The front facade of the the Springfield State Office Building on State Street. This photo became a point of contention when a security guard demanded a reporter for The Republican delete it. The guard believed it was illegal to take photos of state buildings. State officials in Boston have since said the guard erred. (Patrick Johnson / The Republican)

Don't Edit

By Patrick Johnson | pjohnson@repub.com

SPRINGFIELD — So, here’s my story.

I like to walk. And I like to take photos. Perhaps you’ve seen me downtown.

During my lunch break, I will commonly go for a walk, usually a simple out-and-back down Main Street from the paper to City Hall. But sometimes, I go down side streets like Worthington, Bridge or Taylor.

Downtown Springfield has a marvelous cross section of architectural styles, and all you have to do to see it is to lift your eyes from the sidewalk as you walk. And from what I can gather, people hurriedly walking along Main Street rarely do this.

So imagine my surprise when during one of my recent walks I was told -- by a state security official, no less -- that taking a picture of a public building was illegal.

Don't Edit

Downtown Springfield photos I've taken over the years

Don't Edit

The Springfield State Office Building on Dwight Street in Springfield.

On Nov. 6, a damp kind of drizzly day, I was walking along Dwight Street, heading back to the paper, after walking down Main and veering left up Worthington. As I approached the Springfield State Office Building, I was struck by the facade of the historic building. Built in 1932 as a post office and federal office, it is now the Western Massachusetts home to many state offices.

It’s one of the city’s most prominent buildings off Main Street. According the the Springfield Business and Improvement District, "The building’s restrained Art Moderne styling is enlivened by colorful spandrels between upper floor windows. Its lobby features 1937 Social Realist WPA murals by Umberto Romano entitled Three Centuries of New England History.”

The Springfield BID even lists it on its walking tour of downtown Springfield map.

Don't Edit

Patrick Johnson | pjohnson@repub.com

I took out my phone, set up for a shot of the front facade, taking care to show the sign over the door reading “Springfield State Office Building.” My thinking at the time was I would put it in my standby art file I have in my computer at work. The file contains many pictures of notable landmarks like City Hall or police cars, fire trucks and whatnot. And any time I need art to go with a story about City Hall, or an arrest here or a fire there, I can find it easily in my file.

I clicked off a quick shot and resumed my walk when I heard “excuse me sir!” I looked back and there was a security guard charging out of the State Office Building front door to tell me that he had to confiscate my phone.

He was armed, dressed in a uniform and told me in no uncertain terms that it is illegal to take photos of state buildings.

Seriously?

Yes, he was serious.

Don't Edit

Don't Edit

He told me that I could delete the photo or he would confiscate my phone.

I’m standing on a public sidewalk taking a photo of the front of a public building, and he’s telling me I’m breaking the law. The idea sounded so bizarre, I couldn’t believe it.

Not wanting to get into a fight about the finer points of the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment in the rain, I deleted the photo as he watched. (He was apparently unaware that deleted photos on a iPhone can be easily recovered.)

As I started walking away, he shouted that our entire exchange was on video and if they saw that photo appear anywhere they would know and there would be repercussions.

Whatever.

Incidentally, I had left my The Republican hat in the car that day. The security guard had no idea I’m a journalist. As far as he knew, I was just a member of the public.

Even though it was raining, I burned while I walked. Did what just happened actually happen? Did they suspend the Constitution and not tell me? Are you not allowed to take a picture while standing in public space?

Don't Edit

Don't Edit

“They can’t tell you you can’t take a picture,” said William Newman. Newman, a Northampton lawyer, is also head of the Western Massachusetts office of the American Civil Liberties Union.

I called him the afternoon of the incident. And if I was taken aback by the whole thing, Newman was stunned. He called it an example of government overreach, and one of the most ridiculous things he had ever heard.

“It’s a public building!” he said. “Do you mean to say every tourist taking a picture of the Statehouse can be arrested?”

The state has some restrictions on where you may take photos in public properties, such as the inside of prisons and jails and private areas inside of police stations. If you’re with the press, you need a judge’s permission to take photos of court proceedings. In a state court, that is. In a federal court, send in a sketch artist.

This is normal and no one -- not Newman, not me -- is saying it should be changed. But taking a photo of a publicly visible facade on a city street is a little different.

The ACLU has come out adamantly in supporting the constitutional right of the public -- that's you, me, anyone -- to photograph in public spaces.

I would have a number of conversations with Newman about this. He offered to file a complaint on my behalf against the state and the Department of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance. That’s the state agency that operates the Springfield State Office Building. Everyone knows the agency by its initials, DCAMM.

I told Newman I didn’t think that would be necessary, but I was interested in finding more on my own.

Don't Edit

"They can't tell you you can't take a picture," said William Newman, a Northampton lawyer and head of the Western Massachusetts office of the American Civil Liberties Union. (The Republican file photo)

Don't Edit

This issue has arisen before.

In 2010, the New York Civil Liberties Union and the Federal Protection Service reached a settlement in a lawsuit filed by a man arrested in 2009 for filming a protester in front of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse in New York City.

