Fujifilm's X-Pro1, now M Mount friendly
Olympus' Micro Four Thirds 75mm prime
Can you fix the focus on a blurry photo after the fact?
The birth of Mirrorless Cameras
The Joy Of Winning A Photo Contest
Choosing your first dSLR camera
New York City can be beautiful!
Choosing the Right Light Stand
Photojojo iPhone Telephoto Lens review — AudioCast
How To Buy Digital Photo Frames For An Exhibit - Part 2
Hey MAC users! A great source and an April Fool that is no joke
My week with Q
How To Become A Successful Photographer
"When the Wind Stopped" — poem with 4 photos
Creating The New Family Portrait
Tips for Textures 
Cast aways - saving those photographic memories
One Man Show: My 25 Years With Digital Photography
Studio, Flash, & Available Light — Three Books Reviewed
Portrait styling: dangerous pairings
Adobe Photoshop CS6 Product Managers Interview Audiocast
A gift of flowers: unfold your senses
On Set of "Love & Robots" the Film
No-Brainer Setup For A Digital Photo Frame Exhibit - Part 3
Exhibiting With Digital Photo Frames (DPF) Part 1
Planning “National Geographic” style photo travel
Find Inner Peace and Beauty at San Jose, California, Airport
Wilderness Travel 1 Rainforests – Essential Gear
Backlighting Basics
What Moves You?
FIGURES IN MOTION: Decades of Evolving Personal Imagery in Photography, Part 7
Lomography Store, Austin, Texas — GALLERY
GALLERY — Up to $1,000 Reward for Cattle Rustlers
25% off on photography eBooks
eyePhone: The eBook for iPhone Photographers
Interview with Harold Davis — Closeup Maestro of Flowers & Water Drops
Interview with Steve Caplin — Photoshop Digital Artist, Commercial Illustrator, & Author
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 3 of 3
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 2 Of 3
Easy technique to select, edit and sequence keywords for web
How much should you charge for a photograph?New York Woman May Win $70 Million Default Settlement After Photography Arrest
A woman who was arrested after taking photos outside a National Guard base in New York may end up winning a $70 million default settlement thanks to a screw-up by a municipal attorney.
Nancy Genovese was arrested last year after photographing a helicopter parked outside the Gabreski Airport in Suffolk County.
At first, her arrest sparked a wave of mockery from liberal bloggers because not only is she a die-hard Glenn Beck fan, but police also claimed they had found an assault rifle, a shotgun and 500 rounds of ammunition in her car.
It turns out, they may have only found an unloaded rifle in her car.
Whatever they found, they only charged her with misdemeanor trespassing, which pretty much makes the alleged weapons cache in her car irrelevant.
Genovese said she had returned from the shooting range and apparently there is no law against having guns in your car in that area of New York.
But apparently there is a law against photographing the helicopter from a public road. At least according to National Guard officials.
Major Williams pointed out that signs located next to the helicopter read “the use of cameras or video equipment is prohibited,” and explained that the ANG prefers that no one take photos of the base. He said that if anyone is caught taking photos without prior permission, they will be questioned by base officials.
The problem is, nobody told Google that photography of the base and the helicopter is prohibited from a public space because you can see it all here on Google Map View.
The truth is, it is not illegal to take pictures of the helicopter or the base from a public road. That was just military hogwash.
That is why the trespassing charge against Genovese was eventually dropped.
Genovese then filed a federal lawsuit against Suffolk County and Southampton Town for false arrest.
Southampton Town attorney Michael Sordi failed to respond to the lawsuit in a timely manner, putting the town at risk for having to dish out a $70 million default settlement.
The incident forced Sordi’s resignation last week, according to a local news site.
Even though she has been cleared of criminal charges, authorities have yet to return her memory card, according to Long Island Lawyer Blog, who obtained a copy of the lawsuit.
Nancy Genovese stopped her car on the side of the road across the street from the airport in an area that is open and accessible to the public, and crossed over the road to the airport entryway that is also open and accessible to the public to take a picture of the helicopter display. While still in her car, she took a picture of the decorative helicopter shell with the intention of posting it on her personal “Support Our Troops” web page.
As Nancy Genovese was preparing to drive away, she was stopped and approached by Robert Iberger, a lieutenant with the Southampton Town Police. Lieutenant Iberger demanded to know why she was taking photographs. Nancy showed the lieutenant her camera, but Lieutenant Iberger grabbed her camera and handled it “without care”. In an attempt to prevent the lieutenant from damaging the camera, Nancy removed her memory card, which Lieutenant Iberger confiscated. To date, Nancy’s memory card still has not been returned to her.
Authorities then searched her car and found the weapons and determined she was a terrorist threat. They detained her on the side of the road for more than five hours where she was questioned police, the FBI and Homeland Security officials.
In her lawsuit, Genovese alleges that authorities stole $5,300 in cash from $13,000 she had that was meant to pay tuition for her son and daughter.
