REI Says ATM Photographer Is Welcome In Their Store Any Time
REI's Director of Corporate Communications contacted us with an official statement about the recent showdown between two Loomis security guards and a customer with an iPhone at one of their Seattle stores. She says despite the document Shane says he was forced to sign at the police station, he is not banned from their stores. Below is REI's official statement.
She writes:
Speaking for REI, the incident that occurred between one of our customers and a security company servicing an ATM in our Seattle store was unfortunate. For those who may not be aware of the details, the situation between the two parties escalated to the point that the police were called by the ATM security officers and the customer was detained.
We've heard from people about what should or should not have happened at the store, which we've appreciated. The one thing that is clear from the discussion is that the outcome was a bad one for all involved. We regret that the matter couldn't be defused before the police became involved.
It's not our intent to ban the customer from the store, and he is welcome to visit our store and shop with us. We've appreciated people sharing their varied points of view so we can avoid situations like this in the future. One step we are taking is to discuss with the ATM security company ways to prevent the circumstances that led to this problem.
Libby Hutchinson, APR
Recreational Equipment Inc - REI
Director - Corporate Communications
On Shane's own blog, he's posted a follow up to provide more details on the story. He says,
I was not arrested for trespassing. That much is clear. I was not told to leave. I was told in no uncertain terms that I could not leave. The cops had me sign a card as I was being released that acknowledged that (someone at) REI requested that I be trespassed. That means if I go back to REI within a year I can be arrested for trespassing. Although…
The downtown Seattle REI general manager, Kara Stone, was quoted on Slog saying that I am "welcome to come into our store" and that REI did not request I be trespassed. According to the Slog story, the Seattle Police records show otherwise. I'm guessing that the REI security people told the cops to do it and that the general manager was unawares of it. Either way, I'm not racing back there anytime soon.
It's not clear (to me and others) if I was ‘arrested' or just ‘detained' or if the difference is just semantics. I never said in my post that I was arrested. I said that I was cuffed, taken out of the store by the cops, put in a police car and put into a holding cell for some time. Whether that was "arrested" or not, I'm not sure.
When I was released from the police station, it didn't seem like any charges were being pressed against me. But when I tried to get the police report, I was reminded that charges can be pressed after the fact. So as of now, nothing more has happened with the police. We'll see if that changes.
"What happened at REI. An Update." [I Am Shane Becker]
RELATED
"Loomis Rent-A-Cops Have Shopper Cuffed, Hauled Away Over ATM Photo"
(Photo: veganstraightedge)
Post a comment
Comments:
One easy way to tell the difference between being arrested and being detained is the phrase "You are under arrest." I'm not trying to be a troll, but they're required to inform you of your status and read you your rights. It's more likely that they simply detained you for causing "a disturbance" by doing something as heinously evil as taking a legal picture in a public place.
"Be trespassed" = charged with trespassing? Yawn. Score one for anarchy.
Sounds like he was arrested to me. But the details are sketchy. Either way, they really overreacted.
Sounds to me like lawyers need to get involved. If I was taken to a holding cell, handcuffed in public for using my phone, I know I would. And I've never had to hire a lawyer in my life.
The fact that he was "reminded that charges can be pressed after the fact" is a threat and completely unacceptable.
@Saboth: All it will take is for it to happen to you once for you to keep a good attorney on retainer at all times.
We keep insurance for our houses, cars, businesses, life, etc. why not keep some insurance for your rights?
CRN
/Some would say that the second ammendment allows for insurance of your rights, and those people are right too.
I'm willing to give REI a lot of slack because I love that store, but the Corporate Communications response does not make me feel good about continuing to patronize them.
"But when I tried to get the police report, I was reminded that charges can be pressed after the fact."
That sounds really shady. Why is asking for the report met with a threat?
Sounds like one of the guards or employees is trying to cover their asses saying, we didn't want him arrested.
Bah.
Still the point should be that the police should have NEVER been called for taking a picture.
@Rey: Yea, I love REI, but I think a better respons would have been to cut all business ties to that security company. They are the ones who caused the issue not REI, and REI should make it clear that that sort of treatment of customers is unacceptable.
@v0ice:
That's the sort of talk that would make me ask for the report immediately. On the grounds that if you plan to press charges, I need to know entirety of information you have on hand RIGHT NOW so you can't falsify it. After that little barb I'd be sitting in that police station all night if that's what it took for them to give me a complete release of all that information.
For those who may not be aware of the details, the situation between the two parties escalated to the point that the police were called by the ATM security officers and the customer was detained.
I have read this story over and over, and I think I have an understanding of what happened.
I think the Loomis guards thought that the man(note I do not say gentleman for a reason) had videoed the combo being entered into the safe on the ATM. For those that may not know, most safes have a key and a combo lock. The combo must be entered first, then you turn the key to be able to turn the handle. The key is the weakest part of this system, and even if you pick that, you still can not turn the handle w/o the combo entered. It's that, not the photo of the inside of the safe that is a security concern. I myself have a surplus safe and picked the lock portion with some homemade tools, but would never have been able to "crack" the combo if I didn't have access to the back of the lock to open it up and look at the dials.
I think they were confused that the iPhone(from what I gathered was used) does NOT normally have video capability like most cell phones. A person in the general public, could, with pictures/schematics, which as shown by the man's blog post are VERY easy to get, and the combo, could break in.
I think after they started talking to him, BOTH parties escalated the matter. In reading the blog post, the female police officer seemed to be trying to avoid any problems by explaining how she herself had someone question her taking a photo, to which the man replied in a manner which, to me, seemed to be indicative of lack of respect, which I believe caused him to actually be brought in/detained.
I think REI is right in that if both parties originally had kept cool heads, this might have been avoided.
@shepd: I think the police should be required to give a copy of the police report to anyone named on the report, within 24 hours of the report being written, for free. People shouldn't have to request it, it should just be automatic.
@Saboth: What I don't get is how someone who was subjected to this treatment hasn't been more proactive about getting the details of his current legal status, if you will. Granted, he's been vaguely threatened with criminal charges for asking for the police report, but I would have had a lawyer on the phone right away. Money be damned, I need to know whether I'm in trouble, and I need to know it NOW. Heck, for a story like this, a lot of lawyers would be willing to do the consult for free, I bet. I still don't get why he doesn't know whether he was arrested.
@v0ice: I think that was hyperbole on the author's part. He states later on that he has to wait for his report. It is correct that charges can STILL be pressed(but will 99% not be), and the police will tell you that if you ask if charges were pressed. It's not a "threat".
It's like if I say "I was reminded by the receptionist that if I did not call to cancel 24 hours before my appointment, I would be charged for the visit." It's the truth, but not a threat.
Big difference between being detained and being arrested. There is no clear line, but even being detained can be a violation of your constitutional rights. In order to detain someone, you basically have to have a reasonable suspicion that someone is committing a crime, or the person's consent. The instant you submit to a show of authority, your constitutional rights come into play, whether you are under arrest or not.
Basically, after I took constitutional criminal procedure, I dont like the way police do things.
@Cyco: It's not. If one party declines to press charges at the time, they have a certain time frame to still press charges. As for why he didn't get his report, Only later does the author write:
I went downtown to request a copy of the police report. Because I'm listed as a suspect on the report, I can't get it for a week while it's in a process called 'Public Disclosure'. This is in case there is any possible pending investigation. People listed as victims can get the report right away (as I understand it).
I'd be suing the security company and the police so fast their heads would spin.
With a family of law enforcement officers as a resource:
The cuffs go on, you are _detained_. Your movement has been limited and the officer controls you; you are _detained_.
Technically, this is an arrest; the State/Government has used "due process" (the issuance of a badge) to determine that they have "probable cause" to arrest you on a "violation of the law".
Whether or not that "probable cause" is legitimate is up to the District Attorney; only the most egregious and stupid actions by an arresting officer end up in the false arrest category when the officer cannot show any reasonable basis for "probable cause" being used.
In this case, they not only detained him, but they hauled him downtown and made him sign documents against his will. Even though you sign a traffic ticket against your will, you aren't hauled out of your car and driven downtown in cuffs to do so.
