National Press Photographers Association

I live near Philadelphia. I often read stories of people being pursued by police for questioning after they've just taken photos in a train station, or on the subway. My professor once told me of how a officer followed him to his house and questioned him after he took one photo at a train station.

If I take photos of my friends in a train, am I violating any laws, or the Patriot Act? Isn't that thing massive and vague? Does the transit authority have any legal grounds to prosecute someone for photographing on their trains if they aren't displaying any signs that say "no photography". If they wanted to prosecute someone, on what grounds would the charges be? Often these stations unstaffed, and conductors on rail cars aren't interested in holding a conversation about photography and ethics.

I understand that the Transit Authority is trying to prevent terrorism, but how much of this is legitimate? Thanks for any clarity.

Tim, there have been several notable cases of transit authorities trying to make rules (as opposed to laws) forbidding photography ... and most have been pretty successfully fought-off. If your local transit authority has authored one of those such rules ... arguably unconstitutional at best ... you should get a copy of that policy and let the NPPA's advocacy committee know about it. preventing photography in public areas of public transit systems is a hollow defense against terrorism.


_________________
<---------->
Sean D. Elliot
NPPA Vice President
vicepresident@nppa.org
<----------->

Of course police can certainly question someone looking suspicious. And many people see cameras suspicious, though no law prevents the actual taking of photos.

Devin Greaney
Memphis TN
www.devingreaney.com

Thank you for your suggestions.

I am going to contact the transit authority directly to inquire of their policies.
If their response is unclear, I'll let NPPA's advocacy committee know of my findings.

This dialogue has been very helpful.

In general a police officer can ask you a question with very little cause. So be polite and answer the questions. It is when they try to stop you from taking pictures that you have an issue. Stopping you from shooting long enough to answer a couple questions is probably not a a constitutional violation. Stopping you entirely might be (depending on your location, of course).

Just remember that starting a fight with a cop over the issue is not the answer. But you do want to clarify whether or not they are preventing you from taking pictures. This way you know whether you have an issue or not. And be sure to assert that the reason you are taking pictures is journalistic or artistic. This will help cement a First Amendment argument. I saw a recent video of a photographer in a confrontation with police and when the cop asked why he was taking pictures, his responses were various versions of "because I can." You have to be engaged in First Amendment activity for there to be a First Amendment violation. (So for example, you have a first amendment right to shout slogans during a peaceful demonstration, but you don't have a right to shout for the purposes of harassing someone or defaming someone).

Here is a memo on photography in public places
http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2005/08/rights.html

For an example of a successful negotiation with a transit agency, check out this article.
http://nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2009/03/amtrak01.html

Here is another example of law enforcement gone wild (sounds like a promising video project).

http://discarted.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/la-sheriffs-unlawfully-detain-photographers-rights-advocate/

Unbelievable!


_________________
Photographer
iPress News