Unsuck DC Metro: Metro's Uneasy Relationship with Photography

Monday, November 29, 2010

Metro's Uneasy Relationship with Photography

The maker of the film claims he was taking photos of the buses for a project.

Part 2 in the comments

Related

Other items:
Ridership continues to fall (Examiner)
Stabbing at Georgia Ave. Metro (WTOP)
SmartBenefits could become use or lose (WaPo)
Area should embrace Metro governance reforms (WaPo)

Comments (82)

Logging you in...

Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout

Logged in as

+6 Vote up Vote down

· 747 weeks ago

They don't even know the law and they're cops.

-5 Vote up Vote down

Radner · 747 weeks ago

So . . . what happened when the APD got there? Did they go there? Did this guy get arrested/charged? Is there more to this video?

I feel that the officer did exactly what he was trained to do, and calling his supervisor to handle the situation was the appropriate response when he didn't know the laws himself. He acted respectfully to the camera guy, who was pretty annoying and obviously looking for a fight.

6 replies · active less than 1 minute ago

+3 Vote up Vote down

unsuckdcmetro 92p · 747 weeks ago

Part 2 is coming according to the poster.

+2 Vote up Vote down

Radner · 747 weeks ago

Thanks

+2 Vote up Vote down

@kara_h · 747 weeks ago

It sounded the other way around! The camera guy was being respectful, was not looking for a fight, and needed to ask several times for the supervisor himself. Maybe the problem is he did not roll over and actually claimed his rights without backing down?

-5 Vote up Vote down

Radner · 747 weeks ago

Respectful? He asked the same question of the officer several times, at a high volume, before giving the officer a chance to answer. The officer had to walk away in order to get on his radio because the camera guy wouldn't shut up long enough to let him make the call. He certainly wouldn't have been out there that long had he given the officer some time to communicate with his supervisor.

+2 Vote up Vote down

@kara_h · 747 weeks ago

It could have been solved easily: answer the first time a question is asked of you. Since the officer stopped him he had to at least have had a reason to do so formulated in his mind, even if later facts made his original suspicion change.

0 Vote up Vote down

Jerome · 746 weeks ago

I wound have not really needed to ask the officer the same question over and over if he would answered me the first time! The fact is he held me there without even knowing what for. That is wrong.

+2 Vote up Vote down

@kara_h · 747 weeks ago

Sounds like the reason the officer was trying to claim was being in the traffic flow ... yet there was clearly someone who walked right between them at some point.

It seems like metro cops need to brush up on a few things. The guy was not acting belligerent but standing his grounds on his rights (which is pretty much SOP for journalists) but the officer had no idea how to deal with him.

What is the exact jurisdiction of metro cops? Are they rent-a-cops or are they considered on par with city/state/county cops? The guy was making a point about sidewalks so is their boundary the inner edge of the municipal sidewalk to the metro facility (so any metro sidewalks would be their beat)?

3 replies · active less than 1 minute ago

-2 Vote up Vote down

Metro Retiree · 747 weeks ago

They are on par with county police. But, they deal with a number of jurisdictions. It's difficult for them to keep track of Arlington, Fairfax, PG, Mont Co., DC, Alexandria, etc laws. If the officer was not used to working in that area, he might not be totally familiar the local laws.

0 Vote up Vote down

@kara_h · 747 weeks ago

If he did not know the local laws he should not be assigned to that area. People expect the police (no matter what force) to know the local laws.

+2 Vote up Vote down

WTF · 746 weeks ago

Local laws aren't the issue, it's the fracking Constitution!

+7 Vote up Vote down

Anon · 747 weeks ago

Kudos to this guy for pressing the cop on adhering to the law. Cops rely a lot on bluster and intimidation, and this guy, while perhaps spoiling for a fight, nevertheless didn't give in to the intimidation while trying to get the officer to articulate a reason for his actions. This also shows how much standing up for your rights depends on knowing the law before you get into a situtation.

-9 Vote up Vote down

James Boland · 747 weeks ago

I hope the camera-operator realizes that METRO Transit Police Officers are a Federalized Law Enforcement Agency that has jurisdiction in DC, Md, & VA. This should be a lesson to all Law Enforcement officers that better training is needed to educate their rank & file on their jurisdiction's municipal codes & federal laws. This photo activist is playing a serious cat & mouse game with multiple police agencies, and I pray he doesn't try this in DC near an embassy, or near a military installation where criminal trespassing interpretations and Public Safety Zoning come into play. Do not play this know-the-law game with Secret Service, Capitol Hill, Marshall Service, or FBI Police.

3 replies · active less than 1 minute ago

+3 Vote up Vote down

@kara_h · 747 weeks ago

I think people pretty much can tell the difference between the secret service uniformed division and the metro police. The former is a pretty serious federalized police force and they act like one. The second is, as a force, pretty much the equivalent of mall security (where federalization is only because multiple jurisdictions are involved) where you need real officers to sort out the mess.

-6 Vote up Vote down

John Borland · 747 weeks ago

Let's be very clear.. WMATA Transit Police Officers are far from Mall Security Cops. They receive training equivalent to every Federalized Police Agency, including Uniformed Secret Service, Department of Energy, Treasury, CIA Police, etc. etc.

+3 Vote up Vote down

@kara_h · 747 weeks ago

Notice that I did not say officers, I said the force itself. I will admit there are some good individual officers in there (although some bad ones), but the reputation for the force itself is pretty lame. I highly doubt most metro riders take them as seriously as what they consider 'real' cops.

+7 Vote up Vote down

horseydeucey · 747 weeks ago

"The maker of the film claims he was taking photos of the buses for a project."

I understand this sentence is used to answer questions for us, the reader. But it is a dangerous one. Who cares why the maker of the film was taking photos of the buses? The law's the law. There is no room for arbitrary applications of the law. The reasoning behind photographing the buses is irrelevant because it is legal.

And authority asking for some sort of proof of journalism is antithetical to the idea of free press. There can be no governmental certification of journalists in a country that claims to have free press. We are all journalists.

1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago

+2 Vote up Vote down

@kara_h · 747 weeks ago

The same with the officer even asking for his name. The person with the camera was right to not disclose it when not required to do so.

+9 Vote up Vote down

laurie · 747 weeks ago

I would prefer that Metro police spent more time patrolling the cars and stations like Glenmont, where one can wait with no cell service for half an hour for a train, than be concerned with haphazardly monitoring less-than-dangerous activity.

The myth that photography is illegal (with some exceptions, but clearly not this one) in public spaces does nothing but waste time and divert resources from where they really need to be.

+4 Vote up Vote down

· 747 weeks ago

filmer's letter to wmata http://www.pixiq.com/sites/default/files/vorus.pd...

-13 Vote up Vote down

MTPD is #1 · 747 weeks ago

Please note that MTPD is better trained than all of the local jurisdictions. I do know the jurisdiction of these officers and the officer DOES have it at this location due to the close proxcimity to a Metro bus stop. Pushing the boundaries about photographing a bus division or subway station should and will draw the attention of law enforcement. I hope the FBI Terrorism task force was notified about this guy.

5 replies · active less than 1 minute ago

+5 Vote up Vote down

Yeah · 747 weeks ago

Because the FBI exists to harass law-abiding citizens.

-8 Vote up Vote down

MTPD is #1 · 747 weeks ago

Correction- the FBI exists to harrass and arrest anyone wishing to due harm to law abiding citizens. This ass wipe was trying to push the envelope as far as he could to prove whatever point he was trying to make. A typical behavior that you see from certain groups that say they have the public's best interest in mind just to have something to post on You Tube. My advice to this student please stick to filming jack ass stunt videos there funny to watch and the only one hurt is you.

+1 Vote up Vote down

@kara_h · 747 weeks ago

Psst .... idiot: according to your logic the founding fathers should be in jail too. After all, they stood up to the current authority and actually took arms against it.

Okay, maybe you will cry that that is an extreme case. Whatever. If so, standing up for your rights is not, not, not, not a crime. As much as right-wingers would like it to be (although watch them cry rights when you come for their guns).

+4 Vote up Vote down

jerome · 747 weeks ago

I was and still currently working on a photography project on transit. I am not trying to prove any point but not to violate the rights of others. The police say that they have the publics best interest, we should be scared of them too.

+4 Vote up Vote down

@kara_h · 747 weeks ago

Why bother the FBI after the person is obviously not a terrorist and was just sticking to his legal rights? So he can go on a 'known troublemakers' list? Or do you just want to give the FBI more work?

