As photo shoots go, this one ranked pretty low on the Excito-meter. The article was on Sound Transit's possible decision to pass on building a First Hill light rail station. A photograph of the pending site, the U.S. Bank on Madison Street seemed appropriate. This is the sort of assignment that takes five minutes, including parking.
It took about 15, but not because the building was an uncooperative model. This paper's photographer, Bradley Enghaus, set up shop across the street from the bank and was putting his camera on a tripod when he saw a patrol car. It was moving slowly in his direction, then pulled up on the sidewalk and stopped a few feet from him.
Two officers got out of the car. One approached him, the other stood back impassively with his arms folded across his chest.
"What are you taking pictures of?" the officer asked.
Bradley pointed to the bank. When asked why, he said he was taking pictures for the Capitol Hill Times. When asked for some identification he produced his business card. He was then asked for his birth date, at which point he asked the officer if they wanted to see his driver's license. They did. And they ran a computer check on him.
Keep in mind he was on a public sidewalk taking pictures of a building. Nothing illegal. Nothing suspicious. He stands about five-nine, was wearing casual clothes. Yes, he had a camera. Also a cell phone. Also shoes. Car keys, too. But he was not carrying an AK-47, nor wearing a T-shirt that said "I [heart] Osama."
Bradley considered how he would react. A few things he might have said:
"I'm just making sure my money is safe."
"Is this a bank? I need to take pictures of the airport!"
"Is that a real gun?"
Bradley, wisely, chose none of the above. Bradley is by nature unfailingly polite. He's not someone prone to picking arguments. But he had to ask...what gives?
"What would have happened if I hadn't complied? I'm just curious," Bradley asked.
When he did, the second officer approached him and took over from the first:
"Let me explain it this way. Our job is to be curious people. We saw you, and it's not normal for people to be photographing a banking institution."
By this time a second police car arrived. There was no siren, but it's lights were flashing. One more officer got out of the car, bringing the total to three. Bradley's understandable thought: You've got to be kidding? Is this really necessary? Three officers. One photographer. Theater of the absurd off Broadway.
The officer gave a short speech. He assured Bradley that his constitutional rights had not been violated. He said that lots of people had died for our rights, and pointed out that there were people dying for our rights right now.
Bradley nodded, concerned that any other reply would result in a 30-minute civics lesson at the very least. The officer eventually said that Bradley could stay and take all the pictures he wanted. It was a civil exchange, mostly, it seems, because Bradley remained respectful and circumspect. There was a cordial enough goodbye, one without evident animosity.
The photographer asked one final question:
"This is a public sidewalk. What if I hadn't left?"
"We would have made it very uncomfortable for you to stay," said the officer. "Eventually, one of us would have left. And it wouldn't have been us. You understand the world we're living in."
On one level this isn't a big deal. No harm done, right? Minor inconvenience, no raised voices. The thing is, Bradley was doing nothing remotely illegal. He, or anyone, is allowed to take photographs of a building. Of course, police officers can come up and talk to you at any time. But it's worth noting that you commit no crime in Washington state if you do not identify yourself when asked by police. Nor are you required to answer any questions. There may be practical ramifications to such behavior but you won't have broken any law.
There is a fine line, of course, between a casual conversation and actual harassment. I'm not suggesting the officers' behavior fell into that category. But I am suggesting that their actions were unnecessary.
This was a small incident, but also a sad one. It's also illustrative of the state of play these days, the tone and tenor of July 2005. War on terror, don't you know. But if there is a line between 9-11 and the various security measures that have been put into place as a reaction, the result hardly inspires confidence. Does anyone really feel safer catching a plane these days?
Even if we aren't sliding down a slippery slope of ever-decreasing rights and freedoms, which is highly debatable, then the legacy of 9-11 is a world filled with annoyances and petty inconveniences. Fifteen minutes out of Bradley's day didn't really prevent him from doing anything. But it did define it.
And served as a reminder of the world we live in.
Doug Schwartz is the editor of the Capitol Hill Times. He can be reached at editor@capitolhilltimes or 461-1308.[[In-content Ad]]
