Arch City Chronicle: Blog: St. Louis Centre

St. Louis Centre - No Photo Zone

ACC Photographer Harassed at Downtown Mall
Handcuffed for Taking Pictures of the Holiday Shopping Scene

Tom Lampe's first-hand account:

Uggh.

I guess that's a good way to start out this email.
I just got back from the esteemed St. Louis Centre (or is it center?) after being handcuffed and threatened with arrest.

That's right. I had gotten several photos outside and inside of vacancy, poor architectural value, lonesome escalators, an isolated shopper here and there, when all of a sudden a security guard approached me and told me I couldn't take photos of vacant storefronts. I told her sure I could. She told me I had to get permission at the office.

I went to the office where the mall manager told me to delete the pictures. I refused, and attempted to leave the mall. The security guard chased me as I ran through the mall carrying my tripod. The few people that were there watched with interest. I'm sure they thought I was a shoplifter.

I could here her calling for backup. All of a sudden I was surrounded like a hardened criminal, and one of the guards called the police.

They dragged me to a back hallway, took possession of my camera, cell phone and tripod. They attempted to handcuff me, and at that point I was so pissed off that I fought it. I learned the hard way, it hurts worse when you struggle.

My wrists are killing me.

They led me back through the mall in handcuffs, back to the office to wait for the police. While I was in there, I asked them if I deleted the photos, would they cancel the police call, as I really didn't feel like being arrested on my vacation. She (the mall manager) agreed, and I deleted everything. She then went on about how everyone's trying to portray the mall in a negative light, and they're in the process of trying to do good things, ie. Gold's Gym on the first floor just opened last week and they already have 20 members, and there's an art gallery on the top floor, blah blah blah. They got my name, took the cuffs off, cancelled the police, and let me go on my "merry" way.

Man my wrists hurt. What an afternoon. Sorry I don't have any photos...

Posted by Dave on Tue., Dec 20, 2005 at 1:21 PM | Media Matters (235)

Comments

Well, I hate to say this, but it is a shopping mall - private property. Although I'm not sure what the Supreme Court has ruled, they are probably within their rights to prevent you from photographing on their property.

That said, the management obviously should have handled this situation better. I guess Barry Cohen's firm is trying to improve the place; I don't know. When is the art gallery actually open? The times I've been by, it was closed. And this was during the workday.

Posted by Joe Frank on Tue., Dec 20, 2005 at 1:29 PM

Well, if that's going to be their policy they had better post notices so the tourists don't get in trouble for taking pictures while they shop in the big city. Oh that's right, vacationers don't go to the Centre, why would they? In fact, I think the point of this story is that NOBODY really goes there.

I was determined to do all my Christmas shopping in the city and was turned away from going to the mall on Sunday unless I wanted to pay $6 to park. When I asked the garage attendant if they had any suggestions where I could park, considering I was only planning on being there about a 1/2 hour, they told me "yeah, don't shop during a Rams game". So much for trying to support the businesses left in the Centre.

Posted by maggie on Tue., Dec 20, 2005 at 1:40 PM

Scary! Tom, I'm glad you're free and doing alright. A friend of mine recently tried to take photos there and did not get handcuffed, but got quite the talking-to, ultimately breaking down to: photos of the mall that friends are in = OK, but photos of the mall itself with no cutesy hugging friends = not OK.

This is just ridiculous. I didn't even have problems like this when I took pictures on what turned out to be U.S. Steel private property and got noticed by their security, and one would think that U.S. Steel has a lot more to worry about in terms of both image and security than St.L Centre.

Posted by Claire on Tue., Dec 20, 2005 at 1:44 PM

Too bad you deleted the photos. Perhaps the prosecuting attorney would have filed trespassing charges..perhaps not. I don't think the Centre would like the attention that followed if you would have allowed the police to come.

Posted by Jack Louis on Tue., Dec 20, 2005 at 1:56 PM

I understand, though don't philosophically agree with, the notion that Tom can't shoot inside the building (which is a public gathering space, not a single-entity business), but I'm gathering that he was shooting some of this session on the sidewalk outside the structure. If he was bothered during this process, that's truly ridiculous.

I say we organize a "photo walk."

