Almost Arrested today @ SFWOA

amen to coaster_cops post... perfect... i do agree that the deleting of pics is bad and is stepping to far... but mongoose is wording it that whoever stoped him took his camera and deleteed them himself then gave the camera back or somthing... i belive somthing like what coastercop said happened... mong was parked in the middle of the road... did a illegal u-turn... speeding... didnt signal his turn... SOMTHING to get stoped... then while being talked to about whatever he was stoped for... it came out that they were taking pics of the park... then whoever stoped him told him about some laws or somthing and then mong desided to delete them on his own or som thing... either that or mong or his dad got pissed at the officer and were exchanging words... and then THAT is where the "almost arrested"  came in... getting closer to the missing link...

*edit* typo, and denver read this post...hehe

*** This post was edited by Funkytones on 12/24/2001. ***

Why must you think that he did something like an illegal U-Turn? The cops that patrol around the park are like this... they have stopped people that have just been driving around slowly...

But I do think he should do something about it. ;)
-----------------
SFWoA Online
http://sfwoa.coasterbuzz.com

*** This post was edited by Mr. Villain on 12/24/2001. ***

Even if he was mouthing off at the officer, the officer has no right to delete his pics.  I doubt he deleted the pics on his own, why would he do that?

Moongoose, did the officer say anything about your driving? Or was it all about the pictures?  If it was just about taking the pictures I would be extremely angry and I would try to do something about it.  They have to have just cause to pull you over, and if all they said you did wrong was taking pictures, that is not just cause. 

Say moongoose did stop in the middle of the road, the only thing the cop should do is give him a ticket for traffic violations.  Nothing about the pictures should have even been mentioned, as long as this road is public. 

FYI Driving too slow and/or slowing down to take pictures, taking pictures while driving (if you are the driver), and stopping in the road without pulling all the way over past the fog line are illegal. If there was no illegal activity done and they stopped him he needs to file a complaint.

I think what would clear the whole thing up is saying exactly who stopped him. What department or was it security and what the reason for stop was.  I would not put it past six flages security to have called the police after seeing his activity as suspicious. Thus, the police would have every right to stop and question.  Still there was no need for the pictures to have been delete.

We need to get the whole story before we judge and call the ACLU.

Of course, the whole reason this is a major issue in the first place is that similar events have been reported with that park for a couple of years now. People have been harassed by local law enforcement outside the park, and by park employees inside the park for doing nothing more than taking photographs...and to the best of my knowledge, this is the ONLY park where this has been a recurring pattern of trouble, literally for YEARS now.
Personally, I think it's time for this behavior on the part of both park employees and local law enforcement to STOP unless they can back it up with legislation, chapter and verse. Period.
So far, everyone who has challenged this alleged "policy" has learned from higher authority that it doesn't exist. It's time for the harassment to stop.

Merry Christmas, everybody!

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

As a police officer in Cleveland, OH, I will comment on many statements brought up here to the best of my knowledge.  I also want to stress that I can assure you that there is almost always more to the story.  I'm not saying Mongoose is completely wrong. 

First of all, whether on duty, off duty, or working a side job like SFWOA, an officer always has the same authority to stop people/vehicles, investigate, cite, and arrest.

I work in a big mall in Cleveland as a side job and there are rules on photographing inside of it.  As long as you are not taking pictures of storefronts and inside of the stores, picture taking is not a problem.  This rule is there because the mall is private property and the stores do not want photos taken of their product/prices/setups/etc.  I imagine it is because of competitors stealing ideas, comparing prices, etc.  In my opinion, a sneaky person could put a hidden camera or video camera on their person and get 10 times the info/photos they want compared to average Joe taking blatant photos.  But that's their rules.

     If he was stopped or driving slowly on the roadway, that is a violation of "stopped or slow moving" impeding traffic.  Also, taking pictures in an operating vehicle falls under "operating vehicle-full time and attention" which is equal to talking on your cell phone as you drive.  These are both violations listed in the Ohio Revised Code, not just local law.

     These would make it legal to stop the vehicle and issue citations.  Anything else coming from the stop, i.e. a search/arrest/etc..., would be too gray to talk about here.  An officer is trained to look for signs or evidence of criminal activity, and the smallest thing may justify a search and or arrest within the confines of our rights.  So to go further on that wouldn't be proper on my behalf.

     Being on public property and taking photos is legal to the best of my knowledge, unless of course, you are trying to take pictures of sensitive/classified material.  SFWOA is far from that.  I think they should be glad that someone was interested enough in their park to take pictures of it.  You can't sell or profit from those pictures though. 

     Being on private property, the rules are up to the park itself.   You could also be subject to criminal trespassing arrest if you were on their property off season.

