Photographer Detained by FBI

bmattock

bmattock

Veteran
Local time
5:07 AM
Joined
Jul 29, 2003
Messages
10,655
Just remember folks - use caution in what you photograph, and observe private property rights. This guy got off easy - he made a few mistakes. However, it hightlights the issue that in this post-911 world, it is possible get into trouble for taking photographs WITHOUT doing anything obviously 'wrong'.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks


Souvenir seeker draws FBI attention

By HEATHER L. NICHOLSON , Citizen reporter 08/24/2004

An over-zealous movie fan was bombarded with police and Federal Bureau of Investigations questions Saturday after he was seen taking pictures of the Crown Petroleum Refinery at 1111 Red Bluff Road.

Crown security officers first noticed the 54-year-old Florida man taking pictures of the plant's silos with a 35mm disposable camera. They said he drove in through an opening in the plant's fencing and began snapping photographs of a private area.

After security officials detained the man and called Pasadena police, he was questioned about his photography. The man explained he was vacationing in Pasadena because he "recently saw 'Urban Cowboy' and wanted to see the town the movie was made in," police said.

Crown was depicted as the plant John Travolta's character worked for in the film. The man said he only wanted the photographs as souvenirs, police said.

After searching the man and his vehicle, the FBI conducted a background search of him and determined he was "clear," police said. The man was issued a criminal trespass warning and allowed to leave.

©Houston Community Newspapers Online 2004
Click to expand...


Souvenir Seeker Draws FBI Attention
 
There is a bridge with a nice peir right near the docks at the New Haven Terminal here in CT. The main action at the terminal is petroleum storage. I actually decided NOT to stop and take pictures of the tug boat and tanker action for this very reason.
 
rover said:
There is a bridge with a nice peir right near the docks at the New Haven Terminal here in CT. The main action at the terminal is petroleum storage. I actually decided NOT to stop and take pictures of the tug boat and tanker action for this very reason.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's a real crap-shoot. If you ask permission of the local gendarmes, the answer is likely to be 'no' even assuming that they don't put the habeus grabbus on you for even asking. If you take a chance and shoot anyway, you run the risk of spending some time in the sun at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, sans lawyer, charges against you, or even anyone knowing you're there. The result is a lot of photographers are scared silly to take photographs of 'structures'.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Guantanamo is nice. Lived there for 3 and a half years. Good diving. Good fishing.

Oh, wait...
 
I live in Houston, of which Pasedena is a part, most people avoid the area like the plague, its nickname is "Stinkadena" because of the stench emanating from the petroleum refineries. Several times a year inhabitants in the area are urged to stay in their trailers and turn the airconditioning off due to a plant explosion or noxious chemical released in the air, pleasant place.
My take on this guy is he was either up to no good and should be locked up, or he is really an "Urban Cowboy" fan, in which case he should also be locked up! (no offense to you Urban Cowboy fans).

Todd
 
This must all be an American thing. I've never heard of "Urban cowboy" (sounds like a contradiction in terms. Where the heck will you park your horse?!) and (knock-on-wood) I've never heard of people being detained here for taking shots of socalled high-risk objects.

I'm actually thinking of going to Amsterdam harbour next weekend to do some shooting. I just love industrial and harbour areas when the weather is crap. :)
 
Reading the article, the man drew attention to himself for tresspass on private properity. Not so much for the snap shots. If I caught him on my private properity I would be within my rights to detain him for the authorities and to file charges on him as well. Camera or no. On enemey combatants, (a P.C. word for POW) it is not unusual to keep them detained for the duration of the conflict. Sans lawyer or charges. They are members of the opposition's army not bank robbers. On the flip side, when the conflct is over, they should be released even if they are guilty of killing their enemy or blowing stuff up. Its what war is about. Killing people and breaking things. During WWII I don't recall wanking about the German POWs right to see a Lawyer. They had none. And those men don't either.
 
The thing that blows me away about all this "suspicious characters" is the kind of equipment they use. Fancy a spy or a would-be terrorist shooting a disposable camera? Can you imagine James Bond with a Hassy?

Oh, well... like Rover, I learned to assume what goes in the minds of the rent-a-cops and never put myself in dubious situations. My condition as an immigrant and legal resident of the US makes me even more potentially harmful to the American Dream. Heck! Not even citizens are secure when it comes to these incidents! :(

Sad.

However, Lionflyer is right: if he trespassed, he was in the red zone first.
 
Last edited:
Pity...

Pity...

Scary, I live not to far from there. I'm in the not so clear "Clear Lake" area. I think the industrial areas there in pasadena make for some interesting photography but have mostly refrained from picture taking there in light of current events and resulting attitudes here. Its really a pity. But I have taken a few there without being arrested... Here's one I took in May with the Bessa-L and 25/4 near the ship channel in pasadena, one of the most polluted places in the world.
 
Let me clarify, I do not condone trespassing and think if that's what the man did then he was wrong. I do think I should be able to stand on public property and take pictures there, but I think if the "right" person came along, you could get into trouble whether you were on private property or not, and for this reason I'm wary these days and have passed up some shots.
 
