Sonic Youth and the Feelies vs. A Giant Hole of Suck
Why Does the Wilbur Theatre Suck? Better Rock Shows in 5 Steps
Photo of the Day, November 23, 2009: Stark
Photo of the Day, November 24, 2009: Hook, Line, and Sinker
Where Should You Eat? A Fast Food Flowchart
photo by nohodamon
Bostonist loves our Flickr photographers and we love freedom of speech. That's why we're always appalled when police hassle law abiding photographers while they exercise their First Amendment right to take photographs in public. That's what apparently happened last week.
Last Thursday morning, Joe, a local photographer, stopped at Mary O’Malley park in Chelsea for a few pictures of the Tobin Bridge and the surrounding area (boats, docks, etc). After about 10 minutes he decided to get back on the road, but two patrol cars arrived and blocked him in. Joe says that the two officers got out of their patrol cars and began questioning him aggressively about what he was doing. Joe explained the situation to the officers. The officer explained to him that he was being stopped for taking photos and that the area is “under heavy surveillance” and that “photographing was not allowed” since it is a “protected area.”
There are no laws, including the Patriot Act, that forbid photography in public parks. Public parks are by their very nature, public and therefore are not a “protected area.” Joe explained that he was a photographer and that he took pictures around Chelsea all the time without incident. The officers asked for his ID, and some credentials to prove he was a photographer. Photography is a constitutionally protected form of free speech in the US, as the US Supreme Court has ruled many times over.
The police officers ran their standard license and vehicle registration checks and then told Joe that he could not photograph in the area, take pictures of the bridge, or the LNG (liquefied natural gas) area. Joe again explained that he wasn’t doing anything wrong and was just putting together images for a stock photography site. One officer asked to see the pictures, and then told Joe he had to delete them, and then show him the review to confirm deletion. They also questioned him about other photos on his camera from a previous night.
Although Joe agrees that the police officer did ask, and not demand, he let them see his photos, he didn’t feel that he could refuse. Joe was under no obligation to let the officer see the pictures without a court order. An officer cannot force you to delete photos on a digital camera or ruin a roll of film in a film camera without a court order.
Joe was obviously upset by what he considered to be unfair treatment by the Chelsea Police Department. He contacted the department and was referred to Internal Affairs and was told that they have to investigate if someone reports a situation. No problem there, we expect our police departments to do just that. He was also told that next time he wants to photograph there he is to call and let the office in charge know that he has been OK’d for photography.
But that's absurd. Joe has absolutely no obligation to call the police for permission to photograph. He has a first amendment right to take photographs. When Joe made the point about being asked to delete the photos, the officer from Internal Affairs said they should have said something to the effect of “Would you delete the images to clear up any suspicion.” The officer reportedly added that when it comes to the LNG, the State Police might make the same inferences. Apparently, hassling law abiding citizens is common there. Chelsea police had not returned a request for comment by the time this post was published.
It's an example of how our basic Constitutional rights are slipping away. Either by giving them away (phoning the police before taking pictures) or by having them taken from us (being intimidated by officers on threat of arrest). Although this particular story relates to photographers the fact is that this could have been anyone in the area that day or any other day. This Bostonist certainly isn’t anti-police, in fact as a former EMT/Firefighter I think most of our police officers do a fantastic job under very stressful conditions. But we also need our police to understand that not everyone is a terrorist, and threatening innocent people with arrest is not the answer.
Photographers, arm yourselves with information. Always carry The Photographers' Bill of Rights in your camera bag to show police who try to keep you from exercising them.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
After reading this entry I used the MBTA's comment form to ask for clarification on what their photography policy is. I suggest that everyone that cares about this issue does the same and maybe they will decide to post it online too.
http://www.mbta.com/customer%5Fsupport/
Four years ago, i got the same treatment from Massport cops while photographing planes landing at Logan. My aviation nerdery was apparently rather threatening, enough so that the cop sped up to me, skidded to a halt, and bolted out of his car. The conversation went something like "You can't do this blah blah blah 9/11 blah blah everything changed blah 9/11."
i know i feel safer.
Who loves their readers? We do! Ask and you shall receive.. The MBTA's photo policy in .PDF form:
http://transitpolice.us/Photo%20Policy/Photo%20Policy%201.pdf
Adding that I carry a copy of the MBTA .PDF in my bag at all times, and you'll often have to ask for a supervisor to not get hassled. To quote Benjamin Franklin, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Thanks for the article. I am glad we are making noise about this issue, hopefully others will step forward and perhaps we can gain some mass media attention.
