Open Carry Encounter (Tacoma PD, at US. Dept. of Homeland Security Detention Center

Alpine · Mar 12, 2014

I enjoy your videos. Keep up the photography.

OC for ME · Mar 12, 2014

Primus said:
Pretty sure it is depending on the "facility".

Difference between your house and a facility is no one cares about your house to blow it up or try to infiltrate to do damage.

I'm pretty sure I can see inside your house with binoculars. Is that cool? Since its "public". What about your back yard? Sure you have a fence, but I can get a plane or a ladder. Would that be ok to take photos of your family hanging out by the pool?
I sincerely hope your answers are no and that you would confront or call the cops on said person watching your house.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Court cases abound on the "seeing" into a home. You walk around necked in your house, with the curtains/shades open, expect to be seen if someone is looking.

I don't call the cops on folks snapping a photo of my house.

If they are going to some extra lengths to see into my home, I approach and engage them in conversation. I ask invasive questions, take their photo, record their voice. I follow them to their vehicle. For some unknown reason folks who like to snap photos of my house don't come back. I repeat the process for any of my neighbors homes on my street. Snap a photo from the street, free country. there ain't no law that say I can engage you in a "consensual" manner.

Primus · Mar 12, 2014

RogueReflections said:
In this video, I was documenting a small protest at the U.S. Dept. Of Homeland Security, Southwest Detention Center, Port of Tacoma, Tacoma, WA (10 MAR 2014) I was approached by Tacoma PD Officer D. Reda. This officer represented himself, his department, and law enforcement, as a whole, in a professional and positive light. He is the benchmark for what other officers should strive for.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-SNZydpaDg

Fallschirmjäger said:
Pretty sure federal courthouses aren't among those 'facilities', maybe you know one that is illegal to film, or are you just speculatin'?

As to the legality of photographing the inside of someone's house, it depends on if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in that part of the house. Photographing, even with a high power lens someone at their dinner table, legal, in their bath? no bueno.

So, let's say someone does call da coppers and they show up and begin asking questions. The photographer refuses to answer. What's their next step, the "it all depends on the totality of the circumstances" card?
Are we going to 'move the goalposts' in order to manufacture circumstances that weren't apparent in your original post?

sudden valley gunner said:
Cite.

It says he was at a US homeland security "detention center". I personally don't know what that is. Is that a holding facility for illegals? For terrorists? Is it a court house?

I can cite 18USC 795 - photographing and sketching defense installations.

Says clearly need installation commander to approve any photographing of the base.

Again... I said it depends on the installation. I have no idea if this place falls under that category. I was pretty sure there was something saying you can't just walk up to an installation and take photos or video.

Also I'm sure there's case law and local regs and a million other things determining what facilities you can photograph.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

mikeyb · Mar 12, 2014

Primus said:
It says he was at a US homeland security "detention center". I personally don't know what that is. Is that a holding facility for illegals? For terrorists? Is it a court house?

I can cite 18USC 795 - photographing and sketching defense installations.

Says clearly need installation commander to approve any photographing of the base.

Again... I said it depends on the installation. I have no idea if this place falls under that category. I was pretty sure there was something saying you can't just walk up to an installation and take photos or video.

Also I'm sure there's case law and local regs and a million other things determining what facilities you can photograph.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

I refer you to:
[h=2]§102-74.420 (http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?rgn=div5&node=41:3.1.1.3.22#41:3.1.1.3.22.3.335.12)[/h]

[h=2]§102-74.420 What is the policy concerning photographs for news, advertising or commercial purposes?[/h]Except where security regulations, rules, orders, or directives apply or a Federal court order or rule prohibits it, persons entering in or on Federal property may take photographs of—
(a) Space occupied by a tenant agency for non-commercial purposes only with the permission of the occupying agency concerned;
(b) Space occupied by a tenant agency for commercial purposes only with written permission of an authorized official of the occupying agency concerned; and
(c) Building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums for news purposes.

Recent (2010) court case: http://www.nyclu.org/files/releases/Final_Stip_and_Order_10.18.10.pdf: (emphasis added)

FPS will provide a written instruction to its officers and employees engaged in law enforcement, stating that for federal courthouses under the protective jurisdiction of FPS, there are currently no general security regulations prohibiting exterior photography by individuals from publicly accessible spaces, absent a written local rule, regulation, or order. The instruction will also inform FPS officers and employees of the public's general right to photograph the exterior of federal courthouses from publicly accessible spaces. Counsel for defendants will provide written notice to counsel for plaintiff upon issuance of such a written instruction.
[Kicker]
3. Nothing in this agreement precludes FPS or the United States, or any department, agency, agent, officer, or employee of the United States (collectively, the "Government") or any
law-enforcement officer from taking any legally permissible law-enforcement action, including but not limited to approaching any individual taking photographs and asking for the voluntary
provision of information such as the purpose of taking the photographs or the identity of the individual, or taking lawful steps to ascertain whether unlawful activity, or reconnaissance for the
purpose of a terrorist or unlawful act, is being undertaken.

Furthermore,

Since Musumeci had been charged with violating a regulation that applied to all federal property, not just courthouses, the NYCLU hold the position that the settlement in effect covers photography [of] all federal buildings.

And last little bit- If you're going to cite a code/law, get it right and not selectively pull out the part that supports your viewpoint. The USC clearly states (emphasis added):

Whenever, in the interests of national defense, the President defines certain vital military and naval installations or equipment as requiring protection against the general dissemination of information relative thereto, it shall be unlawful to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map, or graphical representation of such vital military and naval installations or equipment without first obtaining permission of the commanding officer of the military or naval post, camp, or station, or naval vessels, military and naval aircraft, and any separate military or naval command concerned, or higher authority, and promptly submitting the product obtained to such commanding officer or higher authority for censorship or such other action as he may deem necessary.
(b) Whoever violates this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Primus · Mar 12, 2014

mikeyb said:
I refer you to:
[h=2]§102-74.420 (http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?rgn=div5&node=41:3.1.1.3.22#41:3.1.1.3.22.3.335.12)[/h]

Recent (2010) court case: http://www.nyclu.org/files/releases/Final_Stip_and_Order_10.18.10.pdf: (emphasis added)

Furthermore,

And last little bit- If you're going to cite a code/law, get it right and not selectively pull out the part that supports your viewpoint. The USC clearly states (emphasis added):

First, that's great you cited a bunch of stuff about courthouses. Was this a court house? I asked that multiple times and no one answered.

Second, it says entrances to building and public space.. I would submit that the gated security entrance to a facilities would be different then a front door to a building.

Third, everything you cited specifically says unless there is a rule or regulation that says otherwise. Do we know if this facility has said rules?

Finally, I've said at least three times that it depends on the facility. Do we know if this facility is declared vital interest by the president or whoever? Probably not right. So this is just peeing in the wind.

My point was DEPENDING on the facility (4th time) you can't just walk up and photograph it. If this is indeed a protected court house then so be it he's clearly good to go (if no other regulation or rule saying he can't). If its some other kind of "facility" then he may have been in the wrong.

I was asked for a cite and provided it.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

mikeyb · Mar 12, 2014

Primus said:
First, that's great you cited a bunch of stuff about courthouses. Was this a court house? I asked that multiple times and no one answered.

Second, it says entrances to building and public space.. I would submit that the gated security entrance to a facilities would be different then a front door to a building.

Third, everything you cited specifically says unless there is a rule or regulation that says otherwise. Do we know if this facility has said rules?

Finally, I've said at least three times that it depends on the facility. Do we know if this facility is declared vital interest by the president or whoever? Probably not right. So this is just peeing in the wind.

My point was DEPENDING on the facility (4th time) you can't just walk up and photograph it. If this is indeed a protected court house then so be it he's clearly good to go (if no other regulation or rule saying he can't). If its some other kind of "facility" then he may have been in the wrong.

I was asked for a cite and provided it.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Your "cite" wasn't applicable to the situation. Your cite was about military facilities and the security measures enacted by Presidential Order.

