| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Seattle man arrested after photographing open ATM
Gregory McKie, Photographer
|
William Maner, Photographer
 |
Biloxi | MS | USA | Posted: 1:37 PM on 05.13.09 |
->> I better pop some popcorn and grab a brew.. I think I have a pretty good idea of how this topic is going to play here--based on past threads..
It should be quite a show concerning how the "self-described anarchist" and local police resolved this issue. |
|
Kevin Leas, Photographer, Assistant
|
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 5:42 PM on 05.13.09 |
->> "they think it’s somehow threatening their personal safety and their property’s safety."
It's a small world. You pass this photo around, some unscrupulous character says "hey, I know one of those guys", and suddenly the worker may be part of some creep's plan for robbing the ATM. Likely? No. Real threat? I'd say yes...
Secondly, the photographer really didn't do himself any favors by refusing to even show ID, and who knows how he actually conducted himself. Was he calm and polite? Or was he, as he "joking" said himself, telling the employees to "go f*ck themselves"? If someone's that uncooperative, then the people handling the situation are forced to assume that they're hiding something.
Finally: restricting photography of sensitive equipment is nothing new. Go to any business for a newspaper assignment, and there's bound to be something that they don't want you to shoot. Whether it's to keep trade secrets from the competition, or protect the security of their device, there are plenty of valid reasons why some things really shouldn't be photographed. When I shot the bomb squad detonating a counter-car bomb device on a trailer, I couldn't take a single frame before the actual detonation, because the device - completely covered in black tarps, mind you - could potentially be reverse engineered, making it easier for someone planting a bomb to create one that wouldn't be effectively diffused by this device.
These guys simply don't want their ATM photographed internally, because it would allow the wrong people to figure out how they work, and how to access the contents.
Sorry, but without a video of how everything happened, who said what exactly, and how everyone acted, I have to side with the employees here. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 6:42 PM on 05.13.09 |
->> Kevin,
Like most things that people try to restrict in the interest of keeping the "bad guys" from finding out "secrets", everything you could possibly want to know about ATM machines is publicly available through numerous sources. Heck you could even have your own ATM installed at your office with a simple phone call and signing a service agreement. The ATM guys (and the police who talked about 9/11, for that matter) are just following through with the attitude that has permeated society after 9/11...for better or worse. Most of these arguments fail when even a shred of logic is applied...as is the case here.
But regardless...the guy taking the photos apparently argued with just about everyone. He was looking for a fight. If he was truly interested in following the law, he would have simply left the store when it was obvious he was no longer welcome. The cops wouldn't have had an issue because he would have already left. But by standing his ground on private property and entering into an argument with the police in the field, the only outcome possible was an outcome that involved handcuffs. They're going to cuff you and take you out of the store if you argue with them. It's a safety issue...if you're arguing with them they have no idea when that will transition to throwing punches...so they're going to be safe than sorry.
The guy was released without charges after a short delay, which is better than what has happened in other situations we've discussed here. The guy published his pictures, so nothing was deleted from his camera. The system worked...his freedoms were preserved and nobody got hurt. It's basically a non-story. |
|
Jeremy Harmon, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Salt Lake City | UT | USA | Posted: 6:49 PM on 05.13.09 |
->> "the photographer really didn't do himself any favors by refusing to even show ID"
Since when do you have to show ID to security guards? Give me a break. They're not cops. They have absolutely no legal authority whatsoever. I would've refused too just on principle.
"It's a small world. You pass this photo around, some unscrupulous character says "hey, I know one of those guys", and suddenly the worker may be part of some creep's plan for robbing the ATM. Likely? No. Real threat? I'd say yes..."
I'd say no. |
|
Jeremy Harmon, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Salt Lake City | UT | USA | Posted: 6:50 PM on 05.13.09 |
| ->> The article says he argued with the security guards, not the cops. |
|
Ron Erdrich, Photographer
 |
Abilene | TX | USA | Posted: 7:00 PM on 05.13.09 |
->> Maybe the larger issue is simply that he was taking pictures on private property. Forget about the ATM, the owner of the store has every right in the world to dictate what you can and cannot do in his place. Whether the security guards were following those dictates is another thing, but it's still secondary to the private property issue.
But I too agree that the dude should have just left. Maybe they would have written down his license plate and given it to the cops, maybe not..., but buggin' out would have saved him a trip downtown more than likely. |
|
Gregory McKie, Photographer
|
Seattle, WA and Portland | OR | US | Posted: 7:09 PM on 05.13.09 |
->> Store Policy?
