Home

Advertisement

Kynn's LJ - "It's nothing sinister. It's just common sense." [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Kynn

[ website | kynn.com ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

"It's nothing sinister. It's just common sense." [Dec. 30th, 2005|05:29 pm]
Previous Entry Add to Memories Tell a Friend Next Entry
Banjo Dick

So, earlier today, as part of my project to photograph Gloria L. Smith's 1985 Black Heritage Tour of Tucson, Arizona, I did a lot of research at the library with the reference librarians, to determine where Levin's Park was located.

At Levin's Park, Smith wrote, Banjo Dick would play his music after getting off work. In 1985, apparently almost nothing was left of the park, as a new building was being built.

It took a while to pin down where it must be -- because the old roads are gone now, and new skyscrapers have been built since the 1800s, not to mention since the '80s. Plus, Smith's map and addresses were sometimes dubious.

But eventually we determined that the old Levin's Park -- a private park and brewery which was an entertainment center for early Tucson -- was located on what is now the state government building.

So I found a few more sites I had yet to locate, including the elusive Cosmopolitan Hotel, the Old Palace Hotel, the San Xavier Hotel, and Neale's Stables. Which meant I'd located everything, and just had pictures left to take. So I thanked the librarians, and went out to do photography.

Things were pretty easy to figure out the San Xavier, which was just a little north of the old train station on Toole. I even went up to the city office across the street and asked them not only if I could take some pictures out their window, but also if they knew about the apparent renumbering of addresses in the city. Apparently from the early 80s on, they started renumbering the random addresses of the city.

Working my way along the route, I snapped more pictures including a city park and another city hall building which was once the Cosmopolitan. Then I went to the old Levin's Park site, photographed some of the outside, and noticed an inside courtyard. I went inside the state buliding, took pictures of the ceiling (I'll have those for you soon) and started to leave.

"Excuse me," said an Arizona State Policeman. "What are you doing?"

"Um...taking pictures."

"Why are you taking pictures?"

"Umm...for photography purposes."

"Well, you need to show me identification."

"I...what?"

"You do, it's the law."

"Which law is that?"

"It's a new law. I don't know the exact law."

"Um..."

"I'm just asking you to show me your ID, sir."

"You're asking me. Okay. I'm not doing it."

"Why not?"

"..."
"Because this is America. We don't haveto just Show Papers."

"Yes, you do. Now show me your ID so we don't have to do this the hard way and take you in to the office."

"I'm not going to until you tell me the law."

The police officer then called another police officer, saying that he'd corraborate that I needed to show ID. The other cop showed up quickly and again reiterated the demand that I produce ID. "In case anything happens later, we know who you were," explained the first state police officer.

They took me outside. The new cop explained that "Basically what you're doing is trespassing," and once more threatened me with going to the office, whatever that would mean.

I didn't want to give my ID unless they could tell me why I had to, and they never did. So I started taking notes, such as "Basically what you're doing is trespassing."

"Am I being arrested?"

"No, you're being detained while we investigate what you're doing here."

"After 9/11," the second cop said, "Taking photographs of public buildings is something for law enforcement to be concerned about."

I didn't say anything. I just wrote. He insisted that I tell him who I am working for and why I am taking pictures. "If you're doing this for a University of Arizona class, you have to get permission from the building manager."

I scribbled that down.

"Us police officers, we're charged with protection of state property, and this is state property," he said. "You're doing photography for who? For yourself, for a company?"

"These are things we need to know."

I just wrote that down and didn't answer.

"You can write and speak at the same time," he snarled, annoyed at my lack of answer.

"No, I can't, actually, it's not easy for me," I said. Multitasking isn't always easy for nervous ADD people who are trying to get down everything lest they be arrested for terrorism.

"You need to stop writing, and answer our questions."

"These are things we need to know," he repeated.

"What's your first name?" asked the first cop. I looked at him then ignored the question.

"You're making yourself look more suspicious by refusing to give us your ID," the second cop said. "We need to know whether you're a person who goes around to government buildings to incite suspicious behavior."

I looked at the two cops and considered the way my life is going now, and the state of the country. I put my pen in my pocket. "Keep your hands out of your pockets!" growled one of the guards.

At this point in my life, things are somewhat up in the air. I don't really want to have to fight arrest, and there are already test cases for this kind of stuff making their way through the court system. Maybe it wasn't the best choice -- maybe I will regret it later -- but the force of police intimidation gets stronger when you know you're living in a country which is willing to discard the rule of law and our cherished principles.

