December 10, 2007
Columbia Grad Student Sues NYPD
A Columbia grad student, Arun Wiita, and the New York Civil Liberties Union brought a lawsuit against the NYPD last Thursday. Over the summer, Wiita was photographing a subway station entrance and its surroundings at 207th Street and 10th Avenue as part of an ambitious 10-day photography project. He was detained by police, handcuffed and held for 30 minutes; now Wiita is "seeking compensatory damages and reimbursement of legal fees." He believes that his South Asian or Middle Eastern appearance made him a target.
According to Metro, "police sources said officers question people photographing the city’s rail infrastructure on rare occasions, citing instances in which law enforcement officials have identified men taking photographs of city bridges and subways as Iranian intelligence agents and suspected Pakistani terrorists who were stopped by police while taking pictures of the Brooklyn and Williamsburg bridges." We asked Wiita a few questions about the incident as well as his photography project (which sounds pretty amazing; he sent us the above shot which was taken just before he was handled by the long arm of the law).
Can you describe the photography project you were working on?
The project was designed as a way to document how the subway is an integral part of the fabric of life in the city. I love how it is the grand unifier across race, class, and geography in the city. I wanted to photograph both the inside of every subway station (predominantly decorative aspects, such as artwork and signage) as well as the immediate surroundings of each station in order to document the people, architecture, and general feel of the area. After the arrest, I greatly cut down on taking any photos inside of subway stations out of fear of further hassling by the cops.
What did the police say when they approached you?
At first an uniformed officer approached me on the SW corner of 207th St. and 10th Ave. in Manhattan; he basically said, "Hey, what are you doing?". I explained I was a grad student at Columbia and my motivation for the photo project. He subsequently asked to see the photos and to see my ID, which I cooperated with. I gave him my NJ driver's license and my Columbia ID. He said that since I didn't have a NY State ID he couldn't run my information over the radio, and he would have to take me into the station at 145th St to check it out "in front of his peers". He then asked me to turn around and put my hands behind my back and then he handcuffed me.
What outcome would you like to see from the Civil Liberties lawsuit?
From this incident it was clear to me that the NYPD has absolutely no idea how to handle photographers on the streets of New York. My main motivation for the lawsuit is for the police to change their policies and actually implement some type of training so that cops know what to do when they have suspicions about someone taking photos. This certainly includes not being able to just harass and handcuff anyone holding a camera.
Wiita also pointed out to us that taking these photos was legal, point-and-shoot photos
are explicitly permitted in the MTA rules section 1050.9(c). In the end, he did end up documenting all 468 stations, but felt uncomfortable taking photos at 168 of them because he thought it looked "suspicious". In the future he'll be creating an interactive website which will include his photos and notes.
|
Good for this guy – what a great idea for a project. See, it's shit like this with the fucking new york city corporation that detracts from the creativity and independent nature of it's citizens. New York has historically been the seat of innovation and the arts in this 'free' and 'open' country. I understand the need for security these days but seriously – he gave you his student ID and a Jersey ID – there's no reason the cops couldn't a. call Columbia to verify or b. have the station call Jersey (for god sakes the states share boarders, bridges and tunels, I'm SURE they speak to each other on a regular basis.
yeah, that officer either had crap for brains or was just being an a**hole. best guess? both.
If the account is true, the officer was obviously bullshitting and just finding an excuse to bring the guy in. It's not like NYPD rarely deals with people from out-of-state.
Forget his race for this argument. Someone, anyone having a camera filled with shots of every subway station in NYC? Thats legal, sure, but def would and should look suspiscious. And could merit some serious questioning- 30mins isn't that long to be detained. It's not like he was held for a couple days or anything.
I'd rather the police investigate suspicious activities and then have the person whine and bitch and sue, then for police to be hesitant, and then say, whoops, when a subway train blows up.
And I'm not 9/11 paranoid either- subway cars are an easy target for anyone- always have been. Just a matter of time, people.
ARealGothamite: It is suspicious, but it is NOT illegal. To be handcuffed and detained for doing something that is expressly permitted by MTA guidelines seems pretty unreasonable to me.
Sorry ARealGothamite, everyone agrees that the cop should have questioned him, but the guy have the pig TWO FORMS OF ID. more than enough info for the pig to call it in. He's a pig because he handcuffed, arrested & detained someone for NO GOOD REASON. understand now?
also, guess who pays for these lawsuits? taxpayers like me.
Sorry ARealGothamite, everyone agrees that the cop should have questioned him, but the guy have the pig TWO FORMS OF ID. more than enough info for the pig to call it in. He's a pig because he handcuffed, arrested & detained someone for NO GOOD REASON. understand now?
also, guess who pays for these lawsuits? taxpayers like me.
I think the major sticking point was that he was handcuffed and detained despite the fact that he was compliant in every way the officer asked him to be.
"but def would and should look suspiscious."
Why is that suspicious? Suspicious of what? Has there ever been some sort of incident where terrorists or criminals collected that sort of info? And in any proportion to the number of innocent people who do such a thing?
It's sad that so many things that are at all out of the ordinary are now deemed "suspicious" by government and the sheeple go along with that attitude.
