Posted on Apr 29, 2016
I saw a video of a guy videotaping the entrance to a Navy base. What does this do to our security protocols? How do we handle this?
20K
84
61
6
6
0
I understand, and support their 1st amendment right of the press. I know that the Supreme Court has decided that if someone is on a public sidewalk they can film in any direction they want, and that no person or entity has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.
What does this do to our security protocols, and how to we professionally deal with these situations?
What does this do to our security protocols, and how to we professionally deal with these situations?
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 24
Edited 8 y ago
Posted 8 y ago
It means that security at bases shouldn't rely on what is publicly seen from the street. That should just be the public facing facade.
Otherwise does that mean we arrest people who take pictures with their kids in front of the White House? That's an awful direction for our country to take. It just means security should be more nuance than what you see at the gate.
Otherwise does that mean we arrest people who take pictures with their kids in front of the White House? That's an awful direction for our country to take. It just means security should be more nuance than what you see at the gate.
(19)
Comment
(0)
Edited 8 y ago
Posted 8 y ago
Any individual has a right to photograph what he can see in public, with very limited exceptions. 18 U.S.C. § 795 provides that the President can prohibit photography of military installations, and has done so with E.O. 10104 (1950). The problem that most base security/military police don't understand is that E.O. 10104 only prohibits the photography of "classified" equipment and structures.
So photography of a base entry control point is not a violation, while photography of a B-2 being loaded with nukes would be a violation.
From a security standpoint and from a legal standpoint, you can ask the individual to identify themselves but you can't seize their property (i.e., their camera). You have to comply with the law, and in most places, military personnel do not have the authority to detain someone off-base and civilian authorities cannot detain them absent reasonable, articulable suspicion that they have either committed or are about to commit a crime.
So if they are photographing the base entrance, smile, wave at them, and if you are really concerned, call the local cops to contact them. That puts the liability on the local cops, and not on you or the base.
P.S. - On base is a different matter. You'll want to check with your local MP/SP and/or JAG.
So photography of a base entry control point is not a violation, while photography of a B-2 being loaded with nukes would be a violation.
From a security standpoint and from a legal standpoint, you can ask the individual to identify themselves but you can't seize their property (i.e., their camera). You have to comply with the law, and in most places, military personnel do not have the authority to detain someone off-base and civilian authorities cannot detain them absent reasonable, articulable suspicion that they have either committed or are about to commit a crime.
So if they are photographing the base entrance, smile, wave at them, and if you are really concerned, call the local cops to contact them. That puts the liability on the local cops, and not on you or the base.
P.S. - On base is a different matter. You'll want to check with your local MP/SP and/or JAG.
(7)
Comment
(0)
(1)
Reply
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
8 y
Genovese v. Town of Southampton, 921 F. Supp. 2d 8 (ED NY 2013). Note that this is not precedent, as it was from a district court, not an appellate court, and it deals with a civil rights lawsuit after the fact, not any actual charges for taking pictures of the front of the base.
(1)
Reply
(0)
GySgt Carl Rumbolo
8 y
Capt Gregory Prickett - which means, as a civil rights case, and not addressing any charges for taking pictures in front of a base - it is not on point to the relevant law and what is more it is based on a state statute not the federal code you cited.
The federal civil code you cited is in fact a 'law' that has been overcome by technology and events and is no longer enforceable. For example, the portion that refers to photography of a base or installation - please refer to multiple online sources of overhead imagery of various military installations - I can today purchase essentially real time imagery for a few hundred dollars if I want to. Entirely legal and not prohibited by the US government.
Typically the law you cite is enforced in selected cases as additional punishment for folks who have directly and physically trespassed on a military installation, not as a primary charge.
The federal civil code you cited is in fact a 'law' that has been overcome by technology and events and is no longer enforceable. For example, the portion that refers to photography of a base or installation - please refer to multiple online sources of overhead imagery of various military installations - I can today purchase essentially real time imagery for a few hundred dollars if I want to. Entirely legal and not prohibited by the US government.
Typically the law you cite is enforced in selected cases as additional punishment for folks who have directly and physically trespassed on a military installation, not as a primary charge.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
8 y
GySgt Carl Rumbolo - I'm sorry, but was not based on a state statute. This was a federal civil rights case filed under 42 USC 1983. In the dismissal order signed by the federal district judge, he noted that the plaintiff did not contest the applicability of 18 USC 795. Since the plaintiff did not contest the applicability of that federal statute, the police lieutenant had probable to stop and arrest the plaintiff, which negated the federal claim that she made for unlawful arrest and seizure under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
This case was completely about federal claims. After disposing of the federal claims, the court returned the state claims to the state court to hear, and the federal court took no action on those.
This case was completely about federal claims. After disposing of the federal claims, the court returned the state claims to the state court to hear, and the federal court took no action on those.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Posted 8 y ago
As an MP on base, we have observed that kind of activity. While still observing constitutional rights, WE have the right to investigate. There is nothing wrong with sending MP's to politely ask questions about why they are taking photos/video. On one occasion, it was actually a camera crew doing a report for school or something similar. If the response is given politely and the answer is sensible, "have a nice day. We appreciate your cooperation and we hope you understand why we approached you."
If it gets ugly and they are combative, try to get the license place/ID as normally and log it in. Depending on clues, intuition etc, it may be something to share with local PD and local fusion center.
No rights have been violated, our presence and vigilance is observed by would be bad guys, and we have done our job.
If it gets ugly and they are combative, try to get the license place/ID as normally and log it in. Depending on clues, intuition etc, it may be something to share with local PD and local fusion center.
No rights have been violated, our presence and vigilance is observed by would be bad guys, and we have done our job.
(7)
Comment
(0)
Read This Next