+4 Vote up Vote down

hrh king friday13 · 747 weeks ago

I'm torn on this one. We know that terrorist organizations often record video of targeted public transit systems for training/intel gathering purposes. I suspect its Metro's policy to investigate individuals from doing this. The kid was doing this at night, didn't have ID on him and refused to give his name, so yeah, I WANT Metro to investigate and thinkg they did the appropriate thing here. The problem here is that the camera operator was probably 10 years old when 9/11 happened. Those of us fleeing Washington, DC during the attacks kinda get what the transit officer is doing here.

HOWEVER, I'm also jaded enough by WMATA's crappy safety record to believe that they don't give a fuck if we're all blown to pieces by terrorists and they just did this to be dicks.

4 replies · active less than 1 minute ago

+6 Vote up Vote down

jerome · 747 weeks ago

I've said over and over that I don't have problems with officers inquiring about what I am photographing. Being detained is different. Also, it is not like it was 1100 in the night it was 8:00 pm. The dark is needed to take night photos.

-8 Vote up Vote down

hrh king friday13 · 747 weeks ago

Jerome, you trivialize 1st Amednment rights to the point that I have no sympathy for you.

Rodney King would slap the shit out of you.

+2 Vote up Vote down

Yeah · 746 weeks ago

What does Rodney King have to do with this, you racist prick.

+1 Vote up Vote down

@Mykeru · 746 weeks ago

"We know that terrorist organizations often record video of targeted public transit systems for training/intel gathering purposes."

What movie did you see this in? Because that's what the "photographer casing the place" is, a bit of lore taken from movies -- the guy doing a bank job in a 70s caper film hanging a telephoto lens out his lime green Dodge taking pictures of the outside of a bank that serves no useful purpose except to show the audience what a "pro" he is -- that doesn't actually happen in the real world.

Can you cite on verifiable instance of terrorists recording public transit systems for training/intel gathering as you claim? And what I mean by "citation" is a link from a credible source as opposed to paranoid bluster or facts pulled straight from your ass.

+8 Vote up Vote down

My Reply · 747 weeks ago

I can see both sides-

Just recently there was an alert about 2 suspicious people videotaping the Metro. So the officer probably had that in mind.

On the other hand the photo/videographer had every right to be in public recording busses or whatever he was shooting.

This guy Jerome was in the right, but he was being a complete jerk about it. In general I've found that showing officers a little bit of courtesy and respect goes a long way. He could have ended the conflict simply by saying my name is Jerome and I'm a videographer shooting this footage for a project. Maybe even show him your ID. It certainly couldn't hurt if you're doing nothing wrong. Instead he just escalated the tension. -Again- I don't think Jerome did anything wrong legally, and there's no way he should have been kept against his will and I'm anxious to see or read what happened ne

1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago

+3 Vote up Vote down

Jerome · 747 weeks ago

Hi, I am Jerome. When he approached me before the video started, I told him that I was a photographer. Unfortunately contact by the officer was made before the video started and I was threatened.

-8 Vote up Vote down

dunker · 747 weeks ago

This was at a bus garage in VA from what i can tell. The officer must have been assigned there for a detail. A quick version of the law states that police can stop anyone at anytime. Its called a pedestrian stop, that person is not being arrested, they are just being detained and free to go at anytime but if you refuse to leave or identify yourself you can and he should have been arrested for tresspassing and fail to ID which you can be arrested for in VA or any other state. If an officer stops you and you refuse to identify yourself you are subject to arrest. Quick version of it.

3 replies · active less than 1 minute ago

+5 Vote up Vote down

Radner · 747 weeks ago

There are only 24 states that have that requirement to provide identification in statute, VA is not one of them.

-3 Vote up Vote down

dunker · 747 weeks ago

wrong.

+1 Vote up Vote down

Radner · 747 weeks ago

Wrong as in what I typed was wrong, or it is wrong that there isn't a law like that in VA?

If there is, please provide its statute number or a link.

The only ones I could find were specifically to do with operation of a motor vehicle, the purchase of controlled substances, and the donation of organs in the event of an accident.

