What can happen while videoing trains

Here's an article that I find interesting, two guys get written assurance from the chief of security for the Miami Metro system saying that no permission or permit is needed to legally shoot non-commercial footage on the Metro System. This article shows how the security guards still stopped them, called the cops, and banned them from the Metro system for life for taking footage.

Now it's not quite as simple as that they were just there for the trains, it seems like they were trying to test the patience of the security staff, which is not usually advisable despite the constitution.

Either way, I found this article interesting. The text of the article is short and quoted in it's entirety below, but if you follow the link, you will find a 6 minute video of the whole ordeal as well as links to the accounts of both men on their blogs.

Photography is not a crime, but many members of law enforcement don't seem to understand that.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Carlos 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).

http://reason.com/blog/2010/07/02/ignor ... -is-no-exc

I watched this silly video and my reaction is that all of these security and police officers displayed amazing patience with this guy. First of all, there were many false assertions on the part of the individual acting as the "oppressed marauding avenger spokesman" (ie. "no crime would be committed after being told not to enter system", "no right to seize camera and equipment at the time of such arrest w/o subpoena", "inability of law enforcement personnel having jurisdiction to order him to leave or suffer consequences", etc, etc.) The police and security personnel all acted professionally - extremely professionally - and stated correct legal procedure. The film shows them in the best light possible and our intrepid reporter as a misinformed nuisance. "Reason Magazine" sub-titles their piece, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse..." Yeah right, well they should know. The fact may very well be that they do know, but in order to put out a "scandalous" report, ignore the facts and put suggestions into the mind of the general reader who doesn't know the difference. He supposedly was not there for commercial purposes, but less than two minutes into his flick, he's on the phone with the former attorney for the Miami Herald- then, it miraculously shows up on "Reason Magazine". Hello !
What he needs is a nice long weekend in a Miami-Dade holding cell to reflect on his childishness, and perhaps in the meantime, those officers can devote their time in investigating real crime and potential terrorists on their system instead of playing kindergarten monitor.

The purpose of their visit was to interfere with the normal operations of the station.
It has nothing to do with videoing trains ...

"We're here on assignment ..." from whom? How can non-professional video be taken on assignment?

These jerks just make it harder on the next person who wants to legitimately video trains.
Here's an assignment for them: Give a first hand video report of jumping off the nearest bridge to their deaths.

While it's debatable whether or not the security were in the right or wrong, I saw nothing wrong with how the PD were handling the situation, especially when they asked for ID, which not only is in their power but also their duty to verify someone's identity.

Whenever a cop asks for your ID, give to them, without hesitation. To refuse to do so only makes them more suspicious of your activities.

JLJ061 wrote: especially when they asked for ID, which not only is in their power but also their duty to verify someone's identity.

Actually, it depends on state, not all states are stop-and-identify, though FL is. IANAL though.

3rdrail wrote:I watched this silly video and my reaction is that all of these security and police officers displayed amazing patience with this guy.

Cops? yes, but *if* they were telling the truth, then the letter from the Metro Safety and Security Chief should have ended it a long time before the cops were involved, back when the two involved were taking photos in the parking lot.

3rdrail wrote:What he needs is a nice long weekend in a Miami-Dade holding cell to reflect on his childishness, and perhaps in the meantime, those officers can devote their time in investigating real crime and potential terrorists on their system instead of playing kindergarten monitor.

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction? I mean, in order to spend their time investigating real crime and not "playing kindergarten monitor" they have to spend time on this thing instead, essentially "playing kindergarten monitor"?

And I don't know about you, for something like this to justify a position where the people involved should be spending the weekend in jail is quite a riveting, and dangerous mindset. Think about the would-be "freedom fighters" harassing legitimate photographers who think the same way, are you being no better than those people?

justalurker66 wrote:"We're here on assignment ..." from whom?

Uh... if you read their blogs, or the article, it actually made it painfully clear what this was *allegedly* for:

When he decided to work on a project about photographers not being allowed to take pictures on the Metrorail for his media law class, he asked if I would like to work with him on it.

