Update, 4:49 p.m. — Interim Chief Tom Chapman clarifies the city’s role in suspending photography at the scene.
The parking lot behind Arcata City Hall by the library, as well as the nearest sidewalk to the lot, was closed all morning as investigators examined a suspicious device.
APD officers were directing people away from the sidewalk nearest the parking lot and not letting anyone enter the parking lot. Investigators at a Humboldt County Sheriff’s trailer parked near the lot viewed the device remotely.
Around noon, APD Sgt. Jaynie Goodwin, at the scene with other APD and Sheriff’s personnel, came across the street to answer some questions from the
Journal
. She said the police department had received the report of the suspicious device from a city employee at 9:03 a.m.
“He was working in the HealthSport area and found it strapped to a pole,” Goodwin said.
The city employee, whose name she didn’t know, put the device in the back of the city truck and drove it over to the library parking lot — and Goodwin noted that’s not quite the protocol for dealing with a suspicious device. Instead, leave it where it is and report it.
The device was about the size of a softball. Goodwin said she didn’t know more about it. Moments later, as I was taking photographs, she came across the street again and told me to stop taking photographs. “They’re saying no cell phones, no cameras,” she said, referring to the investigators over by the bomb squad trailer.
City Hall was not closed and business went on as usual at the front desk, but city workers were told not to go into the back half of the building near the parking lot. “We were told to take a long lunch,” said one employee inside City Hall, who’d just returned from said lunch and decided to work on a laptop in the lobby.
A little after 1 p.m. the caution tape was being wadded up and most of the police squad had rolled away. An APD spokesman inside City Hall said they’d be “sending out a little news release” soon.
UPDATE:
Hank,
Thanks for taking the time to chat with me on the phone. As we discussed, APD recognizes the issue of public spaces and access either through photographing or watching, etc. At the time this occurred there was a bit of confusion. The request came from the Sheriff’s Deputies through the APD on-scene supervisor that no photographs be taken of the robot. With only partial information our supervisor requested that Heidi not take photos. It was a cordial conversation between Heidi and our officer. Unfortunately our supervisor did not have all the information and was unable to adequately explain to Heidi why she was making the request. We found out later the Sheriff’s Deputies were trying to protect the security of the bomb robot by not having photos taken while it was deployed and in-service.
I sincerely apologize that our supervisor’s request was interpreted as interfering with a reporter. After speaking with the supervisor I am confident she fully understands the right to access by both the media and the public. Please feel free to contact me directly should you have any questions or concerns.
Take care,
Tom Chapman, Interim Chief of Police
Arcata Police Department
736 F Street
This article appears in Dog Fight.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but shooting photos in a public area is not a crime. How did you respond? Clarifying the issue with the officer would have been a public service for everyone who owns a camera, be it traditional or cell phone.
AJ: See the update.
This "photographer" is part of the erosion of our civil rights. There is never, ever a legitimate reason for law enforcement to bar anyone from taking photos while standing on public property. There is no legal reason. Basically by allowing the officer to stop you from taking photos, you gave up your rights for no good reason. Now the cops know that they can try to pull that on locals and the local media and that some of you idiots may even comply.
This is a perfect example of how totally screwed the local media is.
How could photographing a bomb robot from a safe distance in a public location that is not off-limits to the public possibly pose a problem? A clarification from the Sheriff’s Office would be nice, to confirm everyone is up to speed on our legal rights.
I’ve never has a desire to photograph officers performing their duties, but it would be nice to know I won’t be hassled should I ever choose to exercise my first amendment rights.
But you did get photos.
Hey, I got pictures, too.
Everybody got them but Lala!
The Short Circuit robot was available for photo ops. Totally screwie.
LaLa, AJ: Of course I didn’t just wince away. I took the shots I needed, and I asked the sergeant why the ban. She said she didn’t know.
I asked her to ask the sergeants why the ban, she didn’t — they were a bit preoccupied, as you might imagine.
I went into City Hall and asked for an explanation, and soon Tom Chapman came in to talk to me. He seemed unaware of the ban on photography. Later, he clarified what happened in a response to my editor, in the update above.
Good job Heidi!
Stand up for your rights! Stand up for all of our rights!
Thanks to these photos, makers of suspecious devices now know how high to strap them to poles to make robot retrieval difficult. I can see why the Sheriff’s Department made the request.
