He had the law bookmarked in his Blackberry - they didn't care. He must have been playing nice enough at that point for them to be willing to look at what he was showing them. That probably only made it worse. Any kind of resistance or discussion is a red rag to a bull. To prove how belligerent they were, and how determined to abuse their power, they added on charges for obstructing traffic and speaking unreasonably.
I think the most effective thing you could carry in New York is a copy of this article from the NY Times, showing that the police have lost similar cases and it's cost them dearly. But pulling it out would probably only make things worse. The only way to avoid being arrested is to plead ignorance, pretend to be a nice middle class tourist and delete your photograph. The relationship between police and public has changed and is out of control. It's been this way for many visible minorities for a long time - now for everyone. But it won't be long before the law is changed, like it has just been in the UK. Something vague and unthreatening sounding, that won't motivate all those petitions and protests. Something that comes in through the counterterrorism backdoor. We've a long way to go before this tide turns. Our children's generation will have to fight for freedom of expression all over again. It's got so bad that when I write emails like this, I worry about being turned back at the border. On 18-Feb-09, at 2:57 PM, Kevin Lim wrote: Is there any legal article for photographers to cite, that's made into something wallet-sized? Some policemen can be reasoned with if we play nice. I wouldn't say "bet your paycheck", but rather "I know you're doing your job". Kevin Lim Cyberculturalist http://theory.isthereason.com This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private email locator: ╔╗╔═╦╗ ║╚╣║║╚╗ ╚═╩═╩═╝ On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Tim Street <1timstr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for sharing that. > > Tim Street > 1timstr...@gmail.com > http://1timstreet.com/blog > http://twitter.com/1timstreet > > On Feb 18, 2009, at 2:40 PM, Rupert wrote: > >> From : >> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/nyregion/18about.html?_r=3 >> >> "No Photo Ban in Subways, Yet an Arrest" >> By JIM DWYER >> Published: February 17, 2009 >> >> In the map of New York's most forsaken places, it would be hard to >> top the Freeman Street stop on the No. 2 line in the Bronx, late on a >> February afternoon. Around 4:30 last Thursday, Robert Taylor stood on >> the station's elevated platform, taking a picture of a train. >> >> "A few buildings in place," he noted. "Nice little cloud cover >> overhead. I usually use them as wallpaper on my computer." >> >> Finished with his camera, Mr. Taylor, 30, was about to board the >> train when a police officer called to him. He stepped back from the >> train. >> >> "The cop wanted my ID, and I showed it to him," Mr. Taylor said. "He >> told me I couldn't take the pictures. I told him that's not true, >> that the rules permitted it. He said I was wrong. I said, 'I'm >> willing to bet your paycheck.' " >> >> Mr. Taylor was right. The officer was enforcing a nonexistent rule. >> And if recent experience is any guide, one paycheck won't come close >> to covering what a wrongful arrest in this kind of case could cost >> the taxpayers. >> >> Twice in the last five years, the Metropolitan Transportation >> Authority proposed a ban on photography in the subways as an >> antiterrorism measure. And in 2007, the city proposed severe >> restrictions on filming in the city streets, but retreated when >> visual artists and activists gathered 26,000 signatures on petitions >> of opposition within a few weeks. >> >> Both times that the transportation authority tried to ban >> photography, it, too, dropped the idea because of opposition. Even >> so, people taking pictures in the subways are regularly stopped by >> the police and asked to let the officers see their images or to >> delete them. >> >> "They don't have to do that, and it's completely unlawful to ask them >> to delete them," said Chris Dunn, a lawyer with the New York Civil >> Liberties Union. "But it comes with the explicit or implicit threat >> of arrest. It's a constant problem." >> >> Mr. Taylor — a college student and an employee of a transportation >> agency that he did not want to identify — said he had been stopped >> before when taking pictures, but without problems. >> >> Not this time. >> >> "I said, 'According to the rules of conduct, we are allowed to take >> pictures,' " Mr. Taylor said. "I showed him the rules — they're >> bookmarked on my BlackBerry." >> >> Rule 1050.9 (c) of the state code says, "Photography, filming or >> video recording in any facility or conveyance is permitted except >> that ancillary equipment such as lights, reflectors or tripods may >> not be used." >> >> Then a police sergeant arrived. >> >> "He tells me that their rules and the transit rules are different," >> Mr. Taylor said. "I tell him, 'If you feel I'm wrong, give me a >> summons and I'll see everyone in court.' The sergeant told them to >> arrest me." >> >> In handcuffs, Mr. Taylor was delivered to the Transit District 12 >> police station, and a warrant check was run. "They were citing 9/11," >> said Mr. Taylor, whose encounter was described on a blog by the >> photographer Carlos Miller. "Of course, 9/11 is serious. I said: >> 'Let's be real. We're in the Bronx on the 2 train. Let's be for real >> here. Come on.' " >> >> Before he was uncuffed, he got a batch of summonses. >> >> The first was for "taking photos from the s/b plat of incoming >> outgoing trains without authority to do so," abbreviating "southbound >> platform." It cited Rule 1050.9 (c). >> >> The second was for disorderly conduct, which consisted of addressing >> the officers in an "unreasonable voice." >> >> And the third was for "impeding traffic" — on a platform that is >> about 10,000 square feet. "I don't know if you can impede traffic >> with 15 people per hour coming on the station," Mr. Taylor said. >> >> LAST year, the city settled a lawsuit with a medical student who was >> using his vacation to photograph every subway stop. He got through >> five before an officer handcuffed him and detained him for about 20 >> minutes. With legal fees, the cost to the city was $31,501 — more >> than $1,500 a minute. >> >> In the case of Mr. Taylor, the "officers misinterpreted the rules >> concerning photography," said Paul J. Browne, the Police Department's >> chief spokesman. "The Transit Adjudication Board is being notified >> that summons was issued in error, resulting in its dismissal." >> >> However, the police will press on with charges of impeding traffic >> and unreasonable noise, Mr. Browne said. >> >> For his part, Mr. Taylor said he was late meeting his girlfriend: "It >> wasn't a pleasant sight. I said, 'I'll make it up to you.' What else >> could I say?" >> >> Thanks to the police, they might end up with more than a nice dinner >> or two — at taxpayer expense. >> >> >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------ >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> > > Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ Creative Mobile Filmmaking Shot, edited and sent with my Nokia N93 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