Does the store have a policy of no photography? Or is this a case of make it up as you go along.
I once took a picture of a friend while we were both sitting in Starbucks consuming their product and was told no taking pictures in the store.
Again, is this a case of make it up as you go along? |
|
Rich Cruse, Photographer
|
Laguna Niguel | CA | USA | Posted: 7:39 PM on 05.13.09 |
->> I don't think it is illegal- there has to be a law against it for it to be illegal right? He IS on private property and there are security reasons for not allowing photography of ATMs being serviced. However, it would seem that the most that could be done without a specific law prohibiting such photography would be for the security company and the store owner to sue for damages and of course the store owner had every right to call police to have the photographer removed from the premises.
Anyone here versed on the law? Now if he was outside the window, on public property and took the photo, I doubt there could be any legal action taken. |
|
Jeremy Harmon, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Salt Lake City | UT | USA | Posted: 7:54 PM on 05.13.09 |
->> Is it illegal to refuse to identify yourself to people who aren't law enforcement? That's what started the whole mess for this guy.
It seems like these cops arrested the guy for being a dick. Last time I checked, being a dick was not illegal. It won't win you many friends but, you could say being a dick is a constitutionally protected right. So what was he arrested for?
Whether or not the store has a no photography policy is another matter, and the most that could happen there is this guy could be arrested for trespassing. He was warned that if he ever returned to the store, that would happen. But that's not why he was arrested in the first place. From the article it sounds like he was arrested for taking a photo of an ATM after 9/11. Is that illegal, and if so, when did it become illegal?
I used to do loss prevention in a grocery store and when we caught shoplifters they were always warned by the cops that if they came back, they would be arrested for trespassing. The police wouldn't charge them with trespassing on the first time in the store though because the store was open to the public. Since it was open to anybody who cared to wander in, people had to be given an official trespassing warning before they could be arrested for it. Otherwise, cops could arrest anybody who came in for any reason at all and just say they were trespassing. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 7:55 PM on 05.13.09 |
->> The article says he argued with the security guards, not the cops.
From the article:
"Seattle Police arrived on the scene and brought up 9/11 as the reason why he should not have photographed the open ATM.
When he questioned whether 9/11 was a justifiable reason to not take photographs, one of the officers handcuffed him."
----
It's fairly reasonable to assume that this exchange took the form of an argument, since I doubt the police would have started the exchange with, "Hey, you shouldn't take pictures of this ATM because of 9/11". The truncated version above probably omitted a couple of back and forths prior to that, where the police are trying to figure out what was going on between the parties in question. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 7:58 PM on 05.13.09 |
->> A few years ago while I was working the night shift in the ER I went to the hospital's ATM to grab cash for 'lunch', we had an ATM that dispensed $5's !!! Anyway when I leaned on the machine the front of the thing popped open. The lids have a gas piston like the kind the opens the hatch on a car.
I paged security and 2 guards came down along with the shift commander. Inside the machine was the log, that showed who had opened it, how much cash had been placed in the machine, a blank card with a mag strip and a number written on it in red marker. We were sure that my 'popping' the lid had set off some alarm and that the PD would be there any second. Not only did the PD not come in, neither did anyone from Diebold or the bank when contacted by the shift commander. They just wanted the guard to slam the lid down hard. It didn't work and for 3 weeks the lid to the ATM was held down by gravity or a piece of silk tape. Later on I learned from the hospital's security chief that they had reviewed the security tape from the camera that looks down on the machine to see if I had forced the machine.
I wasn't impressed with the level of concern or interest that the bank showed. |
|
Jeremy Harmon, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Salt Lake City | UT | USA | Posted: 8:10 PM on 05.13.09 |
->> "It's fairly reasonable to assume that this exchange took the form of an argument"
Fair enough. That's true.
But it's also reasonable to assume the guy's tone was sarcastic rather than argumentative. It could interpreted a number of ways. There is no way, from this article, to know that kind of detail.
Either way, he was cuffed for questioning the reasons the cops gave him for not being allowed to take a photo. We all know that is bogus. If the police had told him he couldn't take photos because store policy didn't allow it, that would be different. But they didn't. They told him he couldn't take photos of an open ATM because of a terrorist attack. |
|
Gregory McKie, Photographer
|
Seattle, WA and Portland | OR | US | Posted: 8:27 PM on 05.13.09 |
->> The photographer was interviewed on the Dori Monson show on Seattle's KIRO-FM today.
The intro is 30 seconds into the mp3 and the actual interview is ~ 7-8 minutes into the mp3 if you have a way to skip to it.
There is also a response from REI.
http://icestream.bonnint.net/seattle/kiro/2009/05/p_Dori_Monson_Show_200905... |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 9:43 PM on 05.13.09 |
->> The narrative in the linked story is very ambiguous about exactly how the 9/11 reference came up. The exact wording is important, because it could have been something as simple as the cop saying, "Well...since 9/11, people are a bit paranoid about strangers with cameras taking pictures of things." That statement is true, and would fit in the context of what the story said and his "response". But it's impossible to know the context without unbiased documentation, so we'll never really know how the 9/11 reference came up and in what context.
Regardless, all that happened to this guy is he was tossed in a cell for a half an hour and let go with no charges filed and he kept his images. He could have avoided all of this if he'd simply walked away when the security guards started giving him crap. There is no indication that anyone "detained" him until the cops arrive. They just asked him (oh I'm sorry, "DEMANDED") his ID. But he didn't walk away. He stayed around long enough to have an argument with the security guards, the people in the store, and finally police, all on private property. He obviously was out to pick a fight, he got one, and aside from a little downtime in a jail cell, came away unscathed.
It's much different than the other stories we've heard about. |
|
Jeremy Harmon, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Salt Lake City | UT | USA | Posted: 10:18 PM on 05.13.09 |
->> Listen to the interview. One of the security guards told him if he tried to leave the store without giving them his id, they would tackle him and call the police. Explains why he didn't walk away.
Private security guards don't have the right to tackle people. That's assault. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 10:20 PM on 05.13.09 |
->> head case looking for a fight.
Private property sorta ends the discussion. If you don't like the rules... tough - then leave.
This kind of individual pollutes the situation when the circumstances are really an issue. |
|
Jeremy Harmon, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Salt Lake City | UT | USA | Posted: 10:32 PM on 05.13.09 |
->> This kind of individual may pollute the situation, but what about the rent-a-cop who threatens to tackle the guy? He is just as guilty (if not more so-he threatened a physical attack) of escalating the situation as the guy with the iphone. Just because somebody is dressed up as a cop, it doesn't give them the legal authority to act like a cop. It never will.
Here it is on another blog. The tone is a bit snarky, but it has a little more detail on what was said between the parties involved.
http://mondoglobo.wftk.org/blog/qa/2009/05/taking-pictures-with-your-ipho.h... |
|
Jeremy Harmon, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Salt Lake City | UT | USA | Posted: 10:35 PM on 05.13.09 |
| ->> The great irony, of course, is the Loomis guards didn't want anybody to see the photo. Now, because of how they acted, the photo is all over the place. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 11:00 PM on 05.13.09 |
->> ...and the interview is only one side of the story.
If he has witnesses to the alleged threat from the security guards, he should file charges. The fact that he's just doing the talkshow circuit without filing charges of any kind makes me suspect his one-sided account of the story. |
|
Jeremy Harmon, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Salt Lake City | UT | USA | Posted: 11:05 PM on 05.13.09 |
| ->> I agree with you 100% David. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 12:40 AM on 05.14.09 |
| ->> I concur. David you are right on a lot of levels. This guy was asking for a fight. Got one. Lucked out that they let him go without screwing with him some more. He could have walked away....I mean really, who gives a CRAP about an ATM machine? Please. |
|
Jeff Stanton, Photographer
|
Princeton | IN | USA | Posted: 1:21 AM on 05.14.09 |
->> One sided or not, security guards, Loomis, or otherwise, are not law enforcement and have no authority to force any person to hand over ID or any other personal effects.
Only the police can do that and, according to the ACLU, there are some states that persons are not even required to show the police their ID. The guy should have just left. The Loomis people could not prevent him from doing that.
I agree, a store owner or company can restrict or prohibit photography if they want. But it sure is funny when they are having some kind of promotion, grand opening, etc., and suddenly their no photo policy changes, to their benefit, of course. |
|
George Bridges, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 9:48 AM on 05.14.09 |
->> Several things are off here:
1: The security guards work for the ATM company, not the retail store so they have no say over who can be in the store, that is up to the store manager.
2: You do not have to show ID to anyone except a law enforcement officer and in many cases there you can refuse and simply leave the area and they really can't do much unless they have direct evidence you are committing a crime.
3: Being overly cautious because of 9/11 is about National Security, not the private security of an ATM housing. How seeing how an ATM works would have any effect on antiterrorism efforts is beyond me.
