Thursday, February 11, 2010

NYPD stupidity cost us $30,000


From Fox 5:

"I was just about to make a motion to get on the train and the cop said, 'Come here.' I was already on the train, he said get off the train," Robert says. "I came off the train and he said I'm not supposed be taking pictures."

But you are allowed to take pictures in the transit system.

After September 11, 2001, there was some talk about restricting the public's right to take pictures in public places, but that was so controversial it was dropped.

In fact, the MTA rules are very clear: "Photography, filming or video recording in any facility or conveyance is permitted ..."

And that's exactly what Robert says he told the cops. He says he even pulled the rules up on his cell phone to show the cop. But Robert says the cop insisted there was a problem, and told him: "You have to delete them."

When Robert refused, things went from bad to worse. He says an NYPD sergeant showed up and ended up telling the cops to handcuff him and take him into custody.

The cops whacked Robert with not one, but three summonses: One for "taking photos" even though photography is actually allowed. The second for "disobeying lawful order/impeding traffic." And a third for "unreasonable noise."

Eventually, all three summonses were dismissed, and the NYPD admitted that the summons for taking pictures was issued in error.

But Robert didn't drop it there, he hired lawyer Gerald Cohen and he sued the city. In the end, the city settled and the boneheaded move by the "picture police" cost taxpayers $30,000.

49 comments:

Anonymous said...

Stupidity is business as usual at the NYPD.

Joe said...

Same exact shit happened to me in Corona park during the US Open by the old reflecting pools.
It must have been the same bonehead cop. I never seen so many cops in one place they even had command trailors.

I should have went off and let them arrest me but I had $1500 SLR camera and an 11" Swinguard on my ankle.
I hear its a 2 day backlog at the Rikers Hilton for your arraignment

Lino said...

One mo' time:

http://gothamist.com/2009/03/12/nypd_paid_35_million_to_settle_laws.php

Law enforcement will always attract a certain type of person, it is the same in -every- country, the key is to keep them on a short leash and in the last two decades we have often failed to do so.

If you are old enough to remember the early 1970s when the Mollen and Knapp Comissions exposed endemic corruption and abuse within the NYPD, you should be able to see the need for strict civilian oversight.

Cops become the Ton-Ton Macoute in a very short time if not kept in line.

PizzaBagel said...

The cops whacked Robert with not one, but three summonses: One for "taking photos" even though photography is actually allowed. The second for "disobeying lawful order/impeding traffic." And a third for "unreasonable noise."

Unreasonable noise?! What? For responding verbally in his own defense? You don't just have a right to remain silent. You must remain silent -- or else! Hmmmphh!

Joe said...
Same exact shit happened to me in Corona park during the US Open by the old reflecting pools.


So the Unisphere is now a terrorist target? Congrats, Crappy!

Anonymous said...

What do they do to the visitors vacationing here who take pics on the train?? N.Y.P.D. are a bunch of bullies....

Joe said...

Yep-- responding to a cop verbally in your own defense can easily get you a noise ticket, possible arrest for obstruction of justice, interfering with a police officer.

--depending.

Anonymous said...

why is it illegal to film near a public school and not in a crowded subway?
were there not terrorist bombings in London and Spain
in the past, at subways and train stations?

the captured islamo-fascist saboteurs have all had photos of U.S. targets.

how many more U.S. civilians have to be murdered,before the left/leaning legislators show common sense?

you may think that you won Robert, getting the taxpayers
money. but i think you are a jerk and a disgrace to this Nation.

Queens Crapper said...

It's not illegal to film near a public school.

It's not illegal to film anywhere that's viewable from the street.

If the terrorists wanted to blow up the subway, do you really think they would need photos in order to accomplish that? Please.

Kevin Walsh said...

>>>you may think that you won Robert, getting the taxpayers
money. but i think you are a jerk and a disgrace to this Nation.

I suppose you think nycsubway,org and the Forgotten NY subway section is also a "disgrace to this Nation."

www.forgotten-ny.com

Anonymous said...

They come in from Bayshore, Pearl River, and Upper Saddle River because they think they are better and smarter than us. "Would you believe that a-hole gave me back lip -- that it was legal to take photos in the subway? I had to show the wise-ass who's the boss..." I seen so much cop arrogance and harassment of law-abiding people that I agree with the previous anon that the job attracts bullies: men and women who are way too comfortable using threats of force and actual force to get their way.

Anonymous said...

I ask myself every day, why do I tolerate living in a city for the rich elite. Oh that's right I'm rich and can take a limo.