Posted by Thomas on Tue., Dec 20, 2005 at 2:04 PM

Damn that's pretty rough but not too surprising. I've had similar run ins at Wal Marts/Schnucks- yes film for freedom is how that plays out.

Its hard to imagine that the city has dumped- yes I think dumped is a good word for it- $8 Million in New Market Tax Credits into that place for redevelopment. Of the 300,000 residents of the city how many can be counted on to shop there anyway? Tourists? Dowtown workers?

Posted by Josh Wiese on Tue., Dec 20, 2005 at 2:15 PM

I'm with Thomas, how about 100 people all going in and taking photos at the same time.

They wouldn't know what to do.

With 100 people in the joint that is....

Posted by ArchPundit on Tue., Dec 20, 2005 at 3:11 PM

Wait a sec..

===I went to the office where the mall manager told me to delete the pictures. I refused, and attempted to leave the mall. The security guard chased me as I ran through the mall carrying my tripod. The few people that were there watched with interest. I'm sure they thought I was a shoplifter.

Did you go there without the security--just to get permission? If so, that's a far different context in terms of requiring you to delete photos and certainly in arresting you.

Posted by ArchPundit on Tue., Dec 20, 2005 at 3:14 PM

Wait a sec..

Did you go there without the security--just to get permission? If so, that's a far different context in terms of requiring you to delete photos and certainly in arresting you.

Posted by ArchPundit on Tue., Dec 20, 2005 at 3:14 PM

The security guard approached me as I was setting up to take a photo of a vacant storefront. I had already taken several photos, and apparently there were people watching me (althought I didn't notice anyone). With the few people in there, I guess I was fairly obvious. She said if I wanted to take any more photos, I'd have to go to the office for permission. When I arrived there, I politely told them I wouldn't take any more, at which point they told me to delete the ones I'd already taken. That's when I attempted to leave, and they began to chase me. The photo walk sounds great, any ideas as to when?

Posted by tom on Tue., Dec 20, 2005 at 3:32 PM

So, nothing was posted telling you not to take photos, when told not to take photos you complied and went and asked for permission. Upon being denied permission you attempted to leave and they threatened to arrest you because you wouldn't make a change to your personal property? What were they arresting you for? Upon being notified of a violation of their rules, you complied with their wishes and not only offered to leave, but attempted to leave.

I'd be talking to a lawyer. The notion that they attempted to stop you from leaving when they denied you permission to shoot photos seems rather important.

The key point here is that they physically restrained you from leaving even though you did nothing knowningly wrong, and then offered to leave the premises voluntarily. I would take pics of any bruises and document all of the places you are feeling pain. There is a strong chance you could file assault and perhaps battery charges as well.

Posted by ArchPundit on Tue., Dec 20, 2005 at 3:54 PM

While I appreciate your attempt at journalism, the real story is you should have stood up for your self and any journalistic credibility you thought you had.

You have the legal right to photograph anything in plain view and more importantly a journalist obligation to fight for that right, if you are in fact a journalist.

Your first experience in hand cuffs doesn’t quite compare to Rosa Parks. If you are intimidated so easily with the threat of a bogus arrest how quickly would you reveal your sources?????

Had you stood up for yourself and journalism in general, we could have been reading a much more interesting story about journalistic credibility and the lawsuit you could of and should have been filing.

Posted by Troy on Tue., Dec 20, 2005 at 4:24 PM

And while you're at it, you could add false imprisonment to that list.

Though I must confess that if I were a juror, I might side with the mall. What they did is stupid, but they had every right to stop you from photographing and eject you. The detention part is more questionable. Though I probably would be swayed into thinking a paid photographer shooting pictures for publication cannot legitimately make a "I didn't know the policy, therefore there is no policy" defense, the mall had no right to hold you or threaten arrest if you were on your way out.

Posted by someone on Tue., Dec 20, 2005 at 4:35 PM

Hey Troy - First of all, I think you are incorrect in saying that a person has the "legal right to photograph anything in plain view". While we may believe Tom had the right to take these photos you're talking first amendment right stuff here. First amendment rights are tricky and can be held up in court for years. Secondly, no one said anything about comparing to Rosa Parks. He simply said he didn't feel like "being arrested on his vacation'. I think if he felt like the thing to do was erase the photos then so be it.

