JFK Terminal 5 - Saturday 8-17-13 PAPD / Mounds NYPD

[Roush6NY]

Sorry I am a little late on this post guys, this is what I faced on Saturday (why Phil posted the other thread) and before I start, I would like to thank Phil for all his efforts and hard work regarding this on going situation.

Well, I must say within the past month or so my experience up there has been much more pleasant and different when it came time to face security, which led me to believe MAYBE something was said that they are actually being understanding. One perfect example was about a month ago, I was up there for a while by my self and I was approached by security and when asked if I was taking photos, I truthfully replied yes and after a few minutes of chatting she was on her way down with 0 problems and I continued to do my thing till the end of the day.

Last weekend on Saturday 8-10 there was about 6-7 of us there for the whole afternoon and again security did not care what so ever and the following day I was there again alone for over 4 hours till sun down and 0 problems.

2 days ago after about an hour or so I was approached by a few loud honks of the security car. I got out of my truck and approached hers which the usual Hellos and such. Right away she tells me that there is no photography allowed. The whole time I am trying to talk to her as an adult but she was on a one track mind and throwing the usual bull **** of "with everything that is going on" and my reply was, what is going on ? please do tell me. At this point she got on her radio and messaged " I have someone up here that is telling me he is talking photos of the airport", I asked her to correct her self by saying that, "I am taking photos of the planes, not the airport" which she did repeat back on the radio. At this point I was told that her supervisor would come and explain it better to me which I kindly said please do, I will be by my truck.

About a half hour later I see a port supervisor vehicle and the security car come back up but stay on the other side of the parking lot, the supervisor was out of her car just looking around. Few minutes later I see a PAPD vehicle come up and the officer was just chatting with them. Once I saw him approaching my car I was out there waiting for him even before he got to me and I gave him the friendly wave right away and walk over to his passenger side window. This Officer was the BIGGEST gentleman and made it pleasure to speak to him from the start:

Good afternoon officer, how are you today ?

Pretty good, your self? Whats going on, I was told you are taking photos?

Yes sir, it is my hobby and today is a pretty nice day out so I am just taking advantage and enjoying it up here.

Gotcha, Can I see some of the pics that are in your camera? And let me get your ID as well

Of course here is my ID, let me grab my camera. (started showing him the last shots I took and after 4-5 he was satisfied)

Well, these are pretty nice photos and I see you are telling me the truth in every way but in this case I have to ask you to leave today and that is because she (the security) is claiming you were arguing with her, you seem like a really nice guy but there are 2 sides to the story

There was never an argument, I was just trying to talk and explain my self but she was not having it

Again I know and I hear you. But this is what I have to do for today

No problem sir, I respect you and your decision. May I ask you a question that I personally have been waiting to ask from one of you guys for a while now?

Sure please

Are we allowed to be taking photos up here? and aren't you the highest authority to make the decision as to if I can stay or not in this case?

Yes, I do have the last saying and I have to say she is right, you are NOT allowed to take photos up here technically

At this point, I was not going to argue and get into it with him since he was super cool and respected me and I wanted to respect him in every way back so I just stopped right there.

He noted my name down from my ID on his pad, we just spoke for a few more minutes, shook his hand a couple of times, thanked him and was on my way.

Even though it was a nice experience with this officer, I still got mixed messages regarding the rules hence why Phil posted what he has from them so far.

My personal conclusion, the problem is the security and not port!

Interesting, about a couple of hours later at the mounds an NYPD cruiser was just passing by and I gave a friendly wave and they stopped and chatted like we were friends. Asking about SLR cameras and which one they should choose for a beginner and just shooting the **** about whatever came to our head. At one point one officer even said, do you have any clue how many calls we get regarding you guys taking pics of the planes ? We know its cool and you guys are not doing anything wrong and by now we know all the exact locations. They hung out for a good 10 minutes and took off because they got a call ! It felt real good that what we do is known by these guys and they already know it is a hobby and not a threat.

