Bakersfield,CA - news photog assaulted at shopping mall and held against his will by mall security

[dai_hunter]

http://kbak.bakersfield.com/local/story/4988161p-5045018c.html

 

First Amendment Issues Raised As Valley Plaza Security Guards Tackle

[TV] 29 Eyewitness [news] Photographer To Ground

 

"Fifty-two year-old news photographer Chuck Dennis was almost done

videotaping the aftermath of an armed robbery at Valley Plaza Mall on

September 9th. As Dennis was in the parking lot shooting Bakersfield

police on scene just outside Macy's, a man in plain clothes approached

Dennis and barks out, "Sir, I'm going to ask you to stop filming at

this point and leave the mall please," said the plain clothes man

without identifying himself...."

 

They assaulted him; injured him; tried to seize his camera; handcuffed

him; and took him to, and held him in, their office in the mall

against his will.... Methinks this is a BIG problem for them now.

 

Read the story on-line and see the video stream. Marvelous!

[Uhooru]

Don't you think there's a pretty big gap in the story there? Like what happened after he was told to stop. Don't forget, Malls are private property. You do not have a right to shoot while on Mall property if you are asked to stop by the mall.

[mike dixon]

Barry, read the article and watch the clip. There's no gap. The plain clothes security guy (who didn't identify himself) marched up and ordered the reporter to stop taping, the reporter responded he had a first-amendment right to photograph the news, and the security guy put him in a choke hold while his associates helped to tackle the reporter to the ground. This was in the parking lot outside the mall.

 

My suspicion is that the mall's lawyers will be quite busy in the near future, and the mall's insurance premiums will soon be going up.

[dai_hunter]

Barry, exactly for copyright reasons I only posted the first quoted para of the story and the link. The additional comments are mine, in my own words, describing what happened as it was reported.

 

As long as it's still on line, and it is, there is no reason, or is there any justification, to post the whole thing and infringe the publisher's copyright.

[david_widom]

under the current bush/cheney/ashcroft/rove administration, this is what it's come down to. if you value your civil liberties (among other things), please vote for a change on tuesday.

[david_henderson]

"My suspicion is that the mall's lawyers will be quite busy in the near future, and the mall's insurance premiums will soon be going up."

 

And that of course is the root of the problem. Until law officers and look-alikes face the realistic possibility of personal responsibility when they make up the rules or exert powers nobody but their employers want them to have, there is no incentive to stop this intolerable behaviour.

[gaius1]

Two words for ya: Rodney King.

[andrew_miller_gresham]

isn't someone going to ask what kind of cam and lenses the dude had? :P

[Brad_]

<I>under the current bush/cheney/ashcroft/rove administration, this is what it's come

down to.</I><BR><P>

 

Can you elaborate on that? Sounds like assault, battery, and unlawful detention by people

thinking they're the real police. <P>

 

<I>Two words for ya: Rodney King.</I><BR><P>

 

How does this possibly relate to Rodney King?

[tholte]

David W. -- can we leave politics out of this please? Pretty soon somebody else will chime in "Osama wants Kerry to win, do you?"

[jeff_conrad]

<cite>Don’t forget, Malls are private property. You do not have a right

to shoot while on Mall property if you are asked to stop by the mall.</cite>

<p>

It depends on where the mall is, and the rules vary from state to state as

well among different jurisdictions within a state. Under California state

law, there is no criminal trespass on private property open to the public.

Absent a local ordinance with such a provision, a request by the owner’s

agent to leave the property is without legal force. The Bakersfield

Municipal Code <em>does</em> have several sections (9.34.110, 9.34.120, and

9.35.010) that require a person leave private property upon order by the

owner’s agent, and refrain from re-entry for 24 hours (48 hours in the case

of a business) after being told to leave. The situation is complicated a

bit by Sec. 9.34.130, which makes exception for expressive activities under

the Unruh Civil Rights act, and by a provision in 9.35.010 that states

<blockquote>

“A request to leave may be made only if it is rationally related to the

services performed or the facilities provided.”

</blockquote>

<p>

Even the status of local ordinances that provide for criminal trespass on

private property open to the public is questionable in light of a 1970

California Supreme Court decision, <cite>In Re Cox</cite>. In that

decision, the Court narrowly construed a San Rafael trespass ordinance so

that trespass occurred only when the activity would constitute disorderly

conduct. However, more recent decisions in California appellate courts

(e.g., <cite>In Re Timothy R</cite>) have made different interpretations of

<cite>Cox</cite>, so you’d need to consult with an attorney for an authoritative

guess on the legal force of a local trespass law. Your attorney also could

advise the cost of challenging such a law ...

<p>

In the case at hand, the security personnel may have had grounds to order

the photographer to leave, and perhaps effect a citizen’s arrest if he

failed to do so. Or perhaps not, especially considering that Mr. Dennis

was a journalist. In any event, the Section of the California Penal Code

(837) that provides for citizen arrest does <em>not</em> include the right

of assault or robbery. Moreover, if the thugs had bothered to read the

California security guard training manual, they’d have seen that there duty

was to “observe and report” rather than indulge their Dirty

Harry fantasies.

<p>

The mall may well be liable for substantial civil damages, but it would

seem that the Kern County DA should pursue this incident as a violent

crime. Somehow I’m not holding my breath.

[Uhooru]

Yep Mike, if that's the case, sounds like excessive force to me, and probably lack of probable cause, it seems that he would basically have to keep shooting in order to justify a citizen's arrest and doesn't sound like there was any justification for using force.

 

Just for a reality check, I do believe they can ask you to stop if you are on private property, like a malland can actually arrest you, legally for trespassing if you don't. Being a jouralist doesn't give you any special privliges in that regard. I may be wrong, but I don't think so. There is no 1st amend. right to take pictures while you are on private property. But they (security) don't have police powers, its essentially a citizen's arrest. They also have to justify any use of force just like the cameraman would if he took a swing at them. The question I would have is are they legally allowed to use that force reasonably neccessary to overcome resistance to a citizen's arrest. Police can use reasonbaly neccessary force. I don't think answering back verbally to a security guard establishes probable cause to assault the guy. Oh well.....a 50 - 100 000 bucks later....unless you can show cause for punitive damages, then it could get even bigger.

[Alex_Es]

A clear case of of excessive force, unlawful detention, violation of 1st Amendment rights and probably much more.

 

I'll be visiting NYC this winter with camera and I am scared. The thuggies are having a field day in Bush's America.

[tholte]

Alex, are you assuming Bush is going to win or do you think things will stay the same under Kerry? Either way I think you are a little on the wimpy side. Pump it up and get some noogies! Anything worth doing is worth a little pain.

[stephen hazelton]

I'm somehow skeptical that the presidential election will have much effect on the behavior of mall security guards. I don't care who you vote for, but this incident seems like a pretty stupid reason to pick a candidate.

[tholte]

I hear you Stephen, that is why it would be nice if we could leave politics out of these posts. It is like Dale Carnegie said -- everybody thinks they are right, not 95% of the time or 98% of the time, all of the time.

[craig_gillette]

Yeah, it's hard to figure from all the frantic politicization of everything if Bush has masterminded the collapse of western civilization as we know it or is a complete dunderhead. Or maybe he's a mastermind that has convinced many folks he is a dunderhead? In which case, somebody that capable probably should be re-elected.

 

I hardly think that the behavior of the mall security guards in Bakersfield is a barometer for the condition of anything of significance. Had it been Fresno, then I'd suggest we worry. But then when my dad retired, as a new job he took over as head of safety and security at a large urban hospital. Several weeks before he started one of the guards had tried to get one of the dogs to bite somebody. The dog didn't. So the guard punched this guy on the street. If I'd thought of it at the time I would have blamed Jimmy Carter.

[scott_strohmeier]

I think that a number of people here missed the point. The journalist has a right to go anywhere that the public can, and also has a right to go more places than a normal citizen does. This is a well recognised right under the 1st Amendment, known as right of access. This right gives news reporting agencies and their employees the right of access to areas to gather and report news. The mall has very little right to restrict that access. Under the Pruneyard case of 1980, the Supreme Court recognised the right to access if it is substantially a public place, such as a parking lot in a public mall. And if the whole video segment was watched, there were three lawyers who clearly agreed that the reporter had a right to be there. It is sad that in today's social environment people with cameras are viewed as a threat. And for a working journalist to be attacked and detained,is a tragedy for our rights. What I find particularly sad is that in watching the video, you can see several police officers who do not interfere with the actions of the security guards. That a policeman would stand by and watch a news reporter be accosted in this manner by private security without reacting in any way tends to remind me of Eugene Zaikonnikov's pictures of the oct 28, 2004 street protests in Minsk, Belarus. There too you see the news journalists having little or no support by law enforcement officers.

