Man Arrested For Taking Photo of Open ATM 1232
net_shaman writes in with word of a Seattle man who was arrested for taking a photo of an ATM being serviced. "Today I was shopping at the downtown Seattle REI. I was about to buy a Thule hitch mount bike rack. They were out of the piece that locks the bike rack into the hitch. So I was in the customer service line to special order one. It was a long line and while I was waiting, I saw two of guys (employees of Loomis, as I later learned) refilling the ATM. I walked over and took a picture with my iPhone of them and more interestingly of the open ATM. I took the picture because I'm fascinated by the insides of things that we don't normally get to see. ... That was when Officer GE Abed (#6270) spun me around and put handcuffs on me."
Today... (Score:5, Funny)
FML
Re:Today... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Today... (Score:5, Informative)
Before referring me to the "public affairs" for "more current" information, the manager told me, that REI have not in fact accused the guy of "trespassing":
In other words, it seems like the pig lied. Surprise, surprise...
Re:Today... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.rei.com/help/feedback/privacyfb.html [rei.com]
That is the link to send them an email about "privacy". I am sending them an email outlining that if the details are true as they are being presented that I am shocked and embarrassed that REI loss prevention would help with this.
I am an REI member and I shop at the downtown Seattle location often. I am providing them with my membership number and I hope to hear back from them. As a coop they really don't have any interesting in pissing off their members so we will see how this goes.
At the same time if it is false then this guy is accusing them of something false. I am however inclined to believe him.
Also recently I looked up some of the laws around this completely unrelated to this. In Washington state there was once a law requiring a citizen to present ID to a police officer without a crime being committed. Refusing to show ID was a crime itself. This law was struck down as unconstitutional by the WA state supreme court. If there really was no law being broken it is not obstruction to not present ID, the court was very clear about that.
Re:Today... (Score:5, Interesting)
This email was the first thing that came to my mind. I don't really see anybody looking from the ATM refiller's perspective; I am sure they have been told to record events like these; and for this exact reason they had the incident report.
I don't know what is up with America. Every time a police officer arrests somebody over being a smart-arse about something trivial, you all scream FUD. I do not know anybody that even has or has used a lawyer before here. Has your legal system become so backward that exercising your amendments forbade common sense? Yes, i have prepared myself to be modded troll, and yes; i listened to the entire lecture by Professor James Duane (which i found very interesting), but there's no burglary or murder going on here. A simple "I took a photo of your ATM because I like to learn how the insides of things work; Would you like me to delete the photo from my iPhone and Google it when i get home instead?" should have sufficed.
The mentioned
Re:Today... (Score:5, Insightful)
This email was the first thing that came to my mind. I don't really see anybody looking from the ATM refiller's perspective; I am sure they have been told to record events like these; and for this exact reason they had the incident report.
Oh? Recording the incident involves cuffing the guy?
A simple "I took a photo of your ATM because I like to learn how the insides of things work; Would you like me to delete the photo from my iPhone and Google it when i get home instead?" should have sufficed.
A simple "If you didn't want people seeing the inside of your ATM you shouldn't have opened it up in front of a crowd of people. Oh, and if you think I'm going to delete the photo you're in for some disappointment" should have sufficed. The security guard should then proceeded to tuck his dick between his legs and hobble back to tell his boss how he should be fired for being clinically stupid.
Your post doesn't compute. Thinking about this from the refiller's perspective, I can't imagine how the guy was actually following any sort of well thought out procedure. If you don't want somebody seeing how your ATM works, make sure they're not standing there before you start mucking about with it. And of course people get upset about this kind of thing. You're reading a site where a fair percentage of the readership could find themselves in the same situation. This isn't about some random guy getting arrested for being a "smart-arse"... This is about seeing ourselves in the same situation, and not wanting to be arrested for it. Last I checked, being a "smart-arse" isn't illegal, but cops abusing their power to intimidate somebody is.
Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems that he was arrested for being a smart ass. Not that it is a good reason to be arrested, but still an important distinction.
Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (Score:5, Insightful)
Him
When you're done over here, come talk to me.
Me
No, thanks.
Him
Don't try to leave. I will tackle you.
Me
No, you wonâ(TM)t.
Him
I'll call the cops.
Me
I can't stop you.
He has no reasonable obligation to talk to an ATM repair man.
Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (Score:5, Funny)
Whose the guy that keeps saying "Me"?
Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You just defined smartass (Score:5, Insightful)
This quote from TFA strikes me as both taunting and smartass-y:
I told them plainly that I'm not in the habit of giving my ID to people just because they want it, especially fake cops who put money in box and get to play at being real cops.
Re:You just defined smartass (Score:5, Informative)
This blogger needs to learn some tact. The best way to deal with security guards (who have no real power) is simply to ask, "Are you police?" followed by, "Then you have no authority over me. I'm now going to leave." They cannot detain you from leaving unless you've stolen their property (like Levis jeans) which is not the case here.