[wunaladreamin]

Kaz, I'd say if the port is willing to abide by the made up rules of a Cracker Jack agency, then the problem is the port as well as the security.

[yankees368]

In the last week or two, we have had some great conversations with both the NYPD and even NCPD. On both occasions they were simply responding to a call, as they have to, and were interested in what we were doing. Really happy to see that those law enforcement agencies are starting to get it.

As for the port, my last interaction with them went well, so this one is a bit disappointing to hear. Count the days until FJC is gone, man.

[Landing Lights]

So let me get this straight, the PAPD officer's lone justification for tossing you from the premises was that you challenged the FJC guard on their interpretation of the rules? That makes very little sense to me. I have had them tell me that a supervisor would be up to talk to me before but said supervisor has never actually shown up. I've long said that 9 out of 10 times the PAPD will side with the spotters, so I guess this was that 1-in-10 chance. Of course it's always best to comply with their instructions, however it seems like this officer was somewhat mis-informed about the rules, even without the recent change.

[PhilDernerJr]

This encounter is disappointing to me because of what Ben pointed out; the guard's actions are one thing, but for the officer to ask you to leave for the sole reason of the thought that you argued with the guard really stinks.

[hiss srq]

Frankly, next time FJC starts a rukus, just continue doing what your doing as if they are not there.... What exactly are they going to do?..... Call the police.... oh wait....

[gonzalu]

As I see in Las Vegas all the time, the real cool characters, the deep pocket gamblers, they don't even have a soul, no eyes, nothing ... pure death. Whever there is an argument, they simply point at the cameras. If they ever need to speak, they simply say, go to the video. It is so funny.

I think we should do the same. Become transparent. As soon as they arrive, simply say, get the PAPD. No more taking, arguing, discussing, explaining, nada.

Personally, I am fairly certain we can get thrown out for ANY REASON from the lots. There are far too many laws and reasons OTHER THAN plane pictures that can give them the right to even arrest you for trespassing. I'd love to be wrong, but I do NOT want to end up getting arrested and go through court to find out if I am right. Not worth it.

I too want to be able to shoot from up there but, let's always keep the context. It is NOT a public space. It is borrowed. They can make up the rules. It is a multi-billion dollar business, part of it paid by taxes, most of it paid by customers. So let's also understand it can all go south for us. While it may be perfectly legal to take pictures of planes, where it is done from may be subject to a whole other discussion :smile:

[NIKV69]

Personally, I am fairly certain we can get thrown out for ANY REASON from the lots. There are far too many laws and reasons OTHER THAN plane pictures that can give them the right to even arrest you for trespassing. I'd love to be wrong, but I do NOT want to end up getting arrested and go through court to find out if I am right. Not worth it.

I too want to be able to shoot from up there but, let's always keep the context. It is NOT a public space. It is borrowed. They can make up the rules. It is a multi-billion dollar business, part of it paid by taxes, most of it paid by customers. So let's also understand it can all go south for us. While it may be perfectly legal to take pictures of planes, where it is done from may be subject to a whole other discussion :smile:

This is by far the most accurate and insightful post regarding this issue. One would be wise to follow this advice.

[Zee71]

I am in total agreement with Manny's post but question "they can make up rules". If this is the case, show the rules! Why be secretive. Part of my job involves auditing and compliance to policy. Thus, "show me the policy" where it states that rule. So, when and individual asks me where does it say that? I show them the policy and section that they are not complying with. With all respect to law enforcement and security "don't make up rules" on the fly! Please show me where it states that and how is an individual suppose to know if photography is not permitted.

Bottom line, respect the law, but don't be afraid to question it.

[PhilDernerJr]

I agree. I'm disappointed by the "this rule is internal" idea. Whether photography is allowed or not, we still need to behave and understand that the property and its rules CAN change, but such rules should be made public for people to know...it would protect EVERYONE involved.

