The photographer in the subway was being a total ass. He obviously was initiating the confrontation. And the Deputy had every right to investigate until he was satisfied that the photographer was not taking the photos for some illegal purpose. It may not be illegal to take the photos per subway rules, but it is illegal to sell them to some terrorist organization.

And as you can see by the tape, the photographer continues to ignore the deputies larger reason for detaining him.

Nothing but a drama queen photographer.

Geo, sure the photographer was being an ass but the cop in that video was talking out of his. Within his rights to question sure but do you really think he thought he was stopping a potential terrorist attack? PLEASE…

I did my time as a photojournalist and I’m proud of the fact that every time a police officer attempted to step on my rights as a citizen, photographer and journalist that I stood up for them. Each time with respect and each and every time the officer was in the wrong and I was abiding by the law.

If you’re going to enforce the law you should at least understand it rather than make it up as you go along.

the tog is the first video was a complete w^&**ker, my vote goes to the policeman, give him a break he is only doing his job!!!!

eddie

It’s time we senior photographer’s educate the younger ones on photo etiquette, or just general good manners. It is one thing to be an undercover photojournalist working a story, it is another to set someone up into a contrived confrontation. I have been taking photos for more than 30 years in 10 different states, and I know that if you want to take photos of public facilities, you need to ask permission or get a permit. In this era of “heighten terrorist awareness” law enforcement authorities in and around public facilities will challenge anyone behaving suspicously, including photographers. I live in the Washington D.C. area where the public is always taking photos of monuments, but there are some places where it photography is clearly frowned upon. Had our friendly tyro photo tried this act at the Pentagon metro stop, he would be a guest of Uncle Sam’s for a very long time. (They don’t give slaps on the wrist here.)
As a citizen you have rights you want to express, but law enforcement officers have to protect everyone’s rights and their safety. Terrorists have taken advantage of the rights U.S. citizens to execute plots that have killed innocent people.
There have been several public incidents in Washington D.C. (going back to the Lincoln assassination) where terrorist have killed people. Recently, here in D.C. it has been law enforcement officers who have been killed. In the past five years police officers have been shot and killed at the U.S. Capitol building, the Pentagon and at the Holocaust Museum.
Law enforcement professionals take their work here with a “heighten sense of urgency” along with life and death seriousness.
To those of you, gonzo journalist photographers, who want to come exercise your right to take photos in public areas, you can. But be sure to have a lot of bail money. And when confronted be nice to the officer, don’t try to run or walk away. (The nice officer WILL most likly draw his weapon). If he or she asks to see your Identification, show them. Arguing will only make matters worse for you. Remember, should you find yourself in such an extreme situation, your rights don’t count. In fact, your survival is not assured. They have guns. They will, depending on how you present yourself, shoot you.
Now remember, I said this is in Washington D.C. Things may be different elsewhere. I have heard from friends travelling in Europe that the situation is a lot more, “tense”. The gGendarmerie and Polici just don’t play. At All.
So to those who were “just” harassed by the LA County sheriff department, count your blessings.
And one more thing, you may do this and get away with it. But think about the next photographer who comes along. Think of the grief you have just set him or her up for.

So the learning points today are:
Be nice to Law Enforcement officers so they don’ enforce the law on you.
Get permission or at least ask permission.
In this heighten terrorist awareness era, no is no. Just move on.
Have I.D. and present it when asked. (Just doing this little act will save you a lot of trouble).
God protects babies and fools. He leaves the stupid to their own devices.

Until next time

Please excuse the typos in the above post. My old age eyes are not as sharpe as they used to be.

Those photogs are all just jerks and deliberately provoking the “system”. They deserve whatever hassles they get. When a law enforcement person tells you to stop, then why do you have to question it. Really ticks me off – those photogs do. They simply have no respect. (and no, I’m not a cop)

For those saying the tog was being a jerk etc.
Really? Tell ya what, I am going to find you while your out shooting a wedding and I will detain you for half an hour or so because I think you could sell your images to terrorists so they can learn how to put a bomb in a wedding dress.

