• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Utah LF Photog Arrested, Harrassed, Loses Job

Finis Lineae

H
Finis Lineae

  • 0
  • 0
  • 26
Angular building 6

A
Angular building 6

  • 4
  • 0
  • 49

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
202,556
Messages
2,842,285
Members
101,379
Latest member
deckeda
Recent bookmarks
0
phfitz said:
Hi there,

Sorry I can not read all these posts, late for work. I did click the links but the news story is no longer there. I think everyone missed 1 point; the cop asked for I.D. and her SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER???

I would not be suing over the 4th amendment, this is racial profiling isn't it? Why else would a cop ask for a S.S. card?

Just a thought.

I agree the ss# request is odd, but I don't think it was racially profiled. Both the cop and the photographer were caucasion. I think both of them acted like children, but the cop was totally in the wrong.

Utah is a "funny" place where there isn't a lot of diversity but not a lot racial problems either. When there are problems it seems it's usually the latinos who suffer from being targeted by police or screwed over by despicable employers because they're undocumented.
 
Hi there,

This might sound like a 'soap box' thread but it does involve all photographers.

MenacingTourist:

"I agree the ss# request is odd, but I don't think it was racially profiled. Both the cop and the photographer were caucasion."

It does not matter who they are or what they look like, there is no legitimate reason for a police officer to ever ask for a SSN, no professional police officer I have ever met would be that stupid. It can only be taken as 'racial profiling', illegal aliens do not have SSNs. It sound like this practice is S.O.P. for that P.D. which would make for a really large lawsuit.

The F.B.I. not doing their homework on this and now looking like idiots should have J. Edgar spinning like a top. If the F.B.I.'s actions caused the firing, they have cause measurable damages and immeasurable damages to her professional reputation AND they have deep pockets.

TheFlyingCamera:

"We should NEVER allow our constitutionally given rights to be subsumed "temporarily" in the name of "security".

I do agree with the sentiment BUT I will pick a nit here. We have all the rights in the world and they all end at the tip of our noses NOT the other guys. The Constitution does not grant/give/guarantee any rights, it only specifies how the govt. may infringe on our rights.

I hope she rides them like a pony with the lawsuit.
 
phfitz said:
It does not matter who they are or what they look like, there is no legitimate reason for a police officer to ever ask for a SSN, no professional police officer I have ever met would be that stupid. It can only be taken as 'racial profiling', illegal aliens do not have SSNs. It sound like this practice is S.O.P. for that P.D. which would make for a really large lawsuit.

You can not call it racial profiling if there is no race involved, both were white, and asking for a SSN may in itself be wrong, but I can't for the life of me see where this would be racial profiling, illegal aliens come in all sizes, shapes and colors! so it does not sound at all like race was involved in the stupidity.

Heck here in Montana, they don't have to ask for our SSN number our SSN number is the same as our drivers license number, so they got it when they get your ID!, now the law has just been changed to allow us to choose not to have our Drivers Lic number be our SSN, but for many years, that was the only number you had for your Drivers Lic.

I still don't understand how it can be racial profiling, if race was not involved in the action, racial profiling by definition is the act of saying a certain race is prone to certain actions, so we need to watch them, I still have never heard that the photographer has been declared a seperate race of human!?

Dave
 
Hi there,

Dave, it doesn't have to make sense, it's the 21st century, the lawsuit lottery.

"You can not call it racial profiling if there is no race involved, both were white, and asking for a SSN may in itself be wrong, but I can't for the life of me see where this would be racial profiling, illegal aliens come in all sizes, shapes and colors! so it does not sound at all like race was involved in the stupidity."

The simple act of a police officer asking for a SSN, when they have absolutely no **legitimate** reason to do so, can and would be considered "racial profiling" and can start a lovely little lawsuit.

A case in Calf. 4 years ago had it that a police officer asking for an insurance card was "racial profiling" of blacks and latinos.

I guess it's the easy buck everyone is after.
 
I think we all agree the cop was so far outside his bounds that he deserves whatever lawsuit he gets.

I'm still not sure about the profiling thing. Not trying to argue, just trying to figure it out. I know there was a thing here (utah) about latinos being more likely to be pulled over or stopped by the police. That smacks of profiling and it shouldn't be tolorated. But I'm still trying to see how the white officer was profiling a white photographer. Granted, there have been white people who blow up gov buildings (murderous extremists come in all colors) and Utah has more than it's share of crazy people.