LionFlyer said:
Reading the article, the man drew attention to himself for tresspass on private properity. Not so much for the snap shots. If I caught him on my private properity I would be within my rights to detain him for the authorities and to file charges on him as well. Camera or no. On enemey combatants, (a P.C. word for POW) it is not unusual to keep them detained for the duration of the conflict. Sans lawyer or charges. They are members of the opposition's army not bank robbers. On the flip side, when the conflct is over, they should be released even if they are guilty of killing their enemy or blowing stuff up. Its what war is about. Killing people and breaking things. During WWII I don't recall wanking about the German POWs right to see a Lawyer. They had none. And those men don't either.
Click to expand...

1) Yes, you're right, the man trespassed, and for that alone, could have (and should have, at the discretion of the owners) been arrested. However...

2) Photographers have and are being arrested for taking pictures of public buildings in public places which are NOT marked 'no photographs allowed' (even presuming that it is legal to deny a US citizen the right to take a picture of something his or her taxes helped to build).

3) I was not referring to POWs in Gitmo, but rather to US citizens, arrested INSIDE the USA, and held without charge, by the expedient method of simply declaring them to be an 'enemy combatant.' That means YOU could be arrested, told you're an enemy combatant, and that's the last anyone sees or hears of you. Are you saying that YOU have no rights?


According to 2600.org, an amateur photographer was arrested in Denver last Tuesday for snapping pictures of a hotel in which Vice President Dick Cheney was staying. At the station house, a Secret Service agent warned the photographer that he would be charged under the USA-PATRIOT act as a terrorist.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has previously criticized USA-PATRIOT, but it focused mostly on its provisions for citizen surveillance. What this story emphasizes more are the broad police powers introduced by USA-PATRIOT, with ramifications far beyond the impact on technology (though, in this case, it happened to implicate technology).

UPPDATE 11 December 2002 - by Ernest Miller
Police deny the arrest occurred (Police Deny Photographer Arrested).[/block]

Hmm, according to the Patriot Act, the police are allowed to lie about whether or not the fellow was arrested. In fact, it would be permitted for them to do just as they are doing now. So, did the incident NOT HAPPEN, or are the police LYING about it? According to the Patriot Act, they are allowed to lie about it if it is in the national interest. That sound like a good deal to you?

http://www.politechbot.com/p-04221.html

Tucson Citizen photographer arrested while shooting campus protest

http://www.rcfp.org/news/2003/0317photog.html

There are an awful lot more, you only have to look for them online. Or, you can turn a blind eye, declare that Good and Loyal US citizens have nothing to fear - the government would NEVER take our freedoms away, and hide your head in the sand. Fine with me.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
Click to expand...
 
digitalox said:
Let me clarify, I do not condone trespassing and think if that's what the man did then he was wrong. I do think I should be able to stand on public property and take pictures there, but I think if the "right" person came along, you could get into trouble whether you were on private property or not, and for this reason I'm wary these days and have passed up some shots.
Click to expand...

That is correct. You cannot for example, legally photograph the Golden Gate bridge anymore. People DO it, and seem not to be getting arrested, but it is now illegal if they choose to enforce it. Public building, public land, you cannot legally photograph it, even as a US citizen. Of course, anyone who would want to exercise their civil liberties must be a terrorist sympathizer. Just shut your mouth, look straight ahead, and do what the nice policeman tells you, comrade.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
This subject stirs many emotions, and rightly so, I guess. It's strange to realise that the Land of the Free used to be a beacon for the "free" world but has turned into the Land of the Less and Lees Free by own design.

I don't know what an individual could do to turn this trend around but I wish you all a strength and good judgement. I know my heart is not with the US (I despise their economical, political and military strong arm tactics) but people are people, wherever they live. What is nowadays happening to the average citizen (knowingly or unwittingly) in the US is a crying shame. Perhaps some people in powerful places will learn something, turn the tide, and prevent it from happening for another 200 years. Maybe a new revolution is in place....
 
I don't know about revolution, but we get to vote the first Tuesday of November every 4 years. We shall see what happens this year.

It looks like it is going to be a close one, worth staying up until the wee hours of the night to see the outcome.
 
US elections

US elections

RML

Well, I just saw Fahrenhiet 9/11 (double bill with The Corporation - boy, if I wasn't jaded before, I sure am now!), I think I know how Michael Moore is going to vote :D
 
I wish I could! All that's left for me is to stand by the sidelines and pray.

Now... It's 5 o'clock in the afternoon... Do you know where your camera is? :D
 
I'm not sure that there is a good resolution here. On the one hand, I do street photography and would bitterly resent being stopped. And I strongly suspect that the vast majority of stops are unreasonable. But, then there appears the following story of a suspected Hamas member taking video pictures of a Maryland's Bay Bridge: http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/st...f/story/0001/20040824/1029848072.htm&sc=1110. Hard to know what to say about this.

Alan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom