Magazine Editor Detained by NYPD for taking pics on Subway

[james_poulos]

<p>In spite of the fact that photography is perfectly legal on the NY Subway (21 NYCRR 1050.9(3)) five police officers handcuffed and detained the editor of "RAILFAN and RAILROAD" magazine on 8/21/2010 while he was taking pictures waiting for the Transit Museum's historic train to pass. It is only coming to light now because the victims remained silent on the advice of their attorney until they were cleared of the bogus charges.<br>

The setails can be seen here<br>

http://www.pixiq.com/article/NYPD%20Handcuffs%20Magazine%20Editor%20for%20Photographing%20Trains<br>

The NYCLU is involved and a notice of claim has been filed - the city is going to be sued over this.</p>

[starvy]

<p>Trainspotters are often mistaken for many a thing.</p>

[james_poulos]

<p>Thanks to the actions of the NYPD instead of an article showcasing the Transit Museum and its vintage train operations the readers of this magazine will be reading about how railfans who try to photograph that train are harassed instead. If this can happen to the editor of a magazine imagine what happens to the rest of us.<br>

People pay $30 - $40 to ride that train and photograph it when it runs on select dates in the summer. The article could have been positive and attracted railfans to visit NYC to ride the train - instead the message to railfans is clear: VIsit NYC at the risk of detention and potentially months of legal hassles.<br>

"Railfan and Railroad" will be publishing the story in its February 2011 issue - meanwhile advance copies are spreading amongst the various railfan groups throughout the country.</p>

[Brad_]

Guess they didn't have their "rights card" handy?

 

Will be interesting to hear the other two sides of the story. In general, it's really tough for me to get worked

up. But then myself and thousands others have taken NYC subway pix with zero issues. Stuff happens in an imperfect world when humans are involved.

[ray .]

Certainly more imperfect than it used to be for photographers when photographing just about anything

other than something easily comprehensible to today's simpletons.

[eric_arnold]

<p>not that surprised to hear this, actually.</p>

[saintelmo21]

<p>These are like dog-bite stories. They suck. As free citizens, I think it is good to be aware of the negative potential of meticulous governance. Overall, I have had very little unfriendly contact with either public officials or the public. As street photographers, we will interact with authorities who are pledged to the safety of our society and we should remember what we all learned in kindergarten. Here is a link, originally posted by John Kelly to a documentary of a man who was questioned by police while taking photos of a bridge: <a href="http://duckrabbit.info/2009/03/white-on-brunel/"></a><br>

<a href="http://duckrabbit.info/2009/03/white-on-brunel/">White on Brunel</a></p>

[Palouse]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3670956">Eric Arnold</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Dec 18, 2010; 03:36 p.m.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>not that surprised to hear this, actually.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why? </p>

 

[dr._karl_hoppe]

<p>Good for Barry and Burkhart, sue the city's ass off. This is sadly the only way to make the city's police follow the law -- lengthy lawsuits, full of interrogatories, depositions of the officers, motion after motion, the city being "papered" to death by the ACLU, then a multimillion-dollar settlement or jury verdict to pin their ears back. Too bad the officers in question won't have to pay up from their personal funds. If just one officer lost his house and junior's college fund to pay a claim, you'd see how fast the attitude and procedure would change. Crucify the bastards.</p>