+8 Vote up Vote down

Brian · 747 weeks ago

#1 The Transit Police is not a federal police force. The WMATA compact makes them local police in three states (the only one in the US per wikipedia)

#2 We live is a free society, not be cause you have a RIGHT to take pictures anywhere you want, but because we don't give the government the POWER to do anything about it when we do. The word "rights" is among the most abused in our society.

#3 I don't doubt that the police officer was confused. It is highly unusual for somebody who is not drunk or crazy to not cooperate with an officer making a reasonable inquiries. It is not wrong to not cooperate with an officer , it just makes it more likely that you are going to get jammed for the first petty thing he can think up. There is a fine line between "activist" and "jackass." (admittedly some of the greatest are both)

+4 Vote up Vote down

Brian · 747 weeks ago

#4 I grew up in Alexandria and know exactly where this happened. That bus garage is wide open and I am glad that somebody is at least making an effort to keep it safe in light of the recent arrest for the guy who was surveiling metro stations for "terrorists" (opps they were the FBI). I know people who ride those buses.

#5 What was that about the guy being a "reporter?"

#6 More happened than was on this video. What happened when the sergeant showed up and was he charged with anything.

-3 Vote up Vote down

Deval Dragon · 747 weeks ago

The videographer was completely wrong. The police asked the person to identify himself and he refused. He should have cooperated, and this would not have been a big deal. Instead, he was belligerent and turned this into a big deal.

I have this problem all the time taking photos of subways, buses and trains (as a hobby), but it gets straightened up quickly by being cooperative.

"Jerome" is just lucky they didn't haul his ass to jail until he could figure out who he was...

8 replies · active less than 1 minute ago

0 Vote up Vote down

Matt G · 747 weeks ago

How hard is it to cooperate? Hmmm....Patriot Act............

+2 Vote up Vote down

Jerome · 747 weeks ago

I have said many times and will continue to say that I don't have a problem with officers asking and inquiring about photography. But it is unacceptable to detain someone. Courts and police departments have also ruled that photography is not a basis for detainment. Also, my contact with the officer started before the video started so you don't have a full scope of the officers comments beforehand.

-3 Vote up Vote down

Deval Dragon · 747 weeks ago

If you would have simply given the officer your name, I'd be completely on your side. You refused to do that on several occasions, and that only made the situation worse. Yes, the WMATA police were wrong. But you didn't help things by provoking them.

+2 Vote up Vote down

Jerome · 747 weeks ago

I told him my first name. He asked for my last name which is person information. Would you net be in fear of retaliation. Its not hard to find where one live with a first and last name in the area... but thanks.

-7 Vote up Vote down

Deval Dragon · 747 weeks ago

I would say not giving your full name counts as not cooperating. The only reasons you don't give the police your full name are 1) Because you have something to hide or 2) You want to start trouble.

+2 Vote up Vote down

@kara_h · 747 weeks ago

If you do not cooperate you must have something to hide? Oh, you make this TOO easy. :)

+3 Vote up Vote down

@kara_h · 747 weeks ago

Good for you as you were exercising your rights. If we trusted police to always be professionals with information like that maybe things would be different, but there are some bad apples in there.

0 Vote up Vote down

Jerome · 747 weeks ago

http://blip.tv/file/3997924

+2 Vote up Vote down

unsuckdcmetro 92p · 747 weeks ago

here's part 2

-2 Vote up Vote down

horseydeucey · 747 weeks ago

The APD officer was very professional and respectful... but again, there is no verification for journalists in this country. Asking for one goes nowhere.

Jerome, sorry man, the police were doing their jobs (as they understood it). I get the idea that you would have had the legal right to walk away at any point (but I think we both know where that would have likely led). You may have been completely in the right but that doesn't guarantee that you wouldn't spend a night in the cooler in order for all parties to realize that. You did an excellent job of keeping your cool in a highly stressful situation, and hopefully this incident helps to raise awareness for any police with jurisdiction in and around the Metro system.

1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago

+3 Vote up Vote down

Jerome · 747 weeks ago

Thank you.

-9 Vote up Vote down

BEEEE · 747 weeks ago

Jerome, you are an idiot, you were photographing Metro Buses and the officer just wanted to know what you were doing. I think you were just looking to a chance to start a problem.

