Old 06-02-2011, 08:13 PM   #1
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Cool MTA Officers Detain Man For Taking Pictures

More of the same.

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2011/0...king-pictures/
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2011, 09:17 PM   #2
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,898
Default

I'm reading the comments below the story. Some of them are far, far worse than what the MTA did. Which was actually really bad itself.
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2011, 09:22 PM   #3
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,898
Default

One thing I am confused over -- I thought we were required to show ID if asked. I always do that when an LEO asks. It seems not doing so would likely elevate the situation in a different direction and make it less about the right to photograph and more about the photog being an ass for ot showing ID. Am I wrong is that thinking?
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2011, 09:35 PM   #4
Freericks
Met Fan
 
Freericks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,040
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe the Photog View Post
One thing I am confused over -- I thought we were required to show ID if asked. I always do that when an LEO asks. It seems not doing so would likely elevate the situation in a different direction and make it less about the right to photograph and more about the photog being an ass for ot showing ID. Am I wrong is that thinking?
I believe the law is that you are only required to show ID if you are operating a motor vehicle.

That being said, I have found that it difuses the situation imencely by complying and showing ID.
Freericks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2011, 09:38 PM   #5
Hatchetman
Part-Time Railfan
 
Hatchetman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,381
Default

"my papers are in order!"
Hatchetman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2011, 10:12 PM   #6
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Lightbulb Id issue

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freericks View Post
I believe the law is that you are only required to show ID if you are operating a motor vehicle.
That has been the case since drivers licenses were invented and is part of your promise as a license holder - the same as you agree to submit to a chemical test upon request.


While in many States there is no law specifically requiring you to show id to a police officer while not driving or drinking or something else that requires a license, or to be of a certain age, you will get no quarter from the U.S. Supreme Court if you refuse to identify yourself.

In 2004, the US Supreme Court Opinion in Hiibel vs. State of Nevada determined that providing id to a cop is neither an invasive search, or a violation of ones 5th Amendment rights.

http://www.nevadajudiciary.us/index....tate-of-nevada

Ergo, your not going to win a fight on this issue, but it sure is fun to give them a hard time when you have done nothing wrong.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2011, 11:37 PM   #7
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,898
Default

Like Charles, I think showing the ID is still a beter idea. Although sometimes being a pain in the ass is fun, too.
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2011, 12:04 AM   #8
Freericks
Met Fan
 
Freericks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,040
Default

Honestly, I think you have to have a lot of time on your hands to want to give them a hard time. I just want to take my pictures and be left alone. I figure most meetings with LEOs will go like this,

"What are you doing?"

"Taking train pictures."

At this point, about 1/2 of them will say something that tells me they know the hobby and we're good. The other 1/2 will say...

"Do you work for the railroad?"

"No, it's my hobby."

At this point, maybe another 1/2 will ask me some more questions about the hobby and let me know they had to ask on account of 9/11. The other half will say...

"Can I see some ID?"

"Sure, here you go."

After running my ID, nine out of ten will say "Thanks... stay safe out here, as long as you're on the public sidewalk, you're okay."

The one of out ten who tells me to move along, I'll argue with.

As to the LEO who drives up straight away and says "Train photography's illegal..." I tell him straight off it isn't. Have yet to have one try to back up that statement. Only one to really run me off starting that way, had then pointed out that I was parked illegally and he could ticket me. As he was correct on that second point, I got in my car and drove off.
Freericks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2011, 03:27 AM   #9
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freericks View Post
......(portion omitted)........ had then pointed out that I was parked illegally and he could ticket me. As he was correct on that second point, I got in my car and drove off.
I think you would need to be brain dead to argue with the cop about anything at that point.

That is why I leave my weapons and contraband at home when I engage law enforcement in such stimulating conversations.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2011, 04:15 AM   #10
Freericks
Met Fan
 
Freericks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,040
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holloran Grade View Post
I think you would need to be brain dead to argue with the cop about anything at that point.