[gonzalu]

I guarantee the clause "subject to change without notice" will be in the rules if they were made by a or consulted with a Lawyer. So, to Mark I say, I am in the Security business, IT security, and I can tell you our number one priority is to BE secretive. It comes with the territory. Obscurity helps security... it is horrible for us, but, it is effective for them. I am OK with all of it and it is fine. As long as the ultimate application is within the rule of law, I have to keep my trap shut. I can botch about it, but in the end, there isn't much I can do about it.

We navigate the rough waters of this new world of heightened security and I have to say we need to give ourselves credit for that fact. We are masters at navigation of the rules, no matter how complex they may be :D

[moose135]

So, to Mark I say, I am in the Security business, IT security, and I can tell you our number one priority is to BE secretive. It comes with the territory. Obscurity helps security... it is horrible for us, but, it is effective for them. I am OK with all of it and it is fine.
That's a completely different thing, Manny. No one is asking for the keypad code to the gate onto the ramp. What we are asking is that regulations that Port expects the public to abide by, and which they expect their officers to enforce, be made public. Posting on their web site that "Photography is permitted within airport grounds with the following exceptions..." doesn't compromise security, and it makes it clear to the public, PAPD officers, and private security what is and what is not allowed.

Let's take it away from airports, and security, and photography. What if the police decide not to post speed limit signs, don't announce what the speed limit is, but still pull you over and write you a speeding ticket? How do you know you are breaking the law? How do you know if the officer is correctly enforcing the law? Would you think that is appropriate, given the "heightened security" we are living in these days?

[Zee71]

All good points Manny and Moose pretty much hit it right on the head. Even when one gets a ticket to enter the parking garage and tries to read the wording on the back of the ticket there is nothing stated on that ticket with regards to photography. It just addresses your vehicle.

[gonzalu]

That's a completely different thing, Manny. No one is asking for the keypad code to the gate onto the ramp. What we are asking is that regulations that Port expects the public to abide by, and which they expect their officers to enforce, be made public. Posting on their web site that "Photography is permitted within airport grounds with the following exceptions..." doesn't compromise security, and it makes it clear to the public, PAPD officers, and private security what is and what is not allowed.

Let's take it away from airports, and security, and photography. What if the police decide not to post speed limit signs, don't announce what the speed limit is, but still pull you over and write you a speeding ticket? How do you know you are breaking the law? How do you know if the officer is correctly enforcing the law? Would you think that is appropriate, given the "heightened security" we are living in these days?

Moose, let's take another step back. There are A LOT of laws that aren't clearly posted nor is anyone even aware they exist. Yet they will be applied fully if you violate them and get charged with them.

There is NO LAW that says the Legislature, the Judicial have any duty to post laws, any or all, anywhere other than the standard register with our respective jurisdictions. Unfortunate but true. You would agree no one has done anythign wrong.. .what we want is a different storey. I agree with you and have my own desires. I was simply pointing out the facts of the matter... and they are clear.

You KNOW full well when you're trespassing. I guarantee you the folks at T5 have every right to deny you entry... period! About the only thing you have a clear right to do is complain and openly voice your opinion. Even that right isn't clearly posted anywhere except our Constitution which is somewhere displayed in Washington D.C. :tongue:

[moose135]

There is NO LAW that says the Legislature, the Judicial have any duty to post laws, any or all, anywhere other than the standard register with our respective jurisdictions.
And I can go to that jurisdiction (or their on-line information) and look up those laws. The point here is that the Port has a regulation, but is not publishing it anywhere yet expecting people to follow it.

[megatop412]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

A few months ago I got a parking ticket that I decided I was going to fight, for parking the 'wrong' way on the street(pointed the wrong way). Here on my street in south Jersey, people do it all the time, I do it constantly. Never a ticket. One night up in north Jersey I park the same way to unload something conveniently, a $54 ticket by 6am. I call and they say it's state law in NJ. I say 'but there's no signs, anywhere'. I asked for a court date until I realized I was going to waste a bunch of time and money trying to fight something I would lose. I wisely retracted my request to see the judge once I realized he/she would probably berate me for not being familiar with the laws in my own state.


We have been saying this about T5 and similar locations for many months. They don't have to say 'plane spotting is illegal'. They just have to say 'get off our property unless you intend to use it for its stated purpose'. And all it would take is one semi-conscious individual in charge over there to make that realization, and for us it's game over @ T5.

[wunaladreamin]

Lol but if one wants to get technical, you're using the parking garage to park. Here's my car...it's in a marked stall...I'm not in the car. That would be by definition using it for its intended purpose.

[moose135]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

A few months ago I got a parking ticket that I decided I was going to fight, for parking the 'wrong' way on the street(pointed the wrong way). Here on my street in south Jersey, people do it all the time, I do it constantly. Never a ticket. One night up in north Jersey I park the same way to unload something conveniently, a $54 ticket by 6am. I call and they say it's state law in NJ. I say 'but there's no signs, anywhere'. I asked for a court date until I realized I was going to waste a bunch of time and money trying to fight something I would lose. I wisely retracted my request to see the judge once I realized he/she would probably berate me for not being familiar with the laws in my own state.

We have been saying this about T5 and similar locations for many months. They don't have to say 'plane spotting is illegal'. They just have to say 'get off our property unless you intend to use it for its stated purpose'. And all it would take is one semi-conscious individual in charge over there to make that realization, and for us it's game over @ T5.

It took me about 15 minutes to find this, as NJ doesn't have a very efficient way to search their vehicle codes:
http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/39-motor-vehicles-and-traffic-regulation/4-135.html

39:4-135. Parking; direction and side of street; angle parking; one-way street
The operator of a vehicle shall not stop, stand or park the vehicle in a roadway other than parallel with the edge of the roadway headed in the direction of traffic, on the right-hand side of the road and with the curb side of the vehicle within six inches of the edge of the roadway, except as follows:

I'll give you 15 minutes to find an official source that states whether photography is permitted or not at JFK...

[NIKV69]

We have been saying this about T5 and similar locations for many months. They don't have to say 'plane spotting is illegal'. They just have to say 'get off our property unless you intend to use it for its stated purpose'. And all it would take is one semi-conscious individual in charge over there to make that realization, and for us it's game over @ T5.

I said this when these locations began to be used and when people began openly posting about it. Again, heed Manny's advice. It would very wise to do so.

[megatop412]

I said this when these locations began to be used and when people began openly posting about it. Again, heed Manny's advice. It would very wise to do so.

OK, let me put it another way: All they have to do is put up 'no loitering' signs, and we're done there.

[megatop412]

It took me about 15 minutes to find this, as NJ doesn't have a very efficient way to search their vehicle codes:
http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/39-motor-vehicles-and-traffic-regulation/4-135.html


I'll give you 15 minutes to find an official source that states whether photography is permitted or not at JFK...

That's part of my point, Moose, if there is such a law it should not have to take that much effort to find it. Additionally, we all know there is no such law prohibiting what we do, there are only property owners who can decide whether we stay or go. Just like you can be escorted out of the terminal(or the plane) after defying owners' requests that you not photograph out the window(as silly as that is), the same applies to locations like these.

[NIKV69]

OK, let me put it another way: All they have to do is put up 'no loitering' signs, and we're done there.

I was agreeing with you. In case you mis-understood.

[PhilDernerJr]

They could certainly do that, but that doesn't mean we should be able to tolerate mistreatment or abuse of the rules that ARE in place.

[fk6065]

Who owns the terminal 5 parking garage? Is it owned by an airline or the PANY?

[NIKV69]

Who owns the terminal 5 parking garage? Is it owned by an airline or the PANY?

Pretty sure it's owned by the Port and leased to the airlines.

[Zee71]

After spending many dollars at T5, I thought we all owned a share of it!