TheAgitator.com
Ignorance of the Law Is No Excuse. Unless You Work in Law Enforcement.
Friday, July 2nd, 2010Carlos Miller, who runs the Photography Is Not a Crime blog, and veteran photojournalist Stretch Leford decided to test the photography rules in Miami-Dade’s metrorail system. Before embarking on their test, they obtained written assurance from Metro Safety and Security Chief Eric Muntan that there’s no law against non-commercial photography on the system.
The two didn’t make it past the first station before they were stopped. Employees of 50 State Security, the private firm contracted to provide the metro’s security, stopped the pair first. They then called in local police. The private firm and the police then threatened the two with arrest, demanded their identification (to check them against a terrorist watch list), demanded multiple times that they stop filming, and eventually “banned” Miller and Ledford from the metro system “for life” (though it’s doubtful they had the authority to do so).
Miller’s account here. Ledford’s is here.
Here’s the video:
Miami-Dade subway? That’d be a good trick.
Fixed, thanks.
“Leford” in the first graf becomes “Ledman” in the last graf.
Lord, where to even begin with this one?
Layers of bureaucratic idiocy, staffed by morons who don’t even know the laws or the correct authority to enforce them. I would even have a measure of sympathy for the idiot cops who are expected to police these tangled policies if they weren’t complete bullying jerkoffs whose first response is to bully the citizen non-uniform who they’re all theoretically there to serve & protect.
This is a nice illustration as to why more oversight and policing is not going to do anything to catch the real people who are out to do harm.
It’s just a matter of time before this happens to all of us sooner or later. And yet politicians keep plunging us further into new pointless “safeguards” that bloat up the civil ranks yet do nothing to actually keep us safe.
“Carlos Miller, who runs the Photography Is Not a Crime blog, and veteran photojournalist Stretch Leford”
“Miller’s account here. Ledman’s is here.”
It comes down to this:
The Police in this country don’t know the law, don’t care about the law, don’t enforce the law, don’t understand the law.
They no longer serve anyone but themselves.
Time to cut their budgets.
Looks like it’s supposed to be Ledford, according to Miller’s site.
They should have refused to give I.D., and disobeyed the illegal order not to enter or photograph. Then when they were illegally arrested they would have a much stronger 1983 and any applicable state action against those involved.
If your goal is to hold them to the law, that is the best way to do it. As things are, I don’t foresee a big suit here unfortunately. Making up lies and promising arrest just doesn’t play in court like actually illegally arresting does.
these aren’t cops and security guards serving, they’re bureaucrats demanding tps reports. this pointless bullshit makes the pursuit of happiness difficult, if not impossible. you’ll run into the same nonsense with any bureaucrat. look at what people trying to build straw bale structures have to deal with, in spite of these buildings being superior in every way. anything not considered ‘normal’ or ‘routine’ in a bureaucrat’s world is suspect and needs to be stopped/examined.
the only differences between these assholes and the assholes at the dmv are that these assholes have guns and are threatening to arrest if you don’t accept their bullshit.
Fuckin’ idiot cops. Know the law? Of course they don’t know the law. Hell, it’s probably all they can do to remember their own names. You don’t get to be a cop by showing you have a brain. You get to be one by showing you don’t. It’s surprising how quick they are to make complete and utter fools of themselves in front of the entire world.
Congratulations 50 State Security, you’ve just succeeded in embarrassing your company with a permanent public video record of your ignorance.
Of course, since there will be no repercussions, it’s not likely that they are going to learn anything from this. I suspect they could walk into the same station a week from now and the entire incident would be repeated precisely the same way.
@ Carl Drega | July 2nd, 2010 at 5:42 pm
Morally, I agree with you, but I suspect if they had refused, the cops would have trumped up some bogus charge like “resisting arrest” and the camera would have “accidentally” been lost or erased.
I don’t blame the security guards in this. Obviously they’ve not been properly trained. A couple of monetary damage awards paid by the security company will fix that pretty quickly. The police are another matter. There is no excuse for their actions, and as we know, since they reside behind the blue line, it takes big public payouts before the top brass begin to change. Even then it seems as likely the county will change the law to forbid photography before they would take any steps to properly train their police. I’m so tired of this garbage.
Carl,
While they might have had a legal right not to do so, I think this issue will get much larger rather soon. Not only are Miller and Ledford making a big deal out this, but one national photography organization has joined them, and another is looking into and may join in as well. Miller has been talking to local media, and we might be looking at a lawsuit.
So, by being polite, cooperative and reasonable they might have actually enhanced their chances of shoving law enforcement and the rent cops heads up their own asses until they gag on the hairs in the back of their throats.
Actually, Wackenhut was fired from the same job, so maybe not. For the cops, no, no serious ramifications, other than looking stupid, but for the security firm they might lose the contract.
