April 13, 2007
Photographers in the Metro: Know Your Rights
About 20 minutes ago, I was taking photographs in the Gallery Place Metro station. I took a couple of tunnel shots and a slow-shutter train shot. Shortly thereafter, I was approached by a police officer who found my picture taking "suspicious" and she asked me for identification. She took down all of my information and put me through a brutal questioning session. I answered all of her questions truthfully, but she was so obviously skeptical. She even called in for backup! I mean, I know our police have to be cautious and all, but what the fuck! It angered me to an immense level, but I did a pretty good job of controlling my temper. I was so humiliated to have a cop on either side of me while everyone walked by, wondering what was going on.
We've heard rumors before, even sometimes here in DCist comments, that some people have heard taking photos inside Metro stations is "against the rules", and we've tried our best to let everyone know that it's all a load of hooey. This Flickr discussion group is full of good information as well. But apparently none of us have reached the key demographic of D.C. residents who need to know the truth: Metro Transit Police. Allow us to say outright that this sort of harassment from Metro Police is unacceptable. This is the actual rule regulating the use of cameras inside Metro stations:
100.8(2) Still photography that does not require a tripod, special lighting, film crews, models, impair the normal ingress/egress or operation of Authority services and can be accomplished by a hand held camera by one person is not regulated.
Remember local photogs: You have the right to take photographs in any public place whenever you want, which includes Metro stations. Do yourself a favor and download this handy pdf of the Photographer's Right, print it out and carry it with you. In the meantime, we'll see what we can do about making sure Metro Transit Police officers learn the truth about the law.
Photo by La Tur
|
Get a lawyer and sue the bastards. I'm sick of this shit. It is CLEARLY posted in the WMATA regulations that personal photography is permitted. The metro police have a hangup about people taking shots of tunnel entryways or "structural elements" but their actions are not supported by the law.
Do the Metro Police do anything besides hassle the passengers? Great public relations, Metro.
I've personally been stopped 3 times in DC for taking photography in a public place. It is really annoying. I was stopped twice by the MPD and once by the FBI police. Once near Gallery Place metro because someone called in that I looked suspicious. There is too much paranoia going around. I was also stopped by the MPD near the Best Buy in Tenleytown. Photographers who want to get a nice shot just don't whip out a point-and-shoot camera and take a shot in 10 seconds or less. Some of us actually stand in a location for 15 or 20 minutes while we take multiple shots of a subject. Standing somewhere for an hour is not out of the question. It does not help that the Metropolitan Police Department tried to question me as to why I was taking photos as if it was not my right to do so. The same for the FBI police. There have even been calls in to the police for tourists taking shots of the Washington Monument. I mean, isn't that what tourists do here - take photos? I was also in Mazza Gallerie when a security guard approached me to tell me that I could not take photos in the mall. I asked for written verification of this rule, but the security guard could not produce any. Upon further investigation, there was no written policy about photography in the place.
The police are the ones who need to be educated about people taking photos in public places. They act as if we are ignorant to the facts. I don't find it amusing to be interogated for 20 minutes for something that is perfectly legal.
Fantastic (and sadly necessary) article. Thanks, DCist!
Photographers have a "right" to take pictures, sure, but doesn't a law officer also have the right to ask someone questions and ask to see ID if the officer legitimately is suspicious of the photographer's conduct? I'm not trying to argue the details of this specific case, if Yonas says the officer was unnecessarily rude and aggressive I'll take his word for it, but I think the outraged, categorical opposition to the very idea that a Metro cop would EVER question a photographer is equally silly.
Transit systems have been popular terrorist targets all around the world, and I'd rather err on the side of slightly annoying the occasional photographer than having a blanket policy of ignoring all photographers simply because photography in the system is legal.
Come on now.. is it more likely that the photography is the problem, or that the photography is the excuse for further investigation and questioning of someone who, on the surface, has the appearance of suspicious behavior for reasons beyond the simple act of taking a photograph. Some of these people are incompetent. Some are downright malicious. But the fact is, in leiu of more stringent mechanisms to safeguard our public transit (metal detectors, bag searches, etc.), we have to rely on these personnel to observe and report suspicious activity. Sometimes it is an inconvenience, yes, but just stay calm, don't go on a photographer's rights diatribe, and you'll get through it.