So the white cop sees this white lady taking pictures and equates her with a white extremist bombing recon? I guess I need more information on what constitutes profiling.
 
There has to be more to this than we have been told in the little media printed about it. I'm not saying it didn't happen the way the lady claims, just there is more about this that just is not being reported. Remember there are two sides. Yet we have only heard one.

It was 1979 in Cedar City Utah that I had a similar incident about ID and the police. The town was just 5000 people at the time. I was in my apartment, and my boyfriend had my car at his parents house working on it. It also had my Dr. Lic. in the glove compartment. I know it is stupid to keep it there, but at the time I did. I had a knock on the door, and opened it to be greeted by two plain clothes policemen. They were looking for a girl named Sarah. I was not what you would call a person who looked liked a non white. I had long blond hair down to my waist that was natural color then. When I couldn't produce my Dr. Lic. to prove who I was, I was asked for my SSN. Is that what happend in SLC as well? When the woman first refused to give her ID did the policeman ask for a SSN in lieu of the ID? How did she claim to refuse to give the ID? Did she say she didn't have it with her? Or did she flat out say no I will not give it to you? We don't know. Like I said there is more to this story than what is on the surface reported on one side. It may well be as she claims, I don't know. I would rather hear all sides and know for sure.

As to the claim of her losing her job, again we do not know if this was part of it, or was she one that had been causing trouble prior to this. Seeing as how she has had other problems, the company may have been fed up with it all, or it may have been something completely unrelated to these incidents. We don't know. We are only hearing her claims, and not the rebuttal. Yes I did read the inital article.
 
Hi there,

Profiling was just a thought, I think both the cop and woman should and will learn the 7 magic words:

"Would_you_like_fries_with_your_order?"

I have to agree with Aggie, no one knows half of 1 side of this story let alone the whole of both sides. Both were idiots but the cop acting in the offical capacity of an 'officer of the court' completely changes the complexion of his actions.

"Is that what happend in SLC as well? When the woman first refused to give her ID did the policeman ask for a SSN in lieu of the ID? How did she claim to refuse to give the ID? Did she say she didn't have it with her? Or did she flat out say no I will not give it to you? We don't know."

Did the cop ask her for her I.D. *&* SSN.??? Therein lies the problem. If he asked for both, S.L.C.P.D. should get ready for a lawsuit>

asking for both I.D. *&* SSN=
trolling for illegal aliens=
racial profiling=
abuse of public office=
lawsuit=
U.S. Supreme Court

No one wants this, especially the Feds, so this will probably disappear, settled out of court. Then again, if a lawfirm thinks the expense is worth the boost to their reputation by WINNING at the Supreme Court, this silly little nothing could set off a firestorm.

Let's watch and see.
 
phfitz said:
asking for both I.D. *&* SSN=
trolling for illegal aliens=
racial profiling=
abuse of public office=
lawsuit=
U.S. Supreme Court

Ridiculous. No doubt another one of O'Connor and Kennedy's tenuous "Decisions derived from foreign law" having nothing whatsoever to do with the US Constitution. If we don't get our supreme court under control soon we may as well get rid of the other branches of government. Kiss the Republic goodbye and All hail the Oligarchy.
 
Even if she sues the cops... this is Utah.

Bush approval rating is 62% here. Nationally is is 31%.

Those in authority are presumed to be right, from the Mormon Church President to the lowliest 'leader' while performing their duties, jobs or church callings. Here you can't really separate Church and State.

The prevailing attitude is simple. She was doing 'something wrong' or she wouldn't have been questioned. She was doing 'something wrong' or she would not have tried to hide who she is.

The cop was putting himself 'on the line' for the safety of us all.

Welcome to Utah.
 
WarEaglemtn said:
Even if she sues the cops... this is Utah.

Bush approval rating is 62% here. Nationally is is 31%.

Those in authority are presumed to be right, from the Mormon Church President to the lowliest 'leader' while performing their duties, jobs or church callings. Here you can't really separate Church and State.

The prevailing attitude is simple. She was doing 'something wrong' or she wouldn't have been questioned. She was doing 'something wrong' or she would not have tried to hide who she is.

The cop was putting himself 'on the line' for the safety of us all.

Welcome to Utah.

It happens in other states as well. What was it two years ago we had the story of the kid in Seattle going through this same thing? Hell I got arrested for shooting my wisner canon and holding my light meter gun at an old house in the Delta region of California. Didn't matter I was on a public road at the time. Utah doesn't have a lock on stupidity.
 