This is a clear civil rights violation..Due Process. I remember a recent article (can’t find the link right off) about someone being banned from a public park without a judicial review/hearing. Keep up the good fight.
Florida does have a stop and identify statute. I’m assuming it would be applicable here if the police officer asks for the identification of the two.
Otherwise, they would have been legally protected to not give their identification.
Or at least I think from what I know of the law.
Yeah, I like the way the cop was threatening to take confiscate the video as means to get them to stop recording. Those dickheads are so obsessed with protecting themselves that their real job of providing security to the public got completely lost.
They might, but the security company has a defense: “Hey, how are we supposed to know that photography is legal if your own cops don’t know?” And that assumes that the security company wasn’t simply following the guidelines given them by the authority that hired them.
Hm. The main Metrorail station is about half a mile from where I work, right around where I eat lunch a couple of times a week. I think I may have to head down there with my camera next week.
What happens if you don’t have “ze Papers” ? What if you don’t have a license or even own a car and the reason you take metrofail in the first place?
arguing with a cop is like wrestling with a pig.
you both get covered in shit and the pig enjoys it.
They might, but the security company has a defense: “Hey, how are we supposed to know that photography is legal if your own cops don’t know?”
“Not illegal” doesn’t have to involve a law being passed to allow it. Read the 10th Amendment.
Is Metrorail organized as a government agency or is a non-profit corporation?
If it’s the later then the cops actually are obeying the law: the landowner’s agents told Miller to leave, and even if the security guards were doing so against policy, from the standpoint of the law, Miller was trespassing at that point and the cops were right to say he had to leave.
If it’s the former then the cops weren’t obeying the law and deserve all the criticism they were getting.
Easy to fix: end “qualified immunity” and “absolute immunity”.
Metrorail is organized under Miami-Dade Transit, which is a government entity.
Stormy,
Read the second sentence again.
[...] Endarkenment? By jbiii Way closer than anyone thinks. [...]
[...] Speechless By jbiii Watched this . . . [...]
Bad phrasing on my part. Allow me to make it more clear.
“Hey, how are we supposed to know that our policy of not allowing photography violates the law if your own cops don’t know?”
It has nothing to do with the Tenth Amendment (which is basically ignored by the justice system anyway).
I’m thankful for these folks out there testing the limits and forcing people to be informed. The question is: will this make a difference? Will this force LE/Security to be informed?
Rob@29: Are you actually expecting answers to those questions?
Dave@28: Sure. It’s probably a problem that there is no repercussion for that state of affairs.
Interesting; Wackenhut was fired from this, then went to BP to enforce security on the Gulf.
Off subject a little, but I just saw a Youtube video of a looter in Toronto get tackled by a law-abiding citizen that reminded the anarchist type that he shouldn’t steal. The vigilante then tossed the looted item back into the store. Since there are quite a few anarchist types that comment here, I’d like to hear what they think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CKkLYYczdM&feature=aso
OK, now that we’ve established that we’re all librarians and federal agents pretending to be librarians, can we move on to strategy? I’d certainly like a “strategy only” conversation on this one!
Obviously, the system doesn’t work as advertised. It is broken, and we all understand that. “Mala prohibita” has replaced “mala in se” as the law of the land.
So let’s all ask for paperwork to file police reports. Let’s all do what Edward Lawson is doing. Let’s all battle the courts. Let’s all perform jury rights activism. Let’s all walk our local districts and organize winning libertarian campaigns for State legislator, mayor, etc…
And let’s all make sure we own battle rifles and handguns, and that we live in states where we can carry them both legally, anywhere.
-Jake
907-250-5503
@Oatwhore:
Let me give another example. Suppose of the manager of my local Walmart suddenly decides that customers are not allowed to wear green shirts in the store. Well, I love green shirts so I decide to write Walmart CEO Michael Duke and he sends me a signed letter saying it’s Walmart policy that customers can wear whatever color shirt they like.
Letter in hand, I go back to the Walmart all green-shirted. The manager sees me and tells me I have to leave. I show him the letter. He says, I don’t care what Michael Duke says, this is my store! And he then calls the cops.
Now clearly the manager is violating Walmart policy. But when the police come, it’s not their job to ajudicate a dispute between different levels of Walmart management. I’ve been told to leave and if I don’t I’ll be tresspassing.
Now the question is, is metrorail a corporation, in which case it’s a similar situation; it’s not the police’s job to deal with metrorail’s policies, just to enforce the tresspassing law.
If metrorail, on the other hand, a government agency, then it is the police’s job to understand the policy as it’s now a law as well.
Andy: I think he’s probably an idiot who doesn’t actually have any idea what the word “anarchism” actually implies as a political philosophy, and would be far better described as a “vandalistic ass-clown” or even “common thief”.