They ended up transporting her to jail where they charged with a misdemeanor trespassing, even though she never set foot on the military property.
And the judge set her bail at $50,000, which is an extraordinary amount for a single misdemeanor charge.
Because her family was unable to immediately afford the bail, she was held for four days in which she was placed on a suicide watch and forced to wear a flimsy gown with no undergarments.
According to Long Island Law Blog, police had lied in their initial claim that she had an extensive weapons cache in her car.
Upon Nancy’s release, Undersheriff Caracappa issued a press release in response to media inquiries, titled “Armed Woman Arrested for Trespassing at Suffolk County Gabreski Airport”, which falsely stated that Nancy had been taking pictures of the airport and surrounding security”, and that she became hysterical, and began “screaming and flailing around” when confronted. Undersheriff Caracappa also falsely reported that Nancy had surveillance equipment, 500 rounds of ammunition, and “scary weapons” in her car, and that she was a right-wing extremist and terrorist, and that she had been at the airport trespassing several times and had been warned to stay away. Upon further inquiry, it turns out that Nancy had never stopped at that airport before, had no “surveillance equipment” of any kind other than her point and shoot camera, and certainly was not a terrorist. Undersheriff Caracappa has refused to issue a retraction or correction.
Comments
We had a scooter rally with folks from all over the east coast back in 2008 and decided to do group photos at Fort Indiantown Gap, in front of the helicopters:
http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff90/wizrichner/image005.jpg
There was an MP sitting by in her cruiser watching us, and the only thing she was concerned about was that we didn't ride on the grass (after someone rode through the grass to go ask her that very thing).
Then again, there's been talk recently about how the MPs there are pretty useless and rely on the state police for just about everything...
The MPs are not useless. In fact they typically have a much better understanding basic law then most civilian LE.
They are PROHIBITED from enforcing civilian law. MPs cannot arrest civilians, they can only detain until they can be turned over to civilian law enforcement.
i.e. They HAVE to rely on the state police for anything that has to deal with civilians.
Watch this youtube of the Southampton Town Council meeting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XdrbNnZsCU&feature=player_embedded
“Scary weapons?” Is there even a legal definition of that term? Huh... Sounds like run-of-the-mill CYA. One wonders how many situations like this would just go away if someone would just say: "Sorry for the inconvenience - we have to check these things out," give the person their camera/memory card back, fill out the paperwork, and go on to bigger and better things.
But sometimes I think that we're part of the problem. If Ms. Genovese had turned out to be a mad bomber, and the cops had let her go, they would have been on the wrong end of the finger-pointing. We can't have it both ways, where all the criminals are caught and all of the innocent go free. Maybe if if we evinced a little more tolerance for the fact that law enforcement can't always get their man, things like this would happen less often?
Aaron, it is a great point.
The problem is that they do not have to check these things out.
It is perfectly legal to take pictures, there is nothing suspicious about that.
To harass someone on the grounds that taking pictures is illegal is just complete BS.
How many terrorists took pictures of the building before they tried to blow it up? None, thats how man, it is too obvious and all of the info you need is at your fingertips or the local library. It would be stupid to risk exposure by going out to take pictures.
It is security theater and it is against the law, they are breaking the law and getting away with it. They need to be fired. And that damned Marine turned SS agent is a disgrace.
I HATE political partisanship, it's mostly bullshit and screaming. Perfect case in point, the blogger for dailykos who is so desperate to shit on Glen Beck and his listeners as well as the Tea Party. He completely lost sight of what Carlos picked up on immediately, that this woman had a right to take photos from a public area irrespective of what her political beliefs are. I would bet ANYTHING if it was some liberal who listens to NPR and maybe had some pot in her car the dailykos blogger's tone would have been entirely different. Of course then there would have been some conservative blogger writing a sarcastic article instead. I've thought for years that both parties need to wake up and smell the constitution.
The judge will most likely rule in favor of the town because if he is like most judges in this country he will have absolutely no regard for the rule of law, when it is in the peasants favor,
That's pretty bad.
It irks me that our government/government employees screw up and we as tax payers end up paying for it.
As much as I hate these over priced settlements, one of these (or more) cities needs to get bitten in the financial buttocks and lose their appeals all the way to the supreme court until this matter is hammered in to the heads of all Law Enforcement and other security thugs who want to make up the law as it fits their mood. I hope she gets the full 70mil, buys a pile of cameras and goes right back to the side of that same road and takes a gazillion shots. (If it was me I'd give the cops involved in the false imprisonment the finger the whole time. I might need a tripod or two).
I'm no smelly hippie, I love cops and the military. I just hate posers who think they dictate the rules on the fly. Open and accessible to the public means just that. And these cops that say you don't have the right to use their image or they did not give you permission... Public servant doing a public job in public view is fair game.
