Archive for the 'Police Harassment' Category

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

Man Arrested for Mall Santa Shots

Published December 10, 2009 Police Harassment 6 Comments
Tags: , , ,


Photo by Chris Dorst/Charleston Gazette

It appears the Christmas spirit in Charleston, West Virginia, has been replaced by rabid paranoia. Scott Rensberger, a DC-based videographer, was arrested this week for battery on a police officer and resisting arrest after taking photos of the choir and Santa display at the Charleston Town Center shopping mall.

The Charleston Gazette reports that Rensberger says after he took some photos Tuesday evening, he was followed into a store by two men who told him he had taken photos of one of their children with Santa. Rensberger apologized and erased all of those photos, even showing the men his camera so they could see. The men apparently weren’t satisfied though, because they contacted mall security and the police.

After Charleston police Cpl. R.C. Basford opened with “Why are you taking pictures of kids?” things went downhill.

Rensberger said he reached in his pocket and pulled out his camera and raised it to take a picture of the police officer. Basford grabbed the camera to prevent him from taking a picture, which is when Rensberger said he took his free hand and brought it up to the small camera because he was afraid it was going to drop on the ground. According to Rensberger, Basford said, “Don’t you touch me.” Rensberger said he told the officer he wasn’t touching him.

So, of course, Basford then did the only natural thing – he forced Rensberger to the ground and arrested him. In a shopping mall in front of all holiday shoppers and children and festivities. Right? Because it’s not as if Basford could have reacted within the context of the situation. This was a 47-year-old man who apologized and complied with an earlier request to delete the offending photos. Who, if the officer had taken the time to investigate further, he would have found out is an award winning-photographer who takes photos of buildings for the IRS  and was clearly a hobbyist. Is this type of person really a threat? Whatever Rensberger’s actions were regarding the camera “scuffle,” is arrest the necessary and only outcome? Was the officer’s safety really threatened, or was he more angry that someone didn’t treat him with the proper deference?

Another weird thing about this story is that Cpl. Bansford was off-duty, moonlighting  for the mall’s security staff, yet he was wearing his Charleston police department uniform. So, if he’s not officially a city police officer, how can he charge Rensberger for battery on a police officer? It just doesn’t add up.

There seems to be this school of thought out there that, whenever someone is doing something perfectly legal and is approached aggressively by the police that they need to just shut up and accept it, be polite and endure it because police officers have hard jobs. I don’t agree. I don’t think you should be harassed and suspected for doing simple, legal activities.

The Charleston police department is looking into the matter and Rensberger is considering a lawsuit. Read the whole story here. It will make you mad.

And if you think this type of thing is ridiculous and has to stop, contact the Charleston Town Center:   info@charlestontowncenter.com and Charleston Police Chief Brent Webster:  brent.webster@charlestonwvpolice.org.

Article via The Charleston Gazette

Customs Officer Threatens Photographer

Published December 7, 2009 Photographers' Rights , Photojournalism , Police Harassment 3 Comments
Tags: , , ,

Do the usual laws not apply to Customs and Border Protection officers? There’s one in Tampa who thinks so. When Jay Nolan, a Tampa Tribune photojournalist, arrived at the scene of a three-car crash today and took photos, he was detained for 15 minutes and his phone was confiscated. David Tipton, the Customs and Border officer involved in the crash, wanted Nolan to assure him the photos wouldn’t appear in the newspaper. When Nolan was unable to do that, he wasn’t pleased. As Nolan explains in the Tampa Tribune:

“He told me, ‘You don’t understand. We’re not local law enforcement here. We’re the federal government. We’ll take your gear right now,'” Nolan said. “He gave me two choices: either give my assurance or be placed under arrest.”

Nolan was detained for 15 minutes, and he smartly replaced his flash drive with a blank one and retained his photos. According to the article, Gary McClelland, the agency’s port director, later apologized to Nolan and explained the situation away by saying customs and border patrol “don’t permit photographs because of the nature of their jobs, but the agency doesn’t want to hinder the media.”