That’s a good point, Rockhouse. Just like Al Qaeda now knows that if you run a jet into a building, it might fall down. The photos prove it. But in fact, the device was removed from its location at HealthSPORT and brought to City Hall, as Heidi’s story describes.
I don’t believe it for a minute. Photos can be faked. The jet wouldn’t fall down.
About this Guide
Confrontations that impair the constitutional
right to make images are
becoming more common. To fight the
abuse of your right to free expression,
you need to know your rights to take
photographs and the remedies available
if your rights are infringed.
The General Rule
The general rule in the United States
is that anyone may take photographs
of whatever they want when they are
in a public place or places where they
have permission to take photographs.
Absent a specific legal prohibition
such as a statute or ordinance, you are
legally entitled to take photographs.
Examples of places that are traditionally
considered public are streets,
sidewalks, and public parks.
Property owners may legally prohibit
photography on their premises
but have no right to prohibit others
from photographing their property
from other locations. Whether you
need permission from property owners
to take photographs while on their
premises depends on the circumstances.
In most places, you may reasonably
assume that taking photographs
is allowed and that you do not
need explicit permission. However,
this is a judgment call and you should
request permission when the circumstances
suggest that the owner is likely
to object. In any case, when a property
owner tells you not to take photographs
while on the premises, you are
legally obligated to honor the request.
Some Exceptions to the Rule
There are some exceptions to the
general rule. A significant one is that
commanders of military installations
can prohibit photographs of specific
areas when they deem it necessary to
protect national security. The U.S.
Department of Energy can also prohibit
photography of designated
nuclear facilities although the publicly
visible areas of nuclear facilities are
usually not designated as such.
Members of the public have a very
limited scope of privacy rights when
they are in public places. Basically,
anyone can be photographed without
their consent except when they have
secluded themselves in places where
they have a reasonable expectation of
privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms,
medical facilities, and inside
their homes.
Permissible Subjects
Despite misconceptions to the contrary,
the following subjects can
almost always be photographed lawfully
from public places:
accident and fire scenes
children
celebrities
bridges and other infrastructure
residential and commercial buildings
industrial facilities and public utilities
transportation facilities (e.g., airports)
Superfund sites
criminal activities
law enforcement officers
continued
Who Is Likely to Violate Your Rights
Most confrontations are started by
security guards and employees of
organizations who fear photography.
The most common reason given is
security but often such persons have
no articulated reason. Security is
rarely a legitimate reason for restricting
photography. Taking a photograph
is not a terrorist act nor can a
business legitimately assert that taking
a photograph of a subject in public
view infringes on its trade secrets.
On occasion, law enforcement officers
may object to photography but
most understand that people have the
right to take photographs and do not
interfere with photographers. They do
have the right to keep you away from
areas where you may impede their
activities or endanger safety. However,
they do not have the legal right
to prohibit you from taking photographs
from other locations.
They Have Limited Rights to Bother,
Question, or Detain You
Although anyone has the right to
approach a person in a public place
and ask questions, persistent and
unwanted conduct done without a
legitimate purpose is a crime in many
states if it causes serious annoyance.
You are under no obligation to explain
the purpose of your photography nor
do you have to disclose your identity
except in states that require it upon
request by a law enforcement officer.
If the conduct goes beyond mere
questioning, all states have laws that
make coercion and harassment criminal
offenses. The specific elements
vary among the states but in general it
is unlawful for anyone to instill a fear
that they may injure you, damage or
take your property, or falsely accuse
you of a crime just because you are
taking photographs.
Private parties have very limited
rights to detain you against your will
and may be subject to criminal and
civil charges should they attempt to
do so. Although the laws in most
states authorize citizen’s arrests, such
authority is very narrow. In general,
citizen’s arrests can be made only for
felonies or crimes committed in the
person’s presence. Failure to abide by
these requirements usually means
that the person is liable for a tort such
as false imprisonment.