Nate,
When a Metro Transit Police officer tries to tell you that you cannot take photography in the Metro, that is where the problem lies. At that point, the police officers are not complying with the rules of Metro.
i almost didn't post this because, you know, it would piss me off too. and it does seem like the police need to be told not to misinform people. it is perfectly legal to take pictures in the metro. but it is also not above suspicion. it does not seem out of bound for a cop to ask someone why they're doing it and whether they are professionals, tourists, etc.
our metros are vulnerable soft targets. someone who was going to attack a metro station, especially with explosives, would most likely visit beforehand and take photos that could be studied later for security loopholes and structural weaknesses. so, approaching photographers in the metro to ask simple questions just seems like good police work. why bother asking if the actual terrorists would just lie, you ask? well, terrorists also get nervous and make mistakes under scrutiny. and a cop who interacted with someone may be able to recognize them if he/she returns later (with, say, a large, explosive-stuffed backpack).
so, know your rights and stick to your guns. but can i also counsel a little patience?
I do believe the Pentagon Station is the only one to regulate photography. Since the station is on a military reservation, their rules trumps Metro's.
Thanks for the download, Sommer.
Speaking of getting harassed for taking pics, on the first 9/11 anniversary I was actually stopped by the Secret Service for photographing the Washington Monument. They told me that I couldn't shoot the ugly jersey wall barrier and security checkpoint at the Ellipse entrance on Constitution, which just happened to be in my line of sight, so they held me while checking my driver's license for about ten minutes before letting me go. I wasn't too happy about it, and that hasn't stopped me from taking whatever pics I wanted, though I haven't been detained since then.
my roommate once told a metro police officer that someone was taking pictures and looking suspicious in the station and the officer snapped back at her, "he's a TOURIST not a TERRORIST."
apparently, that officer knew the rules of photography, but my roommate was still really mad that he was rude to her because isn't that the whole basis of "see something, say something"?
I don't mind the questions. It's when you are told you can't take a photo of this or that. Myself as well as others have been told you can't take pictures inside of metro. The need to know their own rules before they try and enforce them.
This reminds me of being in the Soviet Union before it became Russia. This is exactly the kind of thing that you couldn't do in that totalitarian state. Photographing so-called sensitive installations was forbidden, but obviously photography didn't have anything to do with end of the Soviet Union.
it's annoying,
You have a valid point, but the complaint from Yonas doesn't say anything about the officers telling him that photography in the system was illegal, or that he couldn't take pictures. They were suspicious, they hassled and annoyed him, yes, but there's no evidence (in his message) that they tried to actually STOP him. If officers are claiming rules exist when they really don't, that's obviously something that needs to be corrected. The apparent belief that officers should never, ever question a photographer simply because photography is permissible is what I was objecting to.
What is the real reason why the police are stopping photographers? Is it because that the people taking the photos really do look suspicious? Or is it because, in their mind, the photographer is breaking the law by taking the photo? When an officer tries to tell you that you cannot take a photo of this or that, it calls their very reason for stopping you into question? Everyone is not ignorant to the facts. That is my problem with being interrogated by the police is because they don't even know the law that they are supposed to be upholding, and they expect you to just take it just because they are the police and you are not.
And, there is way too much paranoia going around.
I've posed this question to Metro before because this is an issue that comes up from time to time. The answer you'll get from them (unless its changed in the past half year) is that you're free to shoot photos inside stations, but if you're taking photos of equipment, mechanical systems, etc., that's likely to raise eyebrows. Taking photos down into a tunnel certainly is something that is going to be deemed suspicious. It does fall into a grey area.
I have to say I'm not buying the arguments that cops have to be aware of suspicious activity, and thus we should be more understanding of their questions, simply because taking photographs in a public place is not a suspicious activity. If a white anthrax-like powder were spewing forth from the camera, yes of course investigate. But taking a picture is not suspicious; people take pictures everywhere and all the time.
My brother was followed for three Metro stops by an off-duty cop who then approached him about taking pictures in Metro. He pointed out to the cop that stalking someone through three stations was a much more suspicious activity.
Seems to me that law-breaking, rule-breaking, ignorant Metro law enforcement officers should be held to account for their actions. If Metro won't do it, perhaps the blogosphere should be identifying them and warning photographers where the bad ones hang out.
