Amtrak Holds Train Photography Contest, Then Arrests Man for… You Guessed It!

[x635 4,066]

Ridiculous and interesting.

Amtrak Holds Train Photography Contest, Then Arrests Man for… You Guessed It!

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/01/04/amtr...you-guessed-it/

[Doc 11]

Serves that terrist right. Why do train photographers hate America?

Edited February 4, 2009 by Doc

[x129K 1,393]

Seth - I read that and immediatly thought it would be YOU!

[mstrang1 213]

Saw this on Colbert Report, thought it was fake! Guess not...

[TRUCK6018 50]

This is far from an isolated case. Rail fans are constantly getting harassed for this kind of reckless behavior.

[Doc 11]

This is far from an isolated case. Rail fans are constantly getting harassed for this kind of reckless behavior.

There is nothing more dangerous than pictures of trains!

I don't know how many times a good picture of a train has sent me running to the hobby shop with my soon to be emptied wallet. It seems the Amtrak police know this and would prefer I keep my money during these trying times. Thank you Amtrak!!

[TRUCK6018 50]

NO NO NO.. not just Amtrak. Lets not forget the Metro North Railroad Police. This is what they look for when there are no speeding trains to pull over or breaking up weddings in Grand Central Terminal of late.

Edited February 4, 2009 by TRUCK6018

[x635 4,066]

You're automatically a terrorist if you take photos of a train. Or in a lot of cases now, even a firetrucks. Despite the numerous images of them available in the mainstream media, etc. SOME people fail to grasp the concept that the "terrorists" can get photos of whatever they want, especially with the proliferation of cameras in a lot of tiny of mobile devices nowadays.

I can completly understand the liability aspect, and there are some that ruin it for the rest of us. Whenever I photograph trains, I am usually no where near the train, that's why I have a zoom lens. There's always spots you can find to safely photograph trains.

Also, I've been lucky that there are also a lot of very cool MTA, Metro North, and Port Authority Police Officers and officials who actually appreciate the hobby. I've never encountered an issue, and have even been extended some awesome oppurtunities. It just comes down to being nice and respectful, as far as the Police Officers go, they have every right to be extremly cautious.....the trains are very vital and very much a popular target as proven internationally. These guys are what can potentially prevent a massive tragedy, but there needs to be some sort of interaction between the railfan and police community so that the rules can be clear on both sides.

NJMedic gave me a great oppurtunity once to see a railroad terrorism drill up close, and I learned a ton.

Down here, freight trains are all over, and there are ten million places to get beautiful shots of all kinds of trains. We even have a new heavy commuter rail line opening next month running into Austin, which is the state Capitol, which will be my new project.

My train photography: http://www.x635photos.com/index-6.html

And BTW, lol Dan!!

[SpartanML 0]

Ah watch our liberties get pissed all over once again! I never buff anymore these days, or do any kind of unique photographing of specialties such as trains. After a run in with the good ol' NJSP at a fire early 2008, I just don't have the urge to do it much anymore. It is truly a shame and disgusting to see where power has taken some people.

[abaduck 123]

This is far from an isolated case. Rail fans are constantly getting harassed for this kind of reckless behavior.

Quite. For Metro North and LIRR, there's a helpful 'permit' you can carry:

http://www.lirrhistory.com/photog.pdf

(scroll down to the bottom)

For anywhere else, there's a more general permit that can be used:

As to the Amtrak cops in this... IF the account given is true, what were they thinking? IF the account is true, they should go to jail. Period. Either the photos were legal, in which case they sought the criminal destruction of property, or the photos were illegal, in which case they sought the deliberate destruction of evidence. I'm not a cop - perhaps our LEO colleagues can chip in here with their thoughts - but everything I've ever read on the subject tells me that a cop should *never* seek the destruction of a photograph? Apart from anything else, it's pointless; it can always be undeleted later. The only way to ensure the photographer doesn't recover the photograph is to arrest the photographer and seize the memory card as evidence.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a flash mob of people taking photographs in Penn in response to this, in the near future!

Edited February 5, 2009 by abaduck

[crcocr1 8]

Yes, but it isn't the photographs per se that this individual was arrested; but rather his entrance onto private property. If you enter onto another person's property, you may be criminally and civilly liable for trespass. In certain states, the fact that you did not know you were entering another person's property is no defense (excuse). This is hornbook law. See Singer and LaFonde, Criminal Law: Examples and Explanations (Aspen 2007).

I suggest you look at the criminal trespass statute for New York, and look at this situation. (Its free at Cornell Legal Information Institute.) Without knowing its terms, I think a fair defense would be that the contest provided a license to enter railroad property. Obviously, I would need to see more facts and research more law to examine the validity of such a defense. With that said, however, I do not recommend anyone enter private property without permission (barring invitation by 911 calls, etc.).

[abaduck 123]

Yes, but it isn't the photographs per se that this individual was arrested; but rather his entrance onto private property. If you enter onto another person's property, you may be criminally and civilly liable for trespass. In certain states, the fact that you did not know you were entering another person's property is no defense (excuse). This is hornbook law. See Singer and LaFonde, Criminal Law: Examples and Explanations (Aspen 2007).

I suggest you look at the criminal trespass statute for New York, and look at this situation. (Its free at Cornell Legal Information Institute.) Without knowing its terms, I think a fair defense would be that the contest provided a license to enter railroad property. Obviously, I would need to see more facts and research more law to examine the validity of such a defense. With that said, however, I do not recommend anyone enter private property without permission (barring invitation by 911 calls, etc.).

Read the story; he was a *passenger* who had just got off a train, which he had paid to ride. He had an incontestable right to be there!

[SageVigiles 1,194]

Didn't he have a ticket? Doesn't that infer he is invited on the property? The only way that could really be trespass then is if APD told him to leave and he refused. Sounds fishy.

Amtrak PD Arrests Photographer... COUNTERTERRORISTS WIN! (Any video game junkies out there will get the humor in that)

[crcocr1 8]

So if I'm a passenger on an airplane, I have the right to walk on the runway and take pictures of my plane?

I think we should couch our comments to "if he took all his photos on the platform." Related news sources offer a bit more description of the event, but his pictures may not be all available to the public. See http://www.twine.com/item/11rk56f4s-40/amt...-s-penn-station (a bit more description of the account).

If his photographs were limited to the platform, he has a point and the Amtrak PD may have been in the wrong. Otherwise, he may have cross the line.

Edited February 5, 2009 by crcocr1

[FFLieu 70]

To me, AMTRAK cops aren't cops, just like the MTA Bridge and Tunnel people aren't cops; they're security guards with overinflated egos attached to the Glock on their hip. They're about half a step up from Kevin James in that new movie Paul Blart.

[JetPhoto 626]

I better not accidently take a picture of a train as it flies by my house at 90 mph when I take pictures of the river

[x129K 1,393]

To me, AMTRAK cops aren't cops, just like the MTA Bridge and Tunnel people aren't cops; they're security guards with overinflated egos attached to the Glock on their hip. They're about half a step up from Kevin James in that new movie Paul Blart.

I know alot of MTA COPS...and I respectfully disagree with you.

Edited February 5, 2009 by x129K

[SageVigiles 1,194]

Amtrak actually has one of the best PDs in the country, and they are technically a federal agency (Amtrak is a government-subsidized program, though that never helps me understand why its so damned expensive.) Their K9 units have access to training that most PDs don't, they can train on extremely large drug samples, which would normally overload a K9's senses. MTA and Amtrak PD are DEFINITELY Police Officers.

[jayhalsey 6]

So if I'm a passenger on an airplane, I have the right to walk on the runway and take pictures of my plane?

Do you normally walk on the runway when exiting a plane?

do you normally walk on the Platform when getting off a train?

See the difference?

[abaduck 123]

So if I'm a passenger on an airplane, I have the right to walk on the runway and take pictures of my plane?

Of course not on the *runway*, any more than you have the right to walk on the *tracks* and take pictures of a train. But from public areas... sure, why not? I've never had any problem:

(Travelling 'light' with kids... fires are less hard work!)

[helicopper 1,050]

To me, AMTRAK cops aren't cops, just like the MTA Bridge and Tunnel people aren't cops; they're security guards with overinflated egos attached to the Glock on their hip. They're about half a step up from Kevin James in that new movie Paul Blart.

Amtrak police are, in fact, police officers. They are trained at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center alongside uniformed members of dozens of federal agencies including the Department of Homeland Security and USDA, DOC, DHHS, DOI, DOE, to name a few.

MTA Bridge and Tunnel officers are peace officers but they may have police powers while on-duty and within their jurisdiction - you'd have to review the enabling legislation to confirm that.

But either way, I wouldn't want to question the authority of a police or peace officer when they've got you stopped.

[helicopper 1,050]

Quite. For Metro North and LIRR, there's a helpful 'permit' you can carry:

As to the Amtrak cops in this... IF the account given is true, what were they thinking? IF the account is true, they should go to jail. Period. Either the photos were legal, in which case they sought the criminal destruction of property, or the photos were illegal, in which case they sought the deliberate destruction of evidence. I'm not a cop - perhaps our LEO colleagues can chip in here with their thoughts - but everything I've ever read on the subject tells me that a cop should *never* seek the destruction of a photograph? Apart from anything else, it's pointless; it can always be undeleted later. The only way to ensure the photographer doesn't recover the photograph is to arrest the photographer and seize the memory card as evidence.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a flash mob of people taking photographs in Penn in response to this, in the near future!

Go to jail? Really? Come on, the cops are just acting on the information that they're given. Terrorists do take photos and video in advance of their attacks - part of their pre-planning. If the officers are acting in good faith and only attempting to protect us and our critical infrastructure do you really think they should go to jail?

I don't agree with the conduct of these officers based on what little I know of this particular situation but I don't believe that their conduct was criminal. This is a very sensitive situation and there will be many issues and problems as we strive for a balance between protecting ourselves while still enjoying the ability to have photography as a hobby (or profession). I don't think it is as black and white or as simple as a first amendment issue - there are definitely places that should not be freely photographed.

Anyway, it is an interesting situation.

[FFLieu 70]

I know alot of MTA COPS...and I respectfully disagree with you.

Not MTA Cops. The Bridge and Tunnel Officers. You know, the toll takers with guns. You know, the peace officers who think they are police officers. You know, the people who tried to stop me on Lafayette Avenue (over by the Whitestone Bridge) as if their jurisdiction was magically extended by 2/3 of a mile.

[abaduck 123]

Go to jail? Really? Come on, the cops are just acting on the information that they're given. Terrorists do take photos and video in advance of their attacks - part of their pre-planning. If the officers are acting in good faith and only attempting to protect us and our critical infrastructure do you really think they should go to jail?

I don't have any problem with the cops checking up on the photographer. They were doing their jobs, and acting in good faith at that point. But that incident should (IMHO, and I'm not a cop) have ended one of two ways - amicably, perhaps with the officers wishing him luck in the photo contest, once they had determined he posed no threat. Or with him, and his photos, being handed over to the FBI for investigation as a suspected terrorist, if that's what they really believed, with his car, home, and workplace searched etc. etc.

I stand by my original point. The photos are either evidence, or perfectly legal. Either way, attempting to procure their destruction is just plain dumb at best, and yes technically criminal at worst. It might be stretching a point to call it criminal, but let's face it, when the police arrest someone there does occasionally seem to be a 'find something, anything, some technicality, to charge him with' mentality - as witnessed by the preposterous (IF the account is correct) trespassing charge in this very case!

I don't agree with the conduct of these officers based on what little I know of this particular situation but I don't believe that their conduct was criminal. This is a very sensitive situation and there will be many issues and problems as we strive for a balance between protecting ourselves while still enjoying the ability to have photography as a hobby (or profession). I don't think it is as black and white or as simple as a first amendment issue - there are definitely places that should not be freely photographed.

I don't disagree, and yes it is a sensitive situation. I've read of so many similar cases that I'm rather troubled. And it's not just a US problem, it's even worse elsewhere: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7351252.stm Back in the UK, they have the 'Official Secrets Act' which contains the concept of 'prohibited places' where photography is forbidden - mostly defense establishments. But such places have to have signs posted, by law. None of this affects the original case; as I've said more than once, trying to have the photos deleted serves *no one*, whether the photographer is guilty or innocent.

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

The first two words out of my lawyers mouth when I told him about this..."First Amendment".

The next words, verbatim is "How do I become this guys lawyer, this guy is about to make a lot of money."

This guy is gonna be rich and now we are going to have to bail-out Amtrak....again

Man these cops are going to be paying hell for this.....

Edited February 6, 2009 by bvfdjc316