March 12th, 2010 | 
Author: A photographer, whose work has been published in several newspapers, was harassed by police and issued an order banning him from entering any business establishment because he exercised his CONSTITUTIONAL right to take pictures on PUBLIC STREETS. According to the article in SEVEN DAYS:
For the last year or so, he’s spent many of his lunch hours shooting artsy, black-and-white photos of people on Church Street: homeless people, the elderly, families with children, anyone who catches his eye. He insists that all his photos are taken on public property, not inside stores or through the windows or blinds of private homes.
Dan Scott’s work has been featured in both the Burlington Free Press and Seven days. However he is primarily an amateur who posts most of his pictures on Flickr. Security guards and business owners who have no concept of first amendment rights or what freedom means tried to get Mr Scott to stop taking pictures. They reported his NON CRIME to the police who harassed and questioned him repeatedly. The police finally showed absolutely no respect for the constitution by issuing an order banning Mr Scott from doing business in Downtown Burlington. All this from a state which supposedly prides itself on a motto that includes the word “Freedom. How Ironic!
The article continues:
David Mindich, who chairs the journalism department at St. Michael’s College in Colchester, calls that approach “blatantly outrageous … Some guy who is exercising his First Amendment right to take pictures in a public place is being punished for it. That’s about as fundamental a right as I can imagine. I have no idea what could be the possible justification.”
Mr Scott is escalating the matter to the ACLU – we can only hope that they take up this cause and make the town of Burlington and its police force respect Constitutional Rights!
Photographers should contact the Mayor of Burlington and express support for the freedom to take pictures.
Here are the pictures Mr Scott takes: http://www.flickr.com/photos/38261591@N06/
It is unbelievable that the town of Burlington wants to stifle what is clearly artistic expression!
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.
If they don’t want him taking pictures and he continues taking pictures they should ban him. It’s his right to take pictures and it’s their right not to allow him onto their property. You can’t defend his rights without defending theirs.
I actually can defend him because the difference is that the store owners are not banning him for taking pictures on their property. They are banning him because he takes pictures on the public street, something that is perfectly legal and constitutionally protected. He broke no laws and did not take pictures while on private property so they have no right to ban him simply because they do not like his form of artistic expression.
I would agree with you ONLY IF he had been banned for taking pictures while standing ON private property – this is not the case
Stores cannot ban people they simply don’t like. If that were the case then what if a store banned a Republican from entering because they saw him handing out campaign material on the street corner? How about if another store banned a Democrat for the same reason?
Oh but they can. They can legally do so for almost any reason other than race, gender, etc, the same way one can deny someone entry to their home for any reason. However, since you seem reasonable, you might consider doing the reasonable thing and finding out more about this situation, including getting the other side of the story. This guy just pissed people off, and they acted accordingly. He’s been over-the-top defensive when people asked him not to take their picture, and people have felt harassed for awhile. He can keep taking pictures. Noone’s stopping him. But he doesn’t have constitutional protections against people acting out on their justifiable anger. I respectfully urge you to become better informed before launching attacks against people and their businesses.
Actually what I find very offensive at this point is the very existence of “Universal Trespass orders”. Read the follow up post I made to this story and you will see that they have been used against an employee who asserted his right to back pay. Also there is no appeals process. This is a bigger issue than the photography and this one photographer. The police are being used as a virtual private army without due process. If these “trespass orders” were issued by courts I would probably reconsider my position. Heck – even the no-fly list has an appeals process.
Then there is the 45 minute questioning by police at his place of employment. That is inexcusable and as I have pointed out, here in NY, the NYPD has been sued for questioning photographers for as little as 20 minutes. In one case a photographer won a $31,000 settlement for 20 minutes of questioning – that’s $1,500 per minute. Photography is not a crime so I consider this type of action by police nothing more than an attempt to intimidate photographers into giving up their hobby or profession.
There is much more at stake here now than just one photographer against one store.
The store owners have the right to ban someone for almost any reason – in this case they believed he was bothering their customers and would be detrimental to business. Whether or not he actually would be detrimental to business is another matter, but the important part is that the store owners believed he was and it’s their right to act on that interpretation. Whether or not the photographer was breaking the law doesn’t come into play – what’s at stake is the rights of the business owners.
