REI shopper detained by Armored Truck guards, arrested for photographing an open ATM.

[Manwich]

http://iamshane.com/2009/05/09/of-atms-iphones-and-911/

While the kid sounds like a tool :

(header: Designer. Typophile. Rails/Rubyist. Still Vegan. Still Straightedge. And, Baby, I’m An Anarchist.)

...his detention by Armed Loomis Armored Car personnel was illegal. They are in no sense of the word police officers or any form of law enforcement, they are bodyguards for sacks of cash and nothing more. The illegality was the threat of physical intervention ("Don’t try to leave. I will tackle you.") and I'm upset by REI's handling of the situation.

REI's Loss Prevention was involved in this matter, the management could have mitigated this better, perhaps explaining that photography in a Private Business isn't permitted and deescalating the situation better than ending up in the arrest of a kid taking a picture. He now has a wrongful arrest suit on his hands.

This is enough to convince me to boycott REI until they apologize, pay compensation and agree not to pull this kind of crap again. Until then, I will be shopping at nearby Campmor, Efingers, Cabelas and EMS instead.

[Slimer]

From what I've read, the kid will probably be acquitted. Sounds like a case of gung-ho guards.

[yaduck9]

Was he even arrested? Sounds as if he was detained for the purpose of identifying and doing the paperwork for trespass.

The only fly in the ointment was, at the time of the picture taking, he was standing on private property. So, some of his rights may be negated. But, I am no lawyer.

Sounds like the guards and REI staff succumbed to paranoia.

Somewhere on the net is a book that describes the legalities of photographers. I think its on amazon. Its happened before, it will happen again.

[TD55]

I never did like REI. They suck.

[stumpy]

Wow, lets all over react and trash a company over one guys blog on the web. I don't have any great love for REI, but I am not going to change my opinion about a store just because some dude blogged about them. Sounds like both parties could have handled the situation differently and the outcome would have saved everyone a lot of time!

[Marta]

Sorry, my sympathies are with the folks who have to work with large amounts of cash. They have to be very, very careful. There are far more people shot at while working at low-paying jobs than there are folks manhandled by security guards. No comparison in the pain and suffering.

[JAK]

People shouldn't take photos of people and post them on the internet without asking.
End of story.

[Mrs Baggins]

Sorry, my sympathies are with the folks who have to work with large amounts of cash. They have to be very, very careful. There are far more people shot at while working at low-paying jobs than there are folks manhandled by security guards. No comparison in the pain and suffering.

I have to agree. There was just a story in the news about ATMs being rigged to steal $500,000 from bank customers. What exactly is photogenic about an open ATM? Nothing. But the possibility of detailed interior pics of how one works? Priceless.

[Manwich]

paperwork for trespass

He wasn't trespassing, he was in fact told by the store's LP to stay, then was served with a warning to not come on the property again.

[TD55]

Wow, lets all over react and trash a company over one guys blog on the web. I don't have any great love for REI, but I am not going to change my opinion about a store just because some dude blogged about them. Sounds like both parties could have handled the situation differently and the outcome would have saved everyone a lot of time!

No over reacting from me. I never did like REI and have always thought they sucked.

[yaduck9]

He wasn't trespassing, he was in fact told by the store's LP to stay, then was served with a warning to not come on the property again.

I took this qoute from the guys blog;

He took me out of the cell and took off the cuffs, had me sign a “You have been trespassed by REI and can’t go back for a year” form then Officer Abed walked me out the door. And that was that.

So, Trespass, Warning, I am not going to argue about it.

[kanga]

i don't give a **** either way

[drastic_quench]

Sorry, my sympathies are with the folks who have to work with large amounts of cash. They have to be very, very careful. There are far more people shot at while working at low-paying jobs than there are folks manhandled by security guards. No comparison in the pain and suffering.

Shot with iPhones?

[drastic_quench]

What exactly is photogenic about an open ATM?