Yea sounds ludicrous doesn’t it. Yet that is the exact same reasoning this officer used.

The guy was taking photos, he was not harassing anyone, the officer stops him and asks him what he is doing. He tells him he is taking photos. Thats the end of the conversation, he is doing nothing illegal and therefore the officer has no cause to stop and detain him. That should have been the end of it, but it was probably a slow day and officer round belly felt the need to make sure people respected his authority. He lied during the course of the confrontation, he threatened lasting public humiliation when the tog asserted his legal right to remain silent. When a “suspect” asserts said right, all questioning stops, yet in tis case he kept on going, again, breaking the real laws, not the made up laws he was detaining the tog for.

In my home state there is no need to keep an ID on you, but it is in my wallet so it is always on me anyway, but the last 4 times I have been asked for identification I simply gave them my name, they asked for my ID, I asked them if I was being detained, they said yes, I stated my name again clearly, and spelled it for them. Pissed him off but he knew there was nothing he could do about it, he had no legal right to ask for my Id so he was not getting it.
He basically ended up giving up and going away as I simply ignored his repeated attempts to goad me into a confrontation.

You have to protect your rights, Marc453, if you want to give up your rights and civil liberties, have fun, thats a right you have, but I have the obligation to protect my rights and will do so.
Oh, and the point about the officer who will kill you for asserting your rights, this is the EXACT reason we need to assert our rights.
I carry a weapon at all times, I am trained in the use of that weapon, if an officer were to pull a weapon on me for no reason other than contempt of cop, I would fear for my own life and I would indeed protect myself as I best could, if that meant ending the life of the officer than so be it.

Now let me go over your lesson for the day.

“Be nice to Law Enforcement officers so they don’ enforce the law on you.”

The main problem with this one, there was no law being broken, the law is not to be USED on you, it is to protect innocent citizens, the law is not a weapon, it is a tool for justice, your view of the law is as perverted as these officers.

“Get permission or at least ask permission.”

When there is no need to ask permission there is no reason to get permission, the MTA states that taking photos in the public areas is allowed, therefore they have given de-facto permission to all of those with a camera who wish to take pictures in the public areas. Therefore, this argument is moot.

“In this heighten terrorist awareness era, no is no. Just move on.”

Sorry but no, there is no heightened terror time, I guess it was fine to just lock up any Asian looking American citizens when Pearl harbor was bombed because “the turrerist done hurt us”.
Sorry, the very fact that you would give up your essential liberties due to a single terroristic act actually helps the terrorists causes, now they know they can directly affect us with a small amount of money and planning. Why go big, go small and we will eventually give up all rights. Then they win.
You want to beat terrorism, very simple, 3 words, Business As Usual, you can try to hurt us, but we will take it in stride and keep on trucking.

“Have I.D. and present it when asked. (Just doing this little act will save you a lot of trouble).”

Two words “Papers Please”. If you do not know what that means, go find an older person who grew up in Nazi Germany. Just checking to make sure your ok, nothing wrong there, if you have nothing to hide you should be fine right?

Sorry, 4th amendment. Look it up, my papers, my property, not breaking the law, go arrest the crack dealer down the street officer and leave the friendly neighborhood tog alone.
If they have no need to see my ID they won’t be seeing it.

“God protects babies and fools. He leaves the stupid to their own devices.”

There is no god, if this statement were true there would be no stillborn babies or SIDS or children dying, as well there would be no Darwin awards since the fools would be protected.
God is fairy tale made up by those who are to scared to face the reality that life is short and they will probably never be able to achieve what they want to, so therefore they invent an afterlife so much more glamorous than this one therefore making this life a worthless and taking away that bit of preciousness that is this life.

So I just watched the other two videos as well, the cop who was a Marine needs his ass kicked, and if I were to come across him this 1st Sgt would kick that lying little Marines ass and remind him of his corps values and general orders.

