 |
Re: ACLU tangles with Philadelphia MTA over rail photography
Author: Joe
Date: 06-03-2011 - 11:56
Scott Schiechl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK, the whole issue here is "probable cause".
> This is what law enforcement officers MUST have to
> detain someone or compel them to produce ID. 1)
> Did the transit officers have probable cause to
> ask Chris what he was doing? Yes. They had a
> report which they were obliged to check out. 2)
> Did they have probable case to require him to
> produce ID? NO! Taking photos from public access
> areas is not a crime nor even "suspicious
> activity". Chris having told them what he was
> doing and who he was should have ended it. My
> next-door neighbor is an Assistant DA and ex-cop.
> He confirms the correctness of what I have said.
Those are great points, but let's back up the clock a bit. At the time that this happened, they (incorrectly) told Chris that he was violating MTA policy for not getting prior approval for taking photos on the platform. It is apparent in the video (Part 1) that Chris did not disagree with this, because at no time did he tell them that they were wrong. If someone is going to protest like this, they would speak up and tell a person they are wrong. But that did not happen. So he was purposely making a mountain out of a molehill, as the fare inspector mentioned this to him. For what purpose would a person WANT to engage the MTA employees like this? At that point, who is harassing who? Ask your neighbor (the assistant DA) another question: If a police officer goes to a call that he was dispatched to, and when he arrives there he locates the person and the person refuses to give ID (physical ID, not verbal ID), what do police officers think in that situation, and what do they do in that situation? Not what law was broken, but what is going through the mind of the officer. Do the officers say, "Okey dokee" and leave? Or do they stick around to make sure they are not walking away from a wanted felon? Or do they stick around to investigate the incident completely to make sure that everything is fine, and that this will not come back to bite them later down the road? Ask if it would be within the realm of practical possibilities that an officer could be revealing an arrest warrant, contraband, or even the possibility of a domestic terrorist who is up to no good. The possibilities are endless, however, the main issue would be: What goes through an officer's mind when someone refuses to produce ID, and what do they do about it? I still have no problem with what they tried to do, and I believe that this incident wouldn't have even taken place if some common sense and common courtesies were practiced. I realize I'm in the position of NOT preaching to the choir here, as my opinion is in the minority. It's sort of like a vegetarian walking into the butcher's shop and talking about not eating meat. The reception that the person would receive would be pretty cold, as is the case here. But there are more important things going on than taking a train picture.
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK, the whole issue here is "probable cause".
> This is what law enforcement officers MUST have to
> detain someone or compel them to produce ID. 1)
> Did the transit officers have probable cause to
> ask Chris what he was doing? Yes. They had a
> report which they were obliged to check out. 2)
> Did they have probable case to require him to
> produce ID? NO! Taking photos from public access
> areas is not a crime nor even "suspicious
> activity". Chris having told them what he was
> doing and who he was should have ended it. My
> next-door neighbor is an Assistant DA and ex-cop.
> He confirms the correctness of what I have said.
Those are great points, but let's back up the clock a bit. At the time that this happened, they (incorrectly) told Chris that he was violating MTA policy for not getting prior approval for taking photos on the platform. It is apparent in the video (Part 1) that Chris did not disagree with this, because at no time did he tell them that they were wrong. If someone is going to protest like this, they would speak up and tell a person they are wrong. But that did not happen. So he was purposely making a mountain out of a molehill, as the fare inspector mentioned this to him. For what purpose would a person WANT to engage the MTA employees like this? At that point, who is harassing who? Ask your neighbor (the assistant DA) another question: If a police officer goes to a call that he was dispatched to, and when he arrives there he locates the person and the person refuses to give ID (physical ID, not verbal ID), what do police officers think in that situation, and what do they do in that situation? Not what law was broken, but what is going through the mind of the officer. Do the officers say, "Okey dokee" and leave? Or do they stick around to make sure they are not walking away from a wanted felon? Or do they stick around to investigate the incident completely to make sure that everything is fine, and that this will not come back to bite them later down the road? Ask if it would be within the realm of practical possibilities that an officer could be revealing an arrest warrant, contraband, or even the possibility of a domestic terrorist who is up to no good. The possibilities are endless, however, the main issue would be: What goes through an officer's mind when someone refuses to produce ID, and what do they do about it? I still have no problem with what they tried to do, and I believe that this incident wouldn't have even taken place if some common sense and common courtesies were practiced. I realize I'm in the position of NOT preaching to the choir here, as my opinion is in the minority. It's sort of like a vegetarian walking into the butcher's shop and talking about not eating meat. The reception that the person would receive would be pretty cold, as is the case here. But there are more important things going on than taking a train picture.
