AMTRAK Photo Policy
Joseph D. Korman
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Copy/Simple_Copy_Page&c=am2Copy&cid=1178294272520&ssid=11134
The NPPA release is at:
http://nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2009/03/amtrak01.html
The key line in the notice to employees is:
*_Under no circumstances will officers delete, destroy or alter
photographs/videos; nor shall they request that photographs/video be
deleted, destroyed or altered.
_*
--
-------------------------------------------------
| Joseph D. Korman |
| mailto:re...@thejoekorner.com |
| Visit The JoeKorNer at |
| http://www.thejoekorner.com |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| The light at the end of the tunnel ... |
| may be a train going the other way! |
| Brooklyn Tech Grads build things that work!('66)|
|-------------------------------------------------|
| All outgoing E-mail is scanned by NAV |
-------------------------------------------------
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> I received an e-mail from NPPA about AMTRAK's new policy about photography:http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Copy/S...
Thanks for posting the information.
I'm a bit confused on the policy for photography on platforms. The
notice implies platforms are a 'restricted area'. If a particular
station limits the platform to only ticketed passengers, then only
ticketed passengers may take pictures. But what about open station
platforms--is photography there limited to ticketed passengers?
Platforms are the most interesting part to view trains. It would be
sad if they were restricted.
According to the rules of Metro North and the LIRR, the platforms at
Penna Sta and Grand Central are restricted areas.
Also, what about stations that serve multiple carriers (e.g. Amtrak
and a commuter line.) Some of these stations are owned by Amtrak,
others are owned by the commuter agency, and some by a third party.
What about Pennsylvania Station in NYC?
Miles Bader
> I'm a bit confused on the policy for photography on platforms. The
> notice implies platforms are a 'restricted area'. If a particular
> station limits the platform to only ticketed passengers, then only
> ticketed passengers may take pictures. But what about open station
> platforms--is photography there limited to ticketed passengers?
Well .... if it's not restricted, it's publicly accessible, right?
... and photography is allowed in publicly accessible areas.
[The "ticketed passengers on platforms" section is an exception to the
general prohibition in restricted areas, so it's irrelevent in
non-restricted areas.]
It actually seems like a pretty decent and fair policy, that reasonably
tries to balance the various issues. Hopefully it will help counter the
sort of shoot-photographers-on-site attitudes that are reportedly so
common in the U.S. these days...
-Miles
--
Road, n. A strip of land along which one may pass from where it is too
tiresome to be to where it is futile to go.
Merritt Mullen
wrote:
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> > I'm a bit confused on the policy for photography on platforms. The
> > notice implies platforms are a 'restricted area'. If a particular
> > station limits the platform to only ticketed passengers, then only
> > ticketed passengers may take pictures. But what about open station
> > platforms--is photography there limited to ticketed passengers?
>
> Well .... if it's not restricted, it's publicly accessible, right?
> ... and photography is allowed in publicly accessible areas.
>
> [The "ticketed passengers on platforms" section is an exception to the
> general prohibition in restricted areas, so it's irrelevent in
> non-restricted areas.]
The policy clearly states that Amtrak platforms ARE restricted areas,
whether open to non-ticketed passengers or not, so no photography there
unless you have permission or are a ticketed passenger.
This is a clear limit on where photos can be taken.
But keep in mind, the policy only applies to AMTRAK PROPERTY. Most
stations and platforms are NOT Amtrak property. In those cases, the
policy is set by the property owner and that policy may be completely
different than Amtrak policy (for better or worse).
Merritt
Joseph D. Korman
sign saying something like "only ticketed passengers allowed beyond this
point", it's not restricted.
See:
Signage, building design and physical barriers, i.e. fencing, bollards,
etc., may also distinguish a restricted area from a public area.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> But keep in mind, the policy only applies to AMTRAK PROPERTY. Most
> stations and platforms are NOT Amtrak property. In those cases, the
> policy is set by the property owner and that policy may be completely
> different than Amtrak policy (for better or worse).
Even that can get tricky. Even though Amtrak owns the NEC, several
NJT/Amk stations along it are operated by NJT personnel (having been
transferred to them from Amk). Thus, station employees such as cops
and ushers are NJT employees, not Amk. Could one presume NJT rules
apply even if an Amtrak train is boarding?
Sometimes a split ownership is used to pass the buck. For instance,
NJT owns the West Trenton (Ewing) NJ station, which is only used by
SEPTA's R3 line. If there is a problem at the station (eg repairs or
parking), there will be finger pointing as to who is responsible.
Joseph D. Korman
photo permits. The lady at NJT actually said that the permit was only
for taking photos NJT trains. I asked what about a train at Hoboken
made up of a Metro-North diesel and NJT coaches. She said she would get
back to me . . . but never did.
The bottom line is that at NJT locations, it's permissible to take
pictures, whether it's AMTRAK or NJT trains. Penn-NY might be the
exception for AMTRAK trains, since you would need a ticket to get to the
platform. Now if you had a NJT ticket and shot across platforms . Or
do you need a ticket to get to LIRR or NJT platforms?
I found it interesting that the AMTRAK policy explicitly states that
restricted areas are still off limits even for the annual calendar
contest (end of last paragraph in Section I).
Phil Kane
<mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>But keep in mind, the policy only applies to AMTRAK PROPERTY. Most
>stations and platforms are NOT Amtrak property. In those cases, the
>policy is set by the property owner and that policy may be completely
>different than Amtrak policy (for better or worse).
A good example is the situation with the rent-a-cops at the Portland
(OR) Union Station who will not let anyone access the platform area to
take pics, but anyone can use the pedestrian footbridge over the
platforms to the neighboring condos from which one can get much better
shots because the umbrella roofs do not get in the way.
--
"Stand Clear of the Closing Doors, Please"
Phil Kane - Beaverton, OR
PNW Beburg MP 28.0 - OE District
Adam H. Kerman
>Miles Bader <mi...@gnu.org> wrote:
>>hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>>>I'm a bit confused on the policy for photography on platforms. The
>>>notice implies platforms are a 'restricted area'. If a particular
>>>station limits the platform to only ticketed passengers, then only
>>>ticketed passengers may take pictures. But what about open station
>>>platforms--is photography there limited to ticketed passengers?
>>Well .... if it's not restricted, it's publicly accessible, right?
>>... and photography is allowed in publicly accessible areas.
>>[The "ticketed passengers on platforms" section is an exception to the
>>general prohibition in restricted areas, so it's irrelevent in
>>non-restricted areas.]
>The policy clearly states that Amtrak platforms ARE restricted areas,
>whether open to non-ticketed passengers or not, so no photography there
>unless you have permission or are a ticketed passenger.
If that's how the restriction is enforced in practice, I suppose it's
not unconstitutional.
Regardless, I don't see why a photographer would require a ticket to
take photographs from the platform of a train arriving at a terminal or
of any ordinary activity that doesn't interfere with passengers or fare
collection procedures.
>This is a clear limit on where photos can be taken.
>But keep in mind, the policy only applies to AMTRAK PROPERTY. Most
>stations and platforms are NOT Amtrak property.
Similarly, if a departing train is ready for boarding (or being prepared
for departure) at a station or terminal, and Amtrak requires boarding
passengers to show their tickets to a gateman before passing through the
gate to gain access to the platform, then it's reasonable to require the
photographer to hold a ticket. It shouldn't matter whether the gate or
platform is Amtrak property.
Phil Kane
>Sometimes a split ownership is used to pass the buck. For instance,
>NJT owns the West Trenton (Ewing) NJ station, which is only used by
>SEPTA's R3 line. If there is a problem at the station (eg repairs or
>parking), there will be finger pointing as to who is responsible.
If this is not clearly defined by contract, there is some malpractice
floating around......
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> This comes down to the stupidity I had a few years back when NJT had the
> photo permits. The lady at NJT actually said that the permit was only
> for taking photos NJT trains. I asked what about a train at Hoboken
> made up of a Metro-North diesel and NJT coaches. She said she would get
> back to me . . . but never did.
Or the confusion with NJT and its contracted operators, such as the
private companies that operate Hudson-Bergen and River Line light rail
trains. (In my humble opinion, unless explicitly stated, the private
contractors would have to follow NJT policy, but I'd guess they see it
differently; they sure act like it.)
> The bottom line is that at NJT locations, it's permissible to take
> pictures, whether it's AMTRAK or NJT trains. Penn-NY might be the
> exception for AMTRAK trains, since you would need a ticket to get to the
> platform. Now if you had a NJT ticket and shot across platforms . Or
> do you need a ticket to get to LIRR or NJT platforms?