OK, I get there is a security issue with these agents working the border. But couldn’t you say the same thing then applies to all people who work with gangs and violent offenders (police officers, prison guards, judges, social workers…)? It seems like a very strange policy to “not permit” someone to take photos of you (when you’re in an accident in public, no less), because really, how do you enforce something like that without illegally throwing your weight around? Oh yeah, like Tipton did.

Article from the Tampa Tribune

BBC Photographer Doubling as Terrorist?

Published November 30, 2009 Photographers' Rights , Police Harassment Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , ,


Photo by bjoerncologne

BBC staff photographer Jeff Overs was taking photos of London’s St. Paul’s Cathedral at sunset this past week when he was stopped under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act and questioned as a possible terrorist threat. For taking photos. Of a major architectural attraction. Sadly, the officer told Overs she’d been stopping people all day and he was the first to complain.

Just one more reason to be thankful we live in right-thinking democracies that value our rights…and allow us to take photos. Of major architectural attractions.

See Overs’ reaction to the harassment on The Andrew Marr Show here, where, among other things, he describes this new attitude as “all a bit Eastern Bloc, isn’t it?”

Articles via Boing Boing and  BBC

Rick “Dirty” Sanchez Ignores Facts, Spins Story

Published November 12, 2009 Los Angeles County Sheriffs , Photographers' Rights , Police Harassment , Richard Gylfie #2955 6 Comments
Tags: , , , ,

Picture 21

In a desperate attempt to spin a story to his liking, Rick “Dirty” Sanchez (a man known for hitting Jeffrey Smuzinick with his car during a drunk driving accident and fleeing the scene, as well as publicly attacking Fox News for their lies) decided to ignore some very important facts regarding my detainment during his broadcast yesterday. However, even though his three-minute smear campaign against me was an honest and accurate report in his delusional mind, it’s too bad that others saw right through Sanchez’s gutter journalism report and have started calling him on it.

If you would like to voice your disgust at Rick Sanchez and his producer, Janelle Griffin, for spinning this story and running such a lopsided and biased segment (which intentionally and egregiously did not air Sheriff Gylfie’s lies, false claims, and threats), you can contact Janelle at (404) 827-1500. I’m sure she’ll appreciate your call, and make sure to ask her the following questions:

  • Why did you cut out Richard Gylfie saying, “It’s against MTA rules,” when photography is allowed on the Metro? More important, why did you include the entire beginning, but removed only this section of the video?
  • Why did you cut out Richard Gylfie threatening Shawn when he said, “You know what, I’ll just submit your name to ah…(chuckles)…T.L.O.”
  • Why did you cut out Richard Gylfie threatening Shawn when he said, “You’ll be on the FBI’s hit list. Is that what you want? That’s the direction you’re heading.”
  • Why did you cut out Richard Gylfie threatening Shawn when he said, “We’ll just put your name on the hit list, dude…that’s fine.”
  • Why did you cut out Richard Gylfie’s inaccurate claims about bombs being planted in the London subway bombings, when the explosions were caused by suicide bombers?
  • Why did you cut out Richard Gylfie’s inaccurate claims that photos were taken by the 7/7 terrorists prior to the attack being carried out when, in fact, photos were not taken? The four men involved in the attack did a trial run, which did not include taking photos.
  • Why did Rick claim in the segment that Shawn “is clearly out to provoke the officer, it seems, to try to make him look like a jerk” when that is absolutely not true? Do you have actual evidence to back up this claim?
  • Did Rick intentionally try to publicly smear Shawn by purposely leaving out very important facts involving his detainment?
  • Why did Janelle Griffin call Shawn on Wednesday morning to berate him, demand to know his attorneys’ names, and threatened to make him look bad on the show after he told her he was not going to participate?

Finally, if you’re going to call Janelle, make sure you do it during normal business hours, because as the producer of “Dirty” Sanchez’s show she apparently only checks her messages during that time.