I’d like to correct one matter in the post. The city didn’t ban him, the trespass order was a decision made by the store owners who then asked the police to deliver it. Somebody in another forum I read posted the relevant section of Vermont law, and it states:
3705. Unlawful trespass
(a) A person shall be imprisoned for not more than three months or fined not more than $500.00, or both, if, without legal authority or the consent of the person in lawful possession, he enters or remains on any land or in any place as to which notice against trespass is given by:
(1) Actual communication by the person in lawful possession or his agent or by a law enforcement officer acting on behalf of such person or his agent; or (…)
So the police acted appropriately in delivering the order. The initial questioning was because multiple people had complained because he was photographing young women then turning away, and they thought he might be a sexual predator. It would be irresponsible for the police not to investigate that – but they backed off when they found that he was just a street photographer.
I know that photographers are constantly having their rights threatened and it’s important to defend against that, but in this case everybody followed the law and it’s very unfair to characterize the police and city as harassing or taking part in the war on photography.
Whether or not a business has the right to ban someone, not for behavior he exhibits inside the business but for what he does outside of the premises may be legal in some jurisdictions. But lets set that aside for the moment – this is a store that banned him from doing business in any of 67 other stores as well without due process. The very existence of such “Universal Trespass Orders” is what I am now questioning and what I believe the ACLU should investigate. Particularly in light of the previous experience where they were used to exact vengeance against a man who rightfully fought for and won a back pay award from one of the stores. This issue goes way beyond one store and one photographer.
The fact that there is no due process and no appeals process is disturbing as well.
Then there is the 45 minute grilling this photographer received from the police at his place of employment. In NYC photographers have successfully sued the NYPD for shorter periods of detention. The Burlington police specifically targeted this photographer at his place of employment to send a message, and possibly even get him fired. THAT is harassment!!
You didn’t quote both sides of the story. For example:
——
Manager Mara Bethel tells a different story.
“We’ve had a problem with him a number of times before — taking pictures of women, specifically, on the sneaky side of things — without asking their permission,” she says. “A number of customers have come in and said, ‘There’s a guy out there taking pictures and it’s really creeping us out.’”
Bethel confirms that Scott didn’t enter the coffeehouse to take pictures, nor does she describe his pictures as “lewd.” Nevertheless, she says, Scott’s persistence and demeanor were “unsettling” to her and other employees.
“For the young women around here, it felt really uncomfortable, someone kind of lurking about, and then quickly taking their picture and turning away,” Bethel says. Moreover, when someone asked Scott what he was doing, she claims he became defensive and argumentative.
“I got scared, actually, because he got really aggressive with me, not physically but verbally,” she states.
Brenda Vinson, whose family owns Uncommon Grounds, confirms that this wasn’t an isolated incident. She says several of her employees and regulars have tried, unsuccessfully, to speak to Scott about his photography.
——
It’s a business decision. They tried talking with him about the problem, but he continued to make a nuisance of himself and the management had to resort to the nuclear option. “Due process” does not apply as the decision does not involve the government; the police are only delivering the notice issued by the business owner. It’s the property owner’s right to make the decision when somebody should be kept off their property. That’s a right that’s been around longer than photography.
The guy brought it on himself. If you’re going to see the same people, in your home town, most days for a year, you can’t make them fee uncomfortable, be impolite to them and trick them into thinking you’re a sexual predator, and not expect any sort of consequences – even when you’re not breaking a law.
1. Taking pictures of anyone without asking their permission is NOT illegal.
2. Scott’s persistence and demeanor is probably a subjective opinion related to the fact that he did not submit to the demands of the store managers. I take pictures of architecture and trains. If a security guard tells me that it is illegal to take a picture of his building from a public sidewalk, I will either ignore him or tell him to pound sand. We are sick and tired of people telling us that photography is illegal and/or not permitted at locations where we clearly know that it is.
3. A lot of things are uncomfortable if you are out in public. I find being forced to listen to “street musicians” in the subway extremely uncomfortable. The noise level drowns out important announcements and is quite nerve wracking. However courts have ruled that they have a constitutional right to be there – end of story.
We get approached by self appointed vigilantes on the subway who think that taking pictures violates some sort of “9/11 law” – even some cops believe it. Quite frankly we are sick of it! If someone who is not a person of any authority (ie. not a transit worker or cop) tells me to stop taking pictures I will tell him to mind his own business. If that same demand comes from a transit employee or cop I will cite the specific statute that permits photography – if they insist that I stop, I will file formal complaints. A photographer who was detained for taking pictures of subway entrances recently settled for $31,000 because cops questioned him for 20 minutes. The law after all IS the law!
Also, quite frankly I do not understand the public’s opposition to having their picture taken at a time when just about everyone on this planet is carrying a camera. Most cellphones are equipped with cameras. Can it be annoying, sure, but I know the law so I don’t argue with someone who takes a picture – although I have no idea why someone would want my picture, but that’s for another blog…
As for your repeated attempt to sneak the accusation of “sexual predator” into this discussion. Cops use the “potential terrorist” excuse to investigate railfans and plane spotters. As far as I am concerned it is just a bunch of bovine waste concocted by authorities hell bent on tightening control over our society. Since they cannot do it through legislation, the police are making an end-run around the constitution and intimidating people into giving up their rights (such as the right to free expression as expressed through photography).
In this case they were successful – they could not punish the photographer legally so they intimidated him into submission by harassing him at his place of employment. Personally I would have been on the phone to my attorney the minute the cops entered the door! A civil suit against the PD in question would have followed. Photography is not a crime.
Finally as to these Universal Trespass Orders – the STATE is a full participant in the process. While it is true that businesses in some jurisdictions can ban you for any reason, this is a blanket order that covers multiple venues. The fact that they were used in an employer/employee dispute makes them even more egregious. The message is clear to all employees – don’t argue over your paycheck or sue your employer for back pay or you will be banned! Like I said, the issue that this incident has exposed is much bigger than the incident itself.
You really don’t get it, do you? You’ll go on all day about the rights of the photographer on public property – and you’ll be correct. But when it comes to the rights of the business owner, you don’t care. The customers feel uncomfortable around the guy, the manager politely asks him to stop, this happens several times and he doesn’t – and it’s his right not to. But it’s also the coffee shop owner’s right to tell him to stay off their property.
Photographers have rights, and so do coffee shop owners. I happen to care about both of them. The right of the photographer to continue to photograph people in public places, and the right of the local business owners to decide who can go in their shops.
BTW, I didn’t introduce the “sexual predator” notion – it’s what the young women felt when they were being photographed by the mysterious man with the telephoto lens. He could easily have avoided that situation but chose not to. Whether or not the photography subjects were correct in thinking this isn’t the issue – the issue is that the business owners believed that the perception of the photographer was hurting their business.
The problem is not with the photographer but with people who see a camera and think pedophile, terrorist or sexual predator. I have no sympathy for them and it is they that need to be told by police that photography is not a crime. Too many photographers have been stopped from enjoying a perfectly LEGAL hobby or profession because of these false accusations. If I complain to a cop that I think the person standing in the corner is a terrorist because he wears a black t-shirt, I will be told that black t-shirts are not against the law. These women need to be told that cameras are not against the law.
You still don’t get it. It doesn’t matter that his actions were legal and that he was within his rights, and it doesn’t matter that the women in question were incorrect in thinking he was a stalker. Store owners aren’t required to consider that or anything else in making the decision to ask somebody to stay off their property, any more than I’m required to do a background check on your dog before asking you to keep him off my lawn. He’s bad for business. “A number of customers have come in and said, ‘There’s a guy out there taking pictures and it’s really creeping us out.’” When asked about his photography, he became defensive, argumentative and verbally abusive. (The manager’s words, not mine.)
The final straw seems to have been photographing the smoking girl. With a telephoto. Then didn’t delete the photos when he asked he to – which he’s not required to do, but there are many things in the world that we’re not required to do but that are polite and help other people not hate us.
The guy was trolling and he got smacked for it, and now you’re taking the bait and rising to the occasion to defend his troll and attack everybody involved in its consequences. Contacting the mayor Burlington – seriously? To complain about the coffee shop manager? Like the mayor doesn’t already have enough idiots to deal with and work to do. [personal attack deleted].
YOU are the one who does not get it. You are ASSUMING that the manager’s side of the story is the only correct one, yet the photographer paints a different picture on the follow up to this story which you obviously are ignoring. Click the links and you might learn something.
According to the photographer:
I happen to find the photographer’s side to be the more plausible one, particularly in light of customer accounts on YELP that state that the manager of that store has been rude to others. Personally if she had come out yelling at me I would have told her to pound sand! On the other hand if she were to politely ask I would have actually given her a polite answer, so I can understand the photographer’s reaction.
And yes – I did contact the mayor, not about the store but about the fact that HIS POLICE DEPARTMENT harassed this photographer for 45 minutes and insulted him because he posts pictures on Flickr. The police didn’t simply interrogate – they were there to intimidate!
The two things that this story brought to my attention which I find outrageous are:
1. the very existence of Universal Trespass Orders and how they have been abused
2. Police interrogation and harassment of photographers
Both of these are entirely within the control of the Mayor and his government.
If you wish to continue this debate do so without personal attacks or you will be blocked – after all as you say property owners have rights and this is MY blog! Two can play at that game!
Since you’ve censored my comments, which I thought were perfectly reasonable given the circumstances, I request that you remove all of them, then reflect on the irony.