Not to split hairs, but one time I was boarding an NJT train and on
the other side of the platform was an Acela. (Of course that had to
be one time I didn't have my camera with me.)
> I found it interesting that the AMTRAK policy explicitly states that
> restricted areas are still off limits even for the annual calendar
> contest (end of last paragraph in Section I).
It appears the railroad carriers don't want people taking pictures on
platforms, which sadly is the most interesting place to be. Buried on
the MTA website are their rules for the LIRR and MNRR; nothing is said
about photography, but they do specifically label GCT and Penn
platform areas as "restricted areas". (In contrast, the NYCTA says
explicitly photography with limitations is allowed ). (Also, in GCT,
I believe one _has_ to transverse a platform to get to the North Side
exits).
I suspect the restrictions are not so much a fear of terrorism, but a
fear of a liability lawsuit if the photographer injures himself.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Similarly, if a departing train is ready for boarding (or being prepared
> for departure) at a station or terminal, and Amtrak requires boarding
> passengers to show their tickets to a gateman before passing through the
> gate to gain access to the platform, then it's reasonable to require the
> photographer to hold a ticket. It shouldn't matter whether the gate or
> platform is Amtrak property.
Not all stations have gatemen checking tickets; some platforms are
wide open. At some smaller stations, the platform basically is the
whole station.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> >Sometimes a split ownership is used to pass the buck.
> >parking), there will be finger pointing as to who is responsible.
> If this is not clearly defined by contract, there is some malpractice
> floating around......
Such contracts are not easily accessible by the public, and probably
not even understandable by a lay person.
The claim of ownership or responsibility is usually based on whatever
is most convenient/advantageous for the official you're speaking to.
Regardless of the reality, the official will often take the easy out
and claim the other carrier is in charge. As to photography, the
official will claim ownership/authority regardless of the reality.
In any event, I am disappointed by the platform regulation, and I'm
afraid other railroad carriers might adopt it as well. As mentioned,
platform pictures can be the most interesting.
Ironically, in terms of safety, the platform is far safer for the
photographer than merely unfenced right of way or standing in a public
grade crossing. In built up urban areas, taking train pictures from
other than a station might mean trespassing on private property, and
urban property owners get nervous when they see someone with a camera.
J.R.Guthrie
they did compromise with NPPA.
Amtrak management promised to share drafts with the NRHS attorney working on
photographers rights, but then failed to do so.
The NRHS has a list of reservations and issues regarding the the policy if
anyone is interested.
But it appears that the issuance of this policy is mainly to prevent Amtrak
from being sued for actions of all the Deputy Fifes is its police
department.
Cheers,
Jim Guthrie
Joseph D. Korman
> On Mar 15, 4:14 pm, "Joseph D. Korman" <joe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>> This comes down to the stupidity I had a few years back when NJT had the
>> photo permits. The lady at NJT actually said that the permit was only
>> for taking photos NJT trains. I asked what about a train at Hoboken
>> made up of a Metro-North diesel and NJT coaches. She said she would get
>> back to me . . . but never did.
>>
>
> Or the confusion with NJT and its contracted operators, such as the
> private companies that operate Hudson-Bergen and River Line light rail
> trains. (In my humble opinion, unless explicitly stated, the private
> contractors would have to follow NJT policy, but I'd guess they see it
> differently; they sure act like it.)
>
>
>
care. I believe there were stories about photographers being stopped on
the streets along the Riverline by police, but the towns folk didn't
want them chased so they might generate business.
>> The bottom line is that at NJT locations, it's permissible to take
>> pictures, whether it's AMTRAK or NJT trains. Penn-NY might be the
>> exception for AMTRAK trains, since you would need a ticket to get to the
>> platform. Now if you had a NJT ticket and shot across platforms . Or
>> do you need a ticket to get to LIRR or NJT platforms?
>>
>
> Not to split hairs, but one time I was boarding an NJT train and on
> the other side of the platform was an Acela. (Of course that had to
> be one time I didn't have my camera with me.)
>
>
regardless of which train you were taking.
>
>> I found it interesting that the AMTRAK policy explicitly states that
>> restricted areas are still off limits even for the annual calendar
>> contest (end of last paragraph in Section I).
>>
>
> It appears the railroad carriers don't want people taking pictures on
> platforms, which sadly is the most interesting place to be. Buried on
> the MTA website are their rules for the LIRR and MNRR; nothing is said
> about photography, but they do specifically label GCT and Penn
> platform areas as "restricted areas". (In contrast, the NYCTA says
> explicitly photography with limitations is allowed ). (Also, in GCT,
> I believe one _has_ to transverse a platform to get to the North Side
> exits).
>
>
except if specifically restricted.
> I suspect the restrictions are not so much a fear of terrorism, but a
> fear of a liability lawsuit if the photographer injures himself.
>
>
Then why do the employees claim it's because of 9/11?
Adam H. Kerman
Yes. Thank you for stating the obvious, Hancock. Too bad no one posting
to this newsgroup is familiar with train travel.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> We as railfans know the difference, but I'm sure civilians don't know or
> care. I believe there were stories about photographers being stopped on
> the streets along the Riverline by police, but the towns folk didn't
> want them chased so they might generate business.
Actually, many railfans will NOT know the difference. Young railfans
probably don't know such distinctions. Visitors from other places
probably wouldn't know.
Also, artist-photographers won't know anything at all about such
rules.
> > It appears the railroad carriers don't want people taking pictures on
> > platforms, which sadly is the most interesting place to be. Buried on
> > the MTA website are their rules for the LIRR and MNRR; nothing is said
> > about photography, but they do specifically label GCT and Penn
> > platform areas as "restricted areas". (In contrast, the NYCTA says
> > explicitly photography with limitations is allowed ). (Also, in GCT,
> > I believe one _has_ to transverse a platform to get to the North Side
> > exits).
> I don't know where you get that from. Public places include platforms,
> except if specifically restricted.
The MTA rules say (IMHO quite clearly) that Penn/GCT platforms are not
public spaces, but rather restricted space.
> Then why do the employees claim it's because of 9/11?
Frankly, IMHO, 9/11 makes a very convenient excuse. But maybe I'm
cynical.
Before 9/11 liability was their big concern--the permits back then
were all about liability protection.
Phil Kane
<joe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> I suspect the restrictions are not so much a fear of terrorism, but a
>> fear of a liability lawsuit if the photographer injures himself.
>>
>>
>Then why do the employees claim it's because of 9/11?
Because they don't know any better.
Phil Kane
Speak for yourself. Rail travel is my preferred mode, whether for
business or pleasure. I make a minimum of three long-distance trips a
year now.
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Yes. Thank you for stating the obvious, Hancock. Too bad no one posting
>>to this newsgroup is familiar with train travel.
>Speak for yourself. Rail travel is my preferred mode, whether for
>business or pleasure. I make a minimum of three long-distance trips a
>year now.
Way to miss the unsubtle sarcasm.
Joseph D. Korman
> On Mar 15, 6:12 pm, "Joseph D. Korman" <joe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> We as railfans know the difference, but I'm sure civilians don't know or
>> care. I believe there were stories about photographers being stopped on
>> the streets along the Riverline by police, but the towns folk didn't
>> want them chased so they might generate business.
>>
>
> Actually, many railfans will NOT know the difference. Young railfans
> probably don't know such distinctions. Visitors from other places
> probably wouldn't know.
>
> Also, artist-photographers won't know anything at all about such
> rules.
>
>
>
>
>>> It appears the railroad carriers don't want people taking pictures on
>>> platforms, which sadly is the most interesting place to be. Buried on
>>> the MTA website are their rules for the LIRR and MNRR; nothing is said
>>> about photography, but they do specifically label GCT and Penn
>>> platform areas as "restricted areas". (In contrast, the NYCTA says
>>> explicitly photography with limitations is allowed ). (Also, in GCT,
>>> I believe one _has_ to transverse a platform to get to the North Side
>>> exits).
>>>
>
>
>> I don't know where you get that from. Public places include platforms,
>> except if specifically restricted.
>>
>
> The MTA rules say (IMHO quite clearly) that Penn/GCT platforms are not
> public spaces, but rather restricted space.
>
>
>
need a ticket get there. Since there is no restriction on photography,
if you have a ticket you can take photos of that train. A few years
ago, MN had a trip with the ACMU cars. We were told that only ticket
holders could take photos of the special only, we were not allowed on
other platforms.
Read the MTA 2006 instructions in this set:
http://www.lirrhistory.com/photog.pdf
It's a PDF, so you need the reader.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> I believe that in the MTA context platforms are 'not public' means you
> need a ticket get there. Since there is no restriction on photography,
> if you have a ticket you can take photos of that train. A few years
> ago, MN had a trip with the ACMU cars. We were told that only ticket
> holders could take photos of the special only, we were not allowed on
> other platforms.