So, I caved, eventually, sensing the cops were getting even more angry with me. I reached for my wallet -- they stepped back as if going to pull guns and shoot me -- so I said "I'm getting my wallet out now."

I handed it over to the second cop, who started writing it down, confirmed it was my current address, and asked me if I have any outstanding warrants. The first cop continued to ask me questions.

"Why are you here? Have you been taking photographs of over government buildings?" he quizzed.

I didn't answer him.

"Because if you do this somewhere else, you'll get the same thing." Actually, so far nobody had tried to arrest me.

I thanked him for the information.

Then I asked him his name.

"Lieutenant Juarez. Badge 301."

I wrote it down, and then looked up at him. "Your first name?" I asked him, glancing at the first initial of "M. Juarez" on his badge.

"Just Lieutenant."

I shrugged. "You asked me my first name."

"That's because I will either call you by your first name or your last name. You, you will call me 'Lieutenant Juarez.'"

I shrugged again and asked the other cop his name. "Bustamante." He reluctantly gave me his badge number, 536, when I asked for it. I said, "And your rank?" He stared blankly at me.

"He's a lieutenant. Are you one also?"

"Officer. Just officer, that's all you need to know." I wrote that down. He called the police station.

I zapped off a few IMs to my friends via my cell phone's instant messenger. "I'm being asked to show id for taking pictures of the state govt office," I sent to several friends. "Currently detained by two cops."

A few minutes later the seecond cop turned back to me. I guess this means I'm not on the most serious of government watch lists, or something, which is both a relief and somewhat disappointing.

"Next time," he ordered, while I wrote down his exact words, "Next time you need to ask permission. It's just common sense. It's nothing sinister. It's just common sense."

He handed my driver's license back to me.

"Leave. Now."

I started walking away.

The temptation was very strong...

...I somehow managed to resist turning around and snapping a picture of the two of them.

They probably would have broken my expensive camera and kicked me around a bit.

Update: Here are the offending pictures.

Update 2: The relevant Arizona law on identifying yourself to police officers.

LinkReply

Comments:
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
[User Picture]From: [info]literalgirl
2005-12-31 12:54 am (UTC)

(Link)

You probably did the right thing, both by eventually relenting AND by posting. Make a big noise, eh? Sheesh.
[User Picture]From: [info]kynn
2005-12-31 03:13 am (UTC)

(Link)

Yeah, it's hard to know what the "right thing" is in this case.

I am pretty sure it was not "immediately offer identification whenever demanded for whatever reason."

As for whether I should have held out longer and stuck up for my rights...well, I dunno. That one is a harder call.
[User Picture]From: [info]barberio
2005-12-31 01:20 am (UTC)

(Link)

There appears to be no such law in the US Code or Arizona statutues.
[User Picture]From: [info]barberio
2005-12-31 01:46 am (UTC)

(Link)

Nothing in the Tucson municiple code either.
[User Picture]From: [info]jemesuisperdue
2005-12-31 02:00 am (UTC)

(Link)

Hey Kynn, I know people with Nina Trasoff's office and Leal's office. Would you like me to talk to them?
[User Picture]From: [info]kynn
2005-12-31 02:36 am (UTC)

(Link)

Sounds like a good idea. I'm also going to talk to my congressman, and whoever my state senators and reps are.
[User Picture]From: [info]ninjaseg
2005-12-31 02:00 am (UTC)

(Link)

BECAUSE 9/11 COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED HAD THE TERRISTS BEEN PREVENTED FROM TAKING PHOTOS OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
[User Picture]From: [info]kent
2005-12-31 02:22 am (UTC)

(Link)

This kind of thing makes me sick. But it also shows that cops really don't know the laws they're trying to enforce.

In related news, I used to live across the street from this guy.
[User Picture]From: [info]ourika
2005-12-31 02:40 am (UTC)

(Link)

I'm experiencing a strange urge to go buy a camera and start taking pictures of government buildings...
[User Picture]From: [info]sin_agua
2005-12-31 07:57 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Me, too - just to see what happens.
[User Picture]From: [info]beeblism
2005-12-31 03:45 am (UTC)

(Link)

i'm sure that when you report the behavior of these two cops to their department, your congressperson, or any other state authority, they will be not reprimanded but rewarded for their unflagging commitment to the War on Terror.

it's like any bureacracy. everyone's watching their asses to make sure they're not the ones caught holding the bag "next time."

i'm amazed you were able to record so much of the conversation. i can never keep my temper.
[User Picture]From: [info]kynn
2005-12-31 03:52 am (UTC)

(Link)

I just wrote, and wrote, and wrote, and the cop was starting to lose his temper with me.