"'d rather the police investigate suspicious activities and then have the person whine and bitch and sue, then for police to be hesitant, and then say, whoops, when a subway train blows up."
This is silly logic - there is a cost to detaining people both on the part of the police and of the people being detained. There has to be some sort of real critical thinking about threats and risks. Just because there is some *remote* possibility of some danger does not justify society spending time on it.
hmm I've been doing the same thing for the past 2 years now and have only once had an MTA worker try to tell me I couldn't take pictures of her token booth but yet she said I was ok while taking pictures in the actual subway after passing through the turnstile
Frankly this is just so silly.. most of the time I actually make a point to do it at off times so there isn't anyone around to bother me..
and yeah if I am that smart to do that, what do you think people who actually wants to do bad things are thinking???
and lastly if I see cops I generally don’t take pictures with them around as I assume they are misinformed
http://www.flickr.com/photos/spreetaper/collections/72157600006555842/
The only thing worse than the police is not having them.
There are two side to every story, and not enough facts to determine whether handcuffing and detention was justified police action, or not, in this case. Clearly the cop was correct in questioning a suspicious activity, regardless of a person's appearance, that is photographing subways, the grand unifier of our city.
After that, maybe the cop was wrong, maybe he was right. Maybe this guy did something else that he has not told his attorneys or the press. Personally, I would rather spend my tax dollars on cops that take action and sort out the facts in a reasonable manner, rather than look the other way, especially at clearly suspicious activity. But, as of now, there are not enough facts to judge this police action.
I don't know if the guy actually is in it for the cash. He stated that his main purpose was to change the police's policies on this. He probably has to sue for "punitive damages" because the courts won't allow you to sue for an apology.
How could a policeman possibly be right to detain someone for taking photos? Even if this guy didn't answer any questions or hand over his ID, how can someone be taken in for questioning for photograpy?
I just don't understand that, and am frightened that people support that concept. Or, if you are saying that maybe the story is made up and the guy was not detained at all, well OK I suppose that's fine. But then what are we talking about?
"Personally, I would rather spend my tax dollars on cops that take action and sort out the facts in a reasonable manner, rather than look the other way, especially at clearly suspicious activity. "
Yeah, because we know there are so many people being killed by terrorists and photographers in the US all the time. That's a good use of taxpayer money. It's not like people are being killed in large numbers by cars, or in run-of-the-mill crimes in NYC and police resources could be better spent on that.
"Clearly suspicous" is a lame term.
Poor guy. I was just at the Astor Pl IRT station and an individual of Indian descent was "detained" by the NYPD for a suitcase search. He appeared to be either a grad student or professor and did not appear very thrilled...racial profiling anyone?
Right on jt... right on.
Pretty soon, any kind of art making in New York will be seen as "suspicious activity". Buying luxury condos and mewling in front of a camera crew from Germany will be the only sanctioned activity for residents. Of course, the Columbia kids will still get a pass...so long as mommy or daddy keeps writing those checks.
Good for you, Arun. I spend my free time on weekends working on a photo project of my own: photographing designated historic landmarks throughout the five boroughs. Of course, I'm white and female, so I'm probably not "suspicious" enough to be stopped. But last I heard, individual buildings were potential terrorist targets, too. Actually, the entirety of New York City is a potential terrorist target. So why all the fuss about the subway in particular? How is taking a photo of a sign that says "207 Street" any more "suspicious" than taking a photo of a skyscraper on Wall Street, a museum, a department store, or, for that matter, the Brooklyn Bridge?
We live among some of the most interesting architectural and artistic works in the United States. New York City is full of beautiful sights (including subway murals and mosaics) and some that are not so beautiful but still have a gritty, urban charm (like the subway itself). Of course people with an artistic bent are going to take photographs. For that matter, so are tourists, commercial photographers, and real estate agents who need photos for their listings. Do the police really want to ID and detain everyone who takes out a camera and snaps a photo anywhere in the city? No? Then they need to stop setting a precedent with this subway nonsense. Add the possibility of racial profiling, and it's an even more slippery slope.
Actually Spiny, I know a number of photographers (including my wife) who have been harassed by the police for taking pictures of buildings. So it's not just the subway.
Wow, neapolitan, that's ridiculous. It's only happened to me once (in Police Plaza, where I took a picture of a friend that happened to have the NYPD HQ building in the background -- somehow the cop on the other side of the plaza sensed this and walked all the way over to scold me for it). I've never heard of it happening to any of my friends. But maybe we've just been lucky so far.
If you don't mind my asking, what buildings did your wife photograph that led to her being stopped by the police? It's scary to think that you can stand on the sidewalk for hours on end examining a building, walk into its lobby (or beyond), look it up on Google Earth, and maybe even access the building records -- and yet some NYPD officers consider it off-limits for photography. How absurd.
P.S.: http://nyclu.live.echoditto.com/bust_card
Regardless of how anyone feels about the ACLU and NYCLU, their reminder of citizens' rights and responsibilities when dealing with the police is a good guide to behaving appropriately and avoiding further trouble when stopped for questioning, whether for criminal behavior or for lawful activity like photography. (And there's a handy phone number to file an official complaint, if you are unreasonably detained!)