Sheriff Threatens to Submit Photographer to FBI’s Hit List

Published November 8, 2009 Bayes #456 , Harassment , LASD , Los Angeles , Los Angeles County Sheriffs , Photographers' Rights , Police , Police Harassment , Richard Gylfie #2955 , Sheriffs 390 Comments

It is completely legal to photograph the Los Angeles Metro System.

Be sure to Digg the video here, leave a comment on YouTube, and submit the story to boingboing.

On October 31, 2009 while on my way home from the Hollywood and Highland area, I was unlawfully detained for 25 minutes by LASD Officers Richard Gylfie #2955 and Bayes #456 for taking two photographs of the turnstiles located at the Hollywood and Western Metro Station — an act that is completely legal and occurred in public space.

As you can see in the video (which can be viewed on YouTube, Vimeo, Liveleak, Flickr and discarted.com), Officer Gylfie #2955 and Officer Bayes #456 took it upon themselves to ignore established law and Metro policies in order to bully me, humiliate me, and detain me for conducting a perfectly legal activity in public. More important, by illegally detaining me, Officers Gylfie and Bayes violated my constitutional rights, which protect me as a photographer and against unlawful stops, searches, and seizures.

To voice your concerns regarding my unlawful detainment, contact the following individuals and offices:

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s online complaint form.

Michael J. Gennaco, Chief Attorney
The Office of Independent Review
4900 South Eastern Avenue, Suite 204
Commerce, CA 90040
Phone: (323) 890-5360
Email: mjgennac@laoir.com

Karyn Mannis, Captain
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Internal Affairs Bureau
http://www.lasd.org/divisions/leadership-training-div/bureaus/iab.html
(323) 890-5300

Eric Garcetti, City Council President
5500 Hollywood Blvd., 4th Floor
Hollywood, CA 90028
Phone: 323-957-4500
Email: councilmember.garcetti@lacity.org

NOTE: Garcetti’s office is directly across the street from where this unlawful detainment took place. Gil Garcetti, Eric’s father, is also a former Los Angeles District Attorney, as well as an acclaimed urban photographer, so Eric should be well aware of photographers’ rights and the issues that we deal with today.

Tom LaBonge, Councilmember, District 4
Hollywood Field Office
6501 Fountain Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90028
Phone: (323) 957-6415
Email: councilmember.labonge@lacity.org

MTA’s Contradictory Photo Guidelines

Published November 7, 2009 Los Angeles County Sheriffs , Photographers' Rights , Police Harassment 91 Comments
Tags: , ,

0357A007

Last Saturday on Halloween I was detained at the Hollywood/Western Metro stop by LA County sheriffs for taking photos of the newly installed turnstiles that were still under construction and decorated with pretty yellow caution tape. During my detainment (which will be address publicly soon), I was told by one of the sheriffs that taking photos was against MTA’s policy. Well, of course I knew this was not true and stated that to the officer, which didn’t curb his aggressiveness towards me or prevent him from threatening to put my name on the FBI’s “hit list.” But that’s not the point; the officer’s behavior doesn’t matter (for now at least) because the focus of this post is the MTA’s contradictory photography guidelines.

After my exciting detainment, I went home and read over the MTA’s photography guidelines, and sure enough, just like I mentioned during my not-so friendly encounter with the sheriff, photography is allowed on the Los Angeles County MTA system. That is — only in public space.

However, as I read through their guidelines I became rather perplexed because the MTA guidelines also state “no photography inside moving trains for privacy and safety reasons.”

What the hell does that mean…“no photography inside moving trains for privacy reasons”?

Whose privacy are they trying to protect? How is there any more privacy on a public train system while it’s moving than when it’s not moving? How can an expectation of privacy even exist inside a public transit car? Does this also mean, according to MTA policies, that a Metro rider can only have an expectation of privacy while riding in one of their moving cars but not anywhere else on Metro property, which is pretty much all public space? Does an expectation of privacy even exist anywhere on Metro property? It’s all public space!

In my personal and non-legal opinion, I would have to say that this specific policy is bogus and designed to protect MTA personnel from any sort of liability. There can’t be an expectation of privacy anywhere on the MTA because the entire system is public. And we should all be able to take photos anywhere on the system, including inside moving train cars. How else will we be able to catch MTA drivers texting on the job?