The key point is that the officer "controlled (subject's) movements" with cuffs. That is an arrest.
Seattle PD is trying to avoid the 'wrongful arrest' lawsuit, and doing it badly.
@hedonia: Not a good idea, as then the perpetrator of the crime would have all the vital details on the victim. So if someone attacked someone, they would know within 24 hours where the victim lived. It would also release information on a pending investigation, which is NEVER a good idea.
@Saboth: He wasn't in public, he was on REI's property. They're within their rights to ask you not to take pictures.
The problem is that it appears that they don't have such a policy and that it was the security company that initiated everything.
I took a picture at Safeway last year and another employee completely flipped out.
People don't realize that you have the right to take photos until requested to stop (if private property) and on public property you can take a picture of almost anything.
This page (photographers rights) is helpful to carry for anyone that likes take pictures or keeping their rights.
@ManiacDan: Actually, that's not really true. They're not required to read you your rights if they don't have any plans to interrogate you at that time.
@jamesdenver: I think the laws vary by state. You are not allowed to take photos on private property in Washington state at all, unless you get written permission from the owners of the property (or their delegates)
The magic words are, and I quote, "Am I free to go?"
If they say yes, leave.
But if they say no, you have been stopped, detained persuant to the fourth/fourteenth amendment. This means you have rights, but you have to protect them. The second set of magic words are "I do not consent to any interrogation or search, and I want to speak with my attorney." Tell them who s/he is. Then you shut up and let him (or her) deal with it.
This has been a public service announcement by @EarlNowak.
@Woooot!-Offing_GitEmSteveDave: I'd have to agree. Shane comes across as arogant in his post and possibly in real life (wouldn't know) which could have easily contributed to antagonizing the other parties
From his original post "I did not take the picture to threaten the safety of the two Loomis fake cops with their bulletproof vests, hip side pistols and very fragile egos."
@ManiacDan: On this forums they talk about that. From what I thought is if they take you to a police station you are being arrested. [www.realpolice.net]
Conspicuously missing from REI's statement is an apology to the customer.
Shame on them...
@Alex Vollmer: This is probably why they are trying to smooth things over. Habeas corpus is a U.S. citizen's right, but that right has been fogged up some what ever since the War on Terror. Some cases rule that a U.S. citizen can be detained indefinitely without charges being brought against him and it being considered legal. Of course, that was during the Bush presidency. Obama has more than staunchly shown that he's against a policy like that when he issued an executive order reinstating that the people held at Gitmo have the right to habeas corpus. Detaining him without any charges against him might indeed be a violation of his constitutional rights, meaning the rent-a-cops might've opened up a can of worms for the real men in blue.
@Tallanvor: Actually, that's not really true. If you are actually placed under arrest, then you are being charged with something, and they do have to read you your rights.
@ManiacDan: In all fairness, it wasn't a public place. REI had no rules against it, and the guy that took the picture did nothing wrong. But it wasn't a public place.
@CRNewsom: Are attorneys so thin on the ground where you are that you have to keep one on retainer and can't just call one as needed?
@zonk7ate9: My understandig is that Loomis was working on B of A's ATM. REI would have a contract with B of A not the armored service that that B of A uses.
sounds like REI is trying to nab him for trespassing.
Calling all peeps, REI is dead to you. shop at big 5 instead.
@Veeber: Also read about when he was detained. The female officer relays a tale about how she was questioned taking photos.
Officer:....I wasn't supposed to be taking pictures there. I explained that I didn't know that, was a police officer, showed them my ID and complied with them. We cleared it up and I left.
Me (totally baffled): Since you managed to pull the 9/11 card somehow, does that mean that everyone that took a picture of those buildings-
That was when Officer GE Abed (#6270) spun me around and put handcuffs on me.
If you read that, notice how she mentions "clearing it up" after talking to the guards who questioned her. She was trying to difuse this and get out of there so this would be over. When I read his response, I can just HEAR the sarcasm and picture his face when he says, "Since you managed to pull 9/11 cars somehow" and just imagine the frustration the cops were feeling on not being able to get through to this guy that "maybe the best thing to do would be to take care of that right here in Brainerd"(Fargo reference).
