See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Do not photograph 3701 N. Fairfax Dr., Arlington, VA
Source:
KWM
URL Source: http://mccammon.org/keith/2007/07/1 ... 701-n-fairfax-dr-arlington-va/
Published: Jul 11, 2007
Author: Keith McCammon
Post Date: 2008-06-21 09:36:38 by Rotara
Keywords: None
Views: 217
Comments: 7
This is Officer Malara, Arlington County Police Department, working a private detail commissioned by the occupants of 3701 N. Fairfax Dr., Arlington, VA. Officer Malara stopped to take information from a friend and I on the grounds that he observed us taking photographs in a “high security area.” And by “taking photographs in a ‘high security area’” I mean being in possession of a camera while walking down the street opposite several blocks of non-descript office buildings, less than a block from the Virginia Square-GMU Metro station. Unfortunately, that we weren’t breaking any law, nor were we disobeying any posted warning became a moot point once we were asked for identification (unlike public photography, failure to comply with a request for identification by a police officer is grounds for detention). So, we provided the information that was requested of us, were asked to delete any photographs that we had taken of the facility at 3701 (the photo above was the first that I’d taken), and off we went. Could we have plead our case on the scene? Sure. Would it have done any good? Doubtful. Once you’ve been stopped and asked for identification, your options are more or less limited to compliance or a free ride to the county jail. Being harassed for photography in public sucks, but it sucks a lot less than being booked. More importantly, I had plans to meet family and friends for lunch at the Old Brogue, and wasn’t about to cancel on account of this nonsense. So, what to do? I chose to file a complaint (PDF) with the Arlington County Police Internal Affairs Section (IAS). The following were submitted to IAS on 11 May 07: A summary of my requests: On 11 Jun 07, following several discussions with my investigator, I received the following in response: A summary of the outcome: I lack the motivation to address the points in these responses one-by-one. But suffice it to say that, while I agree with the intent of this policy, I believe the implementation to be flawed. The intent, of course, is to protect . . . something. The implementation, on the other hand, does nothing more than perpetuate fear, and impose a hardship on law-abiding citizens. These policies, containing vague terminology and lists of items that might at some point be used by someone to do something bad, exist so that the police can find just cause to stop people who legitimately give them the creeps. And to the extent that one of these policies might one day prevent someone from doing something really bad, I’m fine with them. But, as the chief points out in his response, meeting one of the criteria on such a list does not a suspicious person make. Officers are urged to “exercise appropriate discretion.” And in this case, I find it very hard to believe that exercise of appropriate discretion would yield that two young men, casually walking down a busy public street taking photographs, who happen to be opposite some unmarked but supposedly high security facility, qualify as suspicious. Further, setting aside the issue of officer discretion, the most disturbing aspect of this incident is the simple fact that we had no way of knowing that we were acting in a manner that might have been so much as considered suspicious. If the subject in question is devoid of any type of external marking or warning sign, one should have no reason to suspect that it cannot be photographed (or approached while in possession of photographic equipment). And it follows that one should certainly have no reason to suspect that photographing such a subject might land one’s name on a list, or in a database. Reasonable, law-abiding people tend to avoid these types of things when it can be helped. Thus, my request for a list of locations within Arlington County that are unmarked, but at which photography is either prohibited or discouraged according to some (public or private) policy. Of course, such a list does not exist. Catch-22. The absurdity of this type of situation is clear: We’re being penalized for violating poorly documented, questionably legal (an argument that I’m certainly unqualified to make) and arbitrarily enforced policies. We’re not being told what is expected of us. And to the extent that we are able, we need to take a stand. We need to know our rights, document the fact that we’ve been wronged, and work for change. And if we fail to enact change, the very least that we can do is make it such a pain in the ass to harass photographers that those who would otherwise jump at the chance will think twice, if for no other reason than to avoid a mountain of paperwork and an internal affairs investigation. UPDATE1: For those who have expressed interest, I’ve compiled of list of sites where further discussion on this topic can be found. If I’m missing one (or more), please submit the link in the comments over there, as opposed to here. UPDATE2: See my comment below regarding guidelines for discussion–they are few, and should not be unexpected. No racial slurs. No name-calling. No wishing other participants harm. And please don’t re-submit antagonizing comments because you think you’re being censored–I’m approving anything that doesn’t meet the criteria that I’ve just listed, as quickly as I’m able. Some type of site-wide, formal discussion policy to come . . . UPDATE3: There’s some dispute in the comments as to the state of “stop and identify” laws in Virginia and Arlington County. It’s too much to cover in an update, so I’ve written more on the subject here.
Poster Comment: Someone here coined the phrase "North American Soviet Union". I believe that is an understatement.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
#5. To: Rotara (#0)
That's his first mistake no it's not. This guy is way too malleable. For a guy who on the one hand supposedly has the tendency to resist, reading these comments i'm surprised he didnt thank the officer for detaining him. he has some more work to do because he doesnt seem to 'get it'. Until he realizes they arent here to help he will neve be successful.
I agree, he's a total amateur. That being said, it's instructive because he's somewhat 'typical'. ;-)
#7. To: Rotara (#6)
At the same time I have to commend him for having somewhat of an understanding of his rights and a spirit of resistance. believe me he is a rare breed. Despite the fact he repeatedly (ironically and annoyingly ) defended the govt's position and motives, in 2008 such a prson who would resist at all would be considered a revolutionary. also, no one has tendency to go to the trouble of calling the local govt out and demanding all the docs this guy did, and then publishing it all in a nice coherent report. I was stopped at a checkpoint illegally last week and i did call the cop station about it at the moment, talked with the watch commander and told him i thought it was unconstitutional and asked what stat. authority they have for demanding license,, (he then replied it was voluntary! opposite of what cop at checkpoint told me) but I havent followed up. I was on my way to work and did not have time to risk being detained but i should not have complied in showing them my license as they requested,. because what they did was illegal. i asked the pig 'do i have to show you my license?' and it turns out from all i have read since then, not 100% verified yet, but that in CA at a checkpoint, that is not compulsory. so what he did was a blatant violation of my rights. as some statists would say 'aww come on, dont make a big deal of it' or some such nonsense. they are good slaves. So my point is, i respect this guys efforts.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestBut suffice it to say that, while I agree with the intent of this policy,
The intent, of course, is to protect . . . something.
And to the extent that one of these policies might one day prevent someone from doing something really bad, I’m fine with them.
#6. To: Artisan (#5)
Replies to Comment # 6. I agree, he's a total amateur
End Trace Mode for Comment # 6.