1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago

+1 Vote up Vote down

Jerome · 747 weeks ago

Why use insults to get your point across? I have stated in the past that I don't have a problem with people asking and inquiring about photography. I do have a problem when people tell me that I am being detained, and also asking for detailed personal information when I have not commited a crime.

-4 Vote up Vote down

Deval Dragon · 747 weeks ago

I want to see the video of the buses Jerome went out to shoot. As an transit photographer and from the video I saw, he set out to cause trouble, not take pictures of buses.

9 replies · active less than 1 minute ago

+2 Vote up Vote down

Jerome · 747 weeks ago

My intent was never to cause trouble, I just wanted to take photos. I keep a video camera on my person just for things like this.

-2 Vote up Vote down

BEEEEE · 747 weeks ago

Bullshit you were out of line, all you had to do is answer his questions. You were photographing the buses on Metro property. I think you were just out to get your thrills. What are you 16 years old?

+1 Vote up Vote down

Jerome · 747 weeks ago

ActuallyI was on public property, Metro does not own the public sidewalk, which is a public right of way. Like stated before, I was taking photographs for a collection. Why use volger language? Can we have a simple conversation with insulting others?

-2 Vote up Vote down

BEEE · 747 weeks ago

You may have been on public property but photographing private buses and them on private property. We didn't get to see him asking you what you were doing and I am sure if you treated him with respect he would have let you take your photos or asked you not not photograph the Metro property.

Are you aware that terrorism is real? You caused the officer to notice you and feel the need to ask questions about what you were doing. You were acting like a know it all child.

+3 Vote up Vote down

Jerome · 747 weeks ago

You mean here? http://goo.gl/maps/mI0z

-5 Vote up Vote down

BEEE · 747 weeks ago

you still don't get it and I give up, you are not worth anymore of my energy.

+4 Vote up Vote down

horseydeucey · 747 weeks ago

You do know that anything which is viewable from public property is legal to photograph? I promise. I'm not making this up. If you are inside your house, and it is viewable from the street, and the photographer is not using special lenses or filters (such as telephoto or infrared), that photographer is well within his legal right to snap a photo and publish it-- without your permission.
You don't have to agree with this, or even like it. But you do have to understand it if you want to talk about legal photography in the United States of America.
When you look up my house on Google Street View, you can see me, my wife, a friend, and his girlfriend on my property, in my front yard. As a matter of fact, the whole world can... even the terrorists! I can do absolutely nothing legally to compel Google to take the image down. You know why? The image was captured from a vehicle travelling on a public road. That is the way it is. Arguing this fact is silly.

0 Vote up Vote down

Deval Dragon · 747 weeks ago

I still want to see the pictures / video that Jerome set out to get that started this whole ordeal...

0 Vote up Vote down

Jerome · 746 weeks ago

The only video that I took was of the officer stopping me. I only take photographs. I am currently waiting to hear from Metro before the photographs are published.

-2 Vote up Vote down

M Smith · 747 weeks ago

Has, is, or about to commit a crime. It is well known that terrorists research their target. Transit in general (Buses/trains/planes) are well known to be researched by terrorist groups. They typically photograph the areas, document different things about the areas, etc..

So yes, I find it in the right of the area for them to have stopped you for suspicious activity. Part of reasonable suspicious is about to commit a crime. I salute those Officers for doing their job. They found out, you are some loser trying to get into an argument. That's what's wrong with people like you. Take your video camera and go looking for a fight with Police Officers.

Now, when they DON'T stop suspicious people doing things, such as what you were doing, and they blow up the bus or Hijack the bus, etc... Then it's people like you who whine... WHY AREN"T THE POLICE DOING ANYTHING?!?!

Grow up. Get a job. Leave the brave men and women who protect us here in America alone.

3 replies · active less than 1 minute ago

+2 Vote up Vote down

Jerome · 747 weeks ago

+3 Vote up Vote down

Yeah · 747 weeks ago

We really should arrest all the tourists. Their devilish pictures could be misused by terrorists! Arrest Google too since they are beaming street view right into Tehran.

+2 Vote up Vote down

Jerome · 747 weeks ago

http://goo.gl/maps/mI0z Check that out.

