November 19th, 2009 | 
Author: The security guard threatened a photographer who was taking pictures of the photogenic US Courthouse in Madison, Wisconsin with the words: “I’ll get a hold of Madison PD, they’ll come talk to you.”
According to the photographer who posts his story here, he was finished taking pictures of the State Capitol, and had moved on to the nearby Robert W. Kastenmeier United States Courthouse. He did not have any difficulty at the Capitol even when taking pictures of the INTERIOR, but the guard at the courthouse took offense to the fact that the photographer was taking pictures of the EXTERIOR of that building.
Guard: Don’t take one of the building.
Photographer: Why not?
Guard: Because…..security procedures.
Photographer: What security procedures? There’s no law that says I can’t take pictures.
Guard: I’ll get ahold of Madison PD they’ll come and talk to you.
The photographer in turn filed a complaint and received a response from Judge Barbara B Crabb in which she states:
“Photographing the building is perfectly acceptable, but you or anyone else who takes pictures of the building can expect to be asked politely by a court security officer about what you are doing. This is an unfortunate result of greater security concerns since 9/11, concerns that have only intensified since the recent discovery of two plots to blow up federal courthouses.
I understand that you were displeased about being questioning [sic] when you were merely taking pictures of an architecturally interesting building. I feel somewhat the same way when I have to submit to the increased security at the airport…
Here we go again: The magic words “9/11″ have been spoken and we are all supposed to lay down and surrender our rights and freedoms. I would be afraid to have this judge rule on a case involving the rights of photographers since she obviously has no respect for the law or the constitution. Photography is NOT A CRIME! Then she fails to address the fact that the photographer was not merely questioned politely, he was THREATENED and ordered to stop taking pictures. This runs contrary to her statement that “photography of the building is perfectly acceptable”.
Posted in Photography and the Law
Have a story to share that we did not cover? Want to discuss something in greater detail? Want to compare Nikon vs. Canon? Post it in our forum - all are welcome.
The double talk is evident. It will only get worse.
I think you’re being too hard on the judge. She acknowledged the legality of taking photographs of the building. We all know there is heightened security and that we might be questioned occasionally. I wouldn’t say calling the police was a threat either, everyone is free to do that. Just being a cooperative, non-confrontational good guy goes a long way in my experience towards easing tensions.
The real problem is the training of these security guards, etc… Someone is not telling them the whole truth when they are instructed on who to interact with and why. They see us as threats because they can see our big cameras very obviously standing out. (Is that a lens in your pocket or are you just glad to see me.) Apparently they fail to understand that nearly everyone in this country has a cell phone with a camera in it, and can take a photo or a video while appearing to be dialing. There’s no way to stop them.
So here we are the easy targets, the likely good guys, with our big in-your-face cameras, taking all the heat for the bad guys, who would probably try to be surreptitious anyway. This reminds me of gun control, where the good guys get regulated, and the bad guys (criminals) just keep doing whatever they want to. They don’t obey laws or follow rules, that’s why they’re called criminals.
Why does this judge feel the need to cover for the security guard? She ignores the true nature of the complaint and defends against a strawman. I can’t see that it’s any skin off her nose to simply admit a mistake was made. I guess its just human psychology to circle the wagons and defend against the outsiders. Nice judge.