@Stormy Dragon:
Your Wal-Mart analogy sounds exactly like what people encounter while openly carrying pistols in Wal-Mart. Wally World’s official policy is that they follow all federal, state, and local laws when it comes to customers carrying guns. And yet, those who carry openly where it’s legal, sometimes run into a butthead uninformed junior “Associate” or “Loss Prevention Specialist” who thinks they have been annointed by Bentonville to decide gun policy. They’re wrong, but when they call the police, the shopper who is in the right has little choice but to comply.
But in the case of Miami-Dade Metro, it’s not a private business with a disconnect between HQ and line staff, so I don’t think the same analogy works.
Been readin the Agitator for some time but never commented thought i’d share a fun metrorail story:
When I was 18, my friend Dan and I had spent the night in Miami for an Against All Authority concert. We got up first thing to take the metrorail to the tri/metrorail transfer. Was about 6 – 7 am? A conductor came out of the yard in a fresh train north of the station, honking his horn repeatedly. Blaring is more accurate, as train horns resemble hockey-stadium foghorns more than car horns. Anyway, we flicked him off for doing it. He flicked us off back. It seemed like a good natured exchange of mutual fuck yous at the time.
Later, we got on the train. A wackenhut approached us and then proceeded to kick us off the train for “flicking off his conductor.” “You gonna just flick off my conductor, huh? Well see where that gets you! You’re OFF my train!” he shouted, and promptly threw us out at the next stop.
I felt indignant.
I’m not an anarchist, but let me state that neither are the left wing idiots who show up to cause trouble at these events. Anarchists are generally opposed to government as a concept, the left is simply opposed to any particular government that they don’t control.
Last time I checked, anarchy wasn’t about prohibiting free trade. These idiots are fascists plain and simple, and as for the guy getting owned my only comment is that I was sorry to see he wasn’t held for police, or in the alternative given a few hits to the head chest neck and breast.
“Doubtful” they had the authority to ban the photogs for life?
You must mean absof^ckinglutely impossible they have such authority.
Well, that’s my question. There are generally two ways of setting up public transit systems. One if to make them a department of the municipal government. The other is to make them a non-profit corporation (in my local area, for example, SEPTA is set up as a non-profit corporation). I can’t find anything online saying whether Metrorail is of the first type or the second.
In this case I think it makes a big difference in terms of the police responsibility.
I completely agree with what Carlos Miller is doing, but I’m not sure how good his legal footing was in this case.
As Stormy Dragon alluded, if the transit system is organized as a private corporation, the security guards are agents of the property owner and can tell him to get out for whatever reason they wish.
IANAL, but even if it is government owned, the state, acting as proprietor of the rail system, has some property rights. It’s a close enough call that the cops wouldn’t have been out of line for arresting them for trespass.
IMHO, they should have contacted Security Chief Muntan and get him to correct his contractor’s incorrect interpretation of the laws and/or rules of the transit system. Or filmed from a public street or other area that the public enjoys full access to – notice that even tho they were told filming the trains was illegal, they weren’t arrested for it?
- pardon me for slightly straying, but, it would appear that the function of our contemporary police is to solely deal with the anti-social/deviant/incorrigble slice of our population – that is to say, that small portion that really only responds to force. When confronted by reasonable citizens who are simply doing something unusual (as #9 | Marty mentions) the police/security people don’t seem to have a common sense “Plan B” sort of reaction. I feel that this has become a self-perpetuating part of the police culture.
I’d talk to a GOOD, AGRESSIVE ATTORNEY about possibility of suing all government agencies that participated in this unlawful activity and all the officers INDIVIDUALLY for “conspiring to deny civil rights” under 18USC, Sections 241, 242.
Would like to hear opinion of any real lawyers about this situation and the application of the above law.
Thanks,
IMHO, the security guards and the cops should have immediately begun to question what the fuck they were doing when they were presented with ample evidence that they were wrong. Instead they kept barreling ahead as if legalities are an immaterial annoyance and their command authority is all that matters.
The bottom line is that they are used to so much latitude that they can’t even imagine that they are exceeding their authority in a way that will get them into trouble which, to them, is the only important factor worth considering.
As with any encounter with the public, cops feel free to assume absolute authority because any situation could potentially be a threat to safety. In view of that perception, they are completely baffled when someone complains that their rights are being violated. They are mutually exclusive concepts. How can a mere pedestrian claim to have rights when cops are busy claiming to have absolute authority? Furthermore, cops routinely abuse their authority by interpreting every situation as being a potential threat regardless of anything they know to the contrary (and they will lie as required to support that contention later, which is why they fear video more than anything).
Nothing that pisses a cop off more than someone pointing out that they are abusing their authority.
Hardison Collins #39, good post!
Dave Krueger “IMHO” We all know you don’t have a HUMBLE opinion.
