Know your rights: teen arrested for photographing mall takedown

Moonlight Graham · November 16, 2012

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...her-arrest.html

A B.C. teen who aspires to be a journalist says his rights were violated when he was set upon by security guards and then arrested by police after photographing an incident at Metrotown shopping mall in Burnaby, B.C.

Jakub Markiewicz ,16, said he was in the mall in September and took a picture of what he thought was a newsworthy event — a man being arrested by security guards.

...

He said the Mounties could not remove his backpack while he was handcuffed so they cut it off his back with a utility knife and searched it.

...

Lawyer Douglas King, of Pivot Legal in Vancouver, agrees, saying that private mall security guards and police have no right to try to seize someone’s camera or demand that photos be deleted — even on private property.

Know your all your rights vs police:

#!

blueblood · November 16, 2012

Dumb ass was told he couldn't take photos and requested to leave private property, dumb ass didn't do so and was arrested for disturbing the peace because of the yelling and swearing. Dumb ass was searched incidental to arrest.

The article stated that pictures were not permitted to be taken in that particular private venue.

Dumb ass would have been better off keeping his trap shut and filing a report of theft by the security guards of his camera. Dumb ass had to lose his temper and go for a ride downtown.

The owners of the private property may not have the right to seize his camera but they have every right to punt his stupid ass off of their property and have him arrested by the police if he does not go.

Dumb ass doesn't even have a court date, and he's complaining? He's lucky he didn't have a resist arrest charge and a court date. He should be thanking the authorities.

The_Squid · November 16, 2012

"Burnaby RCMP say Markiewicz was arrested for causing a disturbance, but was not charged."

And where did you get your "facts" that the kid was yelling and swearing? Care to cite a source?

The teen doesn't have a court date because he wasn't charged and wasn't doing anything wrong. Pictures? Big fucking deal. Stupid rentacops.

blueblood · November 16, 2012

If you read the CBC article it states that the kid was swearing loud enough to be arrested for cause a disturbance. If you take a look at the criminal code cause a disturbance is arrestable if the kid was found committing (summary offense). The kid was arrested to prevent the continuation of the offense. Maybe try reading the criminal code...

The criminal code said he was doing something wrong

175. (1) Every one who

(a) not being in a dwelling-house, causes a disturbance in or near a public place,

(i) by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language,

(ii) by being drunk, or

(iii) by impeding or molesting other persons,

( openly exposes or exhibits an indecent exhibition in a public place,

(d) disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling-house by discharging firearms or by other disorderly conduct in a public place or who, not being an occupant of a dwelling-house comprised in a particular building or structure, disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling-house comprised in the building or structure by discharging firearms or by other disorderly conduct in any part of a building or structure to which, at the time of such conduct, the occupants of two or more dwelling-houses comprised in the building or structure have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied,

is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

blueblood · November 16, 2012

Dumb ass is also arrest able on s. 430 criminal code

430. (1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully

(a) destroys or damages property;

( renders property dangerous, useless, inoperative or ineffective;

(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property.

Dual procedure offense.

Marginal note:Idem

(4) Every one who commits mischief in relation to property, other than property described in subsection (3),

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

( is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Bonam · November 16, 2012

Dumb ass was told he couldn't take photos and requested to leave private property

Since when is one not allowed to take photos in a shopping mall? You do know what Metrotown is, right? I've been there hundreds of times and have taken photos and have seen others take photos. The reason there was an issue was because he took photos of security guards handling some other individual. Apparently the guards didn't like that. Is taking a photo of private security guards in a shopping mall against any rules, even the mall's rules?

Edited November 16, 2012 by Bonam

blueblood · November 16, 2012

That's up to management. It's their house and their rules, it said in the article management doesn't want photos taken. It's one of those rules that's enforced at opportune moments, which is dirty pool. However management made the rule and chose to enforce it.

If the kid was smart, he'd cooperate and charge the security guards with theft if they took it or false pretenses if they suckered him into giving them the camera. And mischief under 5000 if the camera was damaged.

Edited November 16, 2012 by blueblood

login · November 16, 2012

Dumb ass was told he couldn't take photos and requested to leave private property, dumb ass didn't do so and was arrested for disturbing the peace because of the yelling and swearing. Dumb ass was searched incidental to arrest.

The article stated that pictures were not permitted to be taken in that particular private venue.

Dumb ass would have been better off keeping his trap shut and filing a report of theft by the security guards of his camera. Dumb ass had to lose his temper and go for a ride downtown.

The owners of the private property may not have the right to seize his camera but they have every right to punt his stupid ass off of their property and have him arrested by the police if he does not go.

Dumb ass doesn't even have a court date, and he's complaining? He's lucky he didn't have a resist arrest charge and a court date. He should be thanking the authorities.

I think the problem here is that people view malls as public places, but they are privately owned.

Although I think we should bequestioning why he was asked to leave. As taking pictures in a public venue is not illegal, and I doubt the there is a no photos in the mall bylaw etc..

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Public_space

It is definately public space, that all members of the public are invited to attend. Actually it is not legal to descriminate in a public venue. Which shopping malls are.

Now when asking, could he have been uncuffed to allow the backpack to be removed without damaging his property for a "breach"

Also are there tresspassing charges?

Overall though we should always be critical of harsh treatment from non violent indivdiuals where force is used.

Damaged property is a tort,so unless it is a justifiable use of force it should not have occured.

I agree with the kid as far as his right to be on the property, and to take photos because it is legal to do so.

Now being asked to leave because he was taking photos is very problematic, this isn't a communist country where taking photos is a form of spying.

IMO the fact there was no tresspassing charge means the breach was unjustified. Destruction of his property was malice, because there was no threat to the officers in uncuffing and removing the property.

It was just bad policing, and bad morals for a public space like a mall.

The kid wasn't the bad apple it was the security and police in this instance because they infringed his liberties unjustifiably, because he is assured his security, it is a breach of his charter rights.

Now also his swearing is legally negligent because it was not assaultive (no assault charge).. the cops did not respond legally correclty given the destruction of property and breach given the justification. The teen was within his rights the cops infringed his liberties, and it was not fundamental justice, it was corruption of justice.

Since the kid is allowed to defend his charter rights in absence of reasonable use of force in infringing his liberties, the kid is in right.

The real issuehere seems to be the potential of the plainesclothes being IDed who is perhaps an undercover security gaurd who was id'd by the photos.

Further he was assaulted by the security gaurds. Since the security gaurds did not have grounds to make physical contact with someone in absence of a criminal charge. The security gaurds broke the law.

BS causing a disturbance, the breach was the takedown by the gaurds. i.e. causing public alarm. security is only suppose to give chase , the fact they did a physical takedown is the breach.

now the question does surround if the security used more force than necessary (eg. twisting the guys arms) i.e. was the guy in flight when they opted to pin him?

But no security gaurds have no right to physically detain someone who has not broken the law nor seize their property. That is criminal.

The guards should have been charge with theft under $5000 and assault.

The kid complied with the gaurds request to leave the property, and was not escorted off the property. The gaurds broke the law.

Edited November 16, 2012 by login

WWWTT · November 16, 2012

If you read the CBC article it states that the kid was swearing loud enough to be arrested for cause a disturbance. If you take a look at the criminal code cause a disturbance is arrestable if the kid was found committing (summary offense). The kid was arrested to prevent the continuation of the offense. Maybe try reading the criminal code...

Try reading the article,it was the security guards that were doing the yelling,the kid only admitted to swearing.

WWWTT

WWWTT · November 16, 2012

The article stated that pictures were not permitted to be taken in that particular private venue.

Does the mall have signs clearly posted that no pictures are allowed?

Also does the mall have a studio that takes pictures and portraits?

How about a picture booth?

Or better yet,around Christmas time,do they bring in Santa having his picture being taken with children?

In other words,you can't make up rules that people are not aware of and then tackle a kid to the ground,possibly causing pain and injury in an attempt to enforce a rule you just made up!

The law enforcers is not above the law!The law enforcers must adhere to the law!

WWWTT

cybercoma · November 16, 2012

Since when is one not allowed to take photos in a shopping mall? You do know what Metrotown is, right? I've been there hundreds of times and have taken photos and have seen others take photos. The reason there was an issue was because he took photos of security guards handling some other individual. Apparently the guards didn't like that. Is taking a photo of private security guards in a shopping mall against any rules, even the mall's rules?

You're not allowed to take photos on private property without the owner's consent.

Michael Hardner · November 16, 2012

Thanks login for the detailed analysis. I hope that this plays out as a cautionary tale for organizations who allow this to happen on their property.

Moonlight Graham · November 16, 2012

Rights of BC security guards vs citizens: http://www.securitya...ardsPowers.html

Dumb ass was told he couldn't take photos and requested to leave private property, dumb ass didn't do so and was arrested for disturbing the peace because of the yelling and swearing. Dumb ass was searched incidental to arrest.

It didn't say he was requested to leave the property. The article said the security told him to stop taking photos and then they tried to take the camera, and when he refused they took him to the ground. If they didn't ask him to leave the property for breaking the photo "rule" (let's assume it exists) and use reasonable force to do so first, tackling him to the ground is assault. Security guards have no more rights than an ordinary citizen. So imagine a cashier trying to tackle you for your camera.

Dumb ass would have been better off keeping his trap shut and filing a report of theft by the security guards of his camera. Dumb ass had to lose his temper and go for a ride downtown.

He had every right to keep his camera. He would be better off charging the security with assault and attempted theft.

The owners of the private property may not have the right to seize his camera but they have every right to punt his stupid ass off of their property and have him arrested by the police if he does not go.

Yes, but the article doesn't say he was requested to leave the mall. It says the security wanted the camera, he refused, and then was tackled and they tried to take the camera, he swore, then RCMP came and arrested him, apparently for swearing it seems and "disturbing the peace" that way. That's where the kid screwed up I guess.

Edited November 16, 2012 by Moonlight Graham

eyeball · November 16, 2012

The law enforcers is not above the law! The law enforcers must adhere to the law!

Sounds good in theory but I think when it comes to souveillance and the investigative journalism of any sort of official authorities, would be reporters should probably assume the worst - that the authorities will always attempt to squelch transparency. Small concealable POV cameras are the way to go. The more people who start wearing them the better. It's always dismaying to see the sycophancy that rears it's ugly head whenever someone has the unmitigated gall to question authority or otherwise aim a spot-light at it.

Our police should be required to wear cameras as some police in Britain now do and I would suggest mall cops should wear them as well. As the experience in the UK shows, the knowledge that police are wearing POV cameras keeps both police and the people they encounter honest. Having a record of events that could be played back would also defuse a lot of the he said she said repartee that fuels so much of the bitter public discourse that's always swirling around the issue of law and order.

GostHacked · November 16, 2012

You're not allowed to take photos on private property without the owner's consent.

And the owner is some large corporate land holdings company. Good luck getting through the bureaucracy to get the permission. And with thousands of people carrying cell phone with the camera built in snapping pics is not the problem.

Taking pics of those new cool shoes,,,, good. Catching the cops doing something for accountability.... bad. It's purely selective.

g_bambino · November 16, 2012

Since when is one not allowed to take photos in a shopping mall?

Since the mall's owners/management said so.

It's not at all uncommon. Similarly, though, no doubt, people take pictures on the TTC all the time, one is not actually allowed to take photographs or video on the TTC without first receiving permission from transit headquarters. The rules are posted, just as they apparently were in this particular mall.

cybercoma · November 16, 2012

And the owner is some large corporate land holdings company. Good luck getting through the bureaucracy to get the permission. And with thousands of people carrying cell phone with the camera built in snapping pics is not the problem.

Taking pics of those new cool shoes,,,, good. Catching the cops doing something for accountability.... bad. It's purely selective.

I don't disagree with you, but those are the rules.

Running a red light is illegal. Run a red light when a cop is off duty and you probably won't get busted. Run a red light while there's a cop on-duty watching the intersection, you're going to get busted.

That's the way things work. It's only illegal when you're caught.

cybercoma · November 16, 2012

Since the mall's owners/management said so.

It's not at all uncommon. Similarly, though, no doubt, people take pictures on the TTC all the time, one is not actually allowed to take photographs or video on the TTC without first receiving permission from transit headquarters. The rules are posted, just as they apparently were in this particular mall.

This.

Lax enforcement doesn't negate the rules.

The_Squid · November 16, 2012

You also need permission to trespass on private property.... Should I call the owner of the mall next time I want to buy some shoes? Clearly, the mall is private property and at the same time is a public space.

The proper way to handle this would have been telling him to leave... but even that is unreasonable! EVERYONE has a camera in their pocket. THOUSANDS of pictures are taken in malls everyday. It is unreasonable to think that the kid did anything wrong. The security had no right to his camera, nor should they have assaulted the kid.

The cops laid no charges.

Edited November 16, 2012 by The_Squid

Fletch 27 · November 16, 2012

The cops should have layer mischief charges.. Having a cell phone make you a "reporter"? Social "media" is dragging morals into the doldrums.

g_bambino · November 16, 2012

You also need permission to trespass on private property... Should I call the owner of the mall next time I want to buy some shoes?

If they post their opening and closing hours, no.

[ed.: +]

Edited November 16, 2012 by g_bambino

guyser · November 16, 2012

Having a cell phone make you a "reporter"?

What does being a reporter...or not have to do with this? Nothing? Oh ok then.

Social "media" is dragging morals into the doldrums.

No doubt since this type of thing never happened before social media was around.

guyser · November 16, 2012

You also need permission to trespass on private property....

No you dont.

The owner or authority would have to post a no trespass notice, which in this case would be really dumb.

However, upon issuance to a person that they are not allowed in, then any subsequent transgress would or could result in a trespass charge

Merlin · November 16, 2012

Our police should be required to wear cameras as some police in Britain now do and I would suggest mall cops should wear them as well. As the experience in the UK shows, the knowledge that police are wearing POV cameras keeps both police and the people they encounter honest. Having a record of events that could be played back would also defuse a lot of the he said she said repartee that fuels so much of the bitter public discourse that's always swirling around the issue of law and order.

This sends the message that the police cannot be trusted at all. If this is the case perhaps the hiring policies need to be reviewed. This sounds like big brother. How long will it be before citizens are videotaped and watched everyday even in their homes and cars.

cybercoma · November 16, 2012

You also need permission to trespass on private property.... Should I call the owner of the mall next time I want to buy some shoes? Clearly, the mall is private property and at the same time is a public space.

The proper way to handle this would have been telling him to leave... but even that is unreasonable! EVERYONE has a camera in their pocket. THOUSANDS of pictures are taken in malls everyday. It is unreasonable to think that the kid did anything wrong. The security had no right to his camera, nor should they have assaulted the kid.

The cops laid no charges.

it is not in any way whatsoever public space. It's private property.

I was at a mall Maine last year and they have a huge sign posted at the doors of their rules: ie, no running, no shouting, no photography.

Again, lax enforcement doesn't change the rules.

Edit: BTW security trespass people from malls all the time and it is indeed illegal for them to show up on the property. Those trespass notices are without "due process" and totally legal by virtue of it being private property not public.

Edited November 16, 2012 by cybercoma