Then I knew I'd better stop before I got my ass thrown in jail.
[User Picture]From: [info]rauduskoivu
2005-12-31 04:19 am (UTC)

(Link)

That is, in a word, ridiculous, and I'm so sorry.
[User Picture]From: [info]daphnep
2005-12-31 04:25 am (UTC)

(Link)

Good for you. Good for you for not backing down.

The same thing happened to the editor of the "Downtown Tucsonan" newspaper. He ran a full page with the picture he took, and a message to the cops who had detained him, reiterating his right to take pictures of public buidings downtown, and publish them in his newspaper. This would have been...a little less than a year ago. I wish I could find it online for you, but I can't.
[User Picture]From: [info]kynn
2005-12-31 04:29 am (UTC)

(Link)

Oh, cool.
[User Picture]From: [info]speranzosa
2005-12-31 04:59 am (UTC)

(Link)

Good for you for not backing down! My god, what is this, Soviet Russia? More people need to be more concerned about the erosion of our civil liberties... especially when the police "protecting" "us" don't even know the supposed laws they are enforcing. Sheesh.
[User Picture]From: [info]istealboyswings
2005-12-31 05:01 am (UTC)

(Link)

(saw your post on SOS)

Aw, man, that's rediculous. Just...rediculous. And sadly funny at the same time. This fear of terrorism is getting to a pretty sad point. I think you did a good thing, though. More people should make it a point to act against such paranoid laws and behavior.
[User Picture]From: [info]springheel_jack
2005-12-31 11:51 pm (UTC)

(Link)

It's spelled "ridiculous."
[User Picture]From: [info]jlassen
2005-12-31 06:41 am (UTC)

(Link)

Jesus man. Hang in there. After hearing about the woman on the bus in Colorado, and now you, I can pretty much see that we now live a land where law enforcement feels justified in demanding "papers please" no matter what the circumstance. If everybody is a possible terrorist, there is ALWAYS probable cause.

file a complaint with the department. You've got their names and shit. I mean shit, with all your peace activism and shit, you are probably already being watched.
From: [info]dungeoneer
2005-12-31 07:10 am (UTC)

(Link)

Please find enclosed one round of applause.

Simply inspiring.
From: [info]ex_peacock902
2005-12-31 07:39 am (UTC)

(Link)

hey i think you seem cool, i would like to add you as a friend? keep up the good work, peace
[User Picture]From: [info]azikale
2005-12-31 12:07 pm (UTC)

(Link)

You were so brave. I would have just caved in straight away. Well done!

(here from sos_usa btw)
[User Picture]From: [info]jjjiii
2005-12-31 02:21 pm (UTC)

(Link)

This happened to me, too, back in October or November of 2001.

I had just bought a new digital camera, and wanted to take some pictures of the city where I live. I was told by the security at the public library that I could not take pictures inside the building (outside was OK) without permission. I asked where I needed to go to obtain permission, and was told "the eleventh floor". So I walked in to the building, and just took pictures wherever I liked, without obtaining the necessary permission. Nothing bad happened, either to me, or to the library. As it turns out, I was not a terrorist after all. I did have long hair and wore an army jacket, so I know that means I'm suspicious. But I'm actually a good guy.

It's a public library!! Public! In a (supposedly) free country!

Fortunately, I wasn't detained or forced to give ID or anything silly like that, but just being challenged made my blood boil.

I've seen similar stories all over the place between then and now. I've personally seen, on more than one occasion, 2-3 squad cars surrounding a photographer on a bicycle outside the perimeter fence of the local airport.

Law enforcement has completely lost its marbles. They obviously think that anyone with a camera is dangerous. We're all potentially photographing targets that will help a future terrorist plot. Or photographing police being bad. They don't like it when they can't write up their reports how they want them, without such pesky things like "evidence" or "the truth" coming up and contradicting their version of events. When it comes to testimony, the courts tend to take a cop's word over anyone else's, as we all know cops never lie because the work they do is dangerous and we should constantly be thanking them for risking their lives to keep us (well, wealthy property owners, anyway) safe. But it's harder to keep up that image of not lying when you have photographs and video which show the truth to be somewhat different from the official report. That's the real reason they don't like photographers. That, and their culture of paranoia has them scared shitless, thinking that everyone they meet could potentially be a criminal, insane and violent, or a terrorist.
[User Picture]From: [info]anaserene
2005-12-31 03:42 pm (UTC)

actually

(Link)

I think the police acted extremely professionally from this transcript and kynn acted...well...can't find the right word... irresponsibly? unreasonably? This reminds me of the woman who refused to comply with cops requests for her to stop talking on her cell and turn her cell phone off while they gave her instructions. While they went too far too fast, tasing her, these coppers seemed reasonable.

So I did a quick legal search on this and here is what westlaw comes up with:

A.R.S. § 41-795
The police officers who are employed pursuant to § 41-794 have the authority and law enforcement responsibility for the protection of the state capitol building and grounds and all real property and buildings under the jurisdiction of the department as prescribed by § 41-791 and persons who are on this property. Police officers may make arrests and issue citations for crimes or traffic offenses and for a violation of a rule adopted under the provisions of § 41-796.

Here is some discussion about a similar event in NYC (I love how so many people in the US say things like "I have the right to [insert action here]" when they don't really fully know the law":

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee/forums?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=28609695&m=533008763631

[User Picture]From: [info]kynn
2005-12-31 03:55 pm (UTC)

Re: actually

(Link)

I think the police acted extremely professionally from this transcript and kynn acted...well...can't find the right word... irresponsibly? unreasonably?

What's unreasonable?

It seems to me you'd only think it's unreasonable if you believe that the police have the authority to question anyone at any time for anything, and then threaten them with arrest for refusing to answer.

The police officers who are employed pursuant to § 41-794 have the authority and law enforcement responsibility for the protection of the state capitol building and grounds and all real property and buildings under the jurisdiction of the department as prescribed by § 41-791 and persons who are on this property. Police officers may make arrests and issue citations for crimes or traffic offenses and for a violation of a rule adopted under the provisions of § 41-796.

This says that the state police have the authority to act as cops on state property. Sure. Nobody doubts that.

Where exactly are you getting that they have the right to interrogate people on their actions for any purpose, and demand that they produce papers?

And yes, I know that I certainly could have gotten out of the situation easily by telling the first cop what I was doing, and he would have told me not to do it again, and I would have shrugged sheepishly, said "oops!" and left.

I love how so many people in the US say things like "I have the right to [insert action here]" when they don't really fully know the law"

So let's hear the law. The cop sure didn't know the law, or if he did, he refused to tell me about it. You seem to be smugly condemning me for not knowing what the applicable law is, so please inform me as to which laws I violated.
[User Picture]From: [info]anaserene
2005-12-31 04:01 pm (UTC)

don't put words in my mouth

(Link)

I did not say that you were in violation of the law but that they had probable cause to detain and question you under the citation I provided, as well as the Patriot Act.
[User Picture]From: [info]kynn
2005-12-31 04:08 pm (UTC)

Re: don't put words in my mouth

(Link)

Probable cause to detain and question me under suspicion of violating which law?

Which sections of the USAPATRIOT Act cover the state building in Tucson and taking photographs of it?

I'd love to hear, since you're accusing me of not fully knowing the law. Can you quote the section of the Patriot Act which covers this situation? Thanks!
[User Picture]From: [info]anaserene
2005-12-31 04:50 pm (UTC)

the section (the act may be unconstitional but for the moment it is still "good" law)

(Link)

in particular Title I Section 102:

Title I – Diminishing Personal Privacy by Removing Checks on Government Intelligence and Criminal Surveillance Powers


Title I amends critical statutes that govern intelligence surveillance and criminal surveillance.  Both forms of surveillance are subject to Fourth Amendment limitations.  See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (criminal surveillance); United States v. United States District Court (“Keith”), 407 U.S. 297 (1972) (intelligence surveillance).  Yet while traditional searches are governed by warrant procedures largely drawn from the common law, wiretapping and other forms of electronic surveillance are governed by standards and procedures embodied in two federal statutes that respond to Katz and Keith – Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2510-22, which governs surveillance of criminal suspects, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801-63 which governs surveillance of foreign powers and agents of a foreign power for intelligence purposes.



Making it easier for the government to initiate surveillance and wiretapping, including of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents, through the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court  (Sections 101-111).  The draft bill’s proposed amendments to FISA attack key statutory concepts that are critical to providing appropriate limits and meaningful judicial supervision over wiretapping and other intrusive electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes.  These limits were approved by Congress in 1978 because of a history of abuse by government agents who placed wiretaps and other listening devices on political activists, journalists, rival political parties and candidates, and other innocent targets.  These so-called “national security wiretaps” and other covert surveillance were undertaken without any court supervision and without even the slightest suspicion that the targets of such surveillance were involved in criminal activities or were acting on behalf of any foreign government or political organization.  This pattern of abuse culminated in the crimes of Watergate, which led to substantial reforms and limits on spying for intelligence purposes.



