“Photography is not a crime”: Open letter from West Seattleite

Longtime WSB’er Kevin McClintic cc’d us on this letter earlier this morning, and we asked to publish it as an open letter. He had told us a few months ago about being hassled on a state ferry for taking photographs, and while we’d thought about writing a story then, we never got around to it. Now that he’s been hassled again, it seems worthy of further light. He is sending this to various government officials:

Thursday evening (8/6) I finally decided to take my first ride on our new light rail system. I parked my car at the Mount Baker Station and took two small pocket cameras and a monopod with me. I purchased a round trip ticket and boarded a train to Westlake Station.

I had a delightful time at Westlake with one exception. If you have not yet been, you should! It is beautiful, and there is SO much to see and photograph. I will have to return when I have more time. Public art everywhere! I was a little concerned about leaving my car on the street in the Mount Baker area after dark, so I cut my Westlake visit a bit short.

Upon arrival at Westlake Station, I put one of the cameras on the monopod (similar to a handicap cane) and proceeded to walk all over the station, taking pictures of buses and trains. After a few minutes of that, I took the escalator to the upper level and took more pictures on the mezzanine level. There were plenty of security officers around and some of them walked right past me. Not one even said hi to me.

Metro might just want to take a clue from the banking industry on this one. If someone “looks” suspicious, take a moment and say hi to them – perhaps take a moment and suggest a good place to get great pictures or a particular item of interest?

I even approached one security officer with my camera in hand, and asked him if there was a time limit on my round trip ticket. His answer was “good all day” and that was the end of that conversation.

After I had been shooting all over the mezzanine area, a security officer finally approached me and told me that “this is a sensitive area” and I need to “STOP taking pictures.” Hmm… where did I least hear that line? On a Washington State Ferry, and that issue has since been resolved. Their head of security personally invited me to return often, and take ALL the pictures I want.

I told the Metro security officer that as far as I know I have the right to take pictures ANYWHERE in a public place. He did not like that answer. I was polite, but I was not going to back down, and he did NOT like it.

Kevin’s letter continues after the jump:

I pointed out that none of the other security officers that I had seen had said anything. His answer was that “they had been watching me” and he was dispatched to talk to me.

I pointed out that LOTS of people were taking pictures in the tunnel. His answer to that was, “well, we have not caught them yet.”

I told him that I was just an average “Joe Blow” from West Seattle, out having fun taking pictures, and added that this was my first ride on the new light rail system. His answer to that was, “we don’t know that.” Mental note to self – is Metro profiling mid-fifties white males now? Perhaps it is my red hair? My Irish/Scottish heritage perhaps?

I offered him to show him some ID. He DECLINED – that sounds like a security breach to me. I thought to myself, “you have been watching me all this time on camera, but you don’t want my name or address, even when I OFFER?”

If Metro is going to waste MY TIME harassing me about taking pictures and telling me that this involves National security – then they should at least practice some due diligence about knowing my name and where to find me? Certainly much easier than asking the media to publish my picture later in hopes that someone will call in as in the case of the photographers on the ferry?

I politely continued to affirm my Constitutional rights to take pictures in a public place. http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

The security officer was clearly not a happy camper. He got on his radio to call someone and stated that he was “talking to the person of interest” and that “this individual tells me that he has the right to take pictures in a public place.”

There was a pause. I could not hear the other end of the conversation as he evidently had an ear piece. He then looked at me and kind of smiled, and said “it’s OK”, indicating that it is OK for me to continue taking photographs.

He did repeat himself several times, WARNING me that “I was being watched, pointing out that there are cameras everywhere” and that I “they would continue to be watching me.” I told him that I had no issues with that, in fact it made me feel very secure knowing that they ARE watching!

Please Metro, in the interest of GOOD PUBLIC RELATIONS, take a moment and get everyone on the same page regarding photography in public places. I plan to return at a future date and take more pictures of the entire system. I do NOT feel that this is an isolated instance. I have been told a similar story from a friend who visited the tunnel several years ago. Please LIGHTEN UP – photography is not a crime!

My hope is that the next time I visit, I will have a pleasant visit, knowing that I will not be harassed by either uninformed or overzealous security officers. Thank you.

