Amtrak Photo Contestant Arrested By Amtrak Police 675
Photographer Duane Kerzic was standing on the public platform in New York's Penn Station, taking pictures of trains in hopes of winning the annual photo contest that Amtrak had been running since 2003. Amtrak police arrested him for refusing to delete the photos when asked, though they later charged him with trespassing. "Obviously, there is a lack of communication between Amtrak's marketing department, which promotes the annual contest, called Picture Our Trains, and its police department, which has a history of harassing photographers for photographing these same trains. Not much different than the JetBlue incident from earlier this year where JetBlue flight attendants had a woman arrested for refusing to delete a video she filmed in flight while the JetBlue marketing department hosted a contest encouraging passengers to take photos in flight." Kerzic's blog has an account of the arrest on Dec. 21 and the aftermath.
Re:What a bunch of dicks. (Score:3, Informative)
I've not done the research, but here in the UK we have the British Transport Police, who police the railways and so forth, and are real cops. Can any Americans shed some light?
Hay amtrak policia (Score:5, Informative)
Many transit agencies have their own POLICE force, Check out what a BART police officer did this week [sfgate.com]. Amtrak maintains an official police force [wikipedia.org]
they appear to actually be police (Score:5, Informative)
For partly historical reasons, railroad police of the larger railroads in the US and Canada are actual police officers rather than merely private security forces, with full law-enforcement jurisdiction. See also Wikipedia on the Amtrak Police [wikipedia.org].
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:5, Informative)
They can ask you to leave their premises
Even that is questionable. This is a publicly-funded organization (they provide mass transit, after all) and the photographer had a legally purchased ticket. They do NOT have the right to selectively ask people to leave without a just reason for same (eg. threatening others, intoxication, etc.) Civil rights laws passed in the 1960's protect everyone, not just the african americans who fought for them--if others have the right to stay on the train platform, so does he.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:5, Informative)
You don't even have to show them the pictures you took, since photography when you aren't trespassing isn't a crime. (Secure areas of military installations and nuclear facilities aside.)
If you are allowed to be there, you aren't committing a crime until they ask you to leave and you don't. They can say "Stop taking pictures or leave" if you are on private property and that is said by a representative of the property you are on. In public, you can photograph pretty much anything, especially police and other security personnel.
IANAL, and laws might be different in your state, but here [krages.com] is a lawyer talking about this, and a nice little pamphlet [krages.com] he made about this.
Re:Amtrak Police!?! (Score:5, Informative)
Has "the land of the free" gotten to the point of creating privatly owned police forces now? Or, at least, fixing them as such in the public mind?
Railroads have had their own police forces for as long as I can remember - and I'm 48. This isn't anything new or insidious.
I am bothered by the fact that photographers get hassled - quite often - by overzealous officials who don't seem to know what's legal and what's not. This happened up here in Seattle a bit after 9/11 when a photographer was photographing a railroad trestle. But if you're in a public space, you are allowed to photograph pretty much anything you can see (even people) without permission.
Attorney who track this stuff (Score:5, Informative)
In her blog, there's more about NY City cops harassing anyone with a camera.
So much for living life normally. The terrorists have won.
Re:Better link to what happened (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm [krages.com]
Send Amtrak a comment... link on contest page (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/ContactUs [amtrak.com]
Re:Hay amtrak policia (Score:4, Informative)
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:2, Informative)
If you want to do that, you can use ShoZu or Ovi (Google) on you camera phone. There's also live video streaming and recording from your cell phone.
But instead of picking a fight, just say "Sure, officer, I'll delete the photos. See, all gone, even the last one I took of you."
Yeah, and Amtrak is about as "private" as USPS (Score:3, Informative)
Just another GSE eating taxpayer cash and providing bad service.
In the name of "National Security"... (Score:5, Informative)
As far as I've been able to ascertain from the article, Mr. Kerzic was standing in an area designated for use by the public. It does not appear to be a restricted area, and from what I can see from the photograph in the article, there are no signs warning against photography by the public.
However, as bad as we may think it is here in the United States (compared to the pre-9/11 world), things are much worse in the United Kingdom. The rights of the Individual in the UK are enshrined in Common Law (i.e., customary law passed down through the ages), and not explicitly delineated in any sort of constitutional document.
For example, in the US, we have a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the right against self-incrimination [wikipedia.org]. A recent court case [wikipedia.org] implies that this right includes encryption keys: If a law enforcement agency impounds your laptop for analysis, but can't get anything out of it because the contents have been encrypted, too bad for them. Handing over the encryption key would be a form of self-incrimination [cnet.com], so you don't have to do it.