I'm not going to hold your hand. If you can find some random piece of the USC to support your flimsy argument and position, you can take two seconds and Googlefu it. http://m.ice.gov/detention-facilities/facilities/cscnwwa.htm It's not hard.

Again, the cited court case did feature a court house as the locality of the event; however, if you actually read the decision and the position of the NYCLU on that decision, you would see that it is ALL federal facilities. I quoted and bolded the important points so people wouldn't have to search the entire case for the relevant justification for the dismissal of the case.

There are no laws prohibiting the photography of federal facilities. FPS of facilities were provided with instructions: https://nppa.org/sites/default/files/FPS-Photography-Bulletin-8-2-2010-redacted-1[2]-1.pdf

The lack of posting of laws prohibiting photography means there are no laws.

Jeff Hayes · Mar 12, 2014

Primus said:
First, that's great you cited a bunch of stuff about courthouses. Was this a court house? I asked that multiple times and no one answered.

Second, it says entrances to building and public space.. I would submit that the gated security entrance to a facilities would be different then a front door to a building.

Third, everything you cited specifically says unless there is a rule or regulation that says otherwise. Do we know if this facility has said rules?

Finally, I've said at least three times that it depends on the facility. Do we know if this facility is declared vital interest by the president or whoever? Probably not right. So this is just peeing in the wind.

My point was DEPENDING on the facility (4th time) you can't just walk up and photograph it. If this is indeed a protected court house then so be it he's clearly good to go (if no other regulation or rule saying he can't). If its some other kind of "facility" then he may have been in the wrong.

I was asked for a cite and provided it.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

If you are in a public place you can take all the pictures of the outside of a federal building you desire. The rules you cite are for once you are in or on the facility, how can they have a ruole for an area they do not control. How stupid would our government be if they left secret info out in the open for anyone to see? Besides if say a terrorist wanted pictures of anything they can see for m the street that can be done with put anyone knowing they do not have to get out in the street and expose them selves.

As far as my home goes if someone can see in from a public place they are also free to take all the pictures they desire not a thing you can do about it. This has been ruled on over and over again.

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/...-federal-building/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

http://www.photographybay.com/2011/...letin-on-photographers-and-federal-buildings/

http://www.photoattorney.com/wp-con...raphing-the-Exterior-of-Federal-Buildings.pdf Page 2 says it all.

sudden valley gunner · Mar 12, 2014

Jeff Hayes said:
If you are in a public place you can take all the pictures of the outside of a federal building you desire. The rules you cite are for once you are in or on the facility, how can they have a ruole for an area they do not control. How stupid would our government be if they left secret info out in the open for anyone to see? Besides if say a terrorist wanted pictures of anything they can see for m the street that can be done with put anyone knowing they do not have to get out in the street and expose them selves.

As far as my home goes if someone can see in from a public place they are also free to take all the pictures they desire not a thing you can do about it. This has been ruled on over and over again.

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/...-federal-building/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

http://www.photographybay.com/2011/...letin-on-photographers-and-federal-buildings/

http://www.photoattorney.com/wp-con...raphing-the-Exterior-of-Federal-Buildings.pdf Page 2 says it all.

+1

Fallschirjmäger · Mar 12, 2014

Jeff Hayes said:
If you are in a public place you can take all the pictures of the outside of a federal building you desire. The rules you cite are for once you are in or on the facility, how can they have a rule for an area they do not control. How stupid would our government be if they left secret info out in the open for anyone to see? Besides if say a terrorist wanted pictures of anything they can see for m the street that can be done with put anyone knowing they do not have to get out in the street and expose them selves.

As far as my home goes if someone can see in from a public place they are also free to take all the pictures they desire not a thing you can do about it. This has been ruled on over and over again.
http://www.photoattorney.com/wp-con...raphing-the-Exterior-of-Federal-Buildings.pdf

sudden valley gunner said:
+1

+2
18 USC 795 says in part, "... it shall be unlawful to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map, or graphical representation of such vital military and naval installations or equipment..." That would mean it would be illegal for me to visit my local base and then once home draw a map of how to get to the PX from the front gate. Somehow I don't think that's true.
Additionally, if one were to read the 'NOTES' section, by virtue of Ex. Ord. No. 10104, Feb. 1, 1950, 15 F.R. 597,

All military, naval, or air-force installations and equipment
Any military, naval, or air-force reservation, post, arsenal, proving ground, range, mine field, camp, base, airfield, fort, yard, station, district, or area.
Any commercial establishment engaged in the development or manufacture of classified [equipment] for the Army, Navy, or Air Force.
All military, naval, or air-force aircraft, weapons, ammunition, vehicles, ships, vessels, instruments, engines, manufacturing machinery, tools, devices, or any other equipment whatsoever,

.. are "vital military and naval installations or equipment."

So, taking a photograph of a C-130 as it flies overhead is apparently illegal, even though I can probably lay my hands on dozens if not hundreds of such photographs. I wonder if everyone who attends an open house air show can prove they have the installation commander's approval for their photos?

OC for ME · Mar 12, 2014

Fallschirmjäger said:
<snip> So, taking a photograph of a C-130 as it flies overhead is apparently illegal, even though I can probably lay my hands on dozens if not hundreds of such photographs. I wonder if everyone who attends an open house air show can prove they have the installation commander's approval for their photos?

Uh, if you are permitted on base, without having a military ID card, your camera is likely allowed to. Base commanders do not have to give you specific permission, he only needs to order security forces to not enforce the no photo(s) rules.

Anyway, the citizen is clearly photographing cops, he says so on video to the cop, and not the "installation." Unless, of course, Google Earth has been held liable for photographing Area 51.

mikeyb · Mar 12, 2014

Fallschirmjäger said:
+2
18 USC 795 says in part, "... it shall be unlawful to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map, or graphical representation of such vital military and naval installations or equipment..." That would mean it would be illegal for me to visit my local base and then once home draw a map of how to get to the PX from the front gate. Somehow I don't think that's true.
Additionally, if one were to read the 'NOTES' section, by virtue of Ex. Ord. No. 10104, Feb. 1, 1950, 15 F.R. 597,

All military, naval, or air-force installations and equipment

Any military, naval, or air-force reservation, post, arsenal, proving ground, range, mine field, camp, base, airfield, fort, yard, station, district, or area.

Any commercial establishment engaged in the development or manufacture of classified [equipment] for the Army, Navy, or Air Force.

All military, naval, or air-force aircraft, weapons, ammunition, vehicles, ships, vessels, instruments, engines, manufacturing machinery, tools, devices, or any other equipment whatsoever,

.. are "vital military and naval installations or equipment."

So, taking a photograph of a C-130 as it flies overhead is apparently illegal, even though I can probably lay my hands on dozens if not hundreds of such photographs. I wonder if everyone who attends an open house air show can prove they have the installation commander's approval for their photos?

The Presidential order: Ex. Ord. No. 10104. Definitions of Vital Military and Naval Installations and Equipment applies to items deemed “top secret”, “secret”, “confidential”, or “restricted”. If they're flying a C-130 in broad daylight, it's pretty much a given that it is neither confidential nor secret, or any other classifications, thus not subject to the USC.

Which is neither here nor there, since that USC deals with military installations, which the US Port of Tacoma Detention Center is decidedly not.

Fallschirjmäger · Mar 12, 2014

mikeyb said:
The Presidential order: Ex. Ord. No. 10104. Definitions of Vital Military and Naval Installations and Equipment applies to items deemed “top secret”, “secret”, “confidential”, or “restricted”. If they're flying a C-130 in broad daylight, it's pretty much a given that it is neither confidential nor secret, or any other classifications, thus not subject to the USC.

I happily stand corrected, any "military, naval, or air-force installations and equipment not classified, designated, or marked .... “top secret”, “secret”, “confidential”, or “restricted”...." may freely be photographed.

RogueReflections · Mar 12, 2014

NavyLCDR

NavyLCDR said:
Man, I would hate to see the reactions if someone were standing in line at Wal Mart, openly carrying, and the cop behind them in line said, "Hi, how's it going today?"

Holy crap..."Why are you asking? I don't have to answer that. I have my rights, you call your supervisor and I will call my lawyer!" Good grief....

Yes, I would hate that video as well. This was a casual encounter. This was a professional officer responding, as directed, to a call. He did nothing to over-step his boundaries, and I was appreciative of it. I believe in posting videos of positive interactions, as well as negative ones. I wish it was as easy to obtain good video, as it is to obtain video of officers who act out of control. Officer Reda should be identified, supported, and be a shining example to his fellow officers.

- Rogue Reflections -

Fallschirjmäger · Mar 12, 2014

NavyLCDR said:
Man, I would hate to see the reactions if someone were standing in line at Wal Mart, openly carrying, and the cop behind them in line said, "Hi, how's it going today?"

Holy crap..."Why are you asking? I don't have to answer that. I have my rights, you call your supervisor and I will call my lawyer!" Good grief....

Your pardon, Sir, but...
Did you just set up a scenario and then proceed to say how silly that same scenario was that you yourself just set up?
Does that remind you of say.... building a man out of a combustible substance, maybe like straw and then proceeding to demolish that same man of straw?

I'm not saying you're wrong for having done so, but I also wouldn't blame anyone for not defending a scenario that only you have advanced.

Gallowmere · Mar 12, 2014

Fallschirmjäger said:
Your pardon, Sir, but...
Did you just set up a scenario and then proceed to say how silly that same scenario was that you yourself just set up?
Does that remind you of say.... building a man out of a combustible substance, maybe like straw and then proceeding to demolish that same man of straw?

I'm not saying you're wrong for having done so, but I also wouldn't blame anyone for not defending a scenario that only you have advanced.

You don't watch much YouTube do you?

RogueReflections · Mar 13, 2014

Alpine:

Alpine said:
I enjoy your videos. Keep up the photography.

Thanks a lot, I appreciate that. My actual photography (what I have posted so far anyway) is on my Facebook page, under the same name: Rogue Reflections.

Fallschirjmäger · Mar 13, 2014

Gallowmere said:
You don't watch much YouTube do you?

What is this youtube thing? Is it something you kids on the interwebs have? I don't even have a computer.

OC for ME · Mar 13, 2014

NavyLCDR said:
Man, I would hate to see the reactions if someone were standing in line at Wal Mart, openly carrying, and the cop behind them in line said, "Hi, how's it going today?"

Holy crap..."Why are you asking? I don't have to answer that. I have my rights, you call your supervisor and I will call my lawyer!" Good grief....

Now that right there is funny, I don't care who you are.

Good grief....

Difdi · Mar 13, 2014

Primus said:
I can cite 18USC 795 - photographing and sketching defense installations.

NavyLCDR said:
So, you don't think there should be any investigation of someone filming the entrance to a Federal facility? Stop out front the gate to Everett Naval Base or Whidbey Naval Base and start filming the gates and see what happens. I don't see a single thing wrong with the encounter.

If DHS facilities were defense installations covered by that statute, then DHS would be subject to the Posse Comitatus Act. They're not, by the way.

Exercising a constitutional right is not evidence of a crime being committed, and any official (military or civilian) who infringes upon the exercise of rights not only commits a federal crime (18 USC 242) but has broken his oath as well.

OC for ME · Mar 13, 2014

NavyLCDR said:
And in the video in the OP nobody violated anyone's rights.

QFT

But, do we desire cops to always make contact for lawful behavior as long as no rights are violated in the process? The cop did his job. The citizen states that he was fine with the encounter, the encounter did not result in any rights violations.

The encounter should not have happened in the first place. This, I think, is the goal, is it not?

Open Carry Encounter (Tacoma PD, at US. Dept. of Homeland Security Detention Center

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Active member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Active member

Regular Member

Active member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Active member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member