He didn’t have to ask twice.

I think when railfanning, one needs to be respectful whenever possible, ESPECIALLY to cops, but I don't think one should have trouble seeing why one would want to buck when said persons/people are told something is legal and allowed [IE photography, videography for noncommercial purposes], only to be directly contradicted/given a difficult time over that action.*


*note I'm talking about the 50-state security guards, not the Miami police.

I just found it interesting as I've been in similar situations. I've never given crap to the cops like that, but I have had MBTA conductors telling me that it's illegal to photograph trains despite me trying to show them the photography permit I had obtained. In one instance, I was actually told that they don't issue photography permits and that if I didn't stop "pretending to have permission" that they would call the cops. This was of course back in the times when one did need a permit for photographing the MBTA which you don't need anymore. I applied for the permit and followed all rules that came with it, and still I got harrassed by "ground personel" who wouldn't accept even legitimate permission from their higher-ups.

I also know other people who have been in this same situation, one of which was told he was banned from ever riding the T again after a conductor caught him videoing out the window of a commuter car. This person, uppon arriving in Boston, went to the MBTA police department and had a lengthy conversation with someone who told him that the conductor had no authority to ban someone, especially for doing something that wasn't prohibited. This person tells me that after all this, he got on a train to go home, and this same conductor happened to be on this train and made him get off at some random station in the middle of nowhere.

Obviously I don't condone giving crap to the personnel, but when they act on their own policies that contradict company policies like this, it does piss one off. That's why I find this article so interesting, I've thought plenty of times about what would happen if I had just stood my ground, and this case seems like a good example of what would actually happen. Who knows, after this guy's lawsuit, maybe it might actually get some policies changed.

RedLantern wrote: Obviously I don't condone giving crap to the personnel, but when they act on their own policies that contradict company policies like this, it does piss one off. That's why I find this article so interesting, I've thought plenty of times about what would happen if I had just stood my ground, and this case seems like a good example of what would actually happen. Who knows, after this guy's lawsuit, maybe it might actually get some policies changed.

Not just this one, but the action of more people acting diligently [as opposed to stupidly] and standing up for themselves and their rights in a way that forces change.

Red Lantern- Your posts are very uninformed to say the least, which I am not condemning, as we learn by exposing our thoughts to others or experiencing situations ourselves. First of all- lawsuit ? There is no lawsuit. In order for a person to successfully file a civil tort in U.S. civil courts, there must be alleged "damages" which a plaintiff maintains are the result of wrongful action(s) on the part of a defendant. No damages= no lawsuit. What are the damages in this case ? To the contrary, this guy was treated very nicely and extremely patiently, probably much more so than I would have.
Secondly, in most states, trespass is a very simple law. In Massachusetts, there are three basic elements, any one of which amounts to probable cause to get you locked up: (1) being told by a person in authority and control that you must leave and you don't, (2) being on property w/o permission where there is a "no trespassing" posted sign, or by (3) being on property w/o permission that is enclosed or improved. That's it. There's no "he said, she said", blah blah blah, etc. If the policeman doesn't wish to take that stuff into consideration, you're "good to go". Can this stuff be used in your defense ? Sure ! Does it have to make a difference with a judge ? No.
So, we have what could be construed as a "no win" situation here. Every judge in the country knows (or should know) that we have an on-going international crisis involving information that has been intercepted and confirmed which cites railway facilities as an attractive target of would-be terrorists who want to kill us. Terrorists don't want to just inconvenience you and others or frustrate you by making railway photography difficult, RedLantern. They want to murder us in large numbers. Do you think that there are many judges in criminal courts who think that it's better to send out a message that if you don't understand that, that you are going to pay the price ? Or probably even better, is the photography of a Florida train, so important that it intrudes on a policy which is meant to keep thousands of commuters safe in their daily commute ? What do you think, RedLantern ?