As for actual police, the best way to deal with them is to exercise your Miranda Rights (remain silent). Every time you open your mouth, you give them evidence that can be used against you. Better to shut your mouth and keep calm - almost bored.
BTW you're not obliged to show a drivers license unless you're behind the wheel of a car. More Supreme Court cases then I can list here have affirmed this multiple times. Don't cave-in to the police simply because they *believe* they have certain powers. 99% of the time they are exceeding their legal authority as circumscribed by the courts.
Re:You just defined smartass (Score:5, Informative)
In some states it's illegal to refuse to show ID to the police. Washington was at one point one of those laws until the state supreme court overturned the law declaring it unconstitutional.
Re:You just defined smartass (Score:5, Informative)
All you need to say are five magic words: Am I free to go?
If the answer is yes, then you go. Now. Leave.
If the answer is no, then they have charges they plan to file/etc and that changes the ballgame immediately. Miranda rights come into play if it's the cops, or false imprisonment or kidnapping charges if it's just a rent-a-cop or Loomis worker. If it's the cops, that also means the ticker starts on how long they can detain you without charging you with something. Generally this is only a few minutes up to half an hour in some cases. That's not to say they won't outright lie or invent charges.
But any time someone tries to detain you, just say AIFTG? and watch the wheels of justice spin.
Re:You just defined smartass (Score:5, Informative)
"Am I free to go" can (often does) result in a practiced non-answer, where the answer should be "yes."
In which case "I decline the encounter" is the appropriate follow up.
Re:You just defined smartass (Score:5, Informative)
Declining the encounter is telling the officer that you are not consenting or agreeing to participating in the contact with them voluntarily, and directly informing them of your intention to leave without further consensual interaction.
The reason to decline explicitly is to avoid implying consensual (voluntary) participation after they didn't clearly answer your question.
You may end up being detained or arrested (the second and third categories of interactions, along with consensual), but it forces an answer to the original question "Am I free to go?" And it establishes the latest moment that those events could have occurred.
The sequence of events can be very important. If you have "volunteered" something in consensual conversation, there was no need to inform you of your post-arrest Miranda rights.
Re:You just defined smartass (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the phrase is: "Am I being charged with a crime, or am I free to go?"
There's an actual reason for that exact wording. If they say "Yes", what are they answering? The police are trained in using this double-speak against you all the time. Use it against them as well.
Re:You just defined smartass (Score:5, Informative)
You have to identify yourself; this does not necessitate providing a drivers' license. That interpretation would make it illegal to not have a drivers' license; it's perfectly legal to never obtain any form of federal- or state-issued picture identification. (It might make some things harder - opening a bank account, for example - but it's legal.)
What you are required to do is provide your name and your address, so that the police can verify that through some other means. That fulfills the needs of "required to identify yourself".
Re:You just defined smartass (Score:5, Insightful)
We already know why.
The REI guards thought the Loomis guards had a legal right to do what they were doing... probably with less information than we have now. The REI corporation never heard about it until this blitzkrieg, so the comments are filling up with "OMG, REI iz teh evil0r" while REI "no comments" until they figure out what the hell is going on.
In a month, they'll have sent an apology and to the guy, and have lifted the ban.
Slashdot won't run that story on the front page, so 99.99% of the people pissed off at REI will never hear about it... if the original blogger even bothers to inform anyone of it.
It's pretty unfair to REI.
Re:You just defined smartass (Score:5, Insightful)
So?
Good god, heron, you are accepting as given that this ATM guy has some kind of natural right or authority over the blogger.
I believe a private citizen's freedom of speech - especially directed at someone who initiated the conversation and is trying to assert nonexistent authority over a private citizen - trumps this ATM guy's... his... uh... his what exactly? His Constitutional right to be deferred to by mere mortals?
No.
If you approach talk to me, and i say "go away," and you still talk to me, and i say "really, go away, not interested," and i leave, and you follow me, and i say "fuck off already," you are not the injured party. You are, in fact, harassing me. You have not been solicited to anything. You are, in fact, being told quite plainly that i am not interested in interacting with you at this time; and, as you are simply some working schmuck same as me, you have no greater rights than I. I don't care if they make you all dress alike. That doesn't mean shit.
Re:You just defined smartass (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You just defined smartass (Score:5, Interesting)
Heck, I would photograph the inside of an ATM too - but I'd expect the police might get interested and I'd explain calmly what I was doing, but I'd be OK with being detained over it even if I knew it was wrong.
Sorry, but I wouldn't be OK with this. I'd be quite pissed off. Maybe it's pointless bitching, and maybe it suggests I don't want to live a happy life, but that's how it is.
Re:You just defined smartass (Score:5, Insightful)
Careful.
The United States was founded by several people who were widely considered to be "smartasses". There's a nice portrait of one of them on the hundred dollar bill.
Re:You just defined smartass (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think that was his point. He wouldn't be "okay" with it, but you have to weigh your odds of winning against an armed cop, who probably called in 5 of his buddies for backup. Better to just cooperate silently, rather than yell and throw a temper tantrum. After you get released, then you can strike back (with a lawsuit).
Look at Ghandi and Martin Luther Kingr. They both spent a lot of time in jail, and I'm sure they weren't happy about it, but they did eventually win. You lose today's battle, but you win the war over the long term.
Re:You just defined smartass (Score:5, Informative)
She may look fake, but she's a judge, although retired now. However; the cases are *real*, albeit her rulings are in the form of binding arbitration that both sides agreed to.
Personally, I think she is extremely irritating and do not watch that show. I don't need to hear from a judge to know that 'being an ass' is not, by itself, illegal though.
Re:And not illegal to handcuff him (Score:5, Funny)
See, it's a living document.
Re:And not illegal to handcuff him (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, no they can't and yes it's illegal. The police has to have a reason to believe that some law was being broken or that the person was about to harm themselves or someone else in order to detain someone. They cannot just walk up to you and handcuff you while demanding identification. This is true whether your being an ass or not and there are numerous supreme court cases surrounding this.
And while a cop won't be arrested for the unlawful detainment, he will see disciplinary action and a right to a lawsuit most likely has opened up. The police has to have a reason to fuck with you period. You being on a public street or in a public area is not reason on it's own. Being a smart ass or a jerk is not reason either.
Re:And not illegal to handcuff him (Score:5, Informative)
IANAL, but if you refuse to ID yourself, and your state has a Stop and Identify law, then yes, the police can arrest you.
In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada [wikipedia.org] it was ascertained that you do have to disclose your name to a peace officer if your state has a stop and identify law, which Nevada does.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes [wikipedia.org] Washington state does not have a stop and identify law, so if that was correct, he didn't have to even ID himself verbally to the police.
Moral of the story is, if you leave in one of those states mentioned above that has a stop and identify statute, yes, you can be arrested and charged with a crime.
Re:And not illegal to handcuff him (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And not illegal to handcuff him (Score:5, Insightful)
Police do not have the "right" to detain anyone. Police are granted special powers by the people through the government in order to protect the people. These special powers are not a right, they are a tool that are required to be used in the least obstructive way. A police officer can seize the immediate legal control over a situation but there will be hell to pay later if that is abused. The more power an officer uses in the moment the more scrutiny is going to be used on him later.
For example if a cop tell you that you must not leave he is using some power and nobody will bat an eye. If the cop cuffs a person and questions them he is using further power and can possibly get in trouble if he does it wrong. If a police officer tackles a person then cuffs them he is going to be further scrutinized. If a police officer beats or shoots or sprays pepper spray on someone then detains them they will of course fall under further scrutiny. Any of those actions can be abuses or legal uses of their power under different situations.
Re:And not illegal to handcuff him (Score:5, Informative)
Re:And not illegal to handcuff him (Score:5, Interesting)
It's been my experience that the cops are the ones being asses and overstepping their badges. Perhaps this was more of a case of protecting their immage and the cops just didn't want everyone to think they could be dickheads at will like they are?
Seriously, I'm serious.
Re:And not illegal to handcuff him (Score:5, Insightful)
I've found the Seattle Police Department to be very non-dickheady.
Go 10 miles in any direction and the story completely changes. But the Seattle police department tend to be pretty cool. And they're fast. Freakishly fast. I had to call 911 last year to report an assault in progress and they arrived in less than 40 seconds. I saw an accident last week and before I could even make a U-Turn to go a block around a patrol car had already pulled up and was checking on the drivers.
They seem more interested in keeping traffic moving than making some sort of ticket quota. In all of my interactions they've been incredibly friendly and bent over backwards to be patient.
I don't know anyone personally in the police department and I'm not in any way employed. I've just been so pleasantly suprised and impressed by the Seattle Police Department since moving here that I think they deserve some recognition for not being complete pricks like other places I've lived (I'm looking at you Lynwood PD).
Re:And not illegal to handcuff him (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is, he went out of his way to take the picture. He even admitted to it.
And this is reason to be detained....why, exactly?
I go out of my way to take pictures all the time. If it's a cool thing to take a picture of, then I'll do what it takes, within reason, to get a picture of it.
And walking a couple of dozen feet across a store isn't exactly going a long way out of his way.
The whole lot of everybody involved need a good boot to the head. (naah naah!)
Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually it looks like he wasn't arrested. He was simply detained for refusal to provide ID to the 'real' cops when they showed up, who probably had no interest in being there or dealing with a smart ass.
Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (Score:4, Informative)
Really [aclu.org]?
Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (Score:5, Interesting)
I had a similar situation. A local photographer was taking pictures of park rangers who wanted to arrest him for taking there picture. They had him in handcuffs. I walked over and said the following
"You are violating this man's civil rights. He has every right to take your pictures because this is a public place (a park) and so long as he doesn't publish the photos in a derogatory way, you have no reason to keep him against his will. And if you continue to keep him against his will I will testify in court that you are violating his civil rights." The rangers talked amongst themselves, contacted their supervisor, and then let the guy go.
Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (Score:5, Informative)
In some states, an adult is legally required to provide ID to any cop who asks - it's actually illegal to walk down the street without a driver's license (or non-driver's ID). We seem to have little regard for the Constitution.
You would be incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes [wikipedia.org]
Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (Score:5, Insightful)
In some states, an adult is legally required to provide ID to any cop who asks - it's actually illegal to walk down the street without a driver's license (or non-driver's ID). We seem to have little regard for the Constitution.
I'd like to see some corroboration of that. As I understand it, you can be compelled to identify yourself if requested by a law enforcement officer. You are not required to provide identification: providing your name is sufficient. You are not required to carry identification.
"Papers, please," is not the law in the US.
Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (Score:5, Insightful)
In some states, an adult is legally required to provide ID to any cop who asks
Whether or not that's true (others are tackling that in detail), an ATM serviceman is not a cop. He has no more right to demand your attention or ID than I do. Shane's refusal was completely legal and reasonable.
Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (Score:5, Insightful)
> BUT, the key phrase of " reasonable suspicion about a crime" sounds, well, rather kind of reasonable to me.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him". Cardinal Richelieu.
"Reasonable" = a loophole so big that it makes goatse look...reasonable. What's reasonable to an east coast intellectual may be 180' from what a southern baptist considers reasonable...or not. Who can tell?
A term like "reasonable" requires subjective interpretation - the curse of laws, religions and the study of history.
Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (Score:5, Insightful)
No thanks, I'll pass.
Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (Score:4, Informative)
The Nevada Supreme Court had held that the Nevada statute required only that the suspect divulge his name; presumably, he could do so without handing over any documents whatsoever. As long as the suspect tells the officer his name, he has satisfied the dictates of the Nevada stop-and-identify law.
In Nevada you are not required to produce an ID, of course this doesn't mean you wont get hassled for not doing so (in NV or any state).
Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (Score:5, Insightful)
By your logic everyone who looked in the general direction of the ATM while open should be arrested. They can't possibly be casual onlookers, right? And the repairman should be arrested for not performing his work in a secure room. He must want all that top secret stuff to be out in the public.
Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, no.
If they wanted privacy, they should have put a curtain around it.
It's a public place, a public camera. There is no probable cause here.
I think you're chucking your sense of liberty. First it's IDs, then it's little yellow stars on your chest. Never forget.
Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, mere visual observation of the inner workings of an ATM for a brief period makes a normal person no less able to commit theft than any other person.
The same is true of a bank vault door. Just because I can see how the locking mechanism works doesn't mean I'm suddenly now able to break a series of 3" hardened steel pins holding it in place. There are numerous safeguards preventing tampering, for both ATM's and for bank vaults. There are standardized testing procedures and standards for the ability for a moderately skilled lock picker with tools to gain access and for the most part, they are very effective.
Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because a cop says something doesn’t mean they’re not bullshitting
Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (Score:5, Insightful)
Ultimately, what I take from this is that it is true that cameras in today's America are still considered dangerous weapons, and that Seattle police have learned nothing since the stink about harassing a photo student for taking pictures of the Ballard Locks. [google.com] Score another point in the win column for the terrorists.
Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (Score:5, Funny)
That happens a lot.
Officer: "You're under arrest for driving with only three wheels."
Driver: "But there are four wheels. Two on the front and two on the back. Two plus two equals four."
Officer: "Alright smart-ass, out of the car."
Re:Exactly where do people get off (Score:5, Insightful)
precautionary... (Score:5, Interesting)
Probably just for show, with no past history and no way to show intent they have to let you go. Of course there are those of us who would say 'if it's a secret then don't do it in the open'
Spoke with Police Dept. (Score:5, Interesting)
The on duty desk officer assured me that it did not happen today, it was a few days ago. The officer is employed there. And he also assured me that the facts as they were being presented were inaccurate.. However, you can call their media unit at (206) 684-5520 for more information.
By the way, they're getting slashdotted!
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Spoke with Police Dept. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope.. Just ref'd me to their media department.
Uhh.. so you called the police department, and the DESK guy essentially said "didn't happen like that, call our media people"?
Do you think that 3rd hand information (rent-a-cop-> cop on scene-> desk cop) who didn't really tell you anything is more accurate than 1st hand information?
Re:Spoke with Police Dept. (Score:4, Interesting)
Not necessarily more accurate, just more, use it to decide for yourself what's true.
Re:Spoke with Police Dept. (Score:4, Informative)
They wouldn't comment... Give their media department a call, see what they have to say. I'm pretty sure that law of slashdotting phones states that "The delay of their response will be inversely equal to the intensity of incoming phone calls"
But did they press charges? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:But did they press charges? (Score:5, Interesting)
An ATM is not a military or government facility.
Re:But did they press charges? (Score:4, Funny)
An ATM is not a military or government facility.