Best regards,

Kevin McClintic
West Seattle

43 Replies to ""Photography is not a crime": Open letter from West Seattleite"

  • Scott August 7, 2009 (4:31 am)

    I too have had this same problem from a wanna-be public “service” group I was once involved with.
    It is NOT illegal to take photos -anywhere- in public.

    As much as some folks would not like it, anyone could stand on the street in front of your house and take photos of your house, still not illegal so long as the location is public access.

  • Ken August 7, 2009 (5:30 am)

    While we can rejoice that photography while white is not a crime, photography while brown is probably still lagging behind in the eyes of the law. You should try it in some colorful ethnic dress and a turban. Or hire a Sikh cab driver to carry your second camera 100 feet ahead of you. That would be photojournalism.

  • Leroniusmonkfish August 7, 2009 (6:03 am)

    While riding a ferry or photographing aircraft from the upper level of the parking garage at SeaTac.

  • Robert August 7, 2009 (7:29 am)

    And of course the “bad guys” have no ability to take pictures without being noticed. /sarcasm.

  • Gene August 7, 2009 (7:35 am)

    Don’t worry, he didn’t want your ID because their facial recognition system had already pulled up all your personal information. :-)

  • Jim August 7, 2009 (8:01 am)

    “pointing out that there are cameras everywhere..”

    So…you cannot take pictures, cause that’s the job of the taxpayer-funded cameras hidden all around you. MAKES SENSE TO ME NOW.

  • I had heard August 7, 2009 (8:08 am)

    There’s two issues here. One, SHOULD a person be allowed to take pictures in a “sensitive area” (whatever that means). Fine. But what gets me , the second point, is apply to rules consistently.

    So even IF they really thought the bus tunnel was sensitive (I’ve taken lots of pictures down there) why did officer after officer just walk by or say nothing? Did they not know the rules? Do they need to be re-trained? Or was it (more likely) this one officer was just having a bad hair day and wanted to tell someone to stop doing something so he felt all in control and command.

  • co August 7, 2009 (8:09 am)

    get over it. sounds like you have too much time on your hands.
    WSB this being front page news does it mean nothing interesting is going on in WS.

  • ltfd August 7, 2009 (8:54 am)

    Hey “co”- It is relevant news; it’s the second time it has happened to a WS resident and WSB contributor. Additionally, it is an unwarranted infringement on a reporter/photographer/citizen’s U.S. Constitutional right. Get over our concern.

  • ken August 7, 2009 (9:10 am)

    Why does everyone with a camera think that they are a reporter and have the right to do whatever they chose. If anything bad happens those same people are the ones who jump on the police for not being more stringent. Before you respond to my comment, I suggest you read Kevin’s story again. Kevin conveniently glosses over that he only took pictures of the buses and trains but maybe it appeared to Security that he was in strange spots for photos. To me it sounds like he went looking for a confrontation and also that the only “safe” neighborhood is West Seattle by stating that he was afraid to leave his car at Mount Baker after dark.

  • WSB August 7, 2009 (9:11 am)

    Considering Kevin’s letter earlier this morning – which he did not ask us to publish, I want to reiterate – I was reminded me about that old saying, you didn’t speak up when they came for (somebody else), and not when they came for (somebody else), then there was nobody left to speak up for you.
    .
    Maybe I’m overdramatizing, but we too have been hassled for taking photos – even when showing our media credentials (SPD-issued, which is as official as it gets in the Seattle news media world). Certainly it is incumbent upon us all to act safely and ethically – you could take it too far and, oh, say, stand in the middle of a lane in the bus tunnel to try to get an artsy angle and say “I’m just taking a photo in a public place!” as the security guards try to save you from getting run over by the next inbound coach, but that’s not what happened here – TR

  • old timer August 7, 2009 (9:12 am)

    That’s what happens when you give a petty bureaucrat a bit of authority.
    Let’s hope these ‘security’ folks are not armed.

  • charlabob August 7, 2009 (9:34 am)

    No, lowercase ken, you missed the point entirely. One does not have to be a journalist to take pictures in a public place. One has to be a human being. Security doesn’t get to decide if it’s a “strange spot” for photos. They get to decide if it’s a public spot and, one could hope, they also get to enforce the real law, not make up false ones.

    Thank you, TR, for publishing the letter and for reminding us what can happen if we ignore everything that isn’t done to us.