3rdrail wrote:...lawsuit ? There is no lawsuit. In order for a person to successfully file a civil tort in U.S. civil courts, there must be alleged "damages" which a plaintiff maintains are the result of wrongful action(s) on the part of a defendant. No damages= no lawsuit. What are the damages in this case ? To the contrary, this guy was treated very nicely and extremely patiently, probably much more so than I would have.

If you read the blog posts linked to the article which provide the individual accounts of the two men involved, one of them is actually filing a lawsuit against the transit authority for banning him from riding the system for reasons that go against the official policy of the transit authority.

3rdrail wrote: Secondly, in most states, trespass is a very simple law. In Massachusetts, there are three basic elements, any one of which amounts to probable cause to get you locked up: (1) being told by a person in authority and control that you must leave and you don't, (2) being on property w/o permission where there is a "no trespassing" posted sign, or by (3) being on property w/o permission that is enclosed or improved. That's it. There's no "he said, she said", blah blah blah, etc. If the policeman doesn't wish to take that stuff into consideration, you're "good to go". Can this stuff be used in your defense ? Sure ! Does it have to make a difference with a judge ? No.

But what if you're on property with written permission from someone who has the authority to legally give you said permission? The guy in the video had a printed copy of an email from the head of security which said that photography on premesis is allowed in his circumstance. Which opinion should one take, the opinion of the employee at the station, or the opinion of their boss?

3rdrail wrote:So, we have what could be construed as a "no win" situation here. Every judge in the country knows (or should know) that we have an on-going international crisis involving information that has been intercepted and confirmed which cites railway facilities as an attractive target of would-be terrorists who want to kill us. Terrorists don't want to just inconvenience you and others or frustrate you by making railway photography difficult, RedLantern. They want to murder us in large numbers. Do you think that there are many judges in criminal courts who think that it's better to send out a message that if you don't understand that, that you are going to pay the price ? Or probably even better, is the photography of a Florida train, so important that it intrudes on a policy which is meant to keep thousands of commuters safe in their daily commute ? What do you think, RedLantern ?

For that I need only quote Benjamin Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." So what's more important, giving up a freedom that's provided by law and also confirmed by someone of authority in the organization in question, or the idea that people will be safer if people give up their rights on the idea that people might possibly be safer if I'm not taking videos to put on youtube?

If I have written permission to be there with my camera, I'm going to be there with my camera, and if someone has a problem with that, I'm going to show them my copy of the permission. If they refuse to look at my copy of the permission, I'm going to go back to whoever gave me said permission and ask for advice. The problem in the case I linked is that this guy didn't take that route, he instead got the police involved and complained and was uncooperative. If someone asks me for my ID, I'll provide it, as well as the name of who gave me the permission to be there.

My grandfather died in WWII fighting to protect my freedoms, I have 3 cousins and two good friends in Iraq right now who have already decided that our freedoms are more important than their lives. Freedom is something I take very very seriously, and I don't want to see my freedoms taken away on the illusion that it's going to protect anybody, not from a threat, but from simply a percieved threat. If someone is doing something that looks suspicious, by all means, question them, but if that person has documented permission or authority to be doing what they're doing that can be confirmed by someone of authority, verify that authority rather than just assuming that said person is there to cause problems.

If we're just going to give up our freedoms because of the possibility that someone is going to do something bad, then why bother fighting for these freedoms, why not just send Osama Bin Laden a letter saying that he won? The terrorists are exactly what the term implies, they want to cause terror. If we start giving up on our liberties just because someone might possibly cause a problem, then the terrorists already accomplished their goal. I'd far rather be arrested and stand trial for doing something that I'm legally allowed to do.

If someone wants to cause a major problem, they're not going to apply for permission, they're going to do everything they can to not be noticed. If someone wants to bomb a transit system, they're going to figure out a way to do it without arising suspicion, they're not going to be standing there on the platform with a camera, a scanner, and a permission slip to be there.

We've rehashed the legalities of trespassing (or allegedly trespassing, or having permission to be where would otherwise would be trespassing) over and over again on this board. Lets leave enough alone.