The third video, this right here is the reason this needs to be public, the Latino rent a cop came up and physically assaulted the photographer and stole from him. Both of those are crimes and I am glad they were caught on film, the lady rent a cop, had she touched his camera could be charged with that, the fact she lunged at him is enough to charge her with attempted assault.

The MTA there has already said they are allowed to take pictures and video, those security guards are WAY overstepping their bounds.

And you folks still think it is ok to to just roll over and show your belly when the out of control authority figures tell you so are the REASON these officers and guards act like this, they are used to people such as you who bend to their will and who believe in the made up laws they tell them, then when people like myself and the ones in the videos stand up for our rights it enrages them.

This is NOT how authority figures should act, this is flagrant violations of the law and you people here who see the togs and say they are provoking it make me sick. There should be no way for them to provoke anything, they are doing nothing wrong, there is nothing to provoke other than an overbearing type A who is butt hurt that they are not being obeyed immediately.

For anyone else out there that is clueless like James, the first one did not provoke initially, but he did not cooperate. He admits he was detained before for the exact same thing. He “knows” his rights and he “knows” what to do to provoke the officer. Any normal person puts their camera away and moves on – they DON’T QUESTION THE OFFICER.

#2 When the officer says to move on you MOVE ON. DON’T QUESTION THE OFFICER. He continues to provoke the officer.

#3 The guy clearly admits to “pushing the limits” and “testing the system”. DON’T TEST THE SYSTEM and PUSH THE LIMITS.

Sure you want to be an idiot and test the limits of EVERY situation, then you will surely find officers that have had it dealing with idiots such as these 3. Like I said before, you deserve what you get, because you don’t RESPECT AUTHORITY.

I think the photographers were definitely pushing the limits! In the second video I feel like the photographer should honor the rights of the police officer when he asked as a citizen to not be photographed. I think any individual should have the right to ask for themselves or their children to not be photographed.But as far as public buildings…come on….we know that any terrorist that can get into an area can photograph it….but would be very sly about it. Cameras come very tiny these days, just stick your cellphone in your front pocket and wander around, you can get alot of footage without ever being noticed!

Oh yes Allen, by all means, “do not question authority” even if they are wrong, now move along, there is this real pretty safety camp with really nice showers we are sending you to.

FYI, the “guy” in one and two are the same guy. He is trying to prove a point, he proves it well.

I respect authority, I do not respect officers who blatantly lie and make up laws on the spot in order to push people, that is not an officer, that is a bully.

Carole, I agree with you, however while he can ask to not be photographed despite his assertion that it is illegal, he is wrong. You can ask not to be photographed. but the photographer can keep doing it and you have no recourse.

Think of this situation, your out standing by your car awaitng your significant other to get out of the store, photographer walks bye and begins taking pictures of you. You ask him to stop, he says nope and continues, you have a couple of choices, move, turn around, go in the store, get in the car, anything, but one of the choices you do not have it to go up and stop him from doing it, that would be assault and you would go to jail for it.

Just because this “citizen in a uniform” asked to not be photographed does mean the photographer must then stop, is he being a douche by continuing, yes, but it is not illegal, and the cop should have simply continued on his business and ignored the guy, he would have gotten his shots and left and there would have been no problem.

Learn the laws folks, just because you do not like the, does not mean you can change them on the spot to suit yourself.

Quick note,

“For anyone else out there that is clueless like James, the first one did not provoke initially, but he did not cooperate.” Allen.

This is better known as “contempt of cop” and has been ruled many times to be an offense worth firing the officer for and handing the citizen money and asking them not to sue the hell out of the department.

The cop is not my daddy, I disrespected my dad, he backhanded me, I disrespect an police officer, oh well, not illegal.