     Next issue, upgraded security at all major/sensitive locations.  As I have stated above, I work side jobs in a mall.  Besides the mall, law enforcement in general is constantly being updated with new information, alerts, and even rumor that has been circulating around.  Private citizens come up to us quite often and report activity that would have been ignored prior to 9/11.  Unfortunately, we are all more alert and aware of what can happen out there.  We hear a lot of complaints of suspicious people photographing and asking questions about public places.  There may be reason to worry about something like that, but it is not illegal to do so. 

     An amusement park is definitely a potential target.  Everywhere is a target.  Parks are targets due to crowds and the feeling of being reasonably safe there.  When you are in a park you are basically on a mini vacation, enjoying yourself, being in a happy place where most everyone is escaping and having a good time.  To attack a park would be a horrible catastrophe and would send out a very scary message.  Don't ever think that any place is not a target.  I doubt SFWOA would be a target, as most places won't be, but I want to be realistic to everyone and not have them get a false sense of security when we all should still be aware of our surroundings.

     I would not stop/arrest, nor could I think of any offense that I could charge with, if someone were taking pictures like that.  You may be stopped and questioned as to why you are taking the photos, but more than that, unless you can elaborate and prove that the person was doing/planning something illegal with it, there is nothing you can do.  Much of law enforcement is reactionary, although we have become more and more proactive due to recent events.

     Addressing concerts with photos and recorders.  You are on private property when you see a show.  They can prohibit any activity they wish.  You cannot photograph or record because the performance (video and audio) is considered the intellectual property of the performer who probably doesnt want you to have your own, but instead, buy it and make them richer.

     Responding to Corbin's comment where he said that "It's a good thing our cops have stopped wasting their time on murderers and rapists and have started going after the real criminal in our world", yes, the issue here is petty compared to rape and murder, but any violation of the law, is still a violation of the law.  We can't turn our nose to something because we think it is petty.  If the officer had a legal reason to stop Mongoose, then no one should complain about it.   The officer was doing his job whether you like it or not.  No one likes to be stopped by the police , myself included, but it is a necessary evil.  The smallest, most minor infraction that an officer investigates can, and many times does, lead to a very good arrest, including murderers and rapists.  The more contact an officer has with the public, good or bad, the more information he gathers.  The more info you get, the more you can do with it.  Many small fish can be just as good as catching one Moby Dick.

     If what Mongoose says is the whole story, and I really don't have reason not to believe him, he should contact the local prosecutors office and see what the law is in that city/village.  He could also consult an attorney if need be.  Also, contacting the park would be a good idea too.  See what they have to say about it.

     By Mongooses own admission, he states that he was driving slowly and taking pictures of the park.  The stop of his vehicle by the officer is completely justified.  The act of taking pictures os not illegal, but taking them while he is driving is.

     Personally, I would not have even touched his camera or made him delete the photos.  I can't even think of a reason to do this, or why you would want to.

     So to sum it in a nutshell, the stop was legal and the officer had the right to do it.  What happened afterward is  very gray and questionable as to what happened and why he did it.

     Don't flame me for being an officer.  I am open-minded enough to realize that there are two sides of any story.  I also know that officers can be wrong.  The officer who stopped Mongoose is not here to reply to this, so digging deep into this will go nowhere unless Mongoose decides to further it by contacting the police department, park, an attorney,  and/or the prosecutor's office.

    Good luck Mongoose.  I would assume that there is an easy resolve to this problem, and I doubt SFWOA needs or wants any negative publicity. 

A good example from the other side of the fence.  Several people were standing near my place of work taking pictures.  This is something that we worry about for several reasons including publicity, safety, and industrial espionage.  These people were standing on our private property, so we required them to leave our property.  (We didn't threaten to have them arrested since there wasn't a clearly posted property line at that point.)  As long as they stood on the public sidewalk and took pictures they were clearly within their rights, as long as they didn't make commercial use of the pictures.

Digital Daredevil,

That was a great post.  I wish we had more intelligent posts like yours on this site.

I still say the picture taker has a legitimate beef, if what he says is true.

I wonder what would happen if someone organized, say, a bunch of coaster enthusiasts who would show up with cameras on that very same road at a predetermined day and time?

--
Virtual Midway
http://www.virtualmidway.com

Ok,

Here's my two cents.  If he was on public property and not endangering anyone (e.g.: stopped dead in the middle of the road, not pulled off to the side) then it should be okay.  But, if he was causing a disturbance, then maybe a friendly, ok, just move along thing.  The only part that is really confusing is the fact that the police officer deleted the pics.  If you were to pick up a digital camer that chances are you have never used before, would you be able to just go, here's the delete option!  I mean, I think it would have taken a little bit of time.  But, in addition to that, if the cop stopped him for causing a distrubance to traffic, then, what do you think will happen when people drive by and see a cop having "pulled" him over?  It sounds a little hipocritical on the cop side to me.  But, I can't opionate on it too much.  My dad's a cop, but I don't really ask him much about that because what is there to take pictures of in good ol' Zion? :)

In conclusion, his pictures should have been kept and just got a friendly little tap on his shoulder asking him to not be too long on the side of the road.