As part of the settlement, the Federal Protection Service, part of the Office of Homeland Security, agreed to pay the man $1,500, but more importantly, agreed to instruct court security and other employees that members of the public have a right to photograph the exterior of federal courthouses from publicly accessible places.

It also agreed in writing to remind security that “there are currently no general security regulations prohibiting exterior photography from publicly accessible space.”

And six years ago the state Supreme Judicial Court ruled in the case of Glik v. Cunniffe that people have a right to videotape police in public space.

The case involved the arrest of Simon Glik in 2007 for using his phone to shoot video of police arresting a man on Boston Common. The charge against Glik was not so much about photography, but the state’s anti-wiretapping law, which forbids recording someone’s voice without their permission.

The city of Boston and Glik reached a settlement in 2012 in which Glik was paid $170,000 plus legal fees.

Don't Edit

Don't Edit

Federal Courthouse Photography Settlement uploaded by Patrick Johnson on Scribd

Don't Edit

I reached out to DCAMM and was put in touch with Director of Legislative Affairs Matthew Cocciardi. I told him my story and asked him to provide me with any state laws and DCAMM policies regarding taking photographs of public buildings. He asked me to send it to him in writing and he’d track down an answer.

The next day I hadn’t heard back. So I filed a Freedom of Information Act request with DCAMM seeking all exterior video footage for the Dwight Street side of the building between 1 and 2 p.m. Nov. 6. They had 10 days following the request to reply.

The day after that there was still no response from DCAMM, so I reached out to the governor’s office.

Don't Edit

In an email to William Pittman, the Deputy Communications Director for Gov. Charlie Baker, I explained the circumstances and then got to the point: "What I’m interested in finding out is what is the state law, chapter and verse, that specifically says members of the public are not allowed to take photos of the external facades of public buildings. I’ve made this inquiry to the DCAMM and have got no response, so now I’m going through your office."

Don't Edit

For good measure, I attached a photo of the State Office Building from Google Street View. It was taken from roughly the same spot where I was told photos are forbidden.

Later that night, Pittman responded by email.

“Hey Patrick -- Mentioned this to DCAMM, they should be getting back to you.”

The governor’s office would not take the bait. But as a colleague put it, if Pittman was aware of the matter, you could bet that Baker himself was aware of it too.

I hunkered in and waited for a DCAMM response.

Don't Edit

The following day I got a response by email from someone with DCAMM. Because the person wished the conversation be on “background,” which is journalism-speak for using information without identifying who told it to you, I’m not using his name.

Lets call the DCAMM administrative person “Person X.”

“To preserve the integrity of security infrastructure at state office buildings and to protect employees and visiting members of the public, DCAMM reserves the right to review any pictures or filming conducted on state property,” Person X wrote.

That would be a perfectly fine response if it applied to what happened in this case. But it doesn’t.

I was not in or on state property. I was near it. I was outside of it.

Don't Edit

Don't Edit

Did you know the city of Springfield has ordinances that define what city sidewalks on city streets are considered? I do. They are a public place.

It's right there in City Ordinances Chapter 240, section 1:

Public Place: Any area within the City of Springfield that is City, state or federally owned or controlled and accessible to the general public, including, but not limited to, buildings, streets, sidewalks, bridges, alleys, plazas, parks, driveways and parking lots.

I shot off another email to Person X at DCAMM, pointing this out.

“Are you saying someone on a public sidewalk has fewer rights that the guy driving the Google Maps car driving past a few feet away? Also the security guard never asked to review my photo; he demanded that I delete it or he would confiscate my phone. Does DCAMM act similarly toward any tourist who takes a photo of the Statehouse from the sidewalk on Beacon Street?”

A few hours later, Person X again replied, again requesting background.

“After conducting an internal review, DCAMM has determined that the security officer in this matter incorrectly enforced what he believed to be the DCAMM policy on photography. Going forward, our security staff will be retrained on this subject matter to ensure compliance with DCAMM policy.”

Don't Edit

via GIPHY

Yes! Victory! Vindication!

I was tempted to employ a Braveheart-esque accent and shout across the newsroom, “Yew may try’n take away oo-er iphones but y’nevah take oo-er freedom!"

Don't Edit

Newman was pleased when I called him.

“It’s a great result. Congratulations,” he said.

He said he still took issue with “overzealous security,” and said if DCAMM had insisted it had the right to block photography of public buildings, the ACLU would have raised holy hell.

While he was pleased to see DCAMM back down, he said there are some serious issues raised. Namely, what if it was anyone else who decided to take a picture? What if it were John or Jane Average-Citizen who was approached by security?

“You’re a reporter. You said, ‘This can’t be right’ and then you made a phone call,” he said. “And you knew who to call and you stuck with it.”

John or Jane Average-Citizen when approached by someone in uniform would probably comply.

“The average citizen would say, ‘I’ll just delete the photo,’ and a tiny bit of your freedom goes swirling down the drain,” Newman said.