Posted by maggie on Tue., Dec 20, 2005 at 4:42 PM

That's too bad how this went down but...
It is true that is it illeal to shoot in an area like a mall with out conesent.

Anyway, I am a local Artist and currently have one of the storefronts that recently painted (stensoul.blogspot.com) in St. Louis Centre (the proper spelling is Centre) the Main Gallery Hours on the third floor are Wednesday through Saturday 11-4.

There is some pretty amazing artwork. The art is hosted by ArtDimension ( artdimensions.org ) a local artist collective.

Posted by peat on Tue., Dec 20, 2005 at 4:50 PM

Actually, they might have had the right to detain you if your somewhat bizarre behavior after the initial confrontation -- running wildly through the mall with camera and tripod -- led other security people to think that you may have been a shoplifter. But they should have released you as soon as they established that you were not one.

Troy is certainly wrong in a number of ways, but he is earnest and with good intentions. So keep 'em flying, Troy. The flags of discontent -- It's the only way anything ever gets changed.

Posted by someone on Tue., Dec 20, 2005 at 4:52 PM

Dear "someone":
I am not a paid photographer. Thanks. And I didn't actually run, but walked fairly briskly. Hardly bizarre considering the circumstances.
Dear "Troy":
Thanks for playing devil's advocate. In this case I thought the story would speak louder than any photos that I had shot, since it's pretty obvious to anyone that's been in the mall recently (by recently I mean the last decade plus) would realize the place is a ghost town.
If you need to see photos, just picture storefront after storefront with closed gates. The Rosa Parks comment is ludicrous.

We're all individuals and everyone handles different situations with varying degrees of rationale and grace. I was very startled at what happened today, and if it were to happen again, I might, and probably would, handle it differently.

I love that we are having a discussion about it though. Don't you?

Posted by tom on Tue., Dec 20, 2005 at 5:02 PM

Ludicrous comments aside. I’ll gladly stand next to you with my camera and fight for the rights of a free press. It’s a shame the Post or local tv news would be afraid to get involved.

ps To all the Jr JD’s take another look at “plain view”.
pps To St. Louis Centre if you would kindly post the footage of Tom running like a mad man tripod and camera in hand or a 5’2” security guard working him over, we would all be grateful.
Merry X-mas

Posted by Troy on Tue., Dec 20, 2005 at 5:24 PM

I am a lawyer.

If the above facts are true:

1) You did not do anything illegal or tortuous. Importantly, you weren't criminally trespassing as you were trying to leave the property once ordered (thus the police were an empty threat).

2) They committed a "trespass to chattels" by taking your equipment. They assaulted and battered you by cuffing you. They falsely imprisoned you by restricting your movement without legal justification.

Without taking more time than I should on this, let me say with absolute certainty that you are on solid legal ground in that you did nothing wrong. Further, they did at least one thing wrong (perhaps criminally, but definitely civilly). It's worth filing suit if you want to call them to the carpet, but it's probably not worth any money unless you can get to a jury and get the jurors ticked off. So, you'll have to pay a lawyer up front to take the case. You might also consider filing a police report, though I doubt the prosecutor would follow up with charges.

Posted by chris on Tue., Dec 20, 2005 at 5:25 PM

Tom was on private property and they can place restrictins on what you are doing on that property. That said, Tom stopped when asked and was trying to leave when he was detained by private individuals. They can force him to leave, they do not have a right to force him to stay nor do they have a right to confiscate his property.

Tom had not committed any crime during this process. He broke a rule of a private property owner. He asked for permission after being informed of that rule, and then attempted to leave the premises upon being denied that permission.

He was forcibly restrained at that point. The problem is there is no justification for that restraint. He was not trying to interrupt the business, he had not stolen anything, and he was specifically trying to leave the property after being told he had violated the rules. Detention by private individuals under such a condition is likely over the line.

Posted by ArchPundit on Tue., Dec 20, 2005 at 5:31 PM

Maybe the greater scandal here is that Mr. Drebes doesn't pay for photographers when they risk their own liberty and limb (or at least wrists). I guess that's how he lives so high on the hog, drunk on power and ad revenues, and dancing on the backs of his volunteer contributors.