Right, but you also forget that a store can simply ask you to never return if you DO take a photo. That's THEIR right.
It definitely gets into social contract territory if there's no posted sign.
Don't take photos of our premises, and we won't ban you. Sure, people flip out because they THINK it's illegal, even though it isn't - but they flip out because people so rarely do it...likely because people realize that they shouldn't just walk onto private premises and start taking photos of things that aren't theirs. And, that if they do so, there will be consequences - such as being asked to leave or being banned from the store.
@EarlNowak: Actually, IIRC, if you are detained, they have a right to search your immediate person for anything that can harm them. I got driven home once by a cop, and he patted me down before letting me in his car. He didn't search my bag, as it was put in his trunk. I wasn't detained or anything, just being driven home after a accident. Also, IIRC, not answering questions is closer to 5th amendment territory.
@downwithmonstercable: Generally, the public has an implied right to be on the public portions of private property, such as in a restaurant or a stadium. The only way they would have a case is if they had previously trespassed him.
@Eyebrows McGee (popping ~May 29): it's not that lawyers are thin on the ground, least of all here in FL, but *GOOD* lawyers are very thin on the ground.
It's amazing how many shifty eyed weak chinned little skags make it through lawschool and then through the Bar Exam.
@HPCommando: "due process" (the issuance of a badge)
That can't be right - "someone with a badge says so" is not due process.
@Woooot!-Offing_GitEmSteveDave: The stop and frisk for weapons is called a "terry stop" and there are specific probable cause requirements for a cop to make a terry stop.
Stating outright that you don't consent to any search provides proof that you did not consent to any search, and that puts the burden on the cop to show the probable cause necessary to make a terry stop (which if I recall is that the cop reasonably suspects you have committed or are about to commit a crime), or else it was an unreasonable search pursuant to the fourth amendment.
In your case it actually wasn't a terry stop, you consented to receive a ride from the cop and impliedly consented to the frisk. You would have been within your rights to refuse the search and the cop could subsequently refuse you a ride. This would have become important if you had an illegally concealed weapon, the cop could arrest you and even without the reasonable suspicion the fact that you consented would allow the search to be used against you in a court of law.
(This makes a few assumptions about the situation, and does not constitute legal advice or form any legal relationship between EarlNowak and any other party).
@EarlNowak: Not trying to nitpick, but (and this is from a cop uncle) the real magic words are, "Unless I am under arrest, I will be leaving now. Am I under arrest?"
If they say anything other than, "Yes", "You are under arrest", or some other affirmative, you are free to go. The police cannot detain you without first arresting you. Note that charging a person with a crime is not the same as arresting a person.
@Sean Masters: Oh, and also note that it is possible for an officer to simply place you under arrest for a vague charge such as "involvement" or "disturbance" in order to detain you for questioning.
In any event, once you are under arrest you do not say anything without a lawyer, other than the phrase, "I cannot speak with you without a lawyer". If needed, repeat the phrase whenever a question is asked of you.
Supreme Court said a few years ago that if a policeman (NOT a Loomis security guard) asks for ID, you are required to provide it and you can be arrested for refusing. This is an exception to the right against self-incrimination. Not being a lawyer I can't verify all exceptions to this but I am sure that is why Seattle PD arrested him (It was an arrest). When he pulled out his cuffs, he treated it the same as "I already started to write the ticket". This is the way the posted police report reads. I suspect Seattle PD Lawyers spent a lot of time covering their ass with that explanation. I do not believe the police need a reason to ask for ID.
Sounds like the Loomis guards asked the police to get what they knew they had no right to ask from a private citizen. It's also clear that Loomis wants to criminalize photography or anything else they want. I would put the blame squarely on Loomis. There is nothing wrong with being a security guard. Everyone needs to earn a living. However, I'm sure Loomis gives almost no training and hands out guns. The probably pay very little and want to sneak by as cheap as possible.
Loomis needs to be forced to train guards and be held liable for this display of stupidity. REI security and Seattle PD should also be liable for assisting this Loomis mistake.
How was he trespassing when he wasn't allowed to leave?