Cop Detains Man For Photographing Federal Courthouse

 

Despite last year’s settlement that ensured that photography of federal buildings is legal, many federal officers are still not getting the message.

Ethan Klosterman is the latest photographer to get detained and threatened with imprisonment for photographing a federal courthouse.

On June 12, Klosterman was with his father when he snapped a photo of the federal courthouse in Dayton, Ohio.

Within 20 seconds, Federal Protective Service Officer Willard Hall (badge no. 863) told him it was illegal to photograph the courthouse under “UC-18 Code of Justice.”

Hall told Klosterman that it was to protect the courthouses from terrorists and yada yada yada.

The entire exchange was recorded by Klosterman’s father, which can be heard in the above Youtube video.

Hall demanded his identification – even though he had no right to do so – then proceeded to radio in his information.

Hall then allowed him to go on his way.

But Klosterman knew he had not been breaking the law, so he snapped another photo of the courthouse.

This is how we explains it on Flickr.

Knowing the possibility of having a FPS agent approach me again and stop me from photographing, I pulled up the NYCLU's case from 2010 on my iPhone that affirmed photographers' rights. I proceeded to walk towards the building, snapping pictures along the way. Within five minutes of snapping away, Office Hall came out of the building. He told me to turn around and put my hands behind my back. I complied and set my camera and bag down and put my hands behind my back as he got out his handcuffs.

 

Officer Hall radioed and the unidentified man asked if I was "still photographing the facility." Officer Hall asked if he should "detain me or put me off the property." The man on the other end of the radio said it was not his call and told Officer Hall to standby.

I politely asked if I could show him the Dept. of Homeland Security directive concerning photographing federal buildings. He said I couldn't show him anything. While waiting on the man on the other end of the radio, he told me that federal time is a lot different than city. He informed me I may sit for 6 or 7 hours before someone even gets out here to process me. "It's not a game, man. They don't play."

"Do not remove the subject from the property, nor detain him," came over the radio. Officer Hall had a stunned look on his face. He told me the Dayton Police Department was on its way and that I could wait or go. I asked if I was free and he said yes. He said it's one thing to be on the sidewalk, but another thing to be on federal property.

Klosterman has since filed a formal complaint to the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties at the Department of Homeland Security.

 

Comments

UC-18 Code of Justice? What does that even mean? Did he make it up on the spot, is he thinking of Universal Code of Military Justice? If so, Article 18 would apply to a Court Martial, not photography.

People need to start challenging officers to be specific about the laws they cite.

18 USC is the federal criminal code. 10 USC is the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He was basically threatening the photographer that he was committing a federal crime. . . which was of course, bull.

This article states that the Federal officer had no right to demand identification. I know that Oregon law does not require a person identify himself, even in a Terry Stop, unless being cited or arrested, but is that so under Federal law? Is there someone who can clarify this and perhaps site some statutes?

I commend Eathen on his willingness to stick up for his rights. Especially the calm and polite way he interacted with the officer.

I also think it interesting that the Homeland Security website describes the Federal Protective Service as a "highly trained and multi-disciplined police force." I think this incident confirms this just isn't so.

Railroad cops are higher on the food chain than FPS.

FPS is just one step up from armed security guard.

There is no federal stop and identify law, and even if there was, it would not have been in effect, because no law had been broken or was about to be broken. The supreme court has already ruled the no matter what the law on a stop an identify says probable cause must still exist for anyone to be convicted for failing to identify themselves. If the cop walks up to you and demands ID in a stop and identify state, you are not necessarily required to give it to him, demand (on camera) his probable cause. No probable cause = no legal reason to require identification. And even in cases where identification is to be provided your name alone is generally enough to satisfy the legal requirements. You are not obligated to carry ID. As a matter of fact I often intentionally don't carry ID, and since I don't break the law I'm not all that worried.

So what will it take to stop this? For people to go in large groups and beat ignorant cops to near death to teach them a lesson? I'm all for it if that's what it takes.

Give it a shot and let me know how it turns out for you.

Slk

That's right sadist, only cops can commit assault with intent to harm.

JdL

Be careful what you wish for!

Do it right. Citizen's arrest, then keep screaming "STOP RESISTING!" as you beat the snot out of him.

Hey, if it works for the popo...

Please ban this idiot. He brings nothing to the debate, and actually harms the cause of photographers who deal with police.

Eh, nice agent-provocateur troll there, bodily fluids. You like making us all look like violence-prone terrorists with cameras?

It goes without saying that that's not the typical attitude among photographers.

This guy is a joke. And has the intelligence of an idiot. Also I think he is on a power trip. I bet he might be a ex-cop and this encounter shows why.

Post new comment

Pixiq on Facebook

Join the 10123 Pixiq fans on Facebook

Share

  • Share

Subscribe

Get weekly updates from Pixiq. Short, sweet, and always interesting.