Jet Ski Photos Provoke Police Visit

Published October 28, 2009 Photographers' Rights , Police Harassment 3 Comments
Tags: , ,

jetski_low
Photo by Garry Chinchen

Garry Chinchen, a photographer in England, was approached by police this week for taking photos of jet skiers in South Wales. He was told if he continued he would be arrested for “breach of peace.” All told, the officers checked his images, phoned his employer and ran his name through a database – to which I have only one response, huh?!! Where is the outrage in England? They aren’t just trampling on photographers’ rights; there are apparently no rights to begin with. Apparently the whole incident was touched off by the fact that children were changing into wet suits on the lake’s shore, but Chinchen’s photos are clearly of the jet skis in the water – and not even very close up at that.

The police spokesperson’s statement said in part, “‘The officer carried out all the necessary checks on this person and no offences were disclosed. The photographer was appropriately advised regarding his conduct.” Luckily that was sorted out.

Article via Amateur Photographer

Photographers Face Guns in Afghanistan

Published August 20, 2009 Photographers' Rights , Police Harassment Leave a Comment
Tags: , ,

600xPopupGallery
Pedro Ugarte/AFP/Getty Images

As if Afghanistan wasn’t dangerous enough for the photojournalists shooting there, now they have to contend with police officers who threaten them with guns. The New York Times’ Lens blog has a post about the Afghan government’s moves to ban journalists from reporting on the Taliban-sponsored violence surrounding the election lest it deters people from voting.

They’re not really making much of a case for democracy, are they? I get their admittedly screwy logic, but the execution is all wrong. Isn’t it better to assuage the citizenry rather than restrict the press? 

Article via New York Times

Photography Campaign Launches in UK

Published August 14, 2009 Photographers' Rights , Police Harassment , Security Guard Harassment 1 Comment
Tags: ,

launch-party-001

The UK has to be one of the most hostile places for photography in the free world, seemingly crying “terrorism” the minute someone pulls out a camera in public. So in response a group of photographers have banned together to create the “I’m a photographer not a Terrorist” campaign. Meant to raise awareness, map infractions and work toward stopping the egregious harassment, it’s also a place to download a “bust card” (a handy reference of your rights), check out a map of where photography has been prohibited and upload your own DIY portrait.

One of the campaign’s founders, Jeff Moore, told Amateur Photographer: “This website is not just for professionals, it is very much aimed at everyone from pros, high-end amateurs and mums using their camera phones.”

For more info, go to I’m a Photographer Not a Terrorist.

“Sign of the Times” – Bleak In Yorkshire

Published August 6, 2009 Photographers' Rights , Police Harassment , Security Guard Harassment Leave a Comment
Tags: , , ,

It almost seems redundant to keep posting these incidents from England because they’re so egregious and, sadly, seem to be just the way of life there nowadays. But it’s also possible, with regular attention and outrage, that things could improve and the stranglehold authorities have on photography might lessen one day.

In a story on the Yorkshire Post site Tuesday, Carl Minns, a member of the Hull City Council, was contacted by police after he took pictures at a local mall. Minns was taking photos at St. Stephen’s shopping center when a security guard told him he wasn’t allowed because it was private property. But here’s where it gets ridiculous: When Minns complained, in the form of an email to the center’s management, instead of replying they forwarded it straight onto the police! As if a city council member expressing concern about a photography policy was a threat!

Minns soon got a call from the police, which he said was handled all well and good on their end, but acknowledged it was an unusual scenario: “I have a lot of dealings with the police because of my job, but I can imagine the shock of this happening to an ordinary person.” The police told him the center was supposedly acting within the country’s terrorism guidelines.

In the meantime, Minns was told he won’t be facing any charges, but he still hasn’t received a response to his initial complaint. A center spokesperson called it an oversight they’re working on, while admitting the photography policy was a “sign of the times.”

Article from the Yorkshire Post

Spam Blocked

1,139,139 spam blocked by Akismet