4: We really don't know the guy's attitude. But the fact is he was in a private store and it is up the store's owner/management to determine if photography is allowed. When the ATM guards questioned him he should have asked for the store manager and if they asked the person to leave he should have. It's private property and they have every right to ask someone to leave is they don't like the actions. Same way you can ask anyone to leave your home if you don't like what they are doing -- even if you invited them in the first place.
5: This attitude of everything is related to terrorism is not going to go away. The whole crap with not being able to photograph a public building is insane because anyone casing the place can walk by a million times or look at pictures on the Internet or take photos hidden from view. And your average terrorist or even common thief usually isn't hanging around REI just hoping that's the day the ATM guys come to service the machine.
But despite all of our complaints, despite the fact these people "enforcing" such attitudes are the ones violating the Constitution and despite any court rulings these attitudes will continue and it will be a pain in our rears but, sadly, it ain't going away.
Wince a lot and deal with it. |
|
Matthew Sauk, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 10:17 AM on 05.14.09 |
->> I didn't know an ATM flew into those buildings. Since when is an ATM a national security issue that you have to site 9/11.
WTF did an ATM have to do with 9/11?
I am sorry but I am sick and tired of Police officers referencing this as an easy "cop" out to get what you want.
Police seem to have lost something within the last 10 or so years. It seems they have lost the ability to reason and communicate with people. To many people are going to jail because the officers can't communicate with people. |
|
Joe Andras, Photographer
|
Orange County | CA | USA | Posted: 10:23 AM on 05.14.09 |
->> On the interview, he says that he was going to redeem $200 in dividends and also that the Loomis guards and REI employees pulled him out of line.
I find it ironic that if they hadn't pulled him out of line demand his ID, REI would have inherently obtained his identify when he redeemed his REI "divided" card. |
|
Jeremy Harmon, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Salt Lake City | UT | USA | Posted: 11:14 AM on 05.14.09 |
->> As a point of clarification, the thing I agree with David on is that if he has witnesses to the security guy threatening to tackle him, he should press charges.
They were violating his rights and threatening him. It was not the other way around.
If he can prove any of it, those Loomis guys should lose their jobs. |
|
Brian Dowling, Photographer
|
Philadelphia | PA | USA | Posted: 12:32 PM on 05.14.09 |
| ->> If the ATM machine was so important, they should not have opened it up in public. They shouldn't be on sale on eBay either. If they were going after me for taking a photo of the ATM machine, I would go after them for opening up an ATM machine in public which is a *rolls eye* 9/11 "they hate us for our freedom" national threat... |
|
Ron Erdrich, Photographer
|
Abilene | TX | USA | Posted: 1:04 PM on 05.14.09 |
| ->> Excellent point, Brian. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 8:48 PM on 05.14.09 |
| ->> Arguing with idiots brings you to their level. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 9:37 PM on 05.14.09 |
| ->> Well said, Chuck... and this particular incident had plenty of them. |
|
Thomas Campbell, Photographer
|
Daniel Berman, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Rich Cruse, Photographer
|
Laguna Niguel | CA | USA | Posted: 1:17 PM on 05.15.09 |
->> Check out this book- The Legal Handbook for Photographers
http://www.krages.com/lhp.htm |
|
David Minton, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Humble | TX | USA | Posted: 5:40 PM on 05.16.09 |
->> A few people have brought up that the REI store is private property, and that that fact is not an issue at all, which is correct.
But, doesn't that ATM qualify (in Loomis Fargo's eyes) as private property also? It's owned by Loomis/Bank of America/Diebold/whoever and although the outside of the machine is out in the open and free for everyone and anyone to look at, the insides aren't. It's like the exterior of my house is outside and anyone can look at it and take pictures, but I don't want someone to see what model my garage door opener is so it'll be easier for someone to run the door opener code, open it and steal my junk. Or to see what the kill switch in my car is.
None of this of course justifies any of what happened. The guy shouldn't have acted like a jackass and the Loomis guards could have just shut the door and stood in front of the machine blocking it when they realized that this guy was gonna give them a hard time instead of threatening him. Someone who thought he had more power over people then he really does went head to head with someone who thought that nobody had any power to tell him anything. |
|
Jeff Martin, Photographer
|
wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 7:17 PM on 05.16.09 |
->> "although the outside of the machine is out in the open and free for everyone and anyone to look at, the insides aren't."
This is true until they open the door in plain view of the public. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|