November 02, 2008

TSA agent sleeping on the job


TSA agent sleeping on the job
Originally uploaded by _Allen_
This guy got caught sleeping on the job and then had the nerve to hassle the guy that took his picture while he was sleeping.

Read the whole story here www.talkairline.com/showphoto.php/photo/456

The photographer of this image wants it widely distributed. Please reference the original article.

August 22, 2008

Tribune photographer handcuffed at crash scene sues Oakland police

The following article appears at sfgate.com

The scariest thing about this article is not the article itself, it's the reader comments that follow it. A large number of comments slam Mr. Chavez for doing his job and documenting the story rather than helping the victims of the crash. I wonder if Mr. Chavez is a qualified EMT and if helping the victims would have actually helped at all? ...or made matters worse for the victims? Some say that he is a ghoul that just wanted to get gruesome photos and make money off the accident ... maybe that's the case maybe not, who knows? .... but are we ready to make that a crime? I don't think so.

Please follow the link above to see the reader comments.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(08-22) 10:37 PDT OAKLAND -- An Oakland Tribune photographer filed a federal civil rights lawsuit today against the city of Oakland, saying police illegally barred him from taking pictures at a freeway crash scene and handcuffed him when he persisted.

Ray Chavez, 44, said officers had interfered with his right as a member of the press to cover news, specifically a car crash and the emergency response time. The incident last year caused him to be "arrested and handcuffed without justification solely due to the exercise of First Amendment rights," said his suit, filed in U.S. District Court.

"It has been very stressful since I was humiliated by the OPD officers," Chavez said in an interview. "They should do their jobs and not interfere with ours as media members. These cops need to be re-educated. I don't think they know what the First Amendment and freedom of the press means."

Alex Katz, spokesman for City Attorney John Russo, declined to comment. The city previously rejected a claim that Chavez filed in connection with the incident.

On May 4, 2007, Chavez was driving north on Interstate 880 near the 29th Avenue exit in Oakland when a car in front of him crashed and rolled over in the fast lane. Chavez, wearing his press credential around his neck, got out of his car and began taking pictures, "considering this a spot news matter," the suit said.

Oakland police Officer Kevin Reynolds told Chavez that he should leave, the suit said. When Chavez replied that he had a right to be there as a member of the press. Reynolds angrily told him that he "didn't have any business here (and) that it was a crime scene," the suit said.

When Chavez took photos of an arriving ambulance, Reynolds blocked his camera and told him, "You don't need to take these kind of photos," according to the suit.

Reynolds asked for Chavez's identification and began writing him a citation, the suit said. As a California Highway Patrol cruiser arrived, Chavez again took pictures. That prompted Reynolds to say, "That's it. You're under arrest," the suit said.

The officer made Chavez sit next to the overturned car with his hands behind his back for a half-hour, the suit said. Passing motorists mistakenly believed Chavez had caused the crash and "cursed and made derogatory references to and signs at plaintiff while he sat on the ground handcuffed," the suit said.

Oakland police Officer Cesar Garcia told Chavez that he would be cited for impeding traffic and failing to obey a lawful order. The officers gave him the citation, removed the handcuffs and let him go, but not before Reynolds warned him, "Don't ever come here again to take these kinds of photos," the suit said.

The suit names the city, Police Chief Wayne Tucker, Reynolds and Garcia. It seeks unspecified monetary damages and a court injunction directing police to train its officers about allowing the media "reasonable access to accident and crime scenes and behind police lines."

Chavez was named photojournalist of the year earlier this month by the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. He has been with the Tribune for 14 years.

"The Oakland Police Department must abide by state statute and their own regulations as to what is appropriate, to allow the press to adequately cover newsworthy events," said Chavez's attorney, Terry Gross. "Whenever there's an incident, a crime scene, if there's no interference going on, then the OPD rules and state statute provide this right of access to the scene."

E-mail Henry K. Lee at hlee@sfchronicle.com.

August 05, 2008

Response from the 99 ABW Commander

Click on the image to go to flickr and read the letter and my response.

July 22, 2008

Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton basts DC Union Station Mamagement

The following is the text from a blog post originally posted here. For full text, links and images see the original blog here

norton1.jpg
Norton Schools Union Station Management on Photo Rights, Other Issues

norton2.jpg Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) used her perch as chair of a House Transportation subcommittee today to blast management for Washington DC's Union Station over their treatment of photographers, and LightboxDC was on the scene.

The hearings were sparked in part by harassment of photographers at the historic train station, and led to an hours-long grilling of station management regarding inconsistent policies on photography and a raft of other issues.

Norton kicked off the hearing with an opening statement that read, in part:

"Reported first amendment violations and denial of access by the press and public as well as inconsistent messages by Union Station personnel are especially troubling. In June, a photographer was detained by Union Station security personnel for taking non-commercial photographs. A real time display of the confusion about access came when Channel 5, a major television outlet here was shut down by security personnel while interviewing the chief spokesperson for Amtrak, who was explaining that photography was allowed. Although management officials asserted that a ban on photography was not the policy, Channel 5, National Public Radio, tourists and a host of amateur photographers have been shut down or given inconsistent direction on photography at Union Station. The evidence of confusion and arbitrary actions by security personnel reflects the continuing absence of clarity concerning public access. Union Station appears to be a case study for the necessity of my bill, H.R. 3519, the Open Society with Security Act, to assure public safety while maintaining the highest level of free and open access to the public."

Norton also reinforced the fact that Union Station, while hosting a mix of retail and other uses, remains public property. "The overriding public interest has never been in doubt: to provide the public access to a federally owned facility," Norton stated.