On the other hand, laws, ordinances, and Police reactions regarding individual freedoms can and often do change at a whim, depending on what is expedient at the time (8th paragraph, about half-way down) [theregister.co.uk]. In addition, since the right against self-incrimination is based on Common Law, and not written as an explicit right, ordinances like the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act [wikipedia.org] can easily curtail and eliminate such rights [theregister.co.uk]. As usual, some groups say that even these powers do not go far enough [guardian.co.uk], invoking the familiar mantra of "National Security".
And these things are happening in two of the most "open and democratic" societies the world has ever seen...
And on a side-note, here's an interesting question: Who's standing in the "restricted" zone across the tracks taking the picture of the "public" train platform?
Shooting trains in Europe (Score:4, Informative)
Well do that in EU (Score:3, Informative)
Here in good, ol' Europe no cop will ever ask you to stop shooting photos - if he/she's on duty of course. Best they can do is to turn around. You have the right to video them, photo them when they're doing the job you are paying for.
Re:they appear to actually be police (Score:2, Informative)
no, that was "K9 dogs" -- as opposed to the vast majority of dogs in the world who aren't in a K9 unit. And since there are also humans in a K9 unit, there's really no better way to say it.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:4, Informative)
I'll use it because it is a legitimate concern jackass.
The law might not exist but one of the tenets of law enforcement agencies is "to protect and serve". If they did nothing while someone was taking pictures and that person ended up being part of some kind of terrorist scheme people would be up in arms that nothing was done.
I always find it interesting when people have this Utopian view of things when in reality risks have to be taken to ensure the world runs smoothly. Get your head out of your ass. Your civil liberties don't always trump the good intentions of the well meaning.
What use is your argument, when Amtrak literally invites people to take pictures:
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Copy/News_Release_Page&c=am2Copy&cid=1081794202583
You did not even bother to read the summary, did you?
Re:Civil America extinct (Score:4, Informative)
You mean the same Canada that taxes anything even vaguely related to music or movies -- including blank media and concert halls -- and sends that tax money straight to the RIAA/MPAA?
We're kind of running out of "enlightened" countries to run to. We need to make a stand and fix things, here and now.
Photographer was out of line. (Score:1, Informative)
{sarcasm}It's nice to see that the Slashdot editors are on their A game with this one.{/sarcasm}
First, when visiting the Amtrak contest site http://www.amtrak.com/photocontest [amtrak.com] one will notice that the contest ended in July of 2008. Maybe they do run it every year. However, the contest has a definite cut off date. They do not say they are currently accepting submissions for the next years contest. SO this Photographer's claim that he was taking pictures for the contest was false. 5-months-after-closing-time false.
Second, the contest requirements call for pictures of Amtrak trains, that clearly show the Amtrak logo. The rules and the contest description are very specific on this. Amtrak even shows you what the logo you are taking pictures of should look like. I looked through this guys photos. I did not see one clean Amtrak logo in any of them. His use of that crazy lens just makes it worse, for that lens would surely destroy any potential clear capture of the logo he was supposed to have on film. So this photographer fails in what he was taking pictures of, since he was obviously not taking pictures of the TRAINS with the AMTRAK LOGO. He was taking pictures of people, and the station and of blurry trains that could have been New York Transit or whatnot.
You can't break the rules, then turn around and use those rules as a shield from prosecution. You can't ignore the rules, then throw a tantrum when you can't use those rules for protection.
Re:Well do that in EU (Score:2, Informative)
Here in good, ol' Europe no cop will ever ask you to stop shooting photos - if he/she's on duty of course. Best they can do is to turn around. You have the right to video them, photo them when they're doing the job you are paying for.
Hmmm
I would say that depends on where you are in the EU and the attitude of the local cops. There most certainly have been times when Police in the UK have forced people to stop taking photo's / videos in public...
Re:London Underground (Score:3, Informative)
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:2, Informative)
I know this is off-topic, but I would presume that the right lavatory is picked based on your sex (that is, whether you have a penis or a vagina, in the unlikely case you have both, just flip a coin), not gender. This is actually quite simple.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:3, Informative)
First amendment rights have been curtailed in this area--see the decision in Thomas v. Chicago Park District.
The Supreme Court of the United States decided that park police can require permits for public gatherings or photography/videorecordings on publicly owned property.
Interestingly, this came into play in a recent O'Reily Media interview of DHH in Wicker Park (it's on YouTube). A Chicago park policeman made them turn off their camera, cutting the interview short by fifteen minutes.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:3, Informative)
Well, if they have an arrest warrant, you don't really get to deny them access to the person.
Re:London Underground (Score:3, Informative)
For the general public, the rule is quite straightforward: don't use flash photography [tfl.gov.uk] - the exception proves the rule that normal photography is acceptable.
