Craig Tambo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I won't try to argue with Joe's logic, since it
> goes 'round and 'round like a dog chasing its
> tail. However, I would like to contribute a
> finding of the Federal court:
>
> "Any interference with a person's conduct and
> actions, that are not themselves unlawful, is the
> violation of a civil right. The operation of a
> camera is a lawful act and a citizen's privilege
> to take pictures, unless made specifically
> unlawful by statute, is such a civil right as is
> protected by the Constitution of the United
> States."
>
> This is from the case, United States v. Gugel,
> tried in Kentucky in 1954. To the best of my
> knowledge, this still holds true. (The phrase
> "unless made specifically unlawful by statute"
> refers to military bases and other locales
> critical to national security. This of course was
> pre-9/11; I suppose now there are those who think
> anything a terrorist can blow up is critical to
> national security, even a streetcar. However,
> there as yet are no laws codifying such
> restrictions to photography.)

Did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, or are you a lawyer?

You folks are missing the big picture here. I will spell it out again:

Why didn't Chris provide his ID, cooperate, and then continue on with his photography if it is permissible in the given circumstances?

If you want to talk about case law and statutory law, then you should address what matters in this case. I am not talking about the legality of taking pictures. I don't know if you are purposely ignoring that fact or what, but you continue to miss the point. The facts in this specific case are that the police were called to investigate someone taking pictures on the platform of property owned by the MTA. The police officers did not self-initiate the detention by witnessing it themselves, and deciding to detain the person. Instead, the police were CALLED there by an MTA employee who works at that location. In this case, it just happened to be a person taking pictures that was suspicious to the MTA employee. Do you understand that every day in America, the police are called to suspicious person calls that are NOT related to taking pictures at a train station?

Now, stay on track here.....Given THOSE circumstances----not the legality of taking pictures----but the incident as it came across to the officers at that date and time, they were making a detention. The person refused to provide legal identification to the officers. That is wrong. Not the taking of pictures, but refusing to give ID. Why did Chris refuse to provide ID when asked to do so by the police officer? At the time, Chris did not know what the policy was of the MTA. If he did know, he did not state it.....which means HE DID NOT KNOW.

Nobody has addressed this yet, and that is the meat of the whole incident. Watch the video again if you have to. The long, drawn out, ridiculous situation was caused by ONE thing, and that was his refusal to provide lawful identification.

Now, if you choose to not provide ID to the police under your belief that you don't have to, then go right ahead and do that. If you feel it's worth getting arrested, that's your decision. As I said previously, I think the officers blew it by not escorting him off MTA property and issuing a trespassing warning.