The Seattle Police Department’s internal investigations unit is reviewing an incident on Friday, May 8, in which officers arrested and banned a Seattle man from the downtown REI after he used his phone to photograph two security guards inside the store.
Shane Becker, a 29-year-old web designer, says he was standing in line at REI, getting ready to purchase a bike rack lock, when he saw two Loomis Fargo security guards refilling an ATM inside the store.
Becker says he walked over and took a picture of the security guards and the open ATM with his phone because he is “fascinated by the insides of things that we don’t normally get to see.”
The verboten photo, via IamShane.com
According to Becker, the armed security guards confronted him about the photo and threatened to tackle him if he tried to leave the store. “Loomis wanted my ID so that they could write a report internally because I took a picture of them with the machine open,” Becker says. “They said they didn’t know who I was or what I intended to do with the photograph or why I would want to take it.” Becker refused to show the Loomis employees his ID, REI security got involved, and the police were called.
According to a police report, when officers arrived, one of the armed Loomis guards told them he was concerned about his safety and was not sure if Becker was going to attempt to grab the money that was going into the ATM machine.
Police claim Becker was uncooperative and refused to give them his ID. Becker acknowledges that he refused to provide officers with ID, but did so because he was afraid they would hand it over to Loomis. Ironically, Becker says another REI customer photographed his arrest, and he’s hoping to get a copy of the photo.
Police took Becker to the West Precinct and held him for about half an hour before requiring him to sign a Trespass Admonishment card, barring him from returning to REI for a year, and released him.
Kara Stone, general manager at REI’s downtown store, says the incident was “super unfortunate” and claims Becker was not trespassed at the request of REI staff, although SPD records indicate otherwise. “Shane is welcome to come into our store,” she says.
Frank, the guy who answered the phone at Loomis’s office—he would not provide his last name or position with the company—would not comment on the incident or whether Loomis has any company policies about photography of staff members.
Not only was REI, SPD, and Loomis’s overreaction to the incident totally ridiculous, it may have also been illegal.
Doug Klunder, Privacy Project director at the Seattle branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, says cases like Becker’s are becoming more frequent. “These come up all the time and the ultimate answer ends up being, yes [the photographer] had the right to take the photo and should not have been arrested and detained,” Klunder says. “It would be really nice if officers would start realizing that rather than going through this rigmarole.”
Becker, who says he’s been an REI customer for several years, says he’ll be contacting the ACLU about the incident, but he also wants to find a way to spend the $200 REI dividend he wasn’t able to use last week. For now, he says, “I won’t be shopping there.”
How does this make REI sue-worthy? Two parties got into a fight in their store, the cops were called, so of course their own security is going to get involved. But it’s hardly their fault that it happened or that the kid got taken away in cuffs.
The “straight-edge vegan anarchist douche” wins. No matter how much of a dick he was about it he wasn’t doing anything illegal.
PS, I used to deal with Loomis on a weekly basis and yeah, 4 out of 5 of them are assholes. Think Mall Cop with a milk truck full of money.
Also, if REI wanted some ID for this guy, don’t they have his name and address from his membership info?
what a dumb shit…does he tell bomb jokes in the airport, too?
Frankly, when it comes to ATM security, I want the guards to be vigilant so I don’t get fuckin’ robbed by someone who’s figured out a way to co-opt the ATM and steal my PIN and my meager amount of money.
@40 You should look to the sky once in awhile, there are probably about a million pictures of you in databases all over the city, not to mention how many possible other photos you have been accidentally in the background.
in fact, i am jacking off to a picture of you right now…..
your eyes are to die for…..
<3
Loomis security guards don’t fuck around.
What an idiot.
@50
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/crime…
Just because your mobile phone comes with a camera, does not mean that you should always use it. There is nothing more depressing than seeing a bunch of idiots standing around taking pictures of every stupid little happening that catches their attention, not to mention the rudeness of photographing people who don’t know you without asking, and it is really asking for trouble to do so at an ATM.