  • Thomas August 7, 2009 (9:35 am)

    @ken:

    Everyone with a camera *does* have the right to do whatever they choose in a public place. That is a long-held and well-established legal fact. It is not up for review.

    The technology to take surreptitious photos is available and readily accessible to anyone with $50 bucks. Far less if you have any technical aptitude. The practice of stopping obvious photography is farcical security theater that serves no purpose other than to further erode well-established rights in the name of fear.

  • Tony Wright August 7, 2009 (9:39 am)

    While it isn’t related to West Seattle, it was in Seattle:

    http://iamshane.com/2009/05/09/of-atms-iphones-and-911/

    Guy gets handcuffed for taking a picture of an ATM at the Seattle REI.

    What about people who have really good memories or () have photographic memories? Are they not allowed to look at things? Just like we err on the side of innocence (“innocent until proven guilty”) we should err on the side of trust (“trust a citizen to do the right thing until they do the wrong thing”). Looking potentially suspicious is NOT doing the wrong thing.

    Quote from Ben Franklin: “He who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserves neither.”

  • SarahScoot August 7, 2009 (9:53 am)

    WSB – in complete agreement with your comparison of these situations to that quotation.

    It’s become all too common in recent years to readily surrender our civil rights with the justification of “I have nothing to hide.”

    Oh, the government wants free rein to tap our phone lines? Why not; I’ve got nothing to hide! Only the “bad people” would be worried about this.

    The Bush administration wants libraries to surrender records of checked-out books? Sure, I’ve got nothing to hide. Only terrorists would be against this.

    I can’t believe so many people will readily surrender rights just to prove that they are “good citizens,” without realizing what this disintegration of boundaries does to our country and culture.

  • no likey August 7, 2009 (10:04 am)

    Wow, I think your definition of “harassment” is funny — just because someone questions you does not mean they are harassing you, get a spine. I’d rather have the security be on the safe side with a little inconvenience or irritation on your part, than have some terrorist get information that could come back and harm thousands. You obviously have no idea what the true terrorism threat is in this city, or you would have better understanding of what security has to worry about while you go on your little ride to take pretty pictures or boring stuff.

  • Sean August 7, 2009 (10:14 am)

    @ken, This is a news story about infringement on civil liberties by security officers who have no legal basis for interfering with the photographer.

  • AEL August 7, 2009 (10:18 am)

    On a simlar note, the tunnels didn’t get garbage cans for over six months after re-opening. I kept asking why and they said that garbage cans are a security risk. Every day there was garbage on the benches, floor or nooks. I guess the guards had to pick up a million coffee cups so there are garbage cans now. Common sense is a challenge to Metro.

  • CeeBee August 7, 2009 (10:23 am)

    This is important and does have West Seattle ties. When we were debating the Monorail and it’s potential impact to the West Seattle neighborhoods, I went to Vancouver and took pictures of their system in detail to show what it looked like “on the ground”, and did the same with the light rail stations in Portland neighborhoods. I was never even questioned at those locations and being able to share that information at our community meetings was very helpful. When ever I travel, I tend to look at the infrastructure and take pictures of cool ways that cities deal with urban living, and that has the potential of being “security targets” – clever ways to put art on water towers, making firestations fit into the neighborhoods, etc… Just IMHO.

  • big gulps,eh? well, see ya later. August 7, 2009 (10:26 am)

    Thank you, no likely, for going there. Good to see the ole Hoover/Ashcroft justification of surrendering our civil liberties to the fear of the boogidy man is alive and well.

    Please scare me and then protect me at any cost…

  • workfromhome August 7, 2009 (10:35 am)

    I understand and appreciate civil liberties, but it sure sounds here like he was trying to provoke the security officers.

    Reminds me of those people who prefer to intentionally walk very slowly through a cross-walk, just to make you wait longer for them.

  • SarahScoot August 7, 2009 (10:46 am)

    workfromhome: please explain how he was “trying to provoke the security officers.”
    By taking pictures? Pictures he has every right to take? Or by defending his right to do so…?

  • Chris August 7, 2009 (10:50 am)

    I’ve read and re-read the letter, but I don’t see anywhere that indicated he was trying to provoke the security officers. The act of photographing the public space is not a provocation, so I don’t see where you are all coming to that conclusion.

    Yes after he was approached he asserted his right. But as they are his constitutionally protected rights, he can assert them. He can actually become indignant if he wants as long as he doesn’t use hate speech or threaten. That is his right, your right, and my right.