 

By standing by and condoning the loss of our freedoms, we help the people such as Bin Laden to win. We are better than this type of behavoir, and We need to do what we can to protect and defend our rights.

[Alex_Es]

Noogies?

 

An interesting question about what will happen if Kerry wins. Bush started the momentum that has, among other things, put photographers in danger of things like this Bakersfield incident. It won't just suddenly disappear in November if Kerry wins. I am not even sure if things will get better under Kerry.

 

Whatever happens, the US will retain its irrational and vicious right-wingnut thuggies. What can put a damper on assaults like the one in Bakersfield are big fat law suits that end in big fat losses for shopping malls that employ hoodlums as rent-a-cops.

 

Should mention that I live in Japan, where we have our own problems. Being a street photographer is not one of them at the moment.

[spanky]

Does somebody need to have the title photojournalist in order to take newsworthy pictures or images? I mean, if a event happens in front of me or near me while I have a camera that is newsworthy , is there like a sort of civil responsibility to capture it? One would think that anyone calling themselves a reporter or photojournalist will have gained access someplace through the usual channels. Still, I cannot believe how so many people have cell phone cameras and even cameras on ball point pens, but God forbid should somebody walk into someplace with a small gadget bag and a SLR around their neck.

I recently shot a roll in a huge multi ethnic market in downtown. A buddy of mine once did the same but he was kicked out. When I told him I had no problem walking around and shooting, he said that with his digital camera he looked like a tourist but me with my RZ67 I look like a pro who was there for specific reasons. Could be, but I also just could have been very lucky! LOL - Maybe we all need to start wearing fedoras with a press card in the band!

[dai_hunter]

Mark first you need one of these<div></div>

[dai_hunter]

...and one of these<div></div>

[craig_gillette]

Yeah, if the cops had just dropped what they were doing about this armed robbery, they could have jumped into this big time. Anybody that thinks that John Kerry is going to personally see to it that mall security in Bakersfield gets sensitized to photographers is more than a little out of touch. For example Chad Clanton's "I think they're going to regret doing this," the Kerry spokesman warned before adding - "They better hope we don't win." directed at Sinclair Broadcasting doesn't sound all that promising either.

[jtdnyc]

<A clear case of of excessive force, unlawful detention, violation of 1st Amendment rights and probably much more.>

 

Does seem like excessive force and unlawful detention...but violation of the 1st Amendment? Hold your horses, pilgrim. The 1st Amendment places restrictions on the government and has nothing to do with illegal actions by private parties. (If mall guards in California have been granted peace officer status then the situation might be different. But, in general, private security guards are just that -- private. Their actions might raise various civil and criminal issues but not 1st Amendment issues.)

 

<I'll be visiting NYC this winter with camera and I am scared. The thuggies are having a field day in Bush's America.>

 

I'll overlook the gratuitous political swipe and prospectively welcome you to New York anyway. After you have seen for yourself that no unreasonable restrictions have been placed on photography, I hope you will report back to this forum that New York is among the safest large cities in the world -- especially for street photographers, notwithstanding some of the whining we see posted on the 'net.

 

I have had only one encounter with a police officer relating to photography. On an underground train platform at Penn Station, I was getting ready to take pictures of a relative arriving with a new baby. The officer told me that no photography was allowed. I told him the circumstances, and he let me take the pictures. End of incident.

 

By the way, this happened during the Clinton years. Security in New York had already been tightened following the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. Never occurred to me that the cop might be a "Clinton thuggie."

 

Years earlier, I had prowled the off-limits areas under Grand Central Terminal at night with my Leica...not something I would recommend you attempt on your visit!

 

So, come on, Alex, don't be scared. Fear isn't a good quality in a photographer...it can lead to blurry pictures!

[jtdnyc]

The last paragraph in my post immediately above now strikes me as sounding a little snotty. Didn't mean it that way. I'd be happy to buy you a drink when you get to NYC. Cheers!