That is why I leave my weapons and contraband at home when I engage law enforcement in such stimulating conversations.
Yeah... I think I even said something along the lines of "you win" to him, and he cracked a bit of a smile.
Freericks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2011, 04:22 AM   #11
coborn35
Senior Member
 
coborn35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,398
Default

Ironic that it was the guy of F40 and SP 4449 fame.
__________________
I personally have had a problem with those trying to tell us to turn railroad photography into an "art form." It's fine for them to do so, I welcome it in fact, but what I do have a problem with is that the practitioners of the more "arty" shots, I have found, tend to look down their nose's at others who are shooting more "mundane" shots.
Railroad photography is what you make of it, but one way is not "better" than another, IMHO. Unless you have a pole right thought the nose of the engine! -SG
coborn35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2011, 05:45 AM   #12
DWHonan
Senior Member
 
DWHonan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA
Posts: 590
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coborn35 View Post
Ironic that it was the guy of F40 and SP 4449 fame.
That was my first reaction, too; Chris is the exact opposite of a threat.

Anyway, following up on the OP's link, the MTA administrator back-tracked yesterday and said that the transit police were not, in fact, upholding agency policy:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/201...ralign-t-wells

I'm pleased to see that the repeated false threats which the officers expressed to Chris are addressed on the article's third page.
__________________
Dave Honan
Issaquah, WA
View my portfolio at RailPictures.net
View my portfolio at Flickr Not quite so new anymore!
DWHonan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2011, 05:57 AM   #13
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Lightbulb Figures.....

Can you say "backtrack" and fast?

I like this though "Wells said MTA officers may approach a photographer and ask to see identification as part of a "field interview." But he said compliance with such a request is voluntary on the photographer's part."

Guess he doesn't know about Hiibel v. Nevada.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2011, 04:01 PM   #14
viper
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Thunderhorn (US)
Posts: 90
Default

Have to check but I think it's required by law to show ID when requested by law enforcement.
viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2011, 04:06 PM   #15
Hatchetman
Part-Time Railfan
 
Hatchetman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,381
Default

what if I don't have ID? I get thrown in jail for not having an ID?
Hatchetman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2011, 04:37 PM   #16
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holloran Grade View Post
While in many States there is no law specifically requiring you to show id to a police officer while not driving or drinking or something else that requires a license, or to be of a certain age, you will get no quarter from the U.S. Supreme Court if you refuse to identify yourself.

In 2004, the US Supreme Court Opinion in Hiibel vs. State of Nevada determined that providing id to a cop is neither an invasive search, or a violation of ones 5th Amendment rights.

http://www.nevadajudiciary.us/index....tate-of-nevada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holloran Grade View Post
Guess he doesn't know about Hiibel v. Nevada.
Quote:
Originally Posted by viper View Post
Have to check but I think it's required by law to show ID when requested by law enforcement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatchetman View Post
what if I don't have ID? I get thrown in jail for not having an ID?
First of all, I am not a lawyer. I do know how to search for and read web pages. I think I know something about how to interpret the words I read.

The wiki basically says that laws and obligations vary by state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

The Hiibel case revolved around the Nevada statute, which requires people to give their names, not to show ID. So it does not apply across the country literally, but it does give an indication of how the Supreme Court would rule if faced with a similar case from another jurisdiction, and so provides guidance to lower courts. See this link, provided by Robert above:

http://www.nevadajudiciary.us/index....tate-of-nevada

See also this link to the Supreme Court decision:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...&invol=03-5554

As an aside, I understand that some people are sticklers for the law and their rights, and I like to think that I am also to some extent, but in practice I can't imaging not being willing to give my name to a police officer. Not even an ID, just a name!

J
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots

Last edited by JRMDC; 06-03-2011 at 04:40 PM.
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2011, 04:50 PM   #17
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Lightbulb Ever thought about a career in the law?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
......I can't imaging not being willing to give my name to a police officer. Not even an ID, just a name!
Oh, its easy to not want to be very cooperative.

It all as to do with how the officer approaches the situation.

My latest (this one is with security, not a cop): http://www.flickr.com/photos/3672212...in/photostream

* *********************************************

Notice the interesting thing about the opinion in Hiibel vs. State of Nevada, is that it doesn't specify what type of id is required.

In CA you are not required to fork over your drivers license unless you are driving.

Granted it is the best form of id other than a US Passport and it may be necessary to prove your age while drinking alcohol, possessing smokes or possessing a handgun if that is the subject of the detention by the cop.