Aggie said:
It happens in other states as well. What was it two years ago we had the story of the kid in Seattle going through this same thing?

Aggie, are you talking about the guy who was arrested because his finger prints showed up on evidence seized in a terrorist training center? If so, that guy was originally from Kansas and one of his relatives was my high school art teacher. He is an attorney living in Seattle and is known for working with the very Far Left. The evidence he was arrested for was pretty strong and compelling at first but it was refuted after a couple weeks of intense investigation and he was cleared. However, given his political leanings and being an attorney, he filed a wrongful imprisonment suit which hasn't gone anywhere yet that I have heard of. Bottom line is that the system works.
 
No Alex, it was the kid who was taking pictures of the Ballard Locks for a college photography assignment. It is in the archieves here at apug somewhere.
 
Aggie said:
No Alex, it was the kid who was taking pictures of the Ballard Locks for a college photography assignment. It is in the archieves here at apug somewhere.
Another wrong guy who was arrested in Seattle. :rolleyes:
 
I grew up in Warsaw, Poland. Moved to Canada in 1986. One thing I recall were the multidtude of "Cameras Forbidden" and "No Photography" signs at airports, etc... It was a big joke in Poland - everyone chuckled at the notion that NATO would be gathering intelligence from photos of my aunt stepping out of an airplane...We were pretty good at laughing at our government back then.

Lets remember one thing: all the tyrannical dictatorships, every single power mad one of them started the same way: in the name of greater good.
 
Aggie said:
As to the claim of her losing her job, again we do not know if this was part of it, or was she one that had been causing trouble prior to this. Seeing as how she has had other problems, the company may have been fed up with it all, or it may have been something completely unrelated to these incidents. We don't know. We are only hearing her claims, and not the rebuttal. Yes I did read the inital article.

My guess is that her employment was NOT large format, and that this incident offered proof she was doing personal work on company time, or at least using company resources (the van) impermissibly.
 
phfitz said:
Hi there,

I have to agree with Aggie, no one knows half of 1 side of this story let alone the whole of both sides. Both were idiots but the cop acting in the offical capacity of an 'officer of the court' completely changes the complexion of his actions.

Let's watch and see.

To be picayune, police are not officers of the court, lawyers are (But I understood your intent). Police belong to the executive branch but are checked by the judiciary and the legislature. Where you get a cross over of sorts is with the Prosecutor/District Attorney; who is a lawyer (officer of the court) and the head law enforcement (executive branch) officer of the jurisdiction.

We probably won't hear the other side to the story until this gets into court. Police agencies have a general policy not to comment on litigation, which I'm sure was filed an hour after she left the officer's company. By the time it gets to court, the media will no longer be interested...

The SSN issue is a VERY new one. Only since HIPPA have people/agencies been restricted from using/asking for SSNs as identifiers. I believe that the police and courts (government) still use them, private agencies cannot.

I agree that there is WAY more than meets the eye here. If she lost her job there, most likely, are other factors involved. Rather than gathering the mob and marching on Frankenstein's castle, we're probably better off waiting to see how this one shakes out...
 
Hi,

She's only suing the cops, has yet to find out legal rights w/ FBI/DHS getting her fired.
Only so much energy, what should she do?? Should she just sue everyone who has wronged her in both instances? Would it be for the betterment of all?
 
Tanya said:
Hi,

She's only suing the cops, has yet to find out legal rights w/ FBI/DHS getting her fired.
Only so much energy, what should she do?? Should she just sue everyone who has wronged her in both instances? Would it be for the betterment of all?

If she had a attorney representing her to sue the policeman, he would also be suing the people who fired her and the FBI et al. If it truely was one prompted the other it would be all concerned not just one. Something is not ringing true on this.
 
Aggie,

What could not ring true? The arrest, by police, happened last Nov.4, 2004, The papers had already been filed by the time she was interrogated by the 6 FBI & DHS agents. The same attorney doesn't and can't often take on the same cases. Plus, they got her fired, yes, by calling and SHOWING UP at the main East Coast offices. But, though slander and lies are obvious on their part, there is no legal........let's say, "recorded" evidence that can be presented in court.

Bottom line, yes the papers only tell less than half the story- if you knew what REALLY happened in ,both cases, you would be really pissed. Unless, of course you just like to ACT and that's why you would not believe that this happens all the time in the US (esp. Utah and other states).
 
Tanya said:
you would not believe that this happens all the time in the US (esp. Utah and other states).
Please explain why Utah is especially prone to this. I'd like to know what i'm in for as I start shooting more and more LF.
 