-5 Vote up Vote down

Maddogg · 747 weeks ago

I love how this guy tells how the stop "should" have gone. Here's how it would have gone if I would have stopped you. "Hello, I'm officer _____ with ____. The reason I stopped you is because you are taking pictures of a bus at night time and that seems very suspiscious. Sir do you have any identification." If he would have said no I would have said. "What is your name sir and date of birth." If you would have refused I would have given you another couple opportunities to give the info. If you still would have refused I would have taken you to jail. If you would have refused to identify yourself there you would be sitting in jail until you identified yourself. Oh and by the way you don't get a phone call until you identify yourself.

+1 Vote up Vote down

@kara_h · 747 weeks ago

I *really* wish we had video of what happened prior to the first video as that provides all of the context for what follows. We have Jerome saying what happened, but film footage would have been an impartial witness. Anyone directly involved is, by definition, skewed in how they would perceive events.

I stand up for rights that everyone has so would side with Jerome for exercising those rights. It is irrelevant whether the rights are convenient for authority figures or not, they are there and can be exercised.

Given that I have cops in my family though, I personally would have complied with *reasonable* requests in order to make everyone concerned (both Jerome and the officers) have a better encounter depending on emotional state and/or preceding events. Even if the officer's requests were on the illegal side in that particular jurisdiction (but not in another on the cop's beat) I would take it as an opportunity to educate the officer. Again, this is with the assumption that the request was reasonable and I was not in the state where I was agitated by what was going on/had gone on.

Like I said, I really wish we had video of what went on before all of this so there was an impartial witness.

-2 Vote up Vote down

Uhhhhhh · 747 weeks ago

Pre-operational surveilance of critical infrastructure is an indicator of a terrorist activity. Terrorism is defined in Virginia code as a criminal act. The filming of buses ingressing and egressing a WMATA facility, in a way that documents police deployment and response is enough to cause an officer to suspect that an individual may be involved in pre-operational surveilance for a criminal or terrorist act. If it were I who was filmed, instead of officer Dyke, that is how I would articulate my reasons for initiating an investigatory detention.

7 replies · active less than 1 minute ago

0 Vote up Vote down

Jerome · 747 weeks ago

http://blip.tv/file/3997924

+3 Vote up Vote down

Yeah · 747 weeks ago

Is tourism a criminal act in Virginia?

+3 Vote up Vote down

horseydeucey · 747 weeks ago

So, would it be reasonable to detain and question anyone who snaps photos of the White House, Capitol, Washington Monument, National Archives, Naval Observatory, Lincoln Memorial, Jefferson Memorial, FDR Memorial, Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Korean War Memorial, Verizon Center, Fedex Field, Air and Space Museum, Union Station, Postal Museum, IMF, Blair House, Supreme Court, Library of Congress, National Mall, Ford Theater, National Gallery of Art, National Portrait Gallery, Sackler, Hirshorn, Renwick, Corcoran, Arena Stage, Maine Ave. Wharf, Florida Ave. Market, Eastern Market, Chief Ike's, Nationals Park, National Trolley Museum, Holocaust Museum, Walter Reed, Fort McNair, Benjamin Banneker Park, LaFayette Park, Pentagon City Mall, The Mezanine, Tysons Corner, Iowa Jima War Memorial, The Netherlands Carillion, Theodore Roosevelt Island, "The Exorcist Steps," and so on and so forth?
You see, they all could be labeled "soft targets" in Hysteria, USA.
And if your stance is, "detain first" then we need to round up every visitor to DC who comes from states whose names begin or end with vowels for being tourists.
Uhhhhhh, do have the time, money, or willpower for that?

-4 Vote up Vote down

uhhhhh... · 747 weeks ago

horseydeucey, it's a bus yard, not a tourist destination. It is a relatively unusual for a person to photograph. Anecdotally, a flickr search of wmata bus yard reveals no photographs. A less specific search, wmata bus, turns up quite a few photographs, however none of them that I can see are of a WMATA bus yard. Contrasted with a search for any of the locations you listed, where the search turns up quite a few pictures. I'm not saying that the complainant was engaged in a criminal act, but a bus yard is critical infrastructure, a place/thing that supports a service imperative to the daily functions of our region... I would want to know, if I were in Officer Dyke's situation, why he was photographing the thing that I am being paid to protect.

I recall a recent media story about someone stealing a bus from another WMATA bus yard. Had that person had more malicious intentions, it could have been a terrible situation. WMATA, having recently dealt with a theft of one of their passenger vehicles, is probably going to try to investigate people who show an unusual interest in their bus yards.