Other than that you are free to give them whatever, unless they are writing you a ticket for a non-driving misdemeanor violation like peeing on the lawn. (If you are driving you must give them the DL.)

In that instance, the police can bring you before a magistrate if you are unable to properly identify yourself.

There are other laws that require an id like riding on public transportation, but the worst that can happen to you if you refuse to produce it, is you get thrown off the conveyance.

I know Metrolink requires id and their conductors are empowered to eject you from the train for failure to show id, but you would really need to be a pain in the butt because they don't normally check for id, even when purchasing tickets.


Also as an FYI - you can look at the opinions of the Nevada Supreme Court and the trial court for what everyone was thinking when they brought the case up, but the opinion of the US Supreme Court is the controlling document and the Wiki on this is surprisingly accurate. That is not where my information came from, as I am very familiar with both Terry and Hiibel.

Last edited by Holloran Grade; 06-03-2011 at 05:03 PM.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2011, 05:21 PM   #18
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holloran Grade View Post
Notice the interesting thing about the opinion in Hiibel vs. State of Nevada, is that it doesn't specify what type of id is required.
Yes. I read the link you provided, which says "refused to reveal his name" and "provide a name" and "disclosing his name" and I took that to mean stating your name in any form, not necessarily providing an ID.

Quote:
Also as an FYI - you can look at the opinions of the Nevada Supreme Court and the trial court for what everyone was thinking when they brought the case up, but the opinion of the US Supreme Court is the controlling document and the Wiki on this is surprisingly accurate. That is not where my information came from, as I am very familiar with both Terry and Hiibel.
I did not read the Hiibel opinion all the way through. The parts I skimmed, I did not see a reference to an ID, whereas your second post in this thread says "providing ID to a cop" which I read to mean more than just saying ones name. That's why I posted the links.

Interesting that the definition of what constitutes providing the requested information is so ambiguous.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots

Last edited by JRMDC; 06-03-2011 at 05:23 PM.
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2011, 05:30 PM   #19
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Talking Survey Says....

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
Interesting that the definition of what constitutes providing the requested information is so ambiguous.
Not really, it is called the 9th Amendment.

There is a Federal form of id and it is known as a passport - but it is optional.


Also, 10 out of 10 police officers will state the requirement is you show a drivers license or state issued id (see below) unless you are obviously not of driving age.


The California DMV issues id cards to people who don't have a drivers license, or their license has been revoked.

They are useful for proving your age, voter registration and for financial transactions.

An Id card is optional in CA, but nowadays you really can't do anything without one.

I like to show people my passport just to throw them off.

I had one guy argue that it was invalid and that I needed a drivers license.

That was fun.

Last edited by Holloran Grade; 06-03-2011 at 05:45 PM.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2011, 05:52 PM   #20
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holloran Grade View Post
Not really, it is called the 9th Amendment.
Well, that doesn't really answer the question, does it, it just pushes it along. You belong in a bureaucracy!

I just found it interesting that the wording of the info I did read was somewhat ambiguous as to what exactly constituted providing identification. And in particular I now see in the wiki for "stop and identify" that the court "implied" one can just state one's name. So I think that I am still correct in saying "ambiguous."
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2011, 06:13 PM   #21
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Lightbulb It is easy.

In simplest terms, the 9th Amendment means the states are free to determine what a drivers license is, and what form of id they are going to require because it is not stated (enumerated) in the Constitution that the Federal government is allowed to do that.

That is why the Nevada statute in Hiibel was upheld and not thrown out on an equal protection argument.

The 9th Amendment says whatever power is not given to the feds by the constitution, is reserved for the states.

Also bear in mind that the issue of a Federal id gets thrown around now and then but it smacks of Fascism which is why it has not happened.

There are certain lines that the bureaucrats don't cross like deploying the army domestically, re-instating the draft or demanding that women register for selective service.

I am surprised the last regime didn't enact something like that.

Last edited by Holloran Grade; 06-03-2011 at 06:18 PM.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2011, 10:21 AM   #22
khalucha
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 425
Default

I varies from state to state. In Arizona a few years back, and officer could take you to jail for not having ID on you. (Driving, passenger in\on a vehicle or walking) They have since changed that law.
__________________
Kevin
Phoenix, Arizona

Webshot Photos

flickr stuff
khalucha is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.