After 9/11, our polirtical leaders told us we should continue to live our lives normally. Then they made it impossible for us to follow that advice. Personally, I am much more afraid of the threat posed by many "homeland security" staffers and advocates than the threat of actual terrorist attack.
If you genuinely think that the threat of someone looking over your shoulder occasionally is scarier than the idea that someone would try to blow you up or poison you while you're commuting to work, you're crazier than I thought. That's not to excuse the overreaching of the PATRIOT Act, or warrantless surveillance, or the grandstanding of politicians using fear to motivate the voters, OR the attempted enforcement of nonexistent policies by misguided police officers. There's also no evidence, in the example that inspired this post, that the officers weree "law-breaking, rule-breaking, or ignorant" in any way.
This isn't about 9/11, or the so-called GWOT, or the (justifiable) persecution complexes of liberals, it's about basic infrastructure security. One of the scariest of all attacks on commuters, the Aum Shinri Kyo attack on the Japanese subways, took place six years before 9/11 for cryin' out loud.
It's not just photography.
I took an architecture class (part time) that required sketching excercises. One suggested location was to sketch the interior from the food court at Pentagon City mall. I was not bothered, but some people have been questioned by security there.
The assignment sounds like a joke, but its actually quite tough because it's a narrow and tall space, and a good exercise in practicing perspective drawing.
I wonder how many of the people on here poo-pooing the idea that anyone should get their feathers ruffled about aggressive police questioning have actually ever found themselves on the receiving end of such harassment. It's not an "inconvenience". It's humiliating and really fucking scary. Why? Because those doing the questioning are trained to be really fucking scary and they're good at it. "Command presence" I believe they call it. More than that, though, it's simply not something that law-abiding citizens doing nothing against the law should have to put up with. There is nothing inherently suspicious about the simple act of taking a picture. I was once detained on an interstate for an hour because a bored cop decided the 20-something with out of state plates must have some "reefer" in his car, and if he grilled me long enough, he could get me to admit it. There was nothing inherently suspicious about me, either. Police abuse their positions on a daily basis using fear as their leverage, and if you want to say that's OK because you'd like to live like a sheep in constant fear of the wolf, be my guest, but don't make me live that way just because you've done precisely what the terrorists want: allowed yourself to be terrorized.
I have been stopped and questioned by both a Metro police officer (Vienna) and a station worker (Georgia Ave).
In both instances it was explained to me that I was not allowed to be photographing inside the stations. And while I politely reminded them that Metro regulations allow for hand held photography they both firmly suggested that I move along "because, you know, of 9/11."
One of the times I was accompanied by my Mom who is nearly 60 (sorry Mom) and one of the least threatening people I've ever seen. How many terrorists do you suppose bring their Moms with them to case a joint?
WORD to Hoodrat.
If a white anthrax-like powder were spewing forth from the camera, yes of course investigate. ...... Ummm, wouldn't that be a little to late?
Somebody should organize a metro photographers flashmob at a metro station and take pictures until security comes up, then refuse to produce identification, and get arrested in protest.
Certainly brings new meaning to the word flashmob. Unless everyone's using high speed film. (yeah, I know, dumb joke, but I still like the idea)
Next time, I plan on taking pictures of the interrogating officer. See you on the news!
And lets not forget that you are NOT required to show a law enforcement officer your identification in the District of Columbia unless you are actually under arrest.
In fact, there is no legal requirement that you even have to carry or own any form of government identification.
You will probably be harrassed to no end because of the abusive meathead is pissed that you stand up for your rights, but you do not have to do it.
*I am not a lawyer ;)
More details...
dubblyu dubblyu dubblyu PAPERSPLEASE dot org
And lets not forget that you are NOT required to show a law enforcement officer your identification in the District of Columbia unless you are actually under arrest.
Is this true? I thought there was a case in Nevada a few years ago on this subject and the judges ruled that you *do* have to produce identification for law enforcement upon request. Of course, IANAL and I could be wrong, but I was pretty pissed when I heard about it.
I think that case involved producing identification if a police officer reasonably believed you were involved in a crime or about to commit a crime. If it's the same one I just Googled, at least. It involved a report of someone inside hitting a woman who was sitting inside a truck. When police arrived, they found a drunk guy standing next to a truck, parked at the end of some fresh skid marks, with a woman in the passenger seat. And the officer told the guy why he needed to see the ID.
