Lawyer: Russian immigrant didn't mean to photograph Picatinny

bmattock

Veteran
Local time
4:23 AM
Joined
Jul 29, 2003
Messages
10,655
http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080404/COMMUNITIES43/804040347/1005/NEWS01

ROCKAWAY TWP. -- The lawyer for the Russian immigrant charged with unlawfully photographing Picatinny Arsenal said Thursday that the incident was a misunderstanding and that his client didn't realize he was pointing his camera in the direction of the Army base when he was arrested.

Attorney Benjamin Kelsen of Teaneck said his client -- Denis S. Ayzenberg, 26, of Lawrenceville, Ga. -- is an orthodox Jew who immigrated to the U.S. about a decade ago and is enrolled in graduate school in Georgia.

Kelsen said that Ayzenberg, whose English is "very, very accented" and was traveling with a fellow Russian immigrant, had difficulty communicating with police officers who swarmed their parked sport utility vehicle on Route 15 South on Sunday afternoon.

The confrontation took place about two miles from Picatinny's entrance, according to Kelsen, and about a half-hour after both were ordered away from the 6,500-acre base.

"Honest to God, he didn't realize the base extended that far," Kelsen said.

Ayzenberg was charged with violating a federal statute prohibiting unauthorized photographs of a military installation. He faces up to a year in prison and a fine.

Ayzenberg's friend was not charged. Police did not release his name.

A phone call to Picatinny Arsenal and an e-mail to the U.S. Department of Defense were not returned Thursday. Rockaway Township police and the county prosecutor's office, which aided in the investigation, have deferred comment to federal authorities.

Ayzenberg, who was released by police Monday morning, has returned to Georgia, according to his attorney.

Kelsen, in an interview Thursday about the much-publicized incident, said that Ayzenberg was visiting friends in Passaic County last weekend when someone -- Kelsen didn't know the name -- suggested driving to the area near Picatinny.

"He had been asked by somebody, who said they lived in the area years ago, what does it look like today," Kelsen said.

Ayzenberg and his friend pulled into Picatinny after seeing the entrance sign. Kelsen said his client later explained that it looked like a good "tourist attraction."

After being told to leave, they exited onto Route 15 and drove away before parking on the highway shoulder -- where Ayzenberg resumed taking photos, Kelsen said.

Police who converged on the parked vehicle allegedly saw that Ayzenberg was concealing a digital camera under his jacket. Other items that could be used for surveillance, including a laptop, were on the floor of the vehicle.

Ayzenberg, though, didn't realize the wooded trees in the background of his photo were actually part of the base, according to his lawyer. Ayzenberg's beard and white head covering also might have led authorities to suspect he fit a terrorist profile , Kelsen said.

"He has a beard and a type of head covering belonging to a certain kind of Hasidic sect -- a large, white-knit type of head covering," Kelsen said

"The whole thing is really amusing," said Kelsen, who is a rabbi.

"He's not a terrorist. He's an orthodox Jew who's an amateur photographer," he added.

Ayzenberg and his friend were held at police headquarters until about 5 a.m. Monday, Kelsen said. Ayzenberg, by that point, was terrified according to his lawyer.

"He grew up in the former Soviet Union. There was still KGB at that point. He was very, very nervous," Kelsen said.

The FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force allowed both to be released after determining that neither had any terrorist connections.

Ayzenberg is scheduled to appear in court in May, Kelsen said.

Funny, there are a lot of photos of Picatinny on Google. And not photos of trees taken from 2 miles away, either.

And a laptop is now a 'terrorist' tool. I see.

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N

Welcome back, Soviet Union. We missed you.
 
Sic infit/so it begins.

The effort to get Ukraine to join NATO went over like a lead baloon.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't matter where he's from, he did something illegal. He was taking pictures of a military research and development center (use some common sense here??) and was asked to leave by the guards. You would think if you were asked to leave by the guards that you should just GO AWAY, right? Not drive down the street for a minute, get out, and keep taking pictures. Again, common sense here.