This is an important discussion on many levels. First, yes I agree that officials in law enforcement do not necessarily know all the laws. Sometimes they are unreasonable and sometimes they are arrogant. That’s a given in every type of job or service area anywhere. Police have a specific job. The boundaries of that job are not always 100% clear, even to them. But they are also citizens like us. If you go up to a person on the street to take their picture and they do not want you to, why would you not respect that?
You are also obligated to NOT use the photo for any gain whatsoever unless you obtain a model release. If they don’t want to give you one, you are done. Let’s not single out law enforcement for wanting their privacy. Most of us also don’t want people taking our photos when we are out in public. There are a lot of people who do not use that kind of “photography” for good purposes. Police put their lives on the line every day. They make enemies. I’d be suspicious too if people all of a sudden showed up unannounced where I was working and started taking pictures of me. Police are not celebrities. Paparazzi have no business with law enforcement. Let’s stop being arrogant ourselves as photographers and try to see both sides of this argument. As with any RIGHT granted by our Constitution it can be abused and twisted for personal agenda. That’s why we have lawyers. If you feel the police have treated you unfairly, DON’T antagonize them. Call your attorney or file a complaint. You have rights but you will have a poor case if you disobey a direct instruction from a police officer. That IS written into most law so be aware of that.

In the first video, the Deputy was extremely polite and really made a concerted effort to explain why his job was being done. The person shooting pictures was just being a snot. I congratulate Deputy Gylfie for not losing his cool and for being so polite and calm as he dealt with someone who clearly didn’t care about anyone’s rights but his own. This kind of thing happens all of the time. I am a photographer and if I rode the Metro I would not care one bit if that guy was arrested, detained, kicked out, or whatever. What about my rights too? I have a right to feel safe on public transportation. There ARE people who want to blow up trains and subways and the more you help them, the more at risk you put the public. The generations today do not have a WWII mentality. They have zero regard for the fact we are at war. This is hard because it is not a war in any traditional sense. This is a lot more complex. Perhaps the better solution is to let people do absolutely anything they want since they are free. Then you could just let them carry their own weapons and defend themselves. But then you also risk the fact that you may not be trained enough or fast enough to do that. There are no simple answers. The letter of law is not perfect. But we have to start somewhere just short of anarchy and realize we can’t always do anything we please and call it RIGHTS.

Lou,

I agree with you on a good many points.
If you take a picture of a person walking down the street and they ask you to stop doing so it is just polite to stop, but if you feel like not being polite the person have no ability to stop and detain you for any length of time, nor touch your person or possessions. That is the difference here, the police are using their given powers to intimidate and make statements they know are false in order to bully a person into doing something they do not want them to do.

As for me and my job, my boundaries were 100% clear, if I overstepped those bounds it was one warning, and upon a second overstep, immediate termination. This is standard in any business in the country, why are the police allowed to do a job in which they do not 100% know the laws they are to uphold? That to me would seem rather ludicrous.

The fact of the matter is that photography and video have helped win many court cases where an officer was doing something illegal. And at the same time, there are just as many cases where photography has proven that an officer did everything right in the situation which would have been impossible to decide otherwise.

As for a model release or use of the “photography” as you put it, correct, a person would need a model release, hence the reason I keep a few in my bag when doing public walks in case I see something really neat. As for the final use of the photograph, if the person gets his jollies taking your picture in the street and then using them at home, not a whole lot you can do about it ya know. And besides, it is clear from these videos that this is not the purpose of the photographer. That is simply a straw man argument.

In the first video, the officer puffed up his chest and immediately demanded to know “what are you doing” in a threatening tone. He then followed that up with a lie stating it was illegal, then another lie stating it was against MTA rules and then threatened the citizen with future detrimental reactions that could ruin his life since he was not accepting his authority. If you consider that being polite then you need your head examined.
Sure Gylfie did not scream and curse and throw punches, but he did threaten a person with a lifelong record for not rolling over to an officer who clearly has no business upholding laws he clearly knows nothing about.
I would take a punch to the nose any day over being branded a terrorist for the rest of my life and never being able to have a private life due to some jackass cop on a power trip.