Anonymous said...

"why is it illegal to film near a public school and not in a crowded subway?"
It is NOT "Illegal" to film near a school.The buttheads at school safety An embarrassment to real cops everywhere think their authority extends beyond the property lines of the school.

Anonymous said...

you may think that you won Robert, getting the taxpayers
money. but i think you are a jerk and a disgrace to this Nation.

===================================


Why don't you go and teach classes about law to the NYPD because they obviously don't know it themselves and then it costs us HUNDRES OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS at the end of the year.

Anonymous said...

men and women who are way too comfortable using threats of force and actual force to get their way.
----------------------------------
Walk a day in their shoes my friend. I won't defend every action of every individual cop, but if you saw EVERYTHING they put up with from the public and the brass, and if you saw all the things they sensibly let the public get away with for the sake of discretion and prioritizing, then you would be singing a very different tune.

Newtown Pentacle said...

a good primer for photography, your rights when dealing with the cops, and how to deal with the truly untrained and clueless bullies- private security- can be found here-

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

also, here's Ray Kelly's orders to NYPD on the subject, from craphound.com

http://craphound.com/images/operationsorderinvestigationofindividualsengagedinsuspiciousphotographyandvideosurveillance.jpg

finally- google the term "UK's war on Photography" to read about what happens when you can't sue the police, by statute.

Mitch

Klink Cannoli said...

Anon wrote:
"Walk a day in their shoes my friend."
===============================

Thank you. This needs to be said from time to time because some tend to get wrapped up in their own world and forget the realities of life.

Everyone knows. Not only NYC residents. We were attacked by Jihadists. Subways are a prime target area. Taking pictures will raise suspicions, regardless if it's legal or not.

This person shows poor judgement, in my opinion. So poor judgement that I would question his motives for taking pictures without a valid reason.

In the backdrop...
There're are photographers, mainly non-professionals, who are trying to make a political statement about taking pictures in sensitive areas in this city.

Newtown Pentacle said...

So, Klink, we should throw out the ole constitution? What is a "valid" statement, and what is a "professional"? Should we compel PBS to stop selling DVD's (in HD) of Ken Burn's Brooklyn Bridge? Eliminate google maps?
The rules in the subway, set in place by the actual government in the form of law- incidentally, can be found here:

http://www.mta.info/nyct/rules/rules.htm

excerpt:
Photography, filming or video recording in any facility or conveyance is permitted except that ancillary equipment such as lights, reflectors or tripods may not be used. Members of the press holding valid identification issued by the New York City Police Department are hereby authorized to use necessary ancillary equipment. All photographic activity must be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this Part.

Queens Crapper said...

Klink, I would argue that subway platforms, subway cars, etc., are so known to the common man that they cannot be kept under wraps. A subway tunnel is a different story. But that is not where these people are when they are being harassed. And we have such a thing as freedom of expression guaranteed by the first amendment. Photography is a means of expression, and whether or not you or some cop thinks that is a valid reason to take a photo is not even subject to debate. I don't mean that in a nasty way but in a legal way.

Anonymous said...

So poor judgement that I would question his motives for taking pictures without a valid reason.

---------------------------------


Valid reason? He is an american in a public space. He needs no further reason than that.


"""Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.""" - B. Franklin

Anonymous said...

If they are getting crap from the public or the brass and can't handle it, the way out is resignation. Get a job you can handle.

Don't take your frustration with your miserable cop life on Robert Taylor or me or another law-abiding citizen.

Klink Cannoli said...

The safety of the Nation and its Citizenry is of prime importance. Temporary abridgement of certain mandated Constitutional individual rights are legitimate considering our war footing. Historically our nation has faced these difficult decisions on several occasions with the consent of all three government branches. The Civil war and WWII, but to name two.

To think otherwise is being selfish and endangers the security of our Nation.


QC, the security of the subway system is a huge problem. Perhaps even larger than our importing containers dilemma. But to say something is so big and common to man that it cannot be kept under wraps is self defeating and marginalizes mans great power to invent or strive in the face of adversity.

And I think you know me by know, QC. I hold the Constitution in the utmost highest regard. How citizens interpret it is another matter all together. All too often these days, selfishness has trumped logic, reason and the spirit of the law in leu of a law suit settlement.

As a mentioned before, video taping, photography, etc. in the subways, are political claptraps. Has been since 9/11.

Now Geert Wilders and his court fight for freedom of speech in the Netherlands is a true defender of that right. American take notice.