Well, here's the part that got left out of the post. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was in Seattle today, and was about to use that ATM to withdraw money to pay for the Viagra we've been giving to the Afghan tribal chiefs to insure their cooperation.
The Internet Age (Score:5, Insightful)
REI spends a huge amount of money on marketing - and this year's entire budget just got flushed down the toilet. Evidently they should spend a bit more on employee training. (Yes, the guilty parties in this case were from a subcontractor - but REI's own security personnel should have stepped in and done the right thing).
REI also promises a 24-hour response time to email - my (politely worded) email about this issue hasn't been replied to, 25+ hours and counting later.
Re:The Internet Age (Score:5, Informative)
I once had one of those guys pull a gun on me. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I once had one of those guys pull a gun on me. (Score:5, Insightful)
The better reaction would have been to piss your pants and faint at having had a gun pulled on you. THAT, by the time it got documented by the supermarket and possibly even in ambulance and police records, would provide indisputable proof that something happened. Odds are Harry didn't file any kind of incident report and denied it even happened, so it would have been your word against his and he would have made you out to be a crank.
Unfortunately, in the heat of the moment and facing a gun held by someone who may or may not shoot, most people aren't up to creatively finding ways to escalate the situation in their favour. That's what Harry was counting on, and why *some* rent-a-cops will continue to get their jollies giving people a hard time.
That said, those guys have a hard job. They never know whether the person with the bag and trolley is planning to pull out a machine gun and rob them or buy some plums. Odds are it'll be the latter, but if I did that for a living I wouldn't want someone to have to explain the exception to *my* wife and kids. Whenever I see an open ATM, I try to keep a reasonable distance away just to give them some space and avoid making their job any harder.
Re:I once had one of those guys pull a gun on me. (Score:5, Funny)
The better reaction would have been to piss your pants and faint at having had a gun pulled on you. THAT, by the time it got documented by the supermarket and possibly even in ambulance and police records, would provide indisputable proof that something happened.
Hahaha! Yes, immediately throw your wallet at him, then put your hands in the air and yell "Here, take it, just don't shoot me! I have a family!".
Re:I once had one of those guys pull a gun on me. (Score:5, Insightful)
I dunno, reaching into my bag, pulling out something and throwing it at some guy holding a gun at me doesn't seem like a good idea.
Re:I once had one of those guys pull a gun on me. (Score:5, Interesting)
The better reaction would have been to piss your pants and faint at having had a gun pulled on you. THAT, by the time it got documented by the supermarket and possibly even in ambulance and police records, would provide indisputable proof that something happened.
Also -- even more important than pissing your pants -- is to *immediately* dial 911, as soon as the gun is no longer pointed at you.
The specifics vary from state to state, but in general pointing a gun at someone is some form of aggravated assault. Get the real police there, get them to *arrest* him and then ask to press charges.
Re:I once had one of those guys pull a gun on me. (Score:5, Informative)
That's when you
1) Demand his name and information
2) Call the police and file a report
3) Call Brinks and file a report
OK, this is lame, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to defend Officer Abed's overreaction (nor her probably violation of your civil rights) but when interacting a heavily armed lady who's authorized to use deadly force and deprive you of your freedom, it's absolutely the wrong time to cop an attitude. Save the "playing the 9/11 card" rhetoric for your blog.
When dealing with a police officer who you believe is abusing their authority, there is only one sensible strategy: you say, "Officer, would you please explain to me what law I've broken?" If they can't give you a proper answer, you say, "I'm sorry, but if I'm not accused of anything, I don't think I have to talk to you."
Say these things in a respectful tone of voice. And then Shut. The. Fuck. Up. Getting into lame political arguments with a cop is not ever going to accomplish anything useful. On the contrary, arguments and self-justification can give them the legal hook they need to act against you. If you don't believe me, ask Randal Schwartz.
Re:OK, this is lame, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
When dealing with a police officer who you believe is abusing their authority, there is only one sensible strategy: you say, "Officer, would you please explain to me what law I've broken?" If they can't give you a proper answer, you say, "I'm sorry, but if I'm not accused of anything, I don't think I have to talk to you."
Say these things in a respectful tone of voice. And then Shut. The. Fuck. Up. Getting into lame political arguments with a cop is not ever going to accomplish anything useful. On the contrary, arguments and self-justification can give them the legal hook they need to act against you. If you don't believe me, ask Randal Schwartz.
He's right. Personally, I wouldn't even so go as far as asking what law I broke. Just ask if you are being detained or not. If the answer is yes, don't say another *word*.
For every one else I would watch this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8167533318153586646 [google.com]
Watch this video at least once a year. Every year.
This video is of law professor James Duane giving a lecture on why you should never, *EVER*, talk to the police without a lawyer no matter what the circumstances. Even as something as seemingly simple as getting a speeding ticket. He also lays out (in layman's terms) why the fifth amendment was designed to protect the innocent. He gives equal time to a police detective as balance to everything he had just said.