-----------------
"If two coaster trains almost hit each other, why is it called a near miss and not a near hit?"

when i first went to magic mountain, about 15 years ago, myself and a friend drove into the parking lot on a day the park was closed. we sat there and just admired colossus for about a half hour and then a security guard told us to get out. in that instance i can see somebody chasing us out of there. too bad goliath spoils the beauty of colossus.

I drove by SFWOA on Monday, and without stopping, had no problem, but I didn't think I would anyway....

Well, I asked my uncle who is a Cleveland police officer if he had ever heard of anything like this and he has not. (he's also been on the force for over 20 years)

I just don't know what these guys were thinking.....

Gemini, I was thinking something along the lines of that myself. :)

-------------
Mayday - Memorial Day Weekend - Nonpoint, Nickelback, Oleander, Staind
Ozzfest - June 8 - Drowning Pool, Papa Roach, Linkin Park, Disturbed, Black Sabbath
Awake Tour- June 15 - Darwin's Waiting Room, Puddle of Mudd, Deftones, Godsmack

IF the law was being broken, the cop should not have acted as judge and jury. IF the law was being broken, the cop should have taken him in, confiscated the camera for evidence, and let the DA handle it.

Why didn't that happen? Probably because the law wasn't being broken and the cop was acting on his own. I HATE hearing stories like this! 

-----------------
"I'll bet that thing hits 5 Gs going through that loop.....faaar ooouut!"

Again, I want to go back and commend Digital Daredevil on a very intelligent post.  What baffles me is why Mongoose has to be 3rd degree'd about whether he's telling the truth.  Daredevil pointed out most of the scenarios and they could easily have played out that way.  Now, Funkytones, who is doing his best Fox Mulder needs to relax.  There's not always a conspiracy afoot.  Sometimes officers get a little Barney Fife complex going.  But seeing as you and I weren't there, why not take Mongoose's word for it.  There's no reward in it for you for cracking the case, and this hasn't been a "cop bashing thread" yet, so relax...  enhance your calm, John Spartan.

-----------------
I rode "X" and never went upside down.

I'll buy that he could have been stopped for driving slow or whatever, though that strikes me as absurd considering the lack of any significant traffic on that road. However, there is nothing legal period, under any possible scenario, about erasing his photos. That's the core issue. The rest doesn't matter.

If it was the county sheriff, then you need to go to the county commissioners' meeting, and if it was the township police (as I'm certain that's still Bainbridge Township), you need to go to the township trustee meeting. Which was it, Mongoose?

Let's stop dancing around this... something needs to happen. As Dave mentioned, there's a pattern of abuse here and it needs to be addressed.

-----------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com, Sillynonsense.com
"As far as I can tell it doesn't matter who you are. If you can believe, there's something worth fighting for..." - Garbage, "Parade"

I have kept tabs on the transformation of the park these past two years (as the former photographer for Refreshing Look.com and now with my own site) and have never had any problems with the local police and that includes driving slowly around the park perimeter. I have taken photos from my car (of course I stopped first) and have also parked my car to get good angles over those two years. Geauga Lake Road/Depot Road, which is a public road as they lead to small residential areas behind the park, is not a heavily traveled road.

I bet most of the people who live behind the park on Geauga Lake or Brewster Roads probably head over to Pettibone Road to avoid driving by the park in the first place.

I think park personnel should be happy that there are people like us who have an interest in there establishment and are willing to take time out of our lives to drive around and take off-season photos of our favorite pastime as long as we don't trespass on their property. Based on the story Mongoose gave us he didn't do anything out of the ordinary and should not have been treated the way he was treated by the cop.

I stand behind you Mongoose. I'm with Jeff in that something like this should be brought up to Bainbridge Township council.

X Factor

-------------
SFWoA: An Unofficial Guide
http://sfohio.tripod.com

I am not sure if it was park security or the local police, to be quite honest. Whoever is usually patrolling down by the Grizzly Run/Raging Wolf Bobs area buildings is who it was.

Well if it was the private security of the park, you have even more reason to get fired up. That's totally out of their jurisdiction and you can sue the pants off of them.

Most of what I've seen around there is county sherrifs.

-----------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com, Sillynonsense.com
"As far as I can tell it doesn't matter who you are. If you can believe, there's something worth fighting for..." - Garbage, "Parade"

Well, did the officer ask for your drivers license and then proceed to check for warrants? I dont know about Ohio, but here in Illinois if it is a police officer(not a security guard) they automatically ask for a license and do a check on you to determine if you have warrants, ect.. It doesnt matter what you are stopped for or approached about. They check regardless. So did this officer do what I stated above?
-----------------
""An hour wait for a 2 minute thrill. Yes, we need our heads examined""