FISA represented a compromise between civil libertarians, who wanted to ban “national security wiretaps” altogether, and apologists for Presidential authority, who claimed such unchecked intelligence surveillance authority was inherent in the President’s Article II power over foreign relations.  The Congress chose to authorize intelligence wiretaps without evidence of crime, subject to a number of key restraints.  One of these restraints, separating intelligence gathering from criminal investigations, has been significantly weakened by the USA PATRIOT Act.  The USA PATRIOT Act abolished the “primary purpose” test – the requirement that FISA surveillance could only be used if the primary purpose of surveillance was gathering of foreign intelligence, and not criminal prosecution or some other purpose.



The draft bill eliminates or substantially weakens a number of the remaining constraints on intelligence surveillance approved by Congress.  Taken as a whole, these changes go a long way to undermine limits on intelligence surveillance essential to preserving civil liberties and to preventing a repeat of the wiretapping abuses of the J. Edgar Hoover and Watergate eras.


[User Picture]From: [info]anaserene
2005-12-31 04:50 pm (UTC)

Re: the section (the act may be unconstitional but for the moment it is still "good" law)

(Link)

Any government official acting within the scope of his employment already enjoys “qualified immunity” from charges of violating Fourth Amendment or other constitutional rights – i.e., an official cannot be punished or held civilly liable if a reasonable government official would not have known his or her conduct was illegal.  See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).  Providing additional protection to government officials who engage  in wiretaps or searches without a court order, where a reasonable official would know those wiretaps or searches were clearly illegal, would take away any incentive for such officials to question an illegal authorization by the President, Attorney General or other high official.
[User Picture]From: [info]sabotabby
2005-12-31 05:06 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Wow. Just...wow.

I think this story needs to get farther than LiveJournal. Maybe the newspapers?
[User Picture]From: [info]kynn
2005-12-31 05:14 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Eh. If I had been arrested it would have been appropriate for the papers. As it is, they "just" detained and intimidated me before I partially caved. So there's not much story there.
[User Picture]From: [info]dalhagen
2005-12-31 05:18 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Mm.. My life hasn't been that interesting for a while now. Thinking about it, I'd probably not be so good at resisting that 'parting shot' that you did. Mh...
[User Picture]From: [info]kynn
2005-12-31 05:20 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Part of me wishes I'd done it, once I'd gotten on a road or sidewalk. Sadly, though, there was no place that was obviously "extra super special" public more than the building itself, due to the layout of the building. There wasn't a place I could cross the street and photograph the cops.
[User Picture]From: [info]the_lissa
2005-12-31 05:19 pm (UTC)

(Link)

That is scary and ridiculous.
[User Picture]From: [info]sekhmets_song
2006-01-01 02:40 am (UTC)

(Link)

That's really frightening, Kynn. I think you did the smart thing by eventually giving over your ID, but the right thing by resisting. The Patriot Act, and the similar local laws, are so far beyond what the Constitution allows that it is time for people to start waking up and realizing this laws are not for our protection be instead meant to be used to control us. So many people just quietly went along with the passing (and renewal) of the Patriot Act as they envision it only being used upon those shady people who are out to hurt them. I can't tell you how many times I have heard the lame "Well, if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about." That's bullshit (and if you've been in this country and were a minority, held the incorrect politics, weren't of obvious middle-class WASP "respectability you would already know what bullshit it is.) The average American isn't the one defining "wrong." Those who hold power and are using it to their own ends are defining it. And they are abusing it, without a doubt. The Constitution was set up to protect us from just such abuse, but we are sitting back, as a nation, and allowing the Constitution to be gutted, all out of racist fear. We, as a nation, should be ashamed that it has come to this.
But, apparently, if the cops shoot us in a professional manner, it's all good.
[User Picture]From: [info]cargoweasel
2006-01-01 03:04 am (UTC)

(Link)

You might not have been on a government watch list before, but you probably are now.

You did the right thing. This is a slippery slope we're on, and sliding faster.
[User Picture]From: [info]kynn
2006-01-01 04:47 am (UTC)

(Link)

It's sorta disappointing that I wasn't before, although man I am relieved.

I mean, c'mon, Peace Works! in Temecula Valley was at LEAST as threatening as a Quakers meeting. For god's sake, we got together on 4th of July and sang PEACE SONGS! What more do you have to know?
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Advertisement