Not that the rent-a-cops and the SPD were in the right, either. All parties involved are total douches.
What happened to all your quotation marks? This is almost impossible to read.
mattw @49, you’re right. I was thinking of the Hiibel case in 2004, which ruled that police can require that you give them your name. But it doesn’t actually require that you provide ID.
Fireword @47, Becker may be a douchebag, but simply taking someone’s picture with a shitty cell phone while standing at the checkout line hardly represents any real threat, nor an indication of intent to commit a crime. The rent-a-cop’s claim that they feared for their safety is laughable at best.
Don’t ATMs video tape everything around them all the time? So, the machines can take a video of you but you can’t take a picture of them?
And what if an ATM video tapes another ATM getting serviced? Do you have to call the Blade Runner unit?
The concept that any of us have privacy in our current Russian state is, on the face of it, laughable.
Americans are such wusses.
Give me Liberty or Death … yeah, right …
@47 does the word thoughtpolice mean anything to you?
I’m really astounded that anyone thinks that the mechanical specifications of an ATM should be a security risk. Anyone who has any experience with security systems — whether encryption, locks, cameras or whatever — understands that if knowledge of how the system works allows someone to break in, the system isn’t secure at all.
Before you all start refusing to ever produce your photo i.d. to a cop ever again based on some slog comment that you read, the Washington Supreme Court’s decision striking down the “stop and identify” statute does not excuse you from ever having to produce your identification to a cop. The Court’s decision simply states that your refusal cannot, by itself, be the basis for an arrest for obstruction. If the cops have probable cause to stop you for something else – i.e., they were informed by a Loomis guard that you were attempting to take money that they were putting into an ATM – they do have the right to demand your identification. In addition, the only law that’s been overturned is the state “stop and identify” statute. It was overturned, because it was ruled to be unconstitutionally vague. Many cities and counties have their own ordinances that are not vague, and the cops are still free to enforce those. Refuse to produce i.d. at your own peril.
OK so @9 says perhaps the basis for the arrest was the crime of obstruction. @49 points out that WA courts say, refusal to present ID can’t in itself be the basis for an arrest for obstruction. So, what was the basis of the arrest?
I suspect a lot of naysayers here are lashing out because he is an “uppity” vegan, not because what he did was all that bad.
It’s rather disgusting, considering these are personal rights we are talking about here (both to not have your papers demanded to be seen for taking a picture and the right of personal choice to control one’s diet)
65 makes an good point. An open safe doesn’t show you how to open the safe when no one’s around.
Whether or not it is legal, photographing armed guards servicing an ATM machine is a risky move. So is photographing someone entering their PIN into an ATM. There are a lot of things that are not illegal, but are pretty risky moves. I think this guy took a risk, and dealt with the ensuing consequences appropriately.
That being said, the biggest douches were the armed Loomis guards. Afraid he’s going to steal the money? I doubt a dude with a fleece and a camping tent in his shopping bag is stealing anything from two armed security professionals.
@66,
Your legal analysis is all wrong. Check out State v. Hoffman, in which a Washington Appellate Court found that Hoffman, who had been observed participating in a fight by an off-duty cop, was improperly arrested when he refused to show ID.
Or check out Tacoma v. Jones, in which a Tacoma trial court recently reaffirmed that refusing to show ID, even during a valid Terry stop, is not criminally punishable in the state of Washington.
69 – actually it does.
as a former locksmith, I could see exactly what type of box it is and find the drilling point to knock out the fence. you can’t see if it’s a diebold etc lock from the outside, spindle wheels are generic, but one glance from the open position can identify it.
bottom line, he’s a piece of shit self-proclaimed ‘anarchist’ and needs to be slingshotted into the sun.
From: Misinformation about your photography rights continues to spread
The law in the United States of America is pretty simple. You are allowed to photograph anything with the following exceptions:
• Certain military installations or operations.
• People who have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That is, people who are some place that’s not easily visible to the general public, e.g., if you shoot through someone’s window with a telephoto lens.
