According to the photographer:

The manager saw me and came out and read me the riot act. I explained that I had done nothing wrong and tried to walk away but she followed me down the street a ways yelling at me. That was the first incident.

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!

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].

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.

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.

——

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.

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!!

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.