Not Productive (Score:4, Insightful)
It's funny how people looking for trouble find it. Arguing with total strangers over political issues, never mind police officers, is one of those ways. What happened to simple respect? Political speech these days is all about bluster and not listening to what anyone else has to say. That works great in blogland but not so well with real people.
Showing a little respect for the person you are talking to gets you a long way. Police have to deal with lots of difficult people all the time, why on earth would you want to try to put yourself in the "difficult person" mental bucket the police officer has?
Re:not just lame, it's bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a lot of stupid self-trained legal "experts" on Slashdot, but you have to be the stupidest.
Rather than argue with you [coppermine-gallery.net], I'm going to propose a very simple experiment. Walk up to a cop and call him a cocksucking piece of shit. Then we can determine exactly what they can do about it. I really encourage you to try this. If you're right, then you will have had the satisfaction of proving me wrong. And if you're wrong, then I will have satisfaction, period.
different point of view (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other side, you have two guys with guns and tons of money. Why do they have guns? Because people with tons of money tend to get robbed a lot. This isn't theoretical, do a search for 'armored car robbery' and you will see a bunch of them. So these two guys have more than a little concern. And in his mind, when someone takes a picture, he thinks, "this is not normal. Something could be bad." Is there a better way to rob an ATM? Probably. But thieves aren't always the smartest guys, and it is possible to think of a robbery scenario that would start with someone taking a camera. These guys are basically going to try to be as defensive as possible, because frankly, it is a scary job, and they could die.
The biggest mistake this guy did was to talk back to the police. Bad idea. Chris Rock did a public information announcement about how not to get your ass kicked by the police. [youtube.com] Sure, sometimes police are overbearing and arrogant, and that is annoying, but the proper time to fight back against that is NOT when you are about to be arrested, and the proper way to do it isn't to be arrogant back.
Unless you have a serious reason not to, the best thing to do is cooperate with the police. Unless you want to spend the night in jail like this guy.
His mistake (Score:5, Informative)
Don't talk to the police! [google.com.au] When are people going to get this through their thick heads? There is one question you need to ask the police: "Am I free to go?" and maybe a followup of "Am I being detained?" which is the same question, really. If they say yes to the first, you walk away. If they so no to the second, you walk away! Don't try to justify your actions, you're not required to. Don't try to be smart, or demand your "rights". And don't, under any circumstances, answer any questions.
Personally, I blame all these cop shows on tv. The "interrogation" scenes make for good drama, but only stupid people talk to the police.
Re:His mistake (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed.
Here is how you interact with police:
1. "Am I under arrest?"
2. "Am I free to go?"
3. "I require a lawyer before I have anything else to say"
In my completely non-expert, yet relevant experience with police, there really isnt much to say beyond this.
What if you have information that will help them? I live in a relatively high-crime neighborhood, and I've had quite a few interactions with the local police regarding crimes committed in my neighborhood or by my neighbors, everything from simple assaults, hit and runs, and drug dealing all the way up to homicides. Granted, I was never treated as a suspect, but I was happy to relay all the information I had to the cops, since I have a vested interest in decreasing crime in this neighborhood.
I agree that if you are a suspect or could possibly become a suspect, it is usually best to remain silent. Otherwise, though, help the cops if you can. In my experience, most cops are decent people who are trying to make the community better.
REI's response (Score:5, Informative)
I wrote REI yesterday to express my disapproval and this is the form letter I got back last night:
(what I wrote)
I'm very disappointed with how you treat your customers and I will make
a point not to shop at your store when I need outdoor equipment. You
should respect your customers and not treat them like criminals for
taking pictures.
(what they wrote)
We are aware of the incident at our Seattle store in which an individual
was removed by Seattle Police. While it's unfortunate this occurred on
store property, the ATM machine is owned and maintained by an
independent bank vendor. We did not call the police and did not detain
the individual. We regret this situation happened, but feel our team
acted appropriately under the circumstances and are committed to
providing a welcoming and safe environment for all of our customers.
Thank you for taking time to provide us your feedback. We appreciate the
opportunity to respond. For additional information, I'd encourage you to
contact the Seattle Police Department.
Best,
Bethany
Bethany Nielson
Public Affairs | Recreational Equipment, Inc.
"inside of atm" with quotes (Score:5, Funny)
Social Engineering first (Score:5, Insightful)
He should have softened them up first with a base level social engineering attack something like:
Hey Buddy, I've just been learning how to service these, mind if I take a couple of snaps of this one to show my teacher, I've never seen this model before.
or
My boy is interested in the inside of these mind if I take a piccy so he can have a look?
The combinations of bullshit are endless but you get the point. Instead of being confrontational he could of said, Talk to you later? sure buddy. did his business forget it and walk out. If confronted again he could have diffused the situation, or he could have said Talk to you later? I'm not going anywhere in *this* line, what's up? if the security guard revealed he was upset about the pictures, he should of apologised profusely, said he would delete the pictures immediately, fiddle with the phone and not delete them, then look at the guard and say - all done - sorry about that.