    Don’t get me wrong, I understand the security officer was doing their job by questioning him. But if he had approached Kevin in a less accusatory manner (perhaps as the banks do) this wouldn’t even be a story.

  • DRG August 7, 2009 (10:51 am)

    workfromhome: How was he provoking the officers? He wrote: “I politely continued to affirm my Constitutional rights to take pictures in a public place.”
    .
    Based on the written account, I don’t see anything that can be taken as intentionally trying to aggravate the officers–unless you count standing up for your rights “provoking” someone.

  • k August 7, 2009 (10:52 am)

    Thanks for publishing this WSB–
    We should organize a Take Pictures on the Light Rail Day where EVERYBODY brings their camera and uses it all on the same day.
    What would they do then…
    and it might desensitize security.

  • jiggers August 7, 2009 (10:59 am)

    I understand why WSB decided to post this up. I ride the ferry to Winslow twice a month, and if they are going to enforce a sensative zone, they should put a sign up stating that it is unlawful to photograph from the ferry. But I don’t think they can force you to not take a picture unless they have put it into law which would piss off tourist’s who want to photograph the city from the boat. I don’t think they want to go there.

  • orcmid August 7, 2009 (11:02 am)

    I and photo-walking friends have not been challenged anywhere on Metro, as you can see on my Flickr page (http://www.flickr.com/photos/orcmid/). On our transit-photography journey on the Central Link (will we ever actually call it that?), we were observed by station security, but no one made any fuss.

    Whenever challenged, I will follow the instructions. It is not useful to mess with security personnel and transit police. However, I will take note of the time and location and report the incident to the appropriate authorities, requesting that personnel be reminded of the fact that photography is actually permitted in public places.

  • cleat August 7, 2009 (11:33 am)

    It’s interesting how we seem to see more of this in good old Seattle than other places… One day while waiting for the bus on 2nd Ave outside of the Jackson Federal Building an average tourist was taking pictures all around of all the high rise buildings… not just the Fed …. and multiple guards came out of the Fed and surrounded him talking to him for over a half hour before letting him go … How would this make you or me feel just taking a picture of some high rise architecture in a town I was visiting? When I was in New York city on vacation last fall I had my camera with me everywhere, taking pictures from tour buses, Staton Island ferry, Rockefeller center…. people were always pleasant and tried to stop or duck out of the way when I was lining up a shot… no police poking and prodding… Are we just overly protective here in Seattle? I don’t get it … why here?

  • homesweethome August 7, 2009 (12:45 pm)

    once again the “security” in Seattle baffles me – I lived in DC before and after 9-11 and I took pictures of trains, airports and subways all the time all up and down the East Coast…wake up Seattle, terrorists do not ramble around with cameras taking these sorts of artful or tourist type photos

    and no Seattle is not overly protective – Seattle just misses the boat, literally on what the real threats are or where they might be

  • Lindsey August 7, 2009 (4:43 pm)

    No likey wrote “I’d rather have the security be on the safe side with a little inconvenience or irritation on your part, than have some terrorist get information that could come back and harm thousands.”

    The “information” being referred to above is already available – it’s a public place! That’s as ridiculous as saying some people shouldn’t be allowed to view the viaduct or the WS Bridge, because they could come back and blow it up.

    The right to photograph things in a public place is protected by the first ammendment. People, things, buildings, have NO expectation of privacy in a public place. Bert P. Krages’ website, the one linked to in the item, explains this very clearly. Of course there are exceptions, but none apply in this case, IMHO.

    If you are going to be paranoid about terrorism, be paranoid about the cameras you can’t see. Personally, I think we’d be safer if everyone did carry a camera around and document every day life.

  • Mike August 7, 2009 (5:04 pm)

    You need to ask for his name, rank and badge number. As a PUBLIC SERVANT he is working for us, not a private firm. He needs an attitude adjustment.

  • eye-spy August 7, 2009 (6:38 pm)

    if u wear fluoresent clothing in ” no photo zones”
    u are less likely to be harrassed when randomly shooting around town/ferries. if u really want to get the security forces in a twist, use a non-standard altered camera like a holga or pinhole camera- they’ll demand u give up the camera.
    that happend to me in the bus tunnel a couple yrs ago and infront of Seattle Art Museum (on the sidewalk, not on their property)

    we should coordinate A Large Public Photographer gathering at random PUBLIC places- just standing with cameras!!!