Re:Civil America extinct (Score:5, Informative)
You mean the same Canada that taxes anything even vaguely related to music or movies -- including blank media and concert halls -- and sends that tax money straight to the RIAA/MPAA?
You know, I live in a Canada, but it's really nothing like that at all. I've never heard of the Canada you're talking about (I even searched Google for it.) Frankly I'm a little surprised that there is another country called Canada.
The Canada I live in has a levy on blank CDs, just like the USA. [neil.eton.ca] However none of the money goes to the RIAA or MPAA - it goes to the CPCC (Canadian Private Copying Collective) who distributes it to music artists and labels (not all of which are CRIA members.)
(Seriously, if you're going to criticize something, get your facts straight first.)
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:4, Informative)
remember, always: laws, in democracies, are made by those with legislative authority, not policing authority or private individuals or organizations. neither airlines, nor amtrak, nor the police, may make or redefine laws.
Re:London Underground (Score:2, Informative)
Student permits
Crew size: Five or less with lightweight, handheld equipment only
Permit cost: £30 inc VAT - valid one month from date of issue
Filming in drivers cab: £300 plus VAT
for £300 you can stand in the drivers cab and record, that is pretty damn cool they let you do that.
it only costs £30 for a one month license.
This doesn't sound right though because I had friends who traveled there a couple months back and one of their photos was them going down into the subway.
A simple google or other image site search for London Underground shows up plenty of recent results that were uploaded.
---------------------
Does London Underground have any restrictions on what people can film or photograph?
Yes. In accordance with our byelaws, we do not permit the filming of the following activities:
* Vandalism or graffiti
* Ticket touting
* Assaults on passengers or staff
* Fare evasion
* Use of firearms or other weapons
* Misuse of escalators or any other London Underground property
* Unlicensed busking
* Begging
* Smoking or the use of illegal drugs
-----------------------
This really seems to affect TV/documentary crews more than the average person, in fact they actually allow a person in the cab for a really small fare and a supervisor stands next to you.
I really don't see where the problem is, other than what a little research and google search would stop the fear mongering mod points.
There's a time to stand up and a time to sit down. (Score:5, Informative)
The best thing to do is say "yes, officer" "sorry officer" and "it won't happen again". Take you ticket and go. No matter how wrong you think they are, they have the guns and the authority and you have nothing.
Re:Civil America extinct (Score:5, Informative)
Nunavut is a territory set up specifically to address issues of self government for the Innu. Its probably a territory larger than any US state (maybe Texas is bigger).
I'd be willing to compare and contrast Canadian vs American native policies any day of the week.
As for complete freedom of the press...care to enlighten us as to what's lacking?
The fact that your comment is modded as insightful is a sad statement on the effectiveness of moderation points IMHO.
Re:The problem is Amtrak's making (Score:3, Informative)
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:5, Informative)
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:1, Informative)
Oh really? Like how Michael Righi went through all that legal trouble and stress upon his family when he refused to have his bags checked at Circuit City, and refused to show ID to the police officer?
He certainly did nothing wrong and definitely stood up for his rights.
I bet as a former police officer you know enough people in the inside that if someone screws up your rights you can get it settled a lot easier. Not everyone has that privilege.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Civil America extinct (Score:3, Informative)
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:4, Informative)
Years ago, I was walking around campus late at night. I hadn't been drinking, hadn't done anything wrong. I was just pulling an all nighter and looking for some coffee or something. So I went walking around looking for something, ANYTHING that would be open -- gas station or whatever.
A cop saw me and just decided to be a dick, or maybe he was bored. He came up to me and started asking me questions. I tried to be polite but when he asked to see my id, I said no, and he insisted. So I told him this wasn't communist russia and I could very well walk around without an id if I liked.
I ended up taking a ride in the police car that night and spending a night in jail until the judge saw me the next morning. The judge immediately let me go and I have no idea what exactly I was arrested for.
But what should I have done in that situation? When he started handcuffing me I could have refused and punched him in the face, right? But then instead of just having handcuffs on that were too tight I would probably gotten bruised and skinned my face when he pushed me to the ground.
And did the cop suffer? A lawyer told me there wasn't enough to go after the guy (I complied when arrested so wasn't exactly bruised up).
I think the whole point of my rambling is that there needs to be a way for the plebs to fight back against police who overstep their bounds, and I don't think that exists...
Comment removed (Score:2, Informative)
Re:London Underground (Score:3, Informative)
Just as a comparison with the London Underground, taking any photos on the Underground requires a permit which costs £300 for a two-hour permit
That didn't sound right so I had to check.
From tfl.gov.uk:
If you are just passing through, you shouldn't have a problem taking personal snaps, souvenir shots etc, although you must NOT use flash or lights on any of our platforms.
However, if you want to spend more than 10-15 minutes at any one station videoing or taking photos, or if they are for professionaluse, you MUST have a permit.
So basically, you only need a permit if you're hanging around doing a proper shoot. Nobody has ever bothered me when I've taken shots while waiting for trains.
Quoted because it's a stupid session-based URL, but you can find it under tfl.gov.uk > Help and contact > Search common questions > Tube > Search for "photo" > First result.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:4, Informative)
It takes a lot of looking on the photographer's self-serving web site, but the photographer was not "just taking pictures". He was walking across active tracks in Penn Station which IS trespass. No ticket allows passengers to leave the platform and walk on active tracks.
The Transit Police were NOT legally wrong to ask him to delete the pictures - he had the right to refuse to do so. That the pictures have been published n his web site indicate they were not confiscated or deleted by the police.
His summons was for Trespass, and that appears to be a legitimate charge, he WAS trespassing. He is acting like a 3-year old when he argues that since there were no "No Trepsasing" signs he was not trespassing when he walked across the tracks. That's absurd.
I'm a photographer, and I support the free taking of pictures in public spaces, but this was NOT an arrest for taking pictures in Penn Station. This was an arrest for irresponsible trespass and endangering his own and other's safety in Penn Station. As proof, he was in a picture-taking group, many people had been taking pictures at the same time he was, pictures were even taken during his arrest on the platform by members of the group, and NONE OF THEM were arrested.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:3, Informative)
Wow, great made-up proof. But the photographer in this case did not delete the photos and they are up on his web site right now. He wasn't tasered.
Here is something for you to consider as you vilify the Transit Police who arrested him "for taking pictures": you only heard that from his own self-serving blog. He is setting up a red-herring to deflect his actual illegal activity - trespassing. He was not arrested for taking pictures.
1)He was walking across active tracks in Penn Station. That is clearly trespass. He neglects to mention that when he says he had a ticket and had a right to be there. No ticket allows passengers to walk across active tracks.
2)He was in a group of photographers who had gone to Penn Station to expressly take pictures on the platform. None of the others were arrested for taking pictures on the platform. He neglected to mention that, too.
3)He refused to leave the platform area when the Transit Police asked him to, claiming he had a ticket and was entitled to be there. They had been willing to let him slide on the fact that he had been walking across active tracks if he simply left the area, but they had no alternative but to arrest him when he refused to leave. There was every indication he would have continued to walk across active tracks if he stayed.
This guy is a self-serving jerk who is trying to manipulate people into thinking this is a constitutional issue, when in fact he is simply a moron who put his and other people's safety at risk by walking across active tracks. The fact that he was taking pictures while he violated the law does not give him constitutional immunity from arrest. True, the officer should not have asked him to delete his pictures, but he had every right to ask - just as the photographer had every right to refuse, which he did.
Re:sue Amtrak and JetBlue (Score:4, Informative)
In order to be a policemen in New York City, you have to pass the exam at the end of a tour through the Police Academy with 60 college credits (a two-year AA degree) with a 2.0 GPA. These guys aren't lawyers.
But that's the NYPD. Kerzic was detained by Amtrak Rent-A-Cops. These guys are just a whiff of respectability up from Mall "cops."
What has happened here is that the Federal Government has now got these guys all jazzed up about the concept of a terrorist attack on trains or train stations and they have created "rules for behavior" that are based on rights deprivation.
The unfortunate fact is that the local police are called upon and "deputized" by the feds (either the Secret Service or some other federal agency) to enforce the unenforceable. So the Amtrak police arrested Kerzic when he refused to comply with an illegal order. So suing Amtrak actually hurts one of the victims.
In this case, it's pretty near impossible to follow the orders up the chain of command to the federal government. Just like it was in the case of the release of the Abu Graib torture photos, the feds who actually made the decisions to promote these actions will create an aura of "deniability" that will last until they are out of office.
We need to prosecute Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and so on for their crimes -- after they leave office. We need to do this for the same reason why we need to prosecute Agusto Pinochet for his crimes against humanity: Pinochet thought and this administration thinks that once one has retired from office, they are free to pursue their lives without fear of any adverse consequences -- save perhaps vilification.
Nixon believed he was above the law. The US Supreme Court disagreed. Now, we have another opportunity to test the maxim that no man is above the law in the United States. We should prosecute so that never again is our Constitution threatened by someone who believes, as Nixon did, that "when the President does something, it's not illegal."
I suppose he should sue. But he should sue for the purpose of exposing the chain of command that set these dogs loose, and not to dismember Amtrak.