It's obvious these guys motivation is 'wespect my horthorita' so he should have played on it and not looked like a threat, the guard might have just been interested in having a look at his iphone as much as he was interested in the inside of an atm. Instead the subject reinforced the marks insecurities by being confrontational instead of comforting them. Frankly whilst our subject probably didn't deserve the treatment he also brought it upon himself.
Re:Social Engineering first (Score:5, Insightful)
I see where you're coming from, but I think it's not very nice to say he 'brought it upon himself'. He didn't do anything wrong.
He could've played the 'cool' card like you say, but then we wouldn't have this nice story about abuse of authority.
We need to stand up more against this shit while it's doable, I mean, getting cuffed and losing half your day. A hassle.
If we don't, things might come to a point where we can't stand up anymore because we're just taken outside and shot. And nobody is allowed to say your name again under the same penalty.
Being Orwellian and way out there on purpose to drive the point home, of course.
How to respond to this (Score:5, Insightful)
Folks,
Posting angry comments here on SlashDot can be recreational--but all the ranting and raving anyone does here won't make a bit of difference in the real world.
What WILL make a difference in the real world, of course, is taking advantage of all of the links so helpfully provided in TFA. All you have to do is send a polite email to some of the people involved, pointing out that the two Loomis employees acted really foolishly; that the REI "loss prevention officer" made REI look...well, like losers; and that the Seattle Police Department really, really needs to send a couple of officers off to Constitution Camp.
Here's the email I just sent to the U.S. headquarters of Loomis (employer of the guards who started this nonsense):
Civil rights are like muscles. If you don't exercise them, they waste away.
Re:How to respond to this (Score:5, Interesting)
Civil rights are like muscles. If you don't exercise them, they waste away.
I just talked to someone at Loomis and expressed my discontent with the situation.
Then I called the REI talked to the manager, and she said that REI did _not_ request a tresspass against the customer, and that he was invited back to the store. She also told me that a couple months ago they had planned to remove the ATM because the bank that owned it wasn't making enough money on it, and that the removal of this ATM from their REI had nothing to do with the incident.
Then I called the precinct, and they basically dismissed it as "don't believe everything you read on the internet" and gave me the phone number of the public affairs office. So I called them and he said there are always two sides to a story so don't be to surprised if you have only read one side. He then asked if I had read the police report yet. I agreed that there is always two sides to a story, and then asked how I could get a copy of the police report to get the rest of the story. He said you can come in person to the precinct and request it, or you could send an email to spdpdr@seattle.gov and request it. You need the date (May 8th), the time (4:53pm) and the location to get the report.
The detective also said they wouldn't impose tresspassing on someone unless the owner or a manager of the store requested it, which is in direct conflict to what the manager just told me...
If you do something in the open... (Score:5, Insightful)
...people are going to see.
That's pretty much a "No duh!" situation there.
What if they guy had had a lipstick cam behind his ear? What if he just walked up to the techs while they were refilling the ATM and made smalltalk about how he used to refill ATMs as well? He could have gotten MUCH better snapshots and the techs would have been none the wiser.
If companies don't want people to see the innards of an ATM, then put up a curtain around them while you're refilling them. No, I'm serious. Walk into the place with a folded-up room divider and your boxes 'O cash, set up the divider around the ATM, and have one guy go inside and fill the machine while the other guy waits outside and watches everyone. Then you take down the divider and go back to the armored car. Simple.
That way if someone tries to take a picture of the ATM, it's really obvious that the techs are trying to keep it shielded and it's a lot easier for them to tell the person to stop and/or call the police on them.
Second, people who aren't law enforcement agents cannot generally stop or detain people. They may have a license to carry a handgun, and they may dress like a police officer, but they aren't empowered to act like an officer. If someone tries to talk to you or asks you to talk to them, politely refuse and walk away.
In this kind of situation, if a guy with a gun who is not a cop tells me that he wants to talk to me, I'd usually suggest walking away. Put down the purchases, hand them to a friend, ask the woman behind the counter to put them on hold for you, whatever. Just walk out of there.
The benefit of such a situation is that you get out of there, you clear your head, etc... and then you can go back and conduct your business later, hopefully when man-with-gun is gone. And if this armed person who is not a member of the law enforcement tries to detain you (an unarmed person walking away), then the cops, the court, the company, and the crowd around you (yes, I alliterated that for y'all) will probably be much more supportive of your actions.
Unless this guy with the camera was an active danger for them, then I don't see any reason for them to talk to him. The second the armed guys engage him they know that it will put him on the defensive, and considering the fact that there are two armed guys there, the power dynamic is going to get really bad, really quickly.
The only thing these guys should say is something like "please stand back from the ATM," "Please don't take pictures", etc... The only time they should engage with a civilian is when they are feeling actively threatened.