That’s it.
You can shoot pictures of children; your rights don’t change because of their age or where they are, as long as they’re visible from a place that’s open to the public. (So no sneaking into schools or climbing fences.)
Video taping has some more gray areas because of copyright issues, but in general the same rules apply. If anyone can see it, you can shoot it.
And yes, you can shoot on private property if it’s open to the public. That includes malls, retails stores, Starbucks, banks, and office-building lobbies. If you’re asked to stop and refuse, you run the risk of being charged with trespassing, but your pictures are yours. No one can legally take your camera or your memory card without a court order.
You can also shoot in subways and at airports. Check your local laws about the subway, but in New York, Washington, and San Francisco it’s perfectly legal. Airport security is regulated by the Transportation Security Administration, and it’s quite clear: Photography is A-OK at any commercial airport in the U.S. as long as you’re in an area open to the public.
Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
Restrictions
There are a few more restrictions on publishing photos or video, though, as mentioned back in December.
You can’t show private facts — things a reasonable person wouldn’t want made public — unless those facts were revealed publicly. So no long-lens shots of your neighbors’ odd habits.
You also can’t show someone in a negative false light by, for example, using Photoshop tricks or a nasty, untrue caption.
And you can’t put someone else’s likeness to commercial use without their permission. This is usually mentioned in terms of celebrities, but it applies to making money from anyone’s likeness.
For example, if you shoot individual kids playing in a school football game, you can’t try to sell those shots to the parents; the kids have a right to the use of their likeness. You can sell photos of the game in general, though, and any shots where what’s happening (“A player celebrates a goal”) is more important than who’s doing it (“Star running back John Doe takes a momentary rest”).
Sound like a gray area? It is if you’re planning to sell the pictures, but not if you’re simply displaying them. And if you’re using them for news purposes, all bets are off — you can pretty much publish whatever you want if it happens in public view.
The other gray area is copyrighted material. Even if it’s in public, you can’t sell pictures of copyrighted work — a piece of art, for example. But if the art is part of a scene you can probably get away with it.
All this in mind, it’s almost always a good idea to get permission where you can and to be polite and friendly with anyone you deal with. Like good urban legends, people are absolutely sure they know the law about photography, and they’re absolutely wrong.
If you want to know more, I’ve got a PDF on my site with all this spelled out, and you shouldn’t miss Bert Krages’s “The Photographer’s Right.” Print ’em and carry ’em.
http://www.kantor.com/useful/Legal-Right…
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/a…
Regarding my comment (#73): Don’t forget that WA recently passed a law that basically says a woman has reasonable expectation of privacy up her skirt.
why don’t you tail an armored car around for an hour and explain to the police that you have a right to do that?
Kantor’s rights of photographers should be in every photographer’s pocket.
Note that REI is absolutely within their rights to forbid photography in the store; they can set ANY conditions they want (other than discrimination against a protected class, or illegal acts) on their private property.
But the penalty for photographing anyways is not arrest, because the photography itself is not illegal. All they can do is ask Becker to leave, and if he refuses, he’s committing trespassing. Period. Photography is not illegal.
@all
I was there, saw everything after the cops showed and have seen those particular cops work before. (don’t ask…)
Taking him out of there in cuffs was clearly the last resort; at 6pm on a Friday the last thing they have time for is doing paperwork for some minor non-emergency. He had to have been a major jackass and said all the wrong things to get anything other than his name written down. Based on a bit of eavesdropping and body language, it looked like he just wanted to go out of there in cuffs to make the story better.
What kind of self respecting anarchist sets himself up to be detained by the law, with the comfort of eventual release, while shopping in a store?
I mean, I am all for the right not to present ID, and if you really don’t want to give out your name, fine. In particular at a protest or just walking down the street, that would be the time for asserting your rights.
But this guy went onto private property, got some consumer goods from asia, got in LINE to buy them, then with an IPHONE got into it with armed guards, in a quite vulnerable moment for them… and then chose to get cuffed rather than walk out free? At a retail store where he spent ~$2k last year?