They Have No Right to Confiscate
Your Film
Sometimes agents acting for entities
such as owners of industrial plants
and shopping malls may ask you to
hand over your film. Absent a court
order, private parties have no right to
confiscate your film. Taking your film
directly or indirectly by threatening to
use force or call a law enforcement
agency can constitute criminal offenses
such as theft and coercion. It can
likewise constitute a civil tort such as
conversion. Law enforcement officers
may have the authority to seize film
when making an arrest but otherwise
must obtain a court order.
continued
Your Legal Remedies If Harassed
If someone has threatened, intimidated,
or detained you because you were
taking photographs, they may be
liable for crimes such as kidnapping,
coercion, and theft. In such cases, you
should report them to the police.
You may also have civil remedies
against such persons and their
employers. The torts for which you
may be entitled to compensation
include assault, conversion, false
imprisonment, and violation of your
constitutional rights.
Other Remedies If Harassed
If you are disinclined to take legal
action, there are still things you can do
that contribute to protecting the right
to take photographs.
(1) Call the local newspaper and see if
they are interested in running a story.
Many newspapers feel that civil liberties
are worthy of serious coverage.
(2) Write to or call the supervisor of
the person involved, or the legal or
public relations department of the
entity, and complain about the event.
(3) Make the event publicly known on
an Internet forum that deals with photography
or civil rights issues.
How to Handle Confrontations
Most confrontations can be defused
by being courteous and respectful. If
the party becomes pushy, combative,
or unreasonably hostile, consider calling
the police. Above all, use good
judgment and don’t allow an event to
escalate into violence.
In the event you are threatened with
detention or asked to surrender your
film, asking the following questions
can help ensure that you will have the
evidence to enforce your legal rights:
1. What is the person’s name?
2. Who is their employer?
3. Are you free to leave? If not, how do
they intend to stop you if you decide
to leave? What legal basis do they
assert for the detention?
4. Likewise, if they demand your film,
what legal basis do they assert for the
confiscation?
Disclaimer
This is a general education guide
about the right to take photographs
and is necessarily limited in scope.
For more information about the laws
that affect photography, I refer you to
the second edition of my book, Legal
Handbook for Photographers (Amherst
Media, 2006).
This guide is not intended to be legal
advice nor does it create an attorney
client relationship. Readers should
seek the advice of a competent attorney
when they need legal advice
regarding a specific situation.
Thanks, Mark. A link saves space, though.
Fear WILL rob us of our constitutional rights. Looks like the "terrorists" are be winning.
Then again, who are really the terrorists?
The point is that HW did in fact allow the police to violate her civil rights, even if for a few moments. Then she played nicey nice as if it was merely a simple misunderstanding.
A real reporter and a real newspaper would have immediately called their attorneys and made a huge deal out of it. Even the T-S and the (former) ER have made moves like that.
I’m thinking it’s indicative of the NCJ- local LEO’s know that they can try to pull more things over on their staffers because of their well-earned reputation for ineptitude.
I’m of two minds on this. If there was any possibility that a radio/cellphone/wifi etc. . signal could trigger the device, that would make sense and would qualify as a legitimate safety issue. As an ex emergency services person (Fire/Medical/Rescue) I can see this.
If however this was just some cop exercising his authority and the explanation is that photographing the robot is prohibited, that is a abuse of power and the officer who issued that order should be reprimanded and retrained in the law. We don’t need any jack-bootery in Arcata.
As for Heidi’s action, not being a bomb squad member and uninformed on the safe procedure, turning her camera off was appropriate as a initial safety measure and I applaud her for complying and then following up.
peace
d
God forgive me for saying this, but the Journal looks incredibly lame even compared to the Arcata Eye on this one. The Eye already ran photos of this precious robot last week, so the big secret is already in print and therefore no secret at all.
God forgive me for saying this, but the Journal looks incredibly lame even compared to the Arcata Eye on this one. The Eye already ran photos of this precious robot last week, so the big secret is already in print and therefore no secret at all.
Check the date on this post, Name/Anonymous.
Time is relative. It looks like some journalist failed is theoretical physics class.
Great that all the defenders of free speech are unable to provide their actual names on comments. Thanks for telling it like it is after the fact. No doubt, God will forgive all trespasses on our civil liberties… or something.
Free speech for chronic wankers.
Just be happy we don’t have a ban on photographing police officers yet like in the U.K. And you all shouldn’t be so hard on Heidi. The issue seemed to have been resolved rather quickly. It’s not like she turned tail and ran – she confronted A.P.D. immediately.
Another joint?