Railfan & Railroad editor handcuffed at Broad Channel, suing (1014150) | |||
Home > SubChat | |||
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
Railfan & Railroad editor handcuffed at Broad Channel, suing |
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Dec 16 10:16:19 2010 Copied from another discussion group. Apologies if it's a repost; I didn't see it.R&R Editor Steve Barry locked up in NYPD encounter photographing vintage subway train > Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 18:24:13 -0800 > Subject: [A_A] Police Encounter in New York City > > Editorial in next issue of Railfan and Railroad magazine > > > Police Encounter in New York City > > > > On August 21, 2010, your editor, along with contributor Mike > > Burkhart, went into New York City to photograph the Transit Museum’s > > historic train, which was making a run to the Rockaways. After > > shooting for most of the day, we were waiting for the return trip at > > the Broad Channel station when we were approached by two (and > > eventually, five) officers of the New York Police Department. They > > insisted that photography was not allowed. After asking for i.d., I > > gave a verbal legal i.d. (full name and hometown) and repeatedly > > asked for a supervisor. I soon found myself in handcuffs. > > > > Mike and I were eventually cited, with the Transit Adjudication > > Bureau violation reading “. . . P.O. observed deft using his camera > > to take unauthorized photos on south bound plat.” This apparently > > violated Section/Subdivision 1050.9.C of the New York City Rules of > > Conduct. By the way, the section cited states that “Photography, > > filming or video recording in any facility or conveyance is permitted > > except that ancillary equipment such as lights, reflectors or tripods > > may not be used.” > > > > Even though the tickets for photography totalled $25.00 each (I > > received an additional ticket related to producing i.d. for another > > $50.00) and we could easily have settled them via phone, Mike and I > > have taken the stand that the police have gone too far. We contacted > > the New York Civil Liberties Union, who readily agreed to take the > > case. Our first step was to go to the Transit Adjudication Bureau > > (with three attorneys in tow for $100 worth of tickets!) to have the > > violations dismissed, which they were with no question, since the law > > clearly allows photography. > > > > Next step is, our attorneys have filed a Notice of Claim with the > > Comptroller of the City of New York stating that, “Please take notice > > that Claimant Ernest Steve Barry intends to file claims for damages > > against the City of New York, the New York City Police Department, > > and New York City Police Department Officers . . .” and goes on to > > list the officers involved. > > > > Since this is an ongoing legal matter, we’ll give you just the facts > > that are a part of the public record at this point. The facts of the > > incident, as stated in the Notice of Claim, are: > > > > “3. The time, place, and manner in which the claims arose are as > > follows: > > > > “Claimant is a resident of Newton, New Jersey. On the afternoon of > > August 21, 2010, Claimant and Michael Burkhart took photographs from > > the southbound end of the Broad Channel subway station platform. > > They were approached by a New York City Police Officer, identified by > > Claimant’s observance of the Officer’s badge as Respondent Officer > > Dutes, Shield Number 15004, and one other officer. Officer Dutes > > demanded that Claimant cease taking photographs. During this > > interaction, three other officers approached the group. > > > > “Officer Dutes then demanded to see Claimant’s I.D. and Michael > > Burkhart’s I.D. Claimant informed Officer Dutes that he was not > > carrying I.D., and instead provided Officer Dutes with his name and > > hometown. Officer Dutes then placed Claimant in handcuffs, searched > > his pockets without his consent, and escorted Claimant off the > > platform to a waiting room. One of the officers left. Neither > > Claimant nor Mr. [Burkhart] was able to obtain this officer's name or > > badge number. > > > > “Claimant was detained for a total of approximately 20 minutes. > > Officer Dutes issued Claimant two Notices of Violation alleging that > > Claimant 21 N.Y.C.R.R. § 1050.9(c) by taking unauthorized photographs > > and 21 N.Y.C.R.R. § 1050.6(d)(3) by refusing to provide I.D. After > > issuing these Notices, Officer Dutes released Claimant. During the > > period of Claimant’s detention, Officers Dutes, Blakely, Balkaran and > > Brennan were present. On October 1, 2010, the Transit Adjudication > > Bureau dismissed both Notices of Violation as facially insufficient.” > > > > > > It goes on to say: > > > > “4. Claimant has been damaged as follows: (1) Claimant was unlawfully > > deprived of his liberty and his free speech right of free expression; > > (2) Claimant was subjected to unlawful use of force and physical > > contact, and (3) Claimant was unlawfully detained, causing him > > injury. > > > > “Based on the information known to Claimant at this time, Claimant > > has suffered damages amounting to no less than 50,000 dollars for the > > violations of his rights under state law and the Constitution of the > > State of New York. Claimant reserves his rights to supplement the > > nature of his claims, the identity of New York City officials or > > employees named in his claims, and the amount of total damages.” > > > > > > We’ll keep you informed as best we can as this wins it way through > > the legal system. > > > > Steve Barry > > Managing editor > > Railfan & Railroad |