  • Ken August 7, 2009 (8:51 pm)

    I just want to make sure people do not confuse me with lowercase ken…When ever I am questioned by security guards concerning taking pictures in a public place, I tell them to bite me and invite them to call the cops and ask them if it is legal to take pics from a public street or sidewalk. So far Seattle dispatch has been good about advising citizens and rent-a-cops to go away.
    Those of you who want to trade liberty for fake security can bite me too :)

  • JH August 7, 2009 (10:03 pm)

    Just to lighten up things a bit, I was just at the Russian border two weeks ago taking touristy pictures (from the Finland side!). Little did I know that the signs I was taking pictures of included pictures of cameras with a big slash in them. My husband was mortified. When the Russian border patrol raced at us, he about died. They actually turned and went up a road (false alarm), but at that point I still didn’t know the signs had “no cameras” symbols all over them! Yes, the hubby told me but I wasn’t paying attention. I never noticed them thru the camera lens, but laughed my head off the next day when I reviewed them! Whew. I’d probably be stuck in a Russian jail for 12 years…

  • no likey August 8, 2009 (8:37 am)

    Maybe you should go to another country where there is TRUE persecution and civil liberties being crushed and trampled and take some photos there – instead of cry babying here in cushy Seattle about a non-issue. You have no idea what a real complaint constitutes, obviously you have never experienced true harassment or been in true peril at the mercy of true thugs/terrorists/or whatever you want to call the “boogey man”… call it what you want, there really are evil doers in this world, and all you have to do is take a look at the child sex industry in this country and others to see it, not to mention genocide and slavery that is ongoing in other places. You are very narrow minded and “poor me” in your complaint, it is like ranting about a cup cake but worse.

  • DRG August 8, 2009 (9:22 am)

    no likey: Are there far worse and terrible things going on in the world than being hassled for taking a photo? Of course! And yes they do deserve attention and concern, but they also have no bearing whatsoever on this particular situation.
    .
    Taking a photo in a public place is a right that we enjoy here. Quietly letting someone take that away from me just because things are worse in other places around the world doesn’t make any sense.

  • no likey August 8, 2009 (12:33 pm)

    I didn’t say that a person shouldn’t be allowed to take photographs in a public place, what I said is that the example shared did not seem like anything worthy of upset, and from what I understand, he was allowed to take photographs, and yet continued to complain. Yes, we should be allowed to partake of all our legal freedoms. I don’t think that being questioned by someone is considered harrassment. Having our rights “quietly” taken away is a real concern, but not in this ridiculous instance… my opinion of course. Freely expressed.

  • Street Jesus August 8, 2009 (4:24 pm)

    No photo of this security guard?

  • Patrick August 8, 2009 (9:34 pm)

    who cares

  • pauloutwest August 9, 2009 (11:55 am)

    I did a shoot myself at light rail station. Had no trouble at all. You see, when I got there with my big camera & tripod, I immediately approached a guard and explained what I wanted to do. He was very cooperative and let me do my thing – even posed for a shot. If you follow the right channels, you shouldn’t have any problem.

    They are concerned about and “unusual” photography with good reason. Public transit is a big target for terrorism and I think we all want the system to be safe. If you run around with an attitude, you will get what you deserve.

  • Joe August 9, 2009 (9:40 pm)

    In a time when 95% plus of cellphones have decent cameras, do you think a terrorist is gonna whip out the ole Nikon D1 and start shooting? Hell no.

    I don’t mind when a security guard says hi or asks what I’m up to, but the statute and case law in the US are quite clear: with very few exceptions, if you can see it without doing something illegal (e.g. trespassing, standing in the middle of the freeway, etc.) you can photograph it.

    In a place with (generally) good police like Seattle, “why don’t you just call the cops” gets most security people off your back real quick. I agree with capital-K Ken 100% on that one.

  • pauloutwest August 11, 2009 (7:35 am)

    What is this, High School? Why do you think you have the right to hassle hard working, underpaid public servants who are just trying to do their job. You people are the first to bitch when something happens. We’re not just talking about terrorism here, muggings, vandalism etc are very common in the city. Grow up.

Sorry, comment time is over.