Incredibly, representatives for the entities that manage Union Station offered prepared statements that sidestepped, entirely, the very issue that helped initiate today's hearing.

Photographer Erin McCann came prepared to remind them of her long and frustrating chronology of attempts to communicate with them about their policies. "Often, my calls and e-mails have resulted in being given conflicting information, sometimes minutes apart by people in the same office," McCann testified.

Station managers said they're working to fix the problem, but Norton branded management's approach "pathetic" and demanded immediate removal of their signs claiming Union Station is private property and that photography can be banned at their discretion. Norton also mandated that management submit, within thirty days, a new draft policy regarding the rights of photographers and other public access rights within Union Station.

Tom Fitzgerald of DC's FOX5 covered today's hearing. His report, along with other videos and links, is here. Washington Post coverage here.

July 21, 2008

Arrested for photogrpahy

Meet Carlos Miller, a photojournalist in Miami, Florida. Carlos was recently arrested for disobeying an unlawful order to stop taking photos on a city street.

July 18, 2008

A few questions for my aviation photogrpahy buddies

I received an email from someone that appears to be an Air Force officer. His email came from a Gmail account, so I cannot verify who or where he is ... but he seems genuinely helpful and honest.

His email came with the following disclaimer: "I do not work with Nellis AFB, I'm at a different base, so I'm not authorized to tell you these things, but they are mainly public knowledge, also, I can not completely speak for them, due to their regulations may be a bit different than ours, that being said, let me go through these questions."

So anyways, without quoting his entire email I will just sat that there are two points that were made many times over as he answered my now famous "seven questions"

In many of his responses he made reference to the military police's jurisdiction extending off base to any location that is withing LOS (line of sight) of the base.

Also in many of his responses he referenced increased jurisdiction/rights on the part of the MPs and decreased civilian rights "around military bases" while we are in a "state of war".

My questions are these:

1. Does anyone know for sure if the MPs jurisdiction extends to any location within line of sight of the base?

2. Is the US actually in a "state of war"? (The USA has not declared war on a country since WWII)

3. Does a "state of war" increase the MPs jurisdiction over civilians and/or reduce our rights "around military bases"?

Note: A later email from this person states "due to a majority of US military assets being deployed to Iraq and other countries, the Department of Defense has declared that the US military is in a state of war, even if congress has not actually declared war on a country"

A Google search for "DoD declaration of state of war" turns up nothing.

Does anyone know if the DoD has declared a "state of war"? And if so, what does it mean?

-------------------------------------
Ive said this before many times but I think it's worth repeating.

I have no interest in being a troublemaker or a pain in the ass to the Air Force. I have no interest in finding out what the law is so that I can "get around" the law. I want to know what the law is so that I can be sure that I never violate it and I never do anything to jeopardize my nation's security. And I certainly do not want to end up in jail for taking a picture of something that I should not have. ..and I want to pass this information along to other photographers as well to keep them out of trouble.

I'd really like to know if my passion for aviation photography can co-exist with the laws of our land. ... but sadly nobody in a position of authority is willing to say what the law is. I'd like to make sure that we can all stay safe and legal when we go out photographing planes.

The laws regarding aviation photography in the proximity of a military base (if any actually exist) are our nations best kept secret it seems.

July 14, 2008

Request to fellow photographers

If you think that what happened to me at Nellis was wrong (Details here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/allenrockwell/2444562197/) and you do not want the same thing happening to you some day, please help me by expressing your opinions to the Las Vegas media and the authorities at Nellis AFB.

This is a matter of protecting your rights as a photographer.

I think it's important for these people to realize that I am not just one lone wacko out here writing letters ... there are several of us wackos Laughing <-- that was a joke.

What we need from Nellis (or the Air Force) is answers to the following 7 questions: (feel free to cut and paste these into your emails)

1. Do the Air Force police have jurisdiction over civilians outside of the air base?

2. Do the Air Force police have the authority (without a court order) to look at my photos? If so, under what authority?

3. Do the Air Force police have the authority (without a court order) to force me to delete my photos (Seizure of my private property)? If so, under what authority?

4. Do the Air Force police have the authority to detain and question a civilian on public or private property that happens to be in the proximity of an Air Force base?

5. Do the Air Force police have the authority to force me to move from private or public land just because I can see the air base from where I am standing.

6. Does the Air Force in fact have regulations regarding photography of “less common” aircraft? I’m not referring to secret or classified aircraft, but rather aircraft in the USAF inventory (as the officer stated) “in lower numbers”.

7. Does the Air Force have regulations concerning civilians photographing aircraft from public or private land outside of air bases?

You may submit your opinions on this matter to any or all of the following:

Las Vegas Sun Newspaper
ellen.wager@lasvegassun.com
feedback@lasvegassun.com

KTNV ABC 13 Las Vegas
kmovesian@ktnv.com
desk@ktnv.com

KVBC NBC 3 Las Vegas
jkotnik@kvbc.com
mfirestone@kvbc.com
cholmes@kvbc.com

Nellis AFB Public Affairs Office
99abw.pa@nellis.af.mil
michael.estrada@nellis.af.mil

Col Howard Belote's office, Commander Nellis AFB
99abwccs@nellis.af.mil
janet.duenas-resto@nellis.af.mil
99abwds@nellis.af.mil
99abwccs@nellis.af.mil

Here is a sample letter that you may want to use as a starting point for your letter to the people at Nellis AFB ... feel free to modify it any way you see fit  http://www.allensphotoblog.com/Sample.txt