I don't find it unreasonable for this guy to have been stopped by the cops for doing what he did. I do find his response to be unreasonable. From a legal perspective, the supreme court has upheld that if a jurisdiction has a law compelling you to identify yourself once the police detain you (whether you believe you believe they are right or wrong) then you must comply or you face criminal charges. I do not believe that this law exists in virginia, however, the police can still continue an investigatory detention until you have answered basic questions about your identity. This isn't a law requiring you to carry your identification, simply to comply with a few basic questions.

It's obvious that Mr. Vorus is trying to stir something up, and that the project he appears to truly be involved in is trying to get cops into a trick bag. Thankfully for the officers who responded, they acted professionally and legally.

+4 Vote up Vote down

horseydeucey · 746 weeks ago

There is no official arbiter of what constitutes a tourist destination, or who is a journalist, in this country. You're certainly not it, and neither am I. Just like there's no arbiter of what is funny, or beautiful, or sad. So, trying to figure out what is or isn't a tourist destination by your standards doesn't mean a thing (except maybe to you).

What does mean something, however, is that there are no laws prohibiting Jerome from doing what he did. The fact that he wasn't arrested is testament to that. Because if he acted illegally, he would have been arrested. I figured that was a pretty clear logical conclusion that anyone would have made.

On the flip side, however, there also is no arbiter of who is a smart, good, informed, or intelligent police officer. The police officer in this case was wrong. That, also, I assumed was fairly clear based on the result of this incident.

So, what's the problem? There are always going to be "would've could'ves." Wanting things to be illegal... even if your flying the "but terrorism!" flag... doesn't automatically make them so.

Bus theft somehow relates to this incident? That's rational. Maybe the next person who photographs something at the National Archives is really planning on stealing the Declaration of Independence in order to decipher the secret, unknown code on the back. I hear solving it makes you rich... and a horrible actor.

Cops in a trick bag? Cry me a river. Cops wrote the book on tricksterism. All of our laws apply everyone equally... just some can expect a more equal application of the law than others.

And I never even once thought to plan my next vacation around popular Flickr subjects, thanks for that tip.

+2 Vote up Vote down

@kara_h · 746 weeks ago

I seem to remember metro promoting itself as a tourist destination ...

+2 Vote up Vote down

Jerome · 746 weeks ago

We should have the US Justice Department raid Google for the suspected assisting "terrorism" and providing things such as this http://goo.gl/maps/mI0z

-2 Vote up Vote down

DailyRider · 747 weeks ago

If they hang 'em all they get the guilty
If they hang 'em all they can not miss
If they hang 'em all they get the guilty
Been a lot of problems solved like this.

Remember they're gonna hang you too.
-- Tom T. Hall

+3 Vote up Vote down

Tim · 747 weeks ago

Some good links regarding photography in transit stations and public places:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/how-to...
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
http://www.rcfp.org/news/mag/33-2/photographers_t...
http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2005/08/...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/nyregion/28abou...

0 Vote up Vote down

nat · 741 weeks ago

What's interesting (and yes, i see everything through the color lens because that's how this country made it) is that if this were a black man or woman - i would cringe watching this anticipating that the policeman would try to physically assault him/her. That's real. Black folks and other people of color don't typically try law enforcement in this way because we know what they're capable of and we don't doubt that they'll show us. Man, white privilege is really a trip!

0 Vote up Vote down

Anon Observer · 738 weeks ago

I witnessed this and ther are some things missing. One, at this time in the USA it would would be negligent for an officer not to ask questions about someone taking pictures of a mass transit sytem. Two, this guy called local police for help and when he did not get what he wanted he started making demands and asking why local police where there when the guy was the one who called them. Three, this guy did everything he could to push police and made quite a scene when he was "switching cameras." This guy was protected by law, should not have been arrested and he wasn't. He was able to walk away after he finally identified himself because police wanted to know who was taking pictures of a mass transit system. This guy kept saying probable cause whic h is the standard for arrest and he did not realize the cop was saying he was being detained under reasonable suspicion to investigate who and why. Once he gave clear answers it looked like he was let go. Police saw a suspicious thing and addressed ii accordingly. It looked like this guy was out to cause trouble.