Reporter, photog detained by military police

It's on Romenesko, so I guess I can share this now. I just got into work and heard about it. Higher ups are buzzing around, the commentators on our website are having a field day with speculation.

http://www.toledoblade.com/Police-Fire/2014/03/28/Military-police-detain-Blade-reporter-photographer-confiscate-equipment-in-Lima.html

 

The Blade staffers were in the right - they were shooting from a public area and wearing their credentials. That said ... When I was on my previous beat, my editor asked me when I was out and about to get photos of significant buildings so we could have them on file - hardly exciting photos, but still necessary. When I was at both of the police/court buildings, I told the desk officers what I was planning to do and why. They were OK with it because A. They knew me. and B. They knew why I was doing what I was doing. The Blade staffers could have prevented this had they checked in. If they would have been denied permission, then their higher-ups could have taken action, and they sure wouldn't have ended up in trouble. Problem solved.

 

Why in the world would you need permission, or need to let anyone know your intention, to stand on public ground and take a picture?

Because TERRORISM!!!!!!!!!!!!! ?

 

I guess what isn't clear is if they were arrested by MPs were they in fact on base property. If they are on base land, you have to clear everything you do because the military wants to protect the images that get out. If they were on nonbase land, that changes things a bit, but they still should have cleared things with public affairs before they tried this. If nothing else, you don't get MPs chasing you down.

 

For the record, no "behind bars" involved. The photog was but in handcuffs at one point, but never put behind bars.

 

Were they on the property of the plant when they took the photos? Seems to be a relevant point, and the story appears to take great care to only say the photos were of things that can be seen from the street. It doesn't outright say they were on public property when they took the photos.

 

I personally have not talked to the photog or reporter (happened on a Friday night, so they haven't been around yet), but a co-worker said they were taking pictures on the street-side of the fence and near the driveway. No clue "whose" property it was...public or private, which may be the reason it was not mentioned. Just my guess.

 

My post is corrected. Sorry about that.

 

Sweet land of liberty.

 

Here's the driveway and gatehouse:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.708658,-84.127996,3a,75y,221.28h,77.48t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sQfvwpH7-S4GVtNbi2cyD1Q!2e0!6m1!1e1

Everything on the street side of that gatehouse is either a)public right of way as part of the street or b) publicly accessible land on which there is an implied right of access. If they did not cross the gatehouse or the fences then the military police had no probable cause to stop and detain them. Depending specifically on where they were standing, the MPs may also not have had any jurisdiction.

Once the MPs determined they were credentialed media, they clearly violated federal law by seizing the cameras.

I hope The Blade and the journalists pursue legal action.

 

Blade's filed suit.

http://www.toledoblade.com/local/2014/04/04/The-Blade-files-lawsuit-over-incident-at-Lima-tank-plant.html