And yes, there are pictures of Picatinny on the internet - pictures approved by the Security Office for public release. Not pictures taken by random people skulking around the base after they were already asked to leave by the guards. It doesn't matter whether he's Russian or Iranian or Polish or Swahili, it's illegal to do what he did, for good reason.

Besides, how do you think all the people at Picatinny would feel if they found out that some guy was taking pictures of the base and he wasn't even prosecuted? Nice example to set for anyone else who wants to take illegal pictures, no? Even the fact that they did not leave when they were asked by the guards is bad enough. When the guards ask you to leave, you GO.

Bottom line - this guy did something stupid and illegal. If he did it accidentally, then he'll be let off the hook, or probably have to pay a small fine. I'm surprised that anyone could find that to be some kind of problem or injustice.
 
"After being told to leave, they exited onto Route 15 and drove away before parking on the highway shoulder -- where Ayzenberg resumed taking photos, Kelsen said."

Picatinny is located ON Route 15. The perimeter of the base runs ALONG Route 15 for quite a ways. It's not like he drove away and down another street. He went out the main gate, which is right off of Route 15, drove down the street along the perimeter of the base for like one minute (2 miles is not a long way), got out, and kept taking pictures (the truck gate is another few miles down the road). It doesn't matter what he was wearing or what nationality he's from, this is extremely suspicious behavior and he needs to be prosecuted for it. He was asked to leave the base and he got out along the perimeter and kept taking pictures, he did NOT go away.

Again - there are lots of photos of Picatinny Arsenal on the web - even photos from inside the Arsenal, even posted by the military for the world to see.

As I said, these are photos approved by the Security Office as not containing sensitive or classified material. Taking photos of the base's perimeter can be a big problem because it could indicate that he's looking for a way for someone to illegally enter the base without going through the gate (taking photos of potential weak points in the fence, etc). This is potentially a big deal -- I hope that he was doing it by accident and that he demonstrates this in court but we can't just let this sort of thing go without doing anything about it.
 
Last edited:
Picatinny is located ON Route 15. The perimeter of the base runs ALONG Route 15 for quite a ways. It's not like he drove away and down another street. He went out the main gate, which is right off of Route 15, drove down the street along the perimeter of the base for like one minute (2 miles is not a long way), got out, and kept taking pictures (the truck gate is another few miles down the road). It doesn't matter what he was wearing or what nationality he's from, this is extremely suspicious behavior and he needs to be prosecuted for it. He was asked to leave the base and he got out along the perimeter and kept taking pictures, he did NOT go away.

He was asked to leave the base and he did. It is not illegal to take photographs from public property. There are lots of photographs of Picatinny on the web, some from the military itself - so apparently, photos of Picatinny are not illegal.

If he 'needs to be prosecuted', I would ask for what crime.

Reading skills are important. He was asked to LEAVE THE BASE. He did. That he failed to 'go away' is immaterial - he was not asked to 'go away'.
 
He was asked to leave the base and he did. It is not illegal to take photographs from public property. There are lots of photographs of Picatinny on the web, some from the military itself - so apparently, photos of Picatinny are not illegal.

I'm going to assume you wrote that before I edited my post to add the second quote. Please read the second portion of my post above -- it addresses approval of photos and the problem with pictures taken from the base's perimeter.

Reading skills are important. He was asked to LEAVE THE BASE. He did. That he failed to 'go away' is immaterial - he was not asked to 'go away'.

He was asked to leave and cease taking photographs. He didn't do either; he stayed around the base's perimeter (supposedly he didn't know that? Well I hope he didn't know, and that he just did it by accident) and continued to take pictures.
 
Last edited:
Being nervous is one thing. Arresting and prosecuting people for wearing religious garb that makes us nervous is quite another.
That's just silly. There are many people who work at Picatinny and wear such 'religious garb' including turbans and all sorts of things. It's a federal installation -- hiring minorities is common.
 
what if the guy disguised himself as a "swede", I'll bet he would have gotten away with it. :D
 
what if the guy disguised himself as a "swede", I'll bet he would have gotten away with it.

