so their union is a very "defensive" one.

Now, the photog was certainly mistreated and the Office of Court Admin apologized and he also got big time media play. What more is gained by forcing the officers to publicy "eat crow"?

This kind of over reaction only serves to convince them that "they" are the victims!

When someone does something really stupid - forcing them to publicly admit it is not necessarily the best solution!

 

[MelanieC]

again with the 'you can't take my photo unless I give permission first' nonsense

I agree with you about the erosion of civil liberties, etc. but I had to respond to this. It may not be appropriate to legislate this (we are a free country, right?) but I am personally one of those people who is totally uncomfortable with someone taking my picture without asking for permission first. This is one of the reasons why I am not interested in street photography.

I have found myself the object of street photography on a few occasions (mostly when I was out with my dogs) and was much more intimidated and alarmed at those times than I would have expected to be. I really felt violated. I can't explain why. It may be because I'm female and I was living alone in a big city. So I moved away pointedly and when the folks tried to take my picture anyway I told them off, and I wasn't very nice about it.

It's not like I don't think people have a right to take my picture in public places, but I really wish they wouldn't, or at least be polite and ask first (I know, this kind of is against the whole point of street photography). In my world, taking my picture without asking me for permission is perfectly legal, but also extremely rude. Sorry -- just how I feel.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

This kind of over reaction only serves to convince them that "they" are the victims!

When someone does something really stupid - forcing them to publicly admit it is not necessarily the best solution!

George,

I agree that humiliation is never productive. But owning up to your own errors is a matter of integrity. It is hardly a matter of humiliating someone, least of all yourself.

The fact that they "think" that admitting they were wrong would make them the "victims" is just further evidence that these officers are totally misguided.

Moreover, forcing people to admit their mistakes encourages open dialogue and may serve as a positive example to their fellow officers in the future. If anything, it will convince me that they have the capacity to learn, a positive trait I look for in sentient beings. So far, they and their union reps have not convinced me that they possess that evolutionary trait. Too bad, because they will most assuredly repeat the mistake in the future.