>
> Read the MTA 2006 instructions in this set:
>
> http://www.lirrhistory.com/photog.pdf
Thanks for posting the policy correspondance.
As I interpret the various pages, one may take plain photos in public
areas of the LIRR, but the platforms at Penn Station and Grand Central
are not public except for ticketed passengers.
Extracted From the MTA web page. See the web pages for LIRR and MNRR
for full details. http://www.mta.info/mta/police/rules.html
Note--not a word on photography per se. Their definition of "non
commercial activities" may be beyond that (see website).
Metro North Section 1085.4 General provisions.
(a) Public areas within the terminals and stations are open to the
public at such times as may be established by Metro-North from time to
time. Public areas are those areas of the terminals or stations which
are open for use by the public in gaining access to transportation,
arcades, restaurants, shops, offices and other businesses or services
in the terminals and stations, in traveling through the terminals or
stations from one point to another, in waiting for transportation, and
in utilizing public toilet facilities and public pay telephones or
other services as may be permitted pursuant to these rules.
(b) No person except persons assigned to duty therein by Metro-North
or the authority shall enter any area of a terminal, station or train
that is not a public area or that is closed to the public except in a
public safety capacity or pursuant to the terms of a lease, license,
operating agreement or concession granted by Metro-North or the
authority.
(c) Emergency closure. Whenever a threat to public health or safety
exists in a terminal or station resulting from any cause, the general
superintendent or any Metro-North employee having authority to do so
may close the affected terminal or station or any part thereof to the
public to ensure the safety and well-being of the public.
(d) Noncommercial activities within the stations and terminals are
deemed to be authorized provided that such activities:
(1) do not impede or interfere with access onto or off of an
escalator, stairway or elevator;
(2) do not interfere with or impair transportation services or the
movement of persons within a station or terminal;
(3) do not violate any of the prohibitions contained in these rules;
-> (4) do not take place on platforms located within Grand Central
terminal or on trains; and <-
(5) if taking place within Grand Central terminal, are conducted in
accordance with a permit obtained from the general superintendent.
LIRR: Section 1097.4 General provisions.
(a) Public areas within the terminals and stations are open to the
public at such times as may be established by the LIRR from time to
time. Public areas are those areas of the facilities which are
intended for use by the public in accessing transportation, arcades,
restaurants, shops, offices and other businesses in the facilities, in
traveling through the terminals or stations, from one point to
another, in waiting for transportation, and in utilizing public
lavatory facilities and public pay telephones or other services as may
be permitted pursuant to these rules.
(b) No person except persons assigned to duty therein by LIRR or the
authority shall enter any area of a terminal, station or train that is
not a public area or that is closed to the public except in a public
safety capacity or pursuant to the terms of a lease, license or
operating agreement or concession granted by the LIRR or the
authority.
(c) Emergency closure. Whenever a threat to public health or safety
exists in a terminal or station resulting from any cause, the
superintendent or any LIRR employee having authority to do so may
close the affected terminal or station or any part thereof to all
persons to insure the safety and well-being of the public.
(d) Noncommercial activities within the stations and terminals are
deemed to be authorized provided that such activities:
(1) do not impede or interfere with the access onto or off of an
escalator, stairway or elevator;
(2) do not interfere with or impair transportation services or the
movement of persons within a station or terminal;
(3) do not violate any of the prohibitions contained in these rules;
-> (4) do not take place on platforms located within Pennsylvania
station or on trains; and <-
(5) if taking place within Pennsylvania station, are conducted in
accordance with a permit obtained from the superintendent.
Phil Kane
>As I interpret the various pages, one may take plain photos in public
>areas of the LIRR, but the platforms at Penn Station and Grand Central
>are not public except for ticketed passengers.
Well,I guess that we were "ticketed passengers" when we took two flash
photos of the LIRR/MTA logo on the side of the car that we rode in
when it arrived at NYP while the conductor/ticket collector made sure
that no one was in our way (May 2007).
D. Kirkpatrick
"Joseph D. Korman" <joe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> *_Under no circumstances will officers delete, destroy or alter
> photographs/videos; nor shall they request that photographs/video be
> deleted, destroyed or altered.
Because it's a federal offense - constitutional violation - to do so.