I doubt it. Anti-terrorism training, which I'm sure Picatinny cops, being on a federal military installation, are required to attend, clearly states that threats come from all "nationalities," including Americans. It's not about what they're wearing or what they look like (barring like some guy with a rocket launcher on his back or something obviously), it's about what they're doing, when, and why. Again I hope the guy is innocent but we can't just let people take pictures of base perimeters without at least detaining them after they've been asked to leave.
 
Again I hope the guy is innocent but we can't just let people take pictures of base perimeters without at least detaining them after they've been asked to leave.

You seem not to want to comprehend what the story said. He was told to leave the base, and he did.

He was not 'detained', he was arrested. And charged with a crime.

"The confrontation took place about two miles from Picatinny's entrance, according to Kelsen, and about a half-hour after both were ordered away from the 6,500-acre base."

Just to make this clear: That's TWO MILES away from the entrance he had previously driven in and then out of, and a HALF HOUR later.

Further:

"Ayzenberg, though, didn't realize the wooded trees in the background of his photo were actually part of the base, according to his lawyer."

Photographs of trees in the background of a photo that happen to grow on a military base are now illegal?

I took lots of photos at the Air Show at Selfridge ANGB lasts summer - including shots from inside the hangers! They're on Flickr - why have I not been arrested?

I'm sorry to keep hammering this home, but you continue to post as though something other than what happened occurred. Unless the news story is incorrect, you are interpreting very differently from what it clearly says.
 
Just to make this clear: That's TWO MILES away from the entrance he had previously driven in and then out of, and a HALF HOUR later.

Like I said, it was still along the perimeter. If he really didn't know that, then that sucks for him, and I hope he is presumed innocent and the charges are dropped. The problem is as I've already described above -- taking pictures of the perimeter can be a serious security issue, especially after being told not to.

I took lots of photos at the Air Show at Selfridge ANGB lasts summer - including shots from inside the hangers! They're on Flickr - why have I not been arrested?

You didn't do it illegally. Guards did not ask you not to.

I'm sorry to keep hammering this home, but you continue to post as though something other than what happened occurred. Unless the news story is incorrect, you are interpreting very differently from what it clearly says.

His lawyer says the photographer didn't know, and that he was just taking pictures of trees. If that's true, then I feel sorry for the guy. But maybe it's not true. Maybe he was taking pictures of the base perimeter. He already was told to leave the base and stop taking pictures, yet he drove down the road right next to the base, in between the main gate and the truck gate, and started taking pictures again. Should we really just say ok, he says he didn't mean any harm, let's let him go? It seems like you're taking what the lawyer said to be truth, rather than looking at the implications of what the guy actually did and under what circumstances. Maybe the lawyer's telling the truth, but maybe not. The guy was taking pictures of the perimeter of a military base after being told not to, so the cops take him down to the station, let him go, and now he's being charged for illegally photographing a military installation. What about that is wrong? I guess I don't understand where you're coming from because I don't see the problem.
 
But we all know thats not how it works in the real world? Dont come here and say that they dont pre judge people with brown skin long beard and "typical" terrorist clothes?

You're absolutely right, but I still think that this guy would have been arrested regardless of clothing and race.
 
Like I said, it was still along the perimeter. If he really didn't know that, then that sucks for him, and I hope he is presumed innocent and the charges are dropped. The problem is as I've already described above -- taking pictures of the perimeter can be a serious security issue, especially after being told not to.

Sigh. Again. He was told to leave. I did not read where he was told not to take photos. He did leave. You keep changing the conditions of the encounter to make it seem he did something wrong.

You didn't do it illegally. Guards did not ask you not to.

He was charged with the 'crime' of taking photos of a military installation. That does not become 'not a crime' depending on circumstances. It either is or is not a crime.

And again - guards did NOT ask him not to. According to the story.

His lawyer says the photographer didn't know, and that he was just taking pictures of trees. If that's true, then I feel sorry for the guy. But maybe it's not true. Maybe he was taking pictures of the base perimeter.

I drove past the Selfridge perimeter on Saturday. I saw no signs saying I cannot take photos of it. I am tempted to drop by again and take some photos to see what happens. Either it is or it is not a crime to take photos of a military base's perimeter.

He already was told to leave the base and stop taking pictures, yet he drove down the road right next to the base, in between the main gate and the truck gate, and started taking pictures again.

He was told to leave. If you see in the story where he was told to quit taking photos, please point that out to me. Otherwise, I think you are making that part up, because I do not read that in the story. Maybe I'm missing it.

Should we really just say ok, he says he didn't mean any harm, let's let him go? It seems like you're taking what the lawyer said to be truth, rather than looking at the implications of what the guy actually did and under what circumstances.

I am reading the news story, which may or may not be the truth. I am disturbed because taking photos of trees that happen to be on a military base is a 'federal crime' when photos of the base itself, including the buildings and parts thereof, are on the web for all to see.

Maybe the lawyer's telling the truth, but maybe not. The guy was taking pictures of the perimeter of a military base after being told not to, so the cops take him down to the station, let him go, and now he's being charged for illegally photographing a military installation. What about that is wrong? I guess I don't understand where you're coming from because I don't see the problem.

I guess because you seem to think he was told not to take photos and I don't read that - I read that he was told to leave and did.

And let's just be clear. If I am in a store, for example, and a guard tells me to leave - I have to go. If I leave the property, he can't very well have me arrested because he told me to 'leave the area'. The store is the extent of his jurisdiction - no one can force me to 'leave the area' on public property.

This guy was told to leave the base. He did. He then took photos from outside the base (he had not been told not to, as far as I can see) and the base appeared in the background. You complain that he did not clear out when told to - well, he left the base - the MP has no authority to tell him to leave the entire area.

I was an MP once. I could have ordered a civilian off the base, but I could not have ordered them to leave the nearby city. I did not have that authority. Neither did these guards.
 
This is a very interesting thread. A new member has one hundred percent of his posts on this topic. Hmmm who are you JRobbins?

I want to know why the terrorists now have front page billing? What ever happened to the communists? Someone should be looking into this slippage. Get someone on this issue of overlooking communists right away is my suggestion.

BTW : terrorist alert factoid. No act of terror has ever been directly linked to a photographer.
 
He was told to leave. If you see in the story where he was told to quit taking photos, please point that out to me. Otherwise, I think you are making that part up, because I do not read that in the story. Maybe I'm missing it.

http://www.nationalterroralert.com/...senal-department-of-defense-analyzing-photos/

It says partway down:
A Picatinny policeman saw the two men taking pictures near the front gate of the Army base about 4 p.m. Sunday, the base commander Brig. Gen. William Phillips said this morning. The officer told the men, who had asked where the PX was, that it is against the law to take pictures of the post, a weapons research and development facility in Rockaway Township, and asked them to leave.

The men left, but were stopped a short time later on Route 15 north after the Picatinny officer saw them continuing to take photographs.
 
BTW : terrorist alert factoid. No act of terror has ever been directly linked to a photographer.

Information comes from somewhere. Vulnerabilities are analyzed and exploited. I know that sounds overly dramatic, but we can't just allow someone to continue taking pictures of a military base after being asked not to. I just don't see what's so hard to understand about this.
 
Feels like home :)
In Russia I was detained 3 times by police for photographing railway stations and objects.
And motivation is the same - everybody with camera is a terrorist or foreign agent. This paranoia increased significantly last 3-4 years.
One fellow photograper said: "When you drive a car, you become a source of danger to surrounding world. When you are with camera in your hands, the world become danger for you"
 
Back
Top Bottom