The Federal Lawsuit is an interesting read, particularly the most recent motions regarding the Town's answer to the motion for summary judgement which was 4 months late. This was not a simple oops, but a huge cluster%^&$. The Plaintiff's attorney is arguing quite ariculately that the Town does not even get the chance to have the Judge listen to their request for a late submission. There is a conference call scheduled for February 25th so the Judge can listen in more detail why the Town should not be listened to.
There is actually a videotape of a Town Council meeting where this was discussed recently. There are a number of lawyers on the board and they are livid that information about this lawsuit was withheld from them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XdrbNnZsCU
The Federal Lawsuit is an interesting read, particularly the most recent motions regarding the Town's answer to the motion for summary judgement which was 4 months late. This was not a simple oops, but a huge cluster%^&$. The Plaintiff's attorney is arguing quite ariculately that the Town does not even get the chance to have the Judge listen to their request for a late submission. There is a conference call scheduled for February 25th so the Judge can listen in more detail why the Town should not be listened to.
There is actually a videotape of a Town Council meeting where this was discussed recently. There are a number of lawyers on the board and they are livid that information about this lawsuit was withheld from them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XdrbNnZsCU
As a local, who knows the area, I can tell you that there is a shooting range on the outskirts of the base. It is to the north of the base, and you do use base roads to access it.
There are signs EVERYWHERE that state "NO photography". The woman in question was asked REPEATEDLY to "cease, and desist" taking photos of the base from more than one point of it's fenced border. She was a KNOWN person to base personnel, and she was warned more than once to NOT photograph the base.
Her myspace page has been amended since her detainment, and it was set to private, after her release from custody.
It boils down in "ye olde crucible", that she had a LARGE amount of cash, weapons, and ammunition in her vehicle. People have done MORE damage to a U.S. military institution with less.
This is either a setup, for a cash payoff at the expense of Suffolk County taxpayers, or she is just a complete moron.
I don't know where Long Island Law blog gets their info, but as a member of the shooting range, she visited the base frequently, did have an assault rifle in her possesion, and ammunition in her car. Though the facility is used as an "airport" for corporate jets, and government officials, it is an Air National Guard Base, as well as home to the Space Shuttle Rescue Team. Of course, that isn't a sensitive type of operation. NOT.
Disinformation is nice in the public forum, but will have no place in the courtroom. We shall see...
Your entire point is moot when you realize that she was standing on publicly accessible areas taking pictures.
They can put up as many signs as they want, that does not make it a law.
She was in the right, the weapons cache is pure nonsense.
She should have never even been detained in the first place.
If they do not want the area photographed then put up a privacy fence. If it is visible from public areas, then it can be photographed.
Oh and question, how do you know the woman in question was asked to cease and desist? Did you do so? Are you a base employee or perhaps personell?
If not the STFU as you have no information than what is in the articles.
Yeah, if they don't want people photographing the helicopters, they should put up a brick or concrete wall.
I hope she wins. Maybe a $70 million lawsuit will do something that five figure lawsuits haven't so far: finally convince the NYPD to leave photographers alone!
She did more than most photographers would have done by handing over her camera and giving up her memory card. And in the end, she is arrested and mistreated anyway.
This happens all to often. Officers using the terrorist card to heavy hand photographers, and it is getting old. It is too bad that the town has to pay for it, but I do hope she is compensated for all of the harrassement she had to endure.
There was a telephone conference yesterday. The Town has a couple of new hotshot attornies that are now arguing the detective had qualified immunity. Nancy's attorney rips that argument to shreds.
Stay tuned for more news.....
A terse statement is posted to the court case denying the motion by the court clerk for default judgement, so no early $70M payday for Nancy. They are continuing with discovery (whch means the main court case is still in the works)
<
I just do not get that, they fail to show up for court when correctly notified thinking it will simply go away and then when the party that did show up gets a default judgment it can be throw out.
It completely confuses me. If I were to miss a court date I would have a warrant out for my arrest, pay fines etc.
the story continues.....
part of the reason this case hit the press so hard was that thr Town's attorney ending up dropping the ball because of a health problem in his family. The attorney quit, a new attorney was assigned and she able to convince the judge to stay the default judgement. That was 4 months ago.
The newest attorney has also had a serious illness in the family and "dropped" the case. She was ordered to produce documents for discovery so she handed over the request to the cops. The cops did not prioritize it. Nothing was done.
The new attorney has been chastised but appears to blame Nancy Genovese's attorney for not letting the city/county know that they had not produced the documents yet. WTF????
This case is scheduled for a pre-trial settlement conference in Feb 2012
Robert Iberger, the Southampton Town Police Lieutenant at the center of the Nancy Genovese case, has officially retired.
May 1, 2012 was his first day of retirement, after 32 years on the job. He walked away with a $215,483.44 payout, plus payroll liabilities. Not to mention his full pension and medical for the rest of his life. How much do you think Nancy Genovese will get?
http://goo.gl/GQ11H
Post new comment