First off to have this kind of knowledge you profess of the case, and such, I would say you are the lady in question. As to me not knowing it is well known here on apug of my troubles with shooting a large format camera in California and a small town duo of police arresting me thinking it was a cannon. I do know of what I speak.

Tanya said:
What could not ring true? The arrest, by police, happened last Nov.4, 2004, The papers had already been filed by the time she was interrogated by the 6 FBI & DHS agents.

If papers had already been filed against the police in as case, it would be common practice for an investigation by said police force which would also involve other agencies investigating not only the policeman but the case at hand. Given our fear of terrorism, it is not out of the rhelm to have both the FBI and the DHS involved tomake sure that it is not terror related.

Tanya said:
The same attorney doesn't and can't often take on the same cases.

BULL! It is easier and more profitable to go at a company for wrongful termination than to go at a policeman. BTW the state of Utah has limits as to what a policeman can be sued over. It is minimal.

Tanya said:
Plus, they got her fired, yes, by calling and SHOWING UP at the main East Coast offices.

How else would an investigation occur? It wasn't the agencies investigation that got you fired it was the over reaction of your company to said investigation. Again it is the company not the agencies. If this was during the course of work, and you not cooporated with a policeman askin g for ID when you were shooting what in his mind was a questionable building, he can and will construe it as resisting cooperating with the police. I was not at the incident. I don't know how the asking for the ID was turned down. I do not know the language used. I don't know why it simply wasn't avoided in the first place by handing over a DL so that all would have blown over. Was the picture being taken work related? If so a company would and could be angry about this matter turning into such a fiasco. Was the companies policies about this ones that would have been grounds for termination? There is much more to this than is being said. ESPECIALLY since the easiest way to win would be to go at the company for wrongful termination.

Tanya said:
But, though slander and lies are obvious on their part, there is no legal........let's say, "recorded" evidence that can be presented in court.

If these assertions of slander are verifiable through what was said by others than the FBI and DHS it is just that verifiable. Were there witnesses to the initial incident? What was said by the company when they terminated you? What was verifiable by the company that the FBI and DHS said to them? This would all be evidence. Obvious is only obvious if others heard and can testify to it. Was this all done in secret and it is a matter of your word alone against all of them?

Tanya said:
Bottom line, yes the papers only tell less than half the story- if you knew what REALLY happened in ,both cases, you would be really pissed.

Not until I know the full story. What I am hearing now is not making me pissed, it is making me more skeptical.

Tanya said:
Unless, of course you just like to ACT and that's why you would not believe that this happens all the time in the US (esp. Utah and other states).

Taking this personal against me is the main reason why I question. It is not adding up and from this last statement, I wonder if that is what started the whole thing? Was it a disregard and lashing back at a policeman asking what was going on and then for ID that prompted this whole mess?

I have lived in Utah at various times in my life, totally over 18 years. Recently I moved back from San Francisco area. I've lived in many different states, (12) from east to west. I've had worse treatment in Paris France when i was 16 and doing nothing more than waiting on a street for my cousin in the shop behind me. Stupidity knows no bounds. It crosses every state, and every country line. It goes male to female. What is interesting and would be good to follow in this case is the full facts. We are not getting those. I will be up in the SLC area in the next month or two, and I just might have to go look up some public records pertaining to this case. Or one of the guys in SLC can do this. I for one now am very very curious as to what is being reported and what is being recorded in legal documents.
 
I did a quick google on Tanya Ortega de Chamberlain. on this website: http://robm.me.uk/2005/08/29/woman-sues-police-over-identification-demand/

This is what I found (it has more to the story than has been reported) The things not mentioned is she was photographing a federal building. The Security guard first came out and told her not to photograph the doors and security cameras. The rest was her right to photograph. Was it ignored and a policeman called in at that point? Since the next thing that happend was the police and an 80 minute interview that ensued before she was arrested. Like I said there is more here than is being reported in this thread:

Tanya Ortega de Chamberlin set her large, black box of a camera on a tripod outside of the Wallace F. Bennett Federal Building in Salt Lake City and posed for her picture in City Weekly. She hadn’t been there 30 seconds when she was approached by a security guard from the Federal Protective Service arm of the Department of Homeland Security.
Don’t take pictures of the building’s security cameras, he said, helpfully pointing out cameras perched on top of a corner light post. Don’t take photos of the doors, either, or the guards. “The rest, you have the right by law to [photograph],” he told her.
That is technically true. It’s also true that Ortega de Chamberlin, or anyone else for that matter, has a right to photograph any building, as long` as they snap their shots from public property.
No law, not even the post Sept. 11, 2001, USA Patriot Act, changes the ability of photographers to walk down the street unmolested. At least in theory.
In fact, since Sept. 11, 2001, tourists and professional photographers have been detained or harassed throughout the country while taking snapshots of bridges, bus tunnels and government buildings.
In the past eight months, Ortega de Chamberlin, who shows art photography and works as a commercial real estate photographer, has been arrested by police and called in for lengthy questioning by a phalanx of agents from Homeland Security, FBI and others on a terrorism task force.
She worries about winding up on a government list as well as national security encroaching on artistic freedom. “If police officers or anybody in authority don’t know what people’s rights are to take photos, to be artists or reporters, the individuals end up suffering,” she said.
She filed a civil-rights lawsuit last week challenging her November arrest by the South Salt Lake Police Department on Main Street. During an 80-minute interview, she gave her name, Social Security number, birth date and driver-license information to police alerted by a suspicious neighbor. However, she balked at demands for other personal details. Police handcuffed her, held her in a police car for 20 minutes and cited her for interfering with an officer by giving false information and refusing to answer questions.
Those charges were dropped before trial, but Ortega de Chamberlin wants a court declaration that police were in the wrong. Brian Barnard, her lawyer, said police can’t randomly stop people and demand identification unless there is reason to suspect a person is connected to a crime. The police department won’t comment on the incident due to the lawsuit.
Ortega de Chamberlin aroused suspicion a second time three weeks ago while taking photographs across the street from an oil refinery. A week later, a Homeland Security agent phoned requesting she bring herself and her company’s black van over for an interview.
Six agents, including at least one each from the FBI and Homeland Security, she said, piled into the van, took down her passport information, looked through cupboards, photographed the van and questioned her for nearly two hours with repeated questions sure to flush out evildoers. “Are you a terrorist?” “Are you supplying photos to terrorists?”
To add insult to injury, Ortega de Chamberlin was fired Monday from her day job taking building photos for CoStar Group, a Maryland company that supplies information and photographs on commercial buildings. Days before, a CoStar senior director told City Weekly an FBI agent had telephoned the company about the upcoming story. The director said that CoStar bars employees from talking to the press.
CoStar spokesman Mark Klionsky would not say why Ortega de Chamberlin was fired. He said it was unusual for the company’s “clearly marked” vans to arouse suspicion.
Speaking prior to the firing, Brent Robbins, FBI spokesman, said the incident shows the local terrorism task force working. Operators of potential targets have been asked to keep an eye out for suspicious customers, and the van Ortega de Chamberlin drove certainly qualified. “Everything that comes to us, no matter how innocent it may seem, will be checked out.”
Portland, Ore., lawyer Bert Krages, author of a widely used briefing on photographer rights, thinks fear of photography is overblown. He puts it down to, “people watching Mission Impossible in the ’60s, where every episode started out with Peter Graves looking at 8 x 10 glossies.”
story search

Salt Lake City Weekly and slweekly.com ©1996-2005 Copperfield Publishing, Inc.. All rights reserved.
offices: 248 S. Main Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
801-575-7003
• editorial internship program
• invitation to freelance writers
• media kit
• about Salt Lake City Weekly
 
Aggie, you did not read too carefully. The incident at the federal building was what happened when the photographer from the Weekly attempted to photograph Tanya to cover her story. She was posing with her camera in the photograph for that incident (and there were no arrests).

More generally, just because something is "common practice" does not make it right. Abuse of public authority is very typical and sure sounds like what has occured here.
 
bjorke said:
Aggie, you did not read too carefully. The incident at the federal building was what happened when the photographer from the Weekly attempted to photograph Tanya to cover her story. She was posing with her camera in the photograph for that incident (and there were no arrests).

More generally, just because something is "common practice" does not make it right. Abuse of public authority is very typical and sure sounds like what has occured here.

Sorry Kevin I don't see that at any point in the above summation. Where does it say the weekly was photographing her? They only say she set up her camera and was posing. Nothing about a third party to this. That and the time lines do not sync up. Was she phoned at the same time she was photographing the oil refinery? or later? Also there seems to be two incidents not just one. That and it did point out she gave false information.

All I'm saying is this doesn't add up. I like to know all the facts not just one persons version of it. Once all facts are heard it is easier to say yes she was harrassed or no she was not. I'm not defending what the police did. I just have only one very self serving point of view.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom