Hey SF Muni Fare Inspector #32, Photography is Not a Crime
Sir, You Are Not Allowed to Take Pictures on Muni Property!! by What I’m Seeing.com
It seems like day in and day out, increasingly, idiot cops and security guards continue to try and push photographers around. This most recent case is more personal to me because it hits close to home on the SF Muni and happened to a friend of mine Plug1.
Plug1 was doing his usual thing, which is documenting the hell out of daily SF life, when he was approached by an over-zealous muni transit fare cop, Fare Inspector #32.
From Plug1:
“Before I could get the 1st shot off, Fare Inspector #32 started marching towards me, hands in the air, yelling at me to STOP TAKING PICTURES!! So I put down away camera, walked towards him and answered his statement with a question. I asked him if he could cite me the specific Muni code that prohibited a Translink Card carrying passenger from taking pictures of Muni Personal on Muni Property. He could not. Instead he responded that I needed his permission and demanded to see my credentials and the pictures on my camera. He added that in fact, if I was unwilling to turn over possession of my camera to him he would seize my camera and have me arrested.”
Now first off. There is no prohibition against taking personal photographs anywhere publicly accessible in the Muni system. Public photography is allowed on both Muni and BART in the SF public transportation system. Secondly, no cop can ever make you delete images or seize your camera. Photography is a First Amendment right and they have no legal right to demand or do this. If Plug1 was arrested in this case, in fact, he’d have great material for a wrongful arrest case against SF Muni.
It sounds to me like this cop simply didn’t want his photo taken and decided to try and illegally bully Plug1 to get his way. This is an abuse of power. I hope Fare Inspector #32 is disciplined for this.
Now my own policy about shooting strangers is that if they ask me politely, 99% of the time I won’t shoot them or I’ll agree not to publish their image. In fact, over the years I’ve also taken down many images from my Flickrstream, blog, etc. when people have contacted me and asked me to take them down. On the other hand, when someone decides to be a prick about it, like this cop did, I’ll almost always publish their image and bring attention to the fact that they were being a pig — like Fare Inspector #32.
Somebody at Muni needs to inform Fare Inspector #32 that photography is in fact allowed within the muni system and that it’s an abuse of power for him to threaten paying customers with arrest over the crime of photography. Photography is not a crime.
On FriendFeed, this post was liked by 54 people and commented on 10 times
The funniest part of this whole episode is that the city of San Francisco happens to be a place that attracts tourists. Tourists who bring cameras. And tourists who often use public transportation. Of all the transportation agencies who’d crack down on photography, you’d think that MUNI would be last on the list.
Is it just me or does he look like a former drug dealer or gang banger? Maybe there was an underlying reason or guilty conscience about why he was worried over a photo being taken!
Thanks, Thomas.
You’re online reach is far greater than mine — and I hope our posts will encourage Muni to make public a well-thought out and sensible photography policy.
The sad part of all this is that most of us are photographing Muni b/c we rely on it each and every day, and are able to find beauty in its daily minutia. It is a shame that Muni has no obvious current policy available, and worse that its lower level employees feel empowered to make up these “rules” on the fly.
I look forward to one of us getting a response back from the SFMTA in the next few days, and clearing up an issue that has been plaguing local photographers for the past 10 years.
Muni Fare Inspector #32 may have the last laugh:
http://techdirt.com/articles/20090505/1754154758.shtml
[...] via Thomas Hawk [...]
Gary, I’m curious — why does he look like a former drug dealer or gang banger? Really, I want to know.
Thomas (and plug1), thanks for bringing this issue to light once again. Why are people so afraid of folks with cameras?
[...] Hey SF Muni Fare Inspector #32, Photography is Not a Crime … [...]
I’m suprised FI#32 didn’t use the “I’m normally an undercover cop and don’t want my photo taken” excuse.
Recently we had an issue with Glebe police in Sydney, Australia.
We wer holding a peaceful protest outside of a scientology org, when all of a sudden like 6 police officers came along and tried to illegally move us on, stating no permit had been filed (which it had), and demanding that one of our photographers delete footage from his camera. Below are some comments from our forum…
Comment by RSG a member of our party:
“In fact, the police officer said to delete any footage with police in it, as Zhent had done a sweep around of the entire street with his video camera that included us as well as the police. When questioned, the police officer said something about footage of police in uniform will jeopardise those individuals if they later want to go undercover, as it can be used to find out that they’re police. He stated that any footage taken of police is illegal.”
Comment of Zhent photographer in question:
“I was approached and asked to delete footage from my video camera after doing some generic shots of anon and the the org, which the police happened to be standing in front of, it was not actually about the constable doing the move-along announcement.
I was informed in so many words that it is illegal to film police officers, someone else will have to fill in the exact statement here.
I of course questioned this and was told, as RSG said, that footage of police officers could potentially jeopardize them if they went undercover. I don’t believe i was not quoted any exact law about this, and certainly none about required deletion of footage.
I sympathized with their statement but strongly objected to deleting the footage, knowing that I was well within my right to keep it and that being coerced to delete it would be unlawful and an abuse of photographers rights.
However the officer in question firmly persisted, and I didn’t want to cause trouble (or get charged for some ridiculous offense), so I did delete the footage.
I am certainly not happy about all of this and I hope we can use this to bring an understanding to the police about the rights of photographers and the relevant police authority.”
Anyway, we didn’t end up moving on, but they did make us turn off the music, so we sung all our favourite tracks loudly to keep up the spirit.
We have video footage of the cops trying to move us along online here: http://vimeo.com/4232109
I love the picture of him holding up his cell phone with the little camera lens visible. You know that thing people use everyday to take pictures with all over the city, but of course it’s not a ‘dangerous’ camera.
just got a response from Muni. you can read it here: http://bit.ly/lSIDg
[...] Source and Read More: thomashawk.com [...]
[...] Hey SF Muni Fare Inspector #32, Photography is Not a Crime [...]
[...] few days ago I blogged about an incident of [...]