Woman arrested at Gabreski airport, Suffolk County, for photography

<p>Tried a search and could not find a reference to <a href="http://www.murthalawfirm.com/mother-3-arrested-pictures-tourist-attraction-airport">this</a>, if it is already posted please delete.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.murthalawfirm.com/mother-3-arrested-pictures-tourist-attraction-airport">http://www.murthalawfirm.com/mother-3-arrested-pictures-tourist-attraction-airport</a></p>

<p>The article is on a law firms website and reads like an attorney's opening statement to a jury. I suspect there's more to this case than we see here.</p>

If that's all true, it's an egregious violation of... One, two, three, four... I lose count of how many constitutional rights.

But it's so egregious it reads like a law school exam question (two points per violation spotted, perfect score is a 100).

I would be very, very surprised to see police actually going this far to violate the rights of somebody (unless there were

some back story we didn't know about). I think there might be a lot of exaggeration in here. Only one side is told, and

told in a way that would tend to get both civil libertarians and political conservatives as pissed off as possible. I'm not

saying I know what happened, but if that law firm is representing her in a civil action against the police it might help

them, tactically, to get public attention for her side of the events.

>>> I suspect there's more to this case than we see here.

 

Yes, I'd guess a lot more!

<p>I was on a recent AmTrak train going to Washington DC, and was sitting in the Club Car waiting to take a shot out the window as we passed the Folkston Funnel (a rail fan spot on the CSX tracks in south Georgia-USA.) The conductor - on walking near my table and seeing my camera - decided to *enforce* the no-photography rule on a AmTrak train, or on anything outside the window. I asked how can such a rule be alive and well?</p>

<p>Later, the same conductor did a bit of *rules and regulations* research and apologized for his advice earlier. Photography was indeed OK on a AmTrak train: just take care not to stand in front of a moving train to get that *great* shot!</p>

<p>I'm located near Eglin Air Force Base and the local airport is part of the military base (shared runways.) On base there are a couple of 'No Camera' signs. At the airport side, a camera (as far as I know...) is OK. Under a couple of runways, if you can take the noise, you can take photos....on property near the base.</p>

<p>(The link is a image taken 15 Oct. 2009, near the base..)<br>

A US Air Force C-32A, carrying Mrs. Obama on a visit to the NW Florida area.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/9911171</p>

<p>It is all in the hands of the local law enforcement types....</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It seems that some law enforement officials mistake their badges for a halo.<br>

My experiences with local and state police has been good. they are polite and thoughtful.<br>

I think one of the primary reasons most people enter law enforcement it that they are people oriented and want a good steady job.<br>

But the way these men are described, i think they are hungry to show their power and authority.<br>

and forget the "serve and protect" part of their job.<br>

I see no further mention of the missing money.<br>

it is indeed strange that all was not missing.<br>

I hope the town is required to pay her back.<br>

I suspect someone working for that town has purchased a car or a boat.<br>

it looks fishy. Even if the lady had completely lost it, the autorities disregarded<br>

proper procedure. It sounds to me like a certain European country 75 years ago.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>$13000 in cash on her.<br>

a rifle<br>

bleeding leg, limping...<br>

a camera,<br>

near sensitive area,</p>

<p>... seems like perfect terrorist suspect on any sunny day...:)</p>

<p>Now, she wants some public money, 70 million dollars in reperations.<br>

Your taxpayers money is at stake. Your freedom is at stake. <br>

Sounds like a story prepared by a lawyer having nothing better to do, disgruntled since another law firm was hired.</p>

 

<p>You guys are aware that this happened three years ago right? And yes, there's a lot more to the story.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>In the front seat of her vehicle officers found a shotgun with about 250 shotgun shells, and an XM-15 assault rifle with more than 250 rounds of ammunition</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.newsday.com/sheriffs-woman-arrested-at-air-base-had-guns-in-car-1.1345260">http://www.newsday.com/sheriffs-woman-arrested-at-air-base-had-guns-in-car-1.1345260</a></p>

<p>Sorry John, I repeated your link above.<br>

Chocking story, that could have been from Bantustan in the seventies - and not US 2012. I would not get near the place to check for myself.<br>

I cannot see how this can be all made up. I cannot see either any possibility that it can be justified as Frank seem to hint at. Too many witnesses involved. <br>

For me, those directly involved in what seems to be a severe case of misdemeanor at least, or criminal behavior on the part of people, that should be there to make laws be respected. <br>

On the other hand, whether this is worth $70 million, must be a wild shot to be negotiated !</p>

<p>Again, this all happened 3 years ago. It's hardly news. It has little, if anything, to do with photography. She wasn't arrested for taking pictures. She was arrested for trespassing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Genovese was seen at the air field taking pictures on previous occasions over the past few weeks and was warned to stay away, said Undersheriff Joseph T. Caracappa.<br /> On one of those prior occasions, "She had wandered on the property, looking around, and was approached by staff at the Air National Guard," Caracappa said. "She was asking them about containers on the property, and they said, 'We can't tell you that,' and asked her to leave."<br /> But she was seen and recognized on the property again Thursday evening by an off-duty Southampton Town police officer, and upon arrival Deputy Sheriff Robert Carlock made the arrest, officials said.<br /> In the front seat of her vehicle officers found a shotgun with about 250 shotgun shells, and an XM-15 assault rifle with more than 250 rounds of ammunition, Caracappa said.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not to mention the $13,000 in cash she was carrying.</p>

<p>Clearly nothing suspicious in any of that. The officer should simply have said "have a nice day, Mam" and sent her on her way.</p>

<p>The thought occurs to me that if I wanted to be "unjustly arrested" and vociferously protest my rights, and possibly get a large legal settlement, what I'd do would be to hand around a military base, maybe wander onto the property and get thown off a few times, ask about things I really didn't need to know about, then show up again soon after carrying a car full of assault weapons (all licensed of course) and large amounts of cash and start taking pictures. Any card carrying Glen Beck fan would be proud of her.</p>

<p>Of course in this case she's clearly just being picked on for being a normal citizen going about her daily activities just like any other soccer mom would and the police should just leave her alone. Nothing in the least bit suspicious happening here. I'm sure that every day the police stop hundreds of people with an assault rifle and 250 round of ammunition on the front seat of their car. This is America after all. Now if she had a camera, well, that changes things...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm sure that every day the police stop hundreds of people with an assault rifle and 250 round of ammunition on the front seat of their car. This is America after all. Now if she had a camera, well, that changes things...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know you're being sarcastic, but...... That is the stereotypical view the rest of the world has!</p>

<p>"That is the stereotypical view the rest of the world has!" A pretty sad commentary on "the rest of the world" if you ask me.</p>

<p>The town did not offer to settle so the matter will proceed to trial, at which time the facts will be presented, both sides will argue their case, the jury will decide, and the law will be applied. </p>

<p>The outcome is far from certain. </p>

<p>The view of the 'rest of the world' is probably as inaccurate as of those living in the States. But we all tend to think our view is correct wherever we live and only by travel and interchange does a more rational attitude eventuate.</p>

<p>"But we all tend to think our view is correct wherever we live and only by travel and interchange does a more rational attitude eventuate." I would agree with this 100%.</p>

<p>The town did not offer to settle so the matter will proceed to trial, at which time the facts will be presented, both sides will argue their case, the jury will decide, and the law will be applied.</p>

<p>Not necessarily. The whole thing could get disposed of pre-trial. Apparently the town attorney forgot to answer her complaint (seriously, dude?) and there was a defaul against the town, they moved to vacate, and... I can't find anything at all about what happened. Not even on Lexis. And that was a year ago.</p>

<p>Assuming the (new) town attorney can work her way around the default problem, my money is on her losing either on a dismissal or a summary judgment. But that's just an educated guess.</p>

<p>The plaintiff's motion for a default judgement was denied on the grounds of "forgivable negligence" on the part of the original town attorney due to 2 expected deaths in his family. <br>

<a href="http://www.murthalawfirm.com/nancy-genovese-lawsuit-updates-town-southampton-default">http://www.murthalawfirm.com/nancy-genovese-lawsuit-updates-town-southampton-default</a></p>

<p>I can't find the reference but I did come across a posting to the effect of the town foregoing their own attorney by hiring a law firm. </p>

<p><em>The view of the 'rest of the world' is probably as inaccurate as of those living in the States. But we all tend to think our view is correct wherever we live and only by travel and interchange does a more rational attitude eventuate.</em><br>

Given the experiences of people currently passing through immigration in the US and the UK, this statement is questionable :). </p>