Taking Pictures of Public Property Does Not Justify a Suspicion of Terrorism

By TChris, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 07:19:42 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

After 9/11, some overzealous protectors of the homeland's security began to suspect anyone who pointed a camera at a public building, a bridge, or a railroad yard of plotting a terrorist attack. One of the most unlikely terrorist suspects was 55-year-old Shirley Scheier, a fine arts professor at the University of Washington who was frisked, handcuffed, and aggressively interrogated while being detained in the back of a squad car for more than half an hour -- all because she took pictures of electrical power lines for use in an academic project.

With the ACLU's help, Scheier sued the City of Snohomish's police officers for violating her Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The city's insurer argued that the officers entertained a reasonable suspicion that Scheier was up to no good because she left quickly after the electrical substation's security provider approached her (who wouldn't?) and because she had maps in her car (who doesn't?).

U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour disagreed. [more ...]

"Generalized, unsubstantiated suspicions of terrorist activity" does not give police the right to ignore people's constitutional rights, the judge said.

In his decision denying the city's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Judge Coughenour ruled that the officers "lacked a reasonable justification for their aggressive tactics in completely restraining Scheier's personal liberty."

Facing the risk and expense of a trial, the city's insurer agreed to an $8,000 settlement. While that sum is fair compensation for a relatively brief detention, it's not a good return on the time and energy Scheier invested in almost two years of federal llitigation. Scheier's goal, however, was not to get rich, but to discourage the police from violating the civil rights of other photographers, including her art students.

"I would never want something like this to happen to any of my young students who have less skill with engaging with this kind of problem," she said. "That's really important to me."

Scheier should be commended for having the courage and strength to take a stand against governmental lawlessness. By fighting for and winning a judicial opinion that vindicated her right to take pictures on public property without enduring a loss of liberty, Scheier sent a message that benefits us all.

< Monday Night TV and Open Thread | Is Partial Nudity a Neighborhood Nuisance? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Taking Pictures of Public Property Does Not Justify a Suspicion of Terrorism | 12 comments (12 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Oh, man, shades of the Soviet Union (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 09:11:34 PM EST

I was in Moscow a few months after the Soviet Union died, when many of the old rules were still in place (as well as a lot of the horrible people who enforced them everywhere you went). On our departing flight, which was in daylight, we were actually required to put all the window shades on the plane down so we couldn't see out until we were out of Russian airspace. The flight attendants, on a Swedish airline, were profusely apologetic, but it seems the old rules had not yet been lifted and you didn't dare disobey them until they were.

Do you suppose these morons in Washington happened to see that bizarre report filed by the CNN correspondent from Tiananmen Square in Beijing the other day, as he and his camera person dodged and weaved around a dozen or so plainclothes cops using opened umbrellas to try to block any filming of the square?

$8,000 extortion (1.00 / 0) (#6)
by diogenes on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 09:38:55 PM EST

ACLU has infinite money to harass people in court; the fact that the case was settled indicated that they were sure that they would not win on appeal and were willing to settle for extorting a "victory" because a small city does not have infinite legal resources to take this to the supreme court.
You cite as a finding of fact that she "left quickly" when approached by security. Sorry--a law abiding person wouldn't flee security quickly. All she had to do was not "leave quickly" and explain the project.

You are wrong (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by Repack Rider on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 09:52:14 PM EST

"Security" are not the same as "police," and they do not have the right to put their hands on you in a public place without your permission. That would be battery, a crime. Anyone who attempts to avoid battery by leaving is within their rights.

Your comment is anti-American. Hopefully my own patriotism is enough to balance your lack of it.


As a volunteer Board member (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by Peter G on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 11:21:39 PM EST

of my state ACLU affiliate, I can assure you, Dio, that our funds are very far from "infinite," and not one penny is spent to harass anyone, in court or out. The ACLU does, however, take the Bill of Rights seriously, and is more or less the only organization in this country with no agenda other than to see that those rights are enforced impartially, fearlessly and without regard to ideology or partisan politics. (Hint: anyone reading this who has let his/her membership lapse, under the mistaken impression that the ACLU is less important now than it was two years ago, should rethink that position and head over immediately to the website to renew your membership and make a contribution!) Anyway, a college professor (or anyone else) taking photographs in a public place for use as teaching materials (or any other legitimate purpose) cannot, in a free country, be "detained" in the back of a police car without, at the very least, a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity. A modest financial compensation for that deprivation of rights and liberty is totally reasonable.


: Thank you. (none / 0) (#10)
by nycstray on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 12:17:26 AM EST

I spend a lot of time with my camera and have been fortunate not to end up in the back of a police car, and certainly wouldn't want to. I have crawled along the East River at the base of a bridge, lone and with a couple friends, on many an occasion because I happen to like that spot. I also "crawl" around a lot of other spots in this big ol' city with my camera :) I take photographs for personal creativity and as an aid to my professional work. I have also taught, and taught my students the value of a camera. The day I can't walk around freely with my camera is the day I'm outta here.

Most of us leave quickly when approached by (none / 0) (#8)
by nycstray on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 10:19:55 PM EST

security. Most of us are not out taking pictures to cause problems, therefore, if it looks like (and/or we're verbally told) a problem, we leave. Not all security folks understand (or even freakin' care) what people are out there doing with their cameras either, sometimes the explanation is just a plain waste.


I took a picture of a plaque (none / 0) (#1)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 07:47:33 PM EST

in a Post Office made during the New Deal.

The personal freaked out when I did it.

Was it the post office (none / 0) (#2)
by Steve M on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 08:13:07 PM EST

across from Ground Zero?


: Nope (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 07:16:55 AM EST

Judge Coughenour (none / 0) (#3)
by Steve M on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 08:24:35 PM EST

wrote this laudable op-ed on the subject of trying terrorists in civilian courts.

It is regrettable that so often when our courts are evaluated for their ability to handle terrorism cases, the Constitution is conceived as mere solicitude for criminals. Implicit in this misguided notion is that society's somehow charitable view toward "ordinary" crimes of murder or rape ought not to extend to terrorists. In fact, the criminal procedure required under our Constitution reflects the reality that law enforcement is not perfect, and that questions of guilt necessarily precede questions of mercy.

Judge Coughenour is a Reagan appointee, for what it's worth.

Maybe we need to wear T-shirts (none / 0) (#4)
by nycstray on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 08:34:54 PM EST

that say "Artist, not Terrorist?

legal expenses? (none / 0) (#13)
by diogenes on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 10:05:47 PM EST

Did the settlement include "legal expenses" in addition to the eight thousand dollars, thus reimbursing the "ACLU help"?
Anyway, what sort of "fine arts" is involved in taking picture of power lines where security guards are (i.e. an electric power station as opposed to a power pole)? It must be nice to paid to do this sort of stuff.