So people with cameras should only shoot what someone else deems photogenic?

Nothing. But the possibility of detailed interior pics of how one works? Priceless.

No, they're not. That's the kids whole point: that better schematics and photos can be LEGALLY found via a simple Google search.

[Sly]

Seems to me REI has nothing to do with this, it wasn't their ATM.

[maddi]

From an attorney -
He was arrested. In basically every situation, if you are in cuffs, you are arrested - while there may be some situations where that is not the case, any time you are put in cuffs, put in the back of a squad car, and driven to the station, are under arrest. In fact, from the moment he was detained, it could qualify as an arrest, even if no one touched him, if he was told he could not go anywhere.

Plus, the arrest was illegal. Clearly, it was not a felony. I would be shocked if it was a misdemeanor - i.e., surely he did not do anything illegal. Perhaps he violated store policy, Loomis policy, whatnot. But not the law. Generally speaking, a police officer cannot arrest an individual without a warrant for a non-felony crime that the officer does not witness or come upon the scene immediately (hot pursuit). Of course, there are going to be some exceptions under interesting factual scenarios, but it doesn't look like that happened here.

And there was no right to arrest him based on what he said to the officers under the transcript as he gave it. Unless it was a threat, which it wasn't, no crime.

[vamelungeon]

The guy didn't break any law, so whether the Loomis guys like it or not, they had no right to do ANYTHING, nor did the police have any right to arrest him. I think the guy was a jerk, but that's not illegal.

[yaduck9]

From an attorney -
He was arrested. In basically every situation, if you are in cuffs, you are arrested - while there may be some situations where that is not the case, any time you are put in cuffs, put in the back of a squad car, and driven to the station, are under arrest. In fact, from the moment he was detained, it could qualify as an arrest, even if no one touched him, if he was told he could not go anywhere.

Plus, the arrest was illegal. Clearly, it was not a felony. I would be shocked if it was a misdemeanor - i.e., surely he did not do anything illegal. Perhaps he violated store policy, Loomis policy, whatnot. But not the law. Generally speaking, a police officer cannot arrest an individual without a warrant for a non-felony crime that the officer does not witness or come upon the scene immediately (hot pursuit). Of course, there are going to be some exceptions under interesting factual scenarios, but it doesn't look like that happened here.

And there was no right to arrest him based on what he said to the officers under the transcript as he gave it. Unless it was a threat, which it wasn't, no crime.

Interesting, so it sounds like they put him in handcuffs when he would not produce ID for the police ( my interpretation ). Does one have to produce ID on demand from a police officer? I always assumed you did. And how would you file the paperwork for trespass unless you had the person produce ID? It sounds like it could have been handled better by all parties.

[maddi]

Interesting, so it sounds like they put him in handcuffs when he would not produce ID for the police ( my interpretation ). Does one have to produce ID on demand from a police officer? I always assumed you did. And how would you file the paperwork for trespass unless you had the person produce ID? It sounds like it could have been handled better by all parties.

Not a Washington lawyer by any means, so no expertise on their law. It could be argued that htis was a civil infraction - but it could not be criminal trespass, as REI is a public store - he would have to be given notice that he was not allowed to be there and an opportunity to leave, and in this case, he was detained.

Under RCWA 7.80.050 (Washington Code), he could arguably have been stopped for a civil infraction. Upon receiving notice of this civil infraction, then an individual must produce identification. However, to be given notice (and thus be required to produce ID), the civil infraction must still occur in the officer's presence. But even then, arrest is not appropriate: With a civil infraction, an officer may briefly detain a person only long enough to check his or her identification and to issue a notice. State v. Day, 130 Wash. App. 622 (2005).

If he committed a crime in the officer's presence, he could be required to produce ID. Some states (i.e., Nevada - see Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (US Supreme Court case)) have laws that allow an officer to demand ID when the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that crime is afoot.

[maddi]

By the way - none of that is legal advice!