Posted by someone on Tue., Dec 20, 2005 at 5:48 PM

Tom, even though you deleted the photos off the memory card, you can still retrieve them! There are many software programs that easily pull all buried information off the cards. The place I work charges $25 to do it (not that I endorse my place of business - ew). Point is, you still have the photos. Retrieve them and PRINT THEM!

Posted by toby on Tue., Dec 20, 2005 at 8:24 PM

I can assure "someone" that Dave is not living "high on the hog." Incidentally, "somone" posted from pf-011-116.pulitzer.net. In other words, s/he is a Post-Dispatch employee.

Posted by Brian Marston on Tue., Dec 20, 2005 at 10:14 PM

Holy Crap! That's got to be the most screwed up thing I've ever heard.

I'm with ArchPundit and Thomas. I'll join any outing to the center for a photo session. It'll be awesome.

"I'm sorry sir...we don't allow people to truthfully depict our occupancy."

Posted by cyr on Wed., Dec 21, 2005 at 12:07 AM

I learned a long time ago that the only place you are truly safe to take photos is on public ground. The mall is owned by a private company and may dictate rules for what is done within and the security guards can at the very least harass you about it.

The simplest solution is to take the photos on the sly using a camera phone or some other camera that doesn't draw too much attention. The other option is to take some photos and pocket the memory card, replacing it with a fresh one before you get caught.

By the way, security guards generally are given very little instruction about what the can't do, so they tend to use their own judgement a lot and hope they don't screw up and get fired. If they harass you, ask to talk to their supervisor or client contact and demand that an incident report be filed with their company. Just watch how fast they back down.

Posted by Scott on Wed., Dec 21, 2005 at 12:20 AM

Count me in on the mass "photo-in."

Also, is anyone else besides me taken aback by Brian outing the source of "someone" with info for which the poster had a reasonable expectation of privacy? Is the Bush spying scandal contagious?

Posted by St Louis Oracle on Wed., Dec 21, 2005 at 12:49 AM

There's a guide prepared for photographers by a civil liberties attorney that specifically addresses these issues.

"The Photographer's Right" is based in part on info from the ACLU and the "Bust Card" that used to be on their site. It can be found in downloadable, printable form here:

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

To paraphrase one relevant passage: absent a court order, private parties (such as security guards for shopping malls) do not have the right to confiscate film. In fact, they may be subject to criminal and/or civil penalties for the sorts of things they did in this case.

I suggest you read the pamphlet, and then consult an attorney.

Posted by Dean on Wed., Dec 21, 2005 at 5:53 AM

Does the ACC have a new angle on the vacancy rate at StL Centre?

What's the story line here?

Must have been a real slow news day

Posted by yo on Wed., Dec 21, 2005 at 7:01 AM

Claire's friend would be me - a few months ago, I was trying to take pictures inside the St. Louis Centre for an assignment for my photography class, but was stopped before I shot anything. I was told the same thing, that I needed permission from the office, unless I was just using my camera to take pictures of friends (which I believe would be a necessity, as in my experience, the photo booths there don't work).

I went to the office, and was told, while the pictures wouldn't be going anywhere but to a classroom critique, I wasn't allowed to take pictures there "until we're done with the revitalization."

Shame, too, because the whole place, as it is now, is pretty aesthetically interesting. I would've had better prints for that assignment, at least.

And Peat's right, the ArtDimensions storefront on the third floor is most definitely worth a look.

Posted by Eric on Wed., Dec 21, 2005 at 8:38 AM

I agree that a business may have the right to restrict the taking of photographs on its property-I'm not an expert in this area but because the place is a public area those rights may have been limited-ie people have certain rights to leaflet on shopping center proprty-

What I don't understand is where the local gestapo gets the right to self enforce their rules by detaining someone and taking their personal property. Can the mall also detain people for violating its dress codes?

Posted by Norman Pressman on Wed., Dec 21, 2005 at 9:42 AM

Oracle, is it reasonable to expect anonymity with respect to your employer when you publicly post something on the WORLD WIDE Web using your work computer with a static IP address? I didn't reveal his/her name, just his/her employer. It's like walking into a crowded room with a sign around your neck with your home address written on it and then being taken aback because people in the room are able to figure out where you live. I wouldn't have bothered to look at the sign around "someone's" neck if s/he hadn't been acting obnoxiously.