Look at me, I am special on the internet! I have a circle-a t-shirt and nothing real to contribute to the community, anarchist or otherwise!
@73: That might be the most succinct, delightful description of photography rights I’ve seen yet. Thank you!
I think he’s definitely an anarchist. Not passing judgment:
http://theresistancearmy.com/
http://www.flickr.com/people/veganstraig…
I believe strongly in people’s right to take photographs — I’ve gotten into altercations about this myself. Having said that, he probably wasn’t using the best judgment in this situation.
I do not see how REI is at fault. The incident occured in their store, but was clearly between Becker and Loomis. It seems Loomis called SPD. Yes, REI security will be called when an incident takes place on their property, but it sounds like only SPD and Loomis did any blaming, arresting etc.
Sure, people can take photos anytime, but it is alwyas polite to ask permission. These Loomis guys were doing their job and handling a lot of cash, and presumably would be walking out to an armored car full of cash. Do they want some stranger to know who they are? What if the stranger is hatching a plan to rob Loomis? Sure, it seems unlikely, but the Loomis guys do not know this. They have a right to feel safe at their job. What does REI have to do with this? I guess it took place in their store, but no matter where this incident took place store security or management would likely be called. AS witnesses! From what I have read, it appears that the problem is with Loomis calling SPD(within their right if they feel threatened), and with SPD taking this guy in(within their right to inviestigate a case). If he was in custody for such a short time, I guess he was not charged. This is not a good incident no matter how one looks at it, but I think people should calm down. If anyone wants to direct their anger at someone it could be at Becker for not asking permission to take a photo of people doing a dangerous job, or they could be angry at the police for taking Becker out of the store. Do not blame the retailer, REI is a victim, too. REI only had the ATM in their store.
Sooo, the general consensus is that only people who are popular and non-weird or non-mainstream have civil rights and all those other freaks should be rounded up and arrested even though they didn’t actually break the law? Good to know.
Here is story of the general douchey and thuggish behavior of persons who service ATMs and drive armored cars from The Stranger’s sister publication. Enjoy.
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2001-10-0…
I probably wasn’t going to shop at REI anyway, but this certainly doesn’t help their case.
Also, why the title of the article ” Police arrest Man for Taking Photo in REI.”? Why not: Police arrest man for taking photo of ATM?”
@82
Phoenix Newtimes is not The Stranger’s sister paper. Not even a cousin.
@82: I think the point that people are making is not that he doesn’t have civil rights, but that his blog and other biographical details suggest he may have escalated the situation or even consciously or subconsciously provoked it.
I AGREE that his rights were probably violated but I wouldn’t be shocked to learn that he may have been outspoken or confrontational and made it worse for everyone. This is all supposition, obviously.
REI needs to end their contract with Loomis unless they intensely retrain their staff. Armed workers can’t go around intimidating people. I would be interested in an update in 1 month to see if REI is a good or bad citizen of Seattle.
If the inner workings of an ATM are so super-secret that photographing them is grounds for arrest, then keep them fricking private! Put the customer-facing portion of the machine in public and wall off the money-loading portion. I really don’t care if the guy’s political leanings put him in proximity of the douches of this world — he took a photograph in a public place. No harm, no foul. No arrest.
I read that guy’s blog. Complete fucking douchenozzle. He deserves to be sent up the river for 20 years at least.
I love how this guy is all “I took a picture with my iPhone”. A REAL anarchist wouldn’t blab all over his blog that he has an iPhone. iPhones are a symbol of consumer culture gone awry. This douchebag fucktwat crybaby has zero credibility. Typical Seattle pussy – gets in someone’s face with an iPhone and then criiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiies when they call him on his bullshit.
And now on his blog he’s crying “the comments have gotten all crazy so I’ve started comment registration”.
HEY DOUCHEWAD – COMMENT REGISTRATION IS A TOOL OF OPPRESSION. You’re no anarchist – you’re a fucking trustfund crybaby. Nothing more, nothing less. Any collective would eat you for breakfast with locally-sourced organic whole milk.