I've been stopped while taking pictures out on Fan Pier and also near the Federal Bank.
At the Fed, I was approached by two SWAT-looking agents with some serious guns. I saw them coming and snapped off a few pictures of them. When they asked to see my photos, I showed them the photos of them advancing toward me with guns. The officer laughed and commented on how good lookin' he was.
At Fan Pier, at night, a boat came up to the shore where I was taking pictures, he asked me a few questions, asked me to flash him my ID and was on his way. He also mentioned the LNG tanks, but not in a way that suggested I was up to no good, just to explain himself and why he had to stop and talk to me.
Both times, my impression was they were asking questions to get a feel for me, was I nervous? was I forthcoming? They didn't ask me to delete pictures or call first next time. They seemed pretty reasonable. Of course, I'm a girl, I'm white, and I was cooperative.
There is a difference between dociley surrendering your rights and cooperating with officers who are doing their best to protect us. I found that if I responded with respect and a sense of humor, so did they.
That said, I carry the Photographers' Rights Card in my wallet.
Thanks for the story!
Small steps to make big changes...
Thanks for the article from me as well. I appreciate that you're taking the time to publicize this for everyone.
ugh! This has been a problem for years at Union Station in DC for years. Amtrak officials and the station management were dragged before congress for a hearing by Rep. Norton, but really nothing has been done since. There seems to be this universal denial of knowledge about who is telling security personnel to hassle photographers.
Also, isn't this a little ironic given how paparazzi literally harangue "celebrities" to death/insanity?
Just sayin...
Thanks for calling attention to this, Bostonist. Do you perhaps have the contact information of someone at the PD and/or city hall we could write to express our frustration with this clear violation of constitutional rights?
Chelsea PD did not return our attempts to contact them. If you're upset by events like these please contact your state representatives and let them know how you feel. Unfortunately this is an issue that will only change at the upper levels. Let your elected officials know that you're a photographer and you vote.
I love any story that brings attention to photographers' rights. Fight back & assert your rights; cops and security guards are banking on the idea that no one knows/cares enough to do anything about this.
Read our blog too - www.discarted.wordpress.com - we cover this topic all the time. (It's run in part by one of Quincy's own, too - and the guy to the immediate right in the above photo.)
@tuscadero
There is a difference between dociley surrendering your rights and cooperating with officers who are doing their best to protect us. I found that if I responded with respect and a sense of humor, so did they.
But, YOU actually ARE dociley [sic] giving up your rights by answering questions that they don't have a right to ask. You have the right: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
You could posit the argument that such questioning is within reason, but is photography such a criminal act? It's obvious you're taking pictures. There's nothing that gives any reason for a reasonable person to assume you are doing something nefarious.
Your docile supplication to the various agents and answering their interrogation questions is surrendering your rights and providing a basis on which the police will expect people to surrender those rights in the future.
I'm sorry you are so naive to not understand this basic right.
I think the best approach to something like this is to cooperate. Really cooperate. As in, start calling the police every two minutes and describe, in copious detail, the picture you intend to take next. And encourage all your photographer friends to do the same. I have a feeling they'll back way off once they've spent a few days yakking non-stop with insanely chatty photographers.
(I actually had a situation like this recently where a guy came out of a business next to the one I was getting some shots of prior to an interview. Chatting the guy's ear off, well beyond his boredom threshhold, about what I do helped drive him away.)
After reading the MBTA policy, one word troubles me: MAY. "The MBTA Transit Police Officer or other MBTA Official may allow the person to take pictures at the specific location under the following conditions" This implies that they police may or may not allow picture taking, a huge loophole for them.
As someone who photographs mainly at night, I run into police and security all the time who say that I'm not allowed to take pictures.
It does help to carry some prints and a student id in your camera bag. I've also found that simply stating, "I'm an artist." often goes a long way with them. They nod with the sudden rationalization that I am not a terrorist, just a wierdo.
Lance, good point. Luckily the MBTA has spelled out the conditions:
1) the person provides proper identification:
Not an unreasonable request in my opinion.
2) the circumstances indicate that the subject(s) of the picture(s) does/do not pose a security or safety threat or in any way cause disruption of service or operations of the MBTA:
If you can see it, it isn't a security risk. The station platforms, etc are all publicly accessible and are therefore not secured locations.
3) the picture(s) is/are for personal or educational use only (e.g., tourist, railroad buff, student, artist, etc.): It's very clear that commercial photographers need permits so this only applies to them.
In my opinion the MBTA policy, as written, is a reasonable viewpoint between security and the public's 1st amendment rights.