They may confiscate a camera and film as evidence in the course of an
arrest but the contents must remain intact.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> It actually seems like a pretty decent and fair policy, that reasonably
> tries to balance the various issues. Hopefully it will help counter the
> sort of shoot-photographers-on-site attitudes that are reportedly so
> common in the U.S. these days...
After thinking about it, I do not like this policy because of the
platform restrictions. Platforms are a very interesting place to take
train pictures.
Phil Kane
<sun...@sunclad.com> wrote:
>They may confiscate a camera and film as evidence in the course of an
>arrest but the contents must remain intact.
The proper term is "seize" instead of "confiscate" because cameras
and film are not contraband as a matter of law. Property seized as
evidence must be returned to the rightful owner when there is no
further use for that purpose as evidence, or a court orders the
property forfeited (surrendered) to the state pursuant to a statute
authorizing said forfeiture. Confiscated contraband is not returned
and must be destroyed.
--
Phil Kane, Esq.
Beaverton, OR
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:49:40 -0500, "D. Kirkpatrick"
>
> >They may confiscate a camera and film as evidence in the course of an
> >arrest but the contents must remain intact.
>
> The proper term is "seize" instead of "confiscate" because cameras
> and film are not contraband as a matter of law. Property seized as
> evidence must be returned to the rightful owner when there is no
> further use for that purpose as evidence, or a court orders the
> property forfeited (surrendered) to the state pursuant to a statute
> authorizing said forfeiture.
If they so choose, it could take _years_ until they return the
property, and when they're done with it, it may be not be worth
returning.
Phil Kane
>> The proper term is "seize" instead of "confiscate" because cameras
>> and film are not contraband as a matter of law. Property seized as
>> evidence must be returned to the rightful owner when there is no
>> further use for that purpose as evidence, or a court orders the
>> property forfeited (surrendered) to the state pursuant to a statute
>> authorizing said forfeiture.
>
>If they so choose, it could take _years_ until they return the
>property, and when they're done with it, it may be not be worth
>returning.
Under the Federal rules, if the nature of the property is such that it
can be copied for evidentiary purposes, i.e. documents, recordings,
photographs, the owner can petition the court to have the originals
restored within a reasonable time subject to production in any ensuing
trial. If the petitioner can show that the value of the property had
deteriorated because of undue delay, a claim for damages may be
submitted under the Tort Claims Act. In cases of intended forfeiture,
the government has 60 days to bring a suit in District Court to
forfeit the property - it's not automatic unless the owner fails to
respond to that suit.
It sounds easy but.......
Adam H. Kerman
I won't even ask if the person whose property was seized illegally gets
legal fees awarded.
Merritt Mullen
Phil Kane <Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote:
In the case of California, the state makes it almost impossible to
respond to seizure/forfeiture by the state (or county). First, one must
hire a lawyer, as a response by a citizen is not likely to meet the
format required by the court. A very high court fee is charged simply
to respond. And a lawyer will tell you the complexity and therefore the
cost of fighting forfeiture will seldom be worth the value of the
property. The most you can gain is a return of the property. The court
will not reimburse your legal fees.
I remember a lawyer showing me a file folder that represented his work
to defend a client against a felony charge. It was a fairly thin
folder. He then pointed out that to defend against a simple forfeiture
would require a full file cabinet drawer of papers.
To me, the state seizure and forfeiture laws violate the federal
constitution. They are used to penalize and punish someone without a
trial.
Merritt
Phil Kane
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>I won't even ask if the person whose property was seized illegally gets
>legal fees awarded.
Actually, if the government (including state and local jurisdictions)
is acting "under the color of law" and violates the civil rights of an
individual, Federal statute and case law provides for damages and in
some cases legal fees. In most cases, though, the remedy is to have
the evidence ruled inadmissible.
Phil Kane
<mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>To me, the state seizure and forfeiture laws violate the federal
>constitution. They are used to penalize and punish someone without a
>trial.
Take it up with the legislature. I've been involved in lots of
Federal seizure-and-forfeiture cases and only once did the owner
contest the forfeiture and tried to play the "race card" with a judge
of the same minority group and was shot down without a second thought.
Realize that in Federal "admiralty law" forfeitures, the action is
not against the person but against the property, and the burden is on
the government to prove that the property was being used in an
unlawful manner or for unlawful purposes. Criminal or administrative
action against the person is entirely separate.
My personal gripe with state forfeitures is that the local or state
police have come to regard that as a source of income which in my view
is egregious.