Anonymous said...

This all goes to the compstat mode.You can't have less crime AND more arrests/summonses.The pressure on cops from city hall/PC Kelly is enormous...............

Anonymous said...

In the words of Benjamin Franklin: Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither!!!!!

Klink Cannoli said...

To the Ben Franklin quoters:

Take a a short trip in history and try to really understand what that quote really meant and where, why and how it was used. I'll even forgive you to use that insidious rag wikipedia.

Defending your Constitutional rights starts with understanding them first.

Lino said...

I see the usual cast of characters that somehow argue the "we are at war thus anything goes" crap.

Do any of you know what is available to an average citizen in the way of concealed photographic/video devices?

The idea that a "terrorist" would be standing in the open and using a readily identifiable camera is asinine.

Take a look at what minimal funds can buy and that nothing short of a body search could find.

http://www.spycameras.com/

These bans are as useless as those bag checks in the subways.

Klink Cannoli said...

Lino, I appreciate it when you're brave enough to actually use your moniker for a comment. Unfortunately for you, the more you talk, the more times your foot goes in your mouth.


"The idea that a "terrorist" would be standing in the open and using a readily identifiable camera is asinine."

Of course it is. But it surely has been done. Note the asswipe suspects caught video taping around Washington DC not a few years ago. There're plenty of asinine Jihadists about to use as examples. Cripes, what about stuffing an accelerant under your nuts! How smart is that?

Anonymous said...

read "The Cell "by John Miller,(the last American journalist to interview O.B. Laden).

it relates just how "really asinine" the W.T.C. islamo-fascist bombers were. and their actions were overlooked by incompetent U.S. officials.

flying lessons (excluding take-off and landing ).

leaving a small plane on Miami int. airport runway ? with no follow up by U.S. officials ?

using library computers to communicate with each other.
driving with expired licenses,and when stopped,only given summonses. which they did not answer.

Anonymous said...

Temporary abridgement of certain mandated Constitutional individual rights are legitimate considering our war footing.

======================================

Epic fail. You do not deserve your citizenship. Personal sacrifice of your safety is something every American should be willing to give for the greater good of the country and its most prized ideals. Soldiers do this every day.

Anonymous said...

Of course it is. But it surely has been done. Note the asswipe suspects caught video taping around Washington DC not a few years ago. There're plenty of asinine Jihadists about to use as examples. Cripes, what about stuffing an accelerant under your nuts! How smart is that?
---------------------------------------

Actually, of the vast majority of captured terrorists and or their materials, many did NOT include photographs.

This is because there is LITTLE need for it. You think you need a picture of a train to know how to blow one up? Tape explosives to you, walk onto car, push button.

Really not a whole lot of recon needed for that.

The guy with $5,000 worth of photo gear in daylight is more often going to be an ally than the enemy. an iPhone poses a greater risk, in reality.

Queens Crapper said...

"Temporary abridgement of certain mandated Constitutional individual rights are legitimate considering our war footing." - Mayor Mike Bloomberg during the 2004 Republican National Convention

georgetheatheist said...

And what about those signs by the Queens-Midtown Tunnel and the Triborough Bridge that photography is illegal?

Lino is right about the availability of concealed cameras. I was once on an assignment wearing a jeans jacket 10 years ago where the camera lens was in one of the front button holes of the jacket. My target never suspected a thing.

Anonymous said...

you may think that you won Robert, getting the taxpayers
money. but i think you are a jerk and a disgrace to this Nation.

--are we really going to consider forfeiting our freedoms so we can avoid all of these possible threats? they are photographs.

Anonymous said...

if it isn't a law already, the cops are right, it should be a law. cops make laws. cops are the law. this jerk shouldn't be taking pictures, next time it could be a bomb.

Queens Crapper said...

Cops don't make laws, they enforce them. Legislatures make laws.

CJ said...

Lino said:

I must admit for once I agree with Lino (don't have a heart attack}.

"Do any of you know what is available to an average citizen in the way of concealed photographic/video devices?"

Absolutely. Look what a team of hijackers did with box cutters.


"The idea that a "terrorist" would be standing in the open and using a readily identifiable camera is asinine."

It's already happened. Several years ago a pair of Iranian nationals were taking pictures of subway stations (before the ban was lifted) and when questioned by police, claimed diplomatic immunity.

Take a look at what minimal funds can buy and that nothing short of a body search could find.

And lulling ourselves into a false sense of security won't change anything.