As for your assertion that you would be fine if he was kicked off the MTA, how does this one grab you, I look at you, you have a full beard and a dark complexion, I exclaim, “Oh my god you looks like your here scoping out the place to blow it up”, your then kicked off the MTA and harassed and put on watch lists, all because in my opinion you looked like a terrorist. Yep, that sounds perfectly rational.

Your in public, you have rights, and this photographer taking pictures of the train station does not in any way tread upon your rights. You have no right to privacy while in public, if you do not wish to be photographed then I suggest shutting your blinds and never leaving the house again, because in California, your photographed on each and every single street corner and nearly every single public building entrance.

I would love to hear your explanation on how this guy taking perfectly legal pictures of a train station can in some way help a person hell bent on being a suicide bomber and getting on the train? Unless like officer Gylfie you think that the Canon can somehow tell the thickness of the walls (yes he says it, listen to the audio).

Your last sentence. You state “we can’t always do anything we please and call it RIGHTS.”

That is a valid point, but what he is doing IS A DAMNED RIGHT, there is nothing illegal about it, he is being harassed for doing something that is perfectly legal, would you like to be harassed while grocery shopping because those potatoes you picked up may be sold to a terrorist to feed him to make him strong so he can carry 20 lbs of explosive and blow up a train?

Again, for those not understanding this, what he is doing is perfectly legal, and the police LIE and say it is not, that is the entire story, forget the attitudes or anything else.
He is doing something that is perfectly legal, and the police are lying and saying it is not and abusing their powers.
It really is rather cut and dry.

James, thank you for your comments. I do not understand why people are so willing to let the police departments of the communities bully them. It sounds like everyone is living in fear of the police. The Police are there to serve YOU. You don’t serve them. I’m sickened when this “older generation” basically says the rights that were put forth well before there time no longer apply because some morons decided to fly a plane into a building.

If I went into a gun store and bought bullets, would it be perfectly okay for the police to detain me because I might use one of those bullets to shoot someone, or maybe even sell one of those bullets to someone who wanted to murder someone? This is the same argument that Officer Gylfie uses. With that kind of logic anything any citizen does could be considered suspect.

As far as photography in public places – think about how life would be different if all of the important historical events, big and small, did not have picture in the paper or video on the television. If people could just say “No pictures please” how much information would the citizens of the US have? I think it would be a very dark period in our history if we went down that path.

As far as model releases are concerned – it has nothing to do with monetary gain. I can take an image of anyone on the street and make money from that image, even absent a model release. What I can’t do is to use it commercially such as on a can of soup or a can of tobacco. I also can not use it to show the person in a false light. Can I sell an image as street art? Yes I can. That is not considered a commercial use.

Whether or not the togs here are being jerks does not matter. We all have rights and if we allow those rights to disappear then we will look back and wonder what happened. I am glad there are people out there that are willing to push the envelope just to assure that our rights remain.

[...] Here’s a couple of examples of recent cases, as reported on DWF. [...]

Of all the commenters above, only Scott (just above) got it pretty much right. Just about everyone else is guilty of purveying all sorts of bad information. I’ve written extensively on the subject (and, oh, yes, am a retired attorney in addition to being a photographer). Check out the “Index to Key Posts” on my blog (NSFW). I even wrote an 11-point analysis of the original confrontation video a couple months after the confrontation in October 2009 (again, NSFW).

[...] Dave mentioned this story, as a lead in to his own encounter with law enforcement. In his case, it went radically different, [...]

Scott, spot on.

Stephen, please let me know if anything I stated was wrong, I would hate to continue stating it if it is incorrect.

[...] Here’s a couple of examples of recent cases, as reported on the Digital Wedding Forum. [...]

Even though we (photographers) may have the legal right to shoot in an area that doesn’t mean we have to be dicks about it to law enforcement. The photographer in the first video (in the subway) could have ended all the nonsense by just telling the police officer what he came to photograph. Architecture, people, etc. It would likely have been over with quickly. Should he have to explain? No, not in a world where we aren’t under threat of mass attacks but we don’t live in that world anymore. Police AND citizens have to be vigilant when it comes to possible terrorist attacks.