"The Loomis guys wanted me to give them my ID so they could write a report about me for their bosses...The REI security people that had been called in by now wanted the same thing.
Um...no?
Both Loomis and REI have lawyers. And my guess is that both teams of them are (correctly) telling every one of their employees involved in this incident to have a big slice of superglue pie. You can ask anyone for their ID, but only the police can make the request a requirement, and only in certain instances.
Would having the ID make life easier for the Loomis and REI employees? Sure. But so would having each store patron take off their clothes at the entrance to ensure that they aren't carrying-in weapons and aren't carrying-out shoplifted goods. I don't want to be subjected to either of these unreasonable privacy invasions by stores, so I won't patronize businesses that employ them.
Don't try to leave. I will tackle you.
The photographer didn't remove any cash or any other items. Had the Loomis guys tackled him, that would have probably been a threat of assault, followed by assault. Further, the guys are armed, which probably raises the penalty for both charges a few notches.
Welcome to the UK Police State... (Score:4, Interesting)
If this was in the UK then the OP would still be locked up and his camera confiscated (lost).
Anyone with a camera is a suspected terrorist on recon..
Also in the UK If a police officer asks your name for any reason (even if you are walking down a road and done NOTHING illegal) and you refuse, you get arrested / finger printed / DNA taken (which is held on a Database for upto 10 years even if no charges are made!!) and stuck in the cells till they can prove your identity... they might through in a Section 5 offense for pissing them off...
Re:What did you think would happen? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What did you think would happen? (Score:5, Informative)
The War on Terror(TM) has become the War on Photographers. This is nothing new. Try taking picturs of any government building, any airport, any train station, etc, with professional equipment. Anywhere in the country these days you're likely to be stopped an often arrested. The same applies to bird watchers/photographers walking around in the middle of nowhere - there are hundreds of incedents of small town SWAT teams (or equivalent) being mobilized because someone was walking around with a tripod!
Re:What did you think would happen? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What did you think would happen? (Score:5, Insightful)
He should have said he thought they were breaking into it and he was taking a picture to send to the news and police and asked to see their identification. Only idiots would break into an ATM in front of people and not be wearing security guard uniforms.
Re:What did you think would happen? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong, that's not a public place, that's a private place of business. Based upon the biased account on the sight, it looks a bit questionable as to whether he was being honest.
I walk by the Loomis guys at work frequently and I'd never pull a stunt like the writer did. For one thing if somebody were to later on mess with or rob the machine, guess who's going to be on the list of suspects.
Re:What did you think would happen? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What did you think would happen? (Score:5, Insightful)
Go ahead then. I guarantee you're going to need a lawyer though. I hope the fun is worth it.
It's not about "fun", and it's certainly not about taking the easy way out.
The fact is that if we want to HAVE rights, it's necessary to assert them. Do you really have a right to take pictures in public if you can be legally harassed, cuffed and hauled in for questioning for doing it? You do not.
Does it matter whether or not you can take a picture of an ATM? Probably not. But it definitely DOES matter that you aren't required to abide by the whims of random company employees, that they can't force you to identify themselves to you just because they don't like the way you looked at them. And it matters that the police be able to understand that citizens who did nothing wrong should not be harassed.
But if everyone is like you, if no one is willing to stand up, even though it's unpleasant, inconvenient and occasionally expensive, over time we'll lose the option of deciding whether we want to go along to get along or not.
Civil rights activists of all sorts are necessary, especially the ones who just want to take the opportunity to assert their right to remain more or less anonymous.
Re:What did you think would happen? (Score:5, Insightful)
If there isn't a law against it then I do have the right. Is there a law prohibiting me from taking pictures of the insides of ATMs or armored cars?
Re:I'm curious (Score:5, Funny)
oh, you imagine a law...how nice.
Re:For taking a picture? (Score:5, Insightful)
It looks more like being arrested for mouthing off to the cops. Tact not a strong point?
Maybe, maybe not... Yet, it's still not illegal to be a jerk. You CAN commit crimes WHILE being a jerk, but being a jerk simply isn't a crime.
Re:Thus proving that well-known proverb.... (Score:5, Funny)
...that people who are stupid enough to pay Apple's inflated prices for their products really are stupid.
And that's why they're shopping at REI.
Re:Expectation Of Privacy, trespassing (Score:4, Insightful)
Did they ask him to leave? I didn't see that in the article. It seems like A) the officer lied, or B) Implied something was wrong and got REI to make this claim.
Sounds fishy to me.
Re:Expectation Of Privacy (Score:5, Informative)
.
No, they can't. A store may not legally confiscate your photos. They can ask you to leave, they can sue you to prevent you publishing the photos, but they can not prevent you from taking them nor confiscate them afterwards without a court order.
Confiscating is either theft or conversion, threatening to do so is coercion. A law officer may take custody of your possesions when effecting an arrest, but may not confiscate your film without a court order.
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm [krages.com]
I called REI, Loomis, and Seattle PD (Score:5, Informative)