Klink Cannoli said...

Brave Anonymous wrote:
"Epic fail. You do not deserve your citizenship. Personal sacrifice of your safety is something every American should be willing to give for the greater good of the country and its most prized ideals. Soldiers do this every day."
=============================

Epic fail? Hahaha!
Am I to expect some "gag me with a spoon" jargon from you soon too?

Reading comprehension wasn't your strong suit, eh? And neither is formulating a reasoned argument.

Let me help you. Lives of the many can outweigh the lives of a few. Philosophers have twirled that little ditty around for millennia. Have at it.

Klink Cannoli said...

Some other Anonymous or maybe Lino again:
... "This is because there is LITTLE need for it."...
===============================

You're not thinking like a combatant or a Jihadist. Choosing targets for maximum casualties based on time factors, social cycles like rush hour, class type and what nots can be important for a desired effect.

The issue hear isn't the means of acts of terror, nor reconnaissance values of photography or other side tracks that are being brought up. Leave that to the professionals.

We all know the subways are a sensitive and potential target. As citizens we need to be vigilant and aid security in its aim to protect the populace.

Why aggravate an already tense arena? What kind of common sense is that? Are those who would pursue such folly that selfish for their own needs?

Klink Cannoli said...

QC wrote:
"- Mayor Mike Bloomberg during the 2004 Republican National Convention"
============================

Sorry, that went right over my head. But it sounds like something interesting.

That train of thought, although not in verbatim, is kept in with good company. Lincoln with Habeas Corpus and Roosevelt with the Internment Camps.

Anonymous said...

Dear NYPD

I will be taking picture tomorrow on the downtown 1 line at 23rd st station. Please arrest me, i can use 30 grand. I will wear a turban.

thanks

Queens Crapper said...

Basically, if you were on the street anywhere near a protest during that event, you were arrested, no questions asked. People on their way home from work, shopping, etc were all put in jail for no reason. That ended up costing us a pretty penny, too, when all the settlements for unlawful arrest were finished.

Klink Cannoli said...

I understand know. Thanks.

That's pretty flagrant, but a political convention is a little different than being at war.


We should have a couple of pints together one day, QC.

Lino said...

" Klink Cannoli said...
Lino, I appreciate it when you're brave enough to actually use your moniker for a comment."

Do you really think that it take "bravery" to confront an ideological idiot.

You are worth the price of admission just for humor.

Klink Cannoli said...

I'll take that as a compliment. Hahaha!

And yes, it sure takes bravery to stand behind ones words.

Lino said...

"Queens Crapper said...

"Temporary abridgement of certain mandated Constitutional individual rights are legitimate considering our war footing." - Mayor Mike Bloomberg during the 2004 Republican National Convention'

How convenient.

Have the last of the resultant lawsuits over the goon,,I mean police's actions during that period, been settled yet?

Anonymous said...

To anyone bitching about what the city doles out in lawsuits... in 2009 the city paid $360 million in lawsuits... compare that with the $1.3 billion the city spent last year on public assistance (welfare, food stamps).

Re-prioritize what your mad about the city giving out

georgetheatheist said...

"Re-prioritize what your [sic] mad about the city giving out!."

See something, say something: Here! Here! I'll drink to that!

Anonymous said...

Georgetheatheist wrote: I was once on an assignment wearing a jeans jacket 10 years ago where the camera lens was in one of the front button holes of the jacket. My target never suspected a thing...

...except that you had a questionable sense of fashion. (jk!)

Luke said...

Being a photographer myself, and by photographer I mean formally trained, currently practicing, and well versed in my rights as a photographer - This is one of the stupidest, drawn-out debates.

Photographs or no photographs - if a terrorist wants to blow something up, etc. they will find a way. Not having pictures is will not stop them. Other means of stopping terrorist activity needs to be the primary focus before worrying about someone taking a picture. End of story.

Anonymous said...

RE: LUKE,
i suggest that you do some research into pre-invasion preparation that was done by U.S. Commands during WWll. you might start with the O.S.S.(OFFICE OF STRATEGIC SERVICES) ,now known as the C.I.A.

the job name was "AEROGRAPHER",in the military at the time and probably still is .

the U.S.Navy Seals are involved in photo recording targets, prior to military action .

the photo hobby is enjoyed by most,but in a time of war with islamo-terrosts killing our citizens, we must use common sense when confronted by our first responders. many will come to our aid ,heroically ,as during the bombing of the W.T.C.,where 3000 citizens were murdered.