Not that it changes anything, but while St. Louis Centre is privately owned, it's propped up with millions of dollars of public money. You'd think taxpayers could at least take pictures of what they're paying for.

Posted by Brian Marston on Wed., Dec 21, 2005 at 11:22 AM

Brian, that static IP address isn't visible to me or other ordinary users of this site. You're involved somehow with hosting this site, aren't you?

Posted by St Louis Oracle on Wed., Dec 21, 2005 at 11:50 AM

St. Louis Centre received 15-year tax abatement and federal block grant money, right?

Posted by Michael Allen on Wed., Dec 21, 2005 at 11:55 AM

The date and time for the photo walk are set. And before anyone types it - I know that it's right around the corner and that's in the day. But: many people are off on this day and others may be able to slip out of Downtown offices at that time. Best time to do it, considering the holidays and all.

Pack a camera!

Here's info: www.blog.52ndcity.com.

Holiday cheers, by the way, to all.

Posted by Thomas on Wed., Dec 21, 2005 at 2:58 PM

I have lived downtown for five years, and have shopped at St. Louis Centre a total of one time -- which was plenty. I shop at the downtown Famous-Barr often (it was crowded today!), though I insist on denying its attachment to said dead mall.

I have been known to deter tourists from entering that place, much as one would deter guests from going in that one room at the back of the house that you're really embarrassed about. It's nasty, and the fact that the city hasn't been able to make positive change happen there is nasty too.

I'm sorry about what happened to you, Tom, and I hope you sue them, if nothing else, to help deter similar abuses by other pseudo-authorities. As a video producer, I've often had to stand my ground in public places, so I know how assholes can quickly assume power in ways that has nothing to do with the law and everything to do with brute force.

Margie

Posted by Margie on Wed., Dec 21, 2005 at 6:34 PM

Whoa! That's what I get for not checking often. I've been kicked out of my fair share of establishments under similar circumstances. The Centre, of course, if foolish for doing something like that and it's already beginning to bite them. In my first post, I simply offered an additional civil violation that may have been committed, though I cautioned that a paid "journalist" (quotes intended to target my disdain for that word, not any denigration of those involved here) might have difficulty in court. In my second post, I altered my position slightly and offered a possible, though lame, defense the mall might offer. Then, corrected regarding my assumption of payment, I offered what I thought to be a light-hearted and -- I assumed -- obviously facetious response. For the record, I don't believe that Dave is making himself rich by exploiting his contributors. I enjoy the ACC in print and online, and have only the highest regard for those involved in its production. I owe no apology to the gatekeeper whose sensitivities I offended (and he, for the reasons he cited regarding the nature of the internet, owes me none either), and I will assume that Dave received my comment in the sarcastic and good-natured way I hoped that he would. Merry Christmas.

Posted by someone on Thu., Dec 22, 2005 at 9:14 AM

I should also mention that somehow we have accumulated a collection of photographs that we have taken inside of St. Louis Centre.

Posted by Michael Allen on Thu., Dec 22, 2005 at 10:32 AM

Michael, don't you think that you should post those images on the world wide web and provide a linky?

That would crawl ten feet up their non-functioning escalator!

Posted by Margie on Thu., Dec 22, 2005 at 2:12 PM

Y
E
S
!
!
!

Stay tuned!

Posted by Michael on Thu., Dec 22, 2005 at 3:50 PM

Got 'em online:

http://www.eco-absence.org/stl/stlcentre/

Posted by Michael on Fri., Dec 23, 2005 at 2:39 PM

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf - I carry copies of these in my gear bag.

Organize a photo walk and I'll be there.

Posted by jyoseph on Thu., Dec 29, 2005 at 12:19 AM

Oops, nevermind. I read around and realize I'm about a week late.

Posted by jyoseph on Thu., Dec 29, 2005 at 12:43 AM

Posted by john on Tue., Aug 15, 2006 at 2:22 PM

St. Louis Centre - No Photo Zone

Advertise

Subscribe

Back Issues

About Us

Blog

Categories

Monthly Archives

Photo Gallery

Links

Home