The concern trolls here are disgusting. They’re willing to throw all their security away for some imagined gains. It’s funny how all the idiots here have an obsessive need for authority (“the guards told him to do something, and he didn’t!?!?!”), a fear of people different from them (“omg, a vegan, kill it!”), a total inability to rationally consider consequences (“omg, there were a bazillion pics of ATMs, now there’s one more – DOOM!”), and a lust for vengeance totally out of proportion to the act (“He wasted a few cop hours while they harassed him, toss him into the sun and bill his family!”).
As lyric and the other logical people said, if this was secret – hide it. But as others pointed out, the guts of ATMs aren’t secret and many cameras (Call the Blade Runner unit, lol!) were likely recording this procedure and similar at thousands of stores at the same moment. But this goes deeper than facts, to stupid people’s instinctive fear of cameras. People have observed the weaknesses in things for thousands of years before having photos, and the photos still don’t show anything that the observer there didn’t see. Yet the guards were calmly working as he walked by – concerned only after he took the picture.
They clearly weren’t worried about the money or their safety or one of them would have been facing out from the machine, keeping an eye out for trouble. None of the ATM drawers are visibly open and they aren’t obeying even basic safety protocols. I’d bet they’re changing the receipt paper or something else innocuous. Clearly they’re afraid he stole its soul.
@92) Priceless! 🙂
So he didn’t have any bad intention in taking the photos, but wouldn’t apparently communicate that to anyone. Think for a second:
– if he were taking a picture of your kid’s preschool
– if he were taking a picture of you getting out your hide-a-key from under the planter
– if he were taking a picture while you were keying your PIN into an ATM
You’d probably be suspicious and want to make sure he wasn’t a criminal, right? And then if he acted all combative you might call the cops. I sure as frack would.
Maybe just being a kinder person would have made this all a non-issue…….
It’s a Bank of America machine, probably run for them under contract by Loomis. REI maybe lets the machine in the store gratis for the convienence of customers who of course also end up buying more stuff with the cash. Trade off is that REI likely has to allow the Loomis people access on their own terms, not obstruct their operations, etc. If so, it sounds like Loomis’ going to need to define whether photographing or watching the machine being serviced is obstructive, and if so within REI’s responsibility to monitor. Meanwhile, Bank of America, whose brand name is on the machine, could lose because it slected Loomis to run its eponymous ATM’s and is nominally on the line if it turns out the Loomis people overstepped. Personally, I belive they did.
That’d be my straight, uninformed guess. And people—don’t be sheeple. Show some guts. A gun and a badge doesn’t make person infalliable.
@94 – my issue isn’t that they called the cops. It’s that they threatened him with physical violence if he tried to leave, and he didn’t do anything illegal.
How is that different than kidnapping, again?
@92: Having been in this situation lots of times, I’ve learned you get a lot farther with the police with honey than with vinegar. Authority figures have been irrationally afraid of photographers since 9/11 — the best thing to do is calmly explain to them what the rules actually are and then do some triage: How much do I care about this photo? How much of a dickhead does this security guard seem to be? Is this an opportunity for education? I’ve had a chance to explain to cops what the rules are, and when you’re not confrontational, some of them will actually listen.
Point being: It’s not about bending over for authority, it’s about thinking about whether your goal is resolving a conflict or creating a spectacle to publicize the offense. Arguably there’s a time and a place for both, but if you choose to make things worse, part of the blame lies with you.
@94 may have said all of this better, I’ve just been ruminating about this all night and wanted to get it off my chest.
holy crap! Fat Tim Keck got off his throne and actually used the internet!
I love all the asshats here whining that taking a picture is some supremely subversive and suspicious act.
Run along now and go help Dick Cheney yammer about how waterboarding isn’t torture, you bunch of wound up bed wetting conservative pussies.
Isn’t ECB barred from entering QFCs now?