So I guess the question is whether taking photos can be reasonably construed as committing a crime or about to commit a crime.
Oh, and if anyone wants to look it up, the case is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Court of Nevada.
I think that a metro photographers flashmob --or a Photo-In at a Metro station-- is a great idea. It should be publicly promoted in advance. While I'm not enthusiastic about the getting arrested idea, a well-publicized event might help educate the police about photographer rights, especially if some local television stations and newspapers report about this.
On the other hand, a flashmob might end up looking like an unusually annoying bunch of tourists.
What you could do is have all the photogs assemble and then at the predetermined moment all blurt out something like "say cheese!" or "make love to the camera!" a couple of times, and then click a couple of pictures before all leaving the scene as if nothing happened, in true flash mob style.
To all those who are calling paranoia: as has been noted, being questioned for doing what you love is humiliating. It's not like the officers are polite about it, asking you curiously what kind of camera you got, and so on. Cops are not there to protect your rights and they are trained in coercion tricks to lead you into giving up your fourth amendment rights.
For more on how to assert your fourth amendment rights, check out www flexyourrights org. This applies to far more than photographers.
I love the flash mob idea. Should probably take this to a flickr thread, but wouldn't it be cool to have everyone take a picture at the same time, and then print and compile everyone's results into a collage? We could donate the work to Metro's corporate headquarters.
Not a lawyer, but Hiibel, the case referred to above, is about whether the Constitution prohibits the police from compelling you to identify yourself. It doesn't appear to say anything about whether states can adopt more restrictive approaches, such as a rule that does not allow police to ask for identification.
So how do we get a flash mob going? Should somebody just suggest a time and place here, say on the Dupont Circle Metro platform Thursday at noon? It wouldn't matter which side of the platform -- photos of other photographers across the divide where the trains travel would be interesting, too. And perhaps all photos should be tagged for Flickr with dcmetrorights or metroflashmob or something like that...
Thanks so much, Sommer, for putting this out there. I think it's a very important thing for local photographers to be aware of.
Cheers.
Thank you for posting this. I was stopped by a Capitol police officer for taking pictures near the Supreme Court on the day of the chief justice's viewing.
If this happens to you, you do not have to show an ID and you do not have to let an officer see your photos. I answered all his questions but refused to show an ID or show the pictures.
Its not a huge deal in the scheme of things but it bothered me that I was stopped for taking picture in my own neighborhood.
I've taken alot of photo's and I have been contacted by police. I cooperate and then finish taking my photo's. They have a job to do and I am thankful that they are present. Trust me my friends, there is a time coming when you will pray they are there and you will be happy to surrender any rights you have to be safe and keep breathing. The bad guy's are counting on your complaining and suing the police to make it easier for them to do their dirty work. So quit crying, take your pictures and thank the officers putting their lives on the line for you. p.s. An officer does have the right to ask for I.D. and if you do not provide it, he can detain you until you are identified. (retired police officer)
People that work at Metrorail are trained to observe unusual activity to prevent some idiot from releasing sarin, setting a bomb, or some other "political" statement. the vast majority know the rules and what they can and cannot say to customers. Just as where you work, some go too far, make up rules, and generally do what they should not.
Rail workers look for unusual. Tourist take pictures of people, trains, the normal things. they generally don't go past no entry signs, take pictures of bearing points, electrical conduits, or stand at the top of escalators for 20 minutes blocking other users to get the perfect shot. Accept that the first people that will die when something happens have a vested intrest in seeing what is going on. If you are treated badly, file a complaint, but when you are approached by people like me that just want to make sure that we do what we can to potect ourselves and you, take a deep breath, realize the world has changed, answer a few polite questions and have a good day.
If you genuinely think that the threat of someone looking over your shoulder occasionally is scarier than the idea that someone would try to blow you up or poison you while you're commuting to work, you're crazier than I thought.
The threat of the chilling effect of over-active law enforcement is much more scary because it is much more pervasive and is happening everyday. And the people that are doing it are paid out of our taxes. Stop living in fear.
It's comments like these that make me believe that no one understands both the costs and the benefits of living in an open society. So many of the things you take for granted are possible because we assume the costs for living in an open society.
The terrorists have already one, because they have made everyone willing to give up their rights. Our founders are turning over in their graves right now at the thought of you giving up your rights because you can't take the costs of living in an open society.