Assuming they purchased a ticket, doesn’t that create a contractual obligation on the part of Metrorail?
I don’t think the comparison to Wal-Mart holds as Wal-Mart is not a common carrier and thus is not subject to the special obligations and restrictions that apply to common carriers.
“A common carrier is legally bound to carry all passengers or freight as long as there is enough space, the fee is paid, and no reasonable grounds to refuse to do so exist. A common carrier that unjustifiably refuses to carry a particular person or cargo may be sued for damages”.
#42 | Nick42 | July 3rd, 2010 at 12:41 pm
IANAL, but even if it is government owned, the state, acting as proprietor of the rail system, has some property rights. It’s a close enough call that the cops wouldn’t have been out of line for arresting them for trespass.
How do you figure? A metro stop is an all-comers area, what basis do they have to avoid arbitrary enforcement of trespass than the camera business which is not against policy? It’s not a close call at all.
I struggle to guess how the police union spokesperson would explain the cops’ behavior.
Most likely they’d say something like “It is unfortunate that these officers didn’t know the law, couldn’t understand written proof when presented to them, and basically acted like dickheads.” Yes, that is probably what the union would say.
@EH #48
A metro stop is a business run by either a private corporation or a state, either way it is not a public forum or area like the streets or a public park
I don’t see a problem with how the actual cops acted. They got there and security guards said those people aren’t allowed in because they’re not following the rules. As agents of the owner of the property, they get to make that decision. The cops are just enforcing the normal trespassing laws.
It’s the same as the analogy made earlier about carrying in Walmart. It’s not the cop’s job to correct the agent’s interpretation of the owner’s policy. The better course of action would be to contact the higher up that gave them permission and have them tell the rent a cops to follow the policy.
[...] of the Law Is No Excuse. Unless You Work in Law Enforcement."Balko. Jul 03, 10 | 11:38 pm AxeBitesVarious guitars I see floating by, mostly Gibson and mostly eBay. [...]
Years ago, there was a fatal single car accident on the edge of our property. My late brother (an attorney) wandered over to observe the goings-on.
He was leaning on a fencepost when a Highway Patrolman came over to inform him that he was “interfering with an investigation” and had to leave.
My brother donned his best courtroom manner, looked the Patrolman square in the eye and said, in a low voice: “You are trespassing on my property. I am observing your activities. Are you telling me I have to leave my property, Patrolman? Be very careful how you answer.”
The guy blanched, took a couple of long steps back and went to confer with his superior. There was no further conversation.
Several times, my brother pointed out to me that while most people know very little about the law, police are often at a severe disadvantage because they think they understand the law and feel confident in acting on their misconceptions. When you’re confronted by the cops, stay calm, know your rights and keep in mind how fast all that bravado and arrogance vanishes when they’re sitting in the witness box answering legal questions with twelve people just like you looking on.
“IMHO, the security guards and the cops should have immediately begun to question what the fuck they were doing when they were presented with ample evidence that they were wrong. Instead they kept barreling ahead as if legalities are an immaterial annoyance and their command authority is all that matters.”
Mr. Krueger, you nailed it. This is the bottom line for pretty much all interactions with law enforcement. The LAW is immaterial. The only thing they ever care about is their authority at that given time and space. They could care less about the law.
Charlie O, I’m curious, exactly how much less could the police care about the law?
[...] Via Radley Balko, Carlos Miller from Photography Is Not A Crime, and Stretch Ledford, a veteran photojournalist currently pursuing a Masters degree in Multimedia Journalism at the University of Miami School of Communication, decided to do a test. After speaking with the head of security of the Miami Metrorail, they planned to take their cameras aboard a train and go three stations to see what would happen. Ledford had done his homework on this project, having interviewed Miami-Dade Transit head of security Eric J. Muntan who informed him that people had the right to take pictures within the Metrorail station with the exception of commercial photography, which needed prior approval. [...]
[...] Via Radley Balko, Carlos Miller from Photography Is Not A Crime, and Stretch Ledford, a veteran photojournalist currently pursuing a Masters degree in Multimedia Journalism at the University of Miami School of Communication, decided to do a test. After speaking with the head of security of the Miami Metrorail, they planned to take their cameras aboard a train and go three stations to see what would happen. Ledford had done his homework on this project, having interviewed Miami-Dade Transit head of security Eric J. Muntan who informed him that people had the right to take pictures within the Metrorail station with the exception of commercial photography, which needed prior approval. [...]
[...] Radley Balko, Carlos Miller from Photography Is Not A Crime, and Stretch Ledford, a veteran photojournalist [...]
[...] Georgia lawyer, but neither is Murphy. And I suspect this is a case in which a police officer is just making shit up as he goes along. It’s hard to imagine Georgia law would support a charge of obstruction of justice against the [...]