TV News cameraman attacked by mall security guards at Valley Plaza in Bakersfield,CA

http://kbak.bakersfield.com/local/st...-5045018c.html
First Amendment Issues Raised As Valley Plaza Security Guards Tackle
29 Eyewitness Photographer To Ground


Fifty-two year-old news photographer Chuck Dennis was almost done
videotaping the aftermath of an armed robbery at Valley Plaza Mall on
September 9th. As Dennis was in the parking lot shooting Bakersfield
police on scene just outside Macy's, a man in plain clothes approached
Dennis and barks out, "Sir, I'm going to ask you to stop filming at
this point and leave the mall please," said the plain clothes man
without identifying himself.
Dennis responds he's not leaving and tells the man in plain clothes,
later identified as head security guard Dexter Owens that under the
U.S. Constitution, he's got a right to be there doing his job. Owens
attempts to grab the camera away from Dennis as he grabs the
photographer from behind in a choke hold. At least three other
security guards come and tackle Dennis to the ground who is still
holding on to his camera. Everything is caught on tape. The camera
never stopped rolling. The whole incident baffled several local
attorneys who have nothing to do with the case.

"The big question is, was it necessary to wrestle somebody to the
ground?" said attorney George Martin with Borton-Petrini and Conron
law firm. "The little bit of tape I saw was twenty seconds of
discussion and boom, the camera goes to the ground. That's way over
the line," said Martin.

Dennis suffered cuts and bruises in his encounter with the security
guards as they took him down. He was handcuffed and led away to a room
in the mall and told he was being charged with trespassing. Owens says
Dennis can not shoot without Valley Plaza's permission.

"If you want permission to film here, you have to ask us, you don't
tell us," said Owens.

The incident raises issues of First Amendment rights for the news
media and for the public. Along with Martin, attorney David Stiles of
Chain-Younger and Kern County Counsel Bernard Barman say though Valley
Plaza is private property, it is considered public access. That they
say, means the news media can go where the public can go.

Valley Plaza has another view. Marketing Director Marcella Anthony
would not address the issue of why the security guards knocked Dennis
to the ground nor would she grant an interview on issues relating to
access under the First Amendment.

In a written statement she wrote, "We will always support and uphold
the rights guaranteed to all of us under the First Amendment. We are
in agreement the press has a right to go where the public can go. We
further agree the public in California has certain rights to access a
shopping center. However, these rights are subject to reasonable
restrictions of the property owners. Our policies and practices
reflect the balance of these two important rights."

Dennis has retained an attorney and is considering filing legal action
for violation of civil rights. KBAK-TV General Manager Wayne Lansche
says 29 Eyewitness News will continue to gather the news wherever it
happens, including Valley Plaza.
---------

Valley Plaza's website: http://www.valleyplazamall.com

My Opinion:
Wow, this is just an outrage! Some of these rent-a-cops really have
anger management issues. The problem is they think they are the law.
Like that one jerk that harassed me at a mall in New Jersey.
They treat photographers like they shoplifted or committed a felony.
Makes me glad I didn't resist that rent-a-cop in that NJ Mall earlier
this year, now I know what could've happened!
Any mall that treats the press like the actions of those guards in the
Valley Plaza video is not a place I'd want to shop in!
BTW I think that malls should be considered public access and
photography allowed. After all, there are a bunch of guards watching
you on hidden cameras, so you should be allowed to take pictures, and
the press should definately be allowed to do their stories. Mall
owners claim "Private property" and "would you like someone going into
your home and taking pictures?". But a mall is not a private
residence, it's a public access building owned by a mall real estate
company, and the comparison between a mall and a private home doesn't
make sense. In the case of the Valley Plaza Mall attack, I think the
real reason is those guards did what they could to prevent the mall
getting "bad press".

They cannot have imagined that they'd keep this out of the public eye --
could they?

I was once told by a security guard not to photograph a sign at a mall in
suburban Los Angeles. The sign merely identified the mall and the company
that owned it.

I still have no idea why they objected.

Absolutely correct. It's private property. If some idiot walked
into your home and started videotaping you, would you not want
the legal right to stop him or her, forceably if necessary?

The question is not just whether it was technically legal, but also whether
it was prudent and rational. What did they stand to gain by ejecting the
cameraman? Was it worth the damage to their image that will result from
having the public know they did this?

Lots of things are legal but stupid.

"JohnCM" wrote in message
om...
http://kbak.bakersfield.com/local/st...-5045018c.html
First Amendment Issues Raised As Valley Plaza Security Guards Tackle
29 Eyewitness Photographer To Ground
Mall
owners claim "Private property" and "would you like someone going into
your home and taking pictures?". But a mall is not a private
residence, it's a public access building owned by a mall real estate
company, and the comparison between a mall and a private home doesn't
make sense. In the case of the Valley Plaza Mall attack, I think the
real reason is those guards did what they could to prevent the mall
getting "bad press".

As bad as it all sounds, the fact remains that malls are private property
where the public is allowed access and activity...at the property owner's
discretion.

"JohnCM" wrote in message
om...
http://kbak.bakersfield.com/local/st...-5045018c.html
First Amendment Issues Raised As Valley Plaza Security Guards Tackle
29 Eyewitness Photographer To Ground
Mall
owners claim "Private property" and "would you like someone going into
your home and taking pictures?". But a mall is not a private
residence, it's a public access building owned by a mall real estate
company, and the comparison between a mall and a private home doesn't
make sense. In the case of the Valley Plaza Mall attack, I think the
real reason is those guards did what they could to prevent the mall
getting "bad press".

As bad as it all sounds, the fact remains that malls are private property
where the public is allowed access and activity...at the property owner's
discretion.

Mark M wrote:

"JohnCM" wrote in message
om...

http://kbak.bakersfield.com/local/st...-5045018c.html
First Amendment Issues Raised As Valley Plaza Security Guards Tackle
29 Eyewitness Photographer To Ground
Mall
owners claim "Private property" and "would you like someone going into
your home and taking pictures?". But a mall is not a private
residence, it's a public access building owned by a mall real estate
company, and the comparison between a mall and a private home doesn't
make sense. In the case of the Valley Plaza Mall attack, I think the
real reason is those guards did what they could to prevent the mall
getting "bad press".


As bad as it all sounds, the fact remains that malls are private property
where the public is allowed access and activity...at the property owner's
discretion.

Hi..

Agreed. But the manner of eviction was completely inappropriate,
wasn't it?

I suspect that even if I visited your home, by invitation,
and somehow managed to make myself unwelcome, you'd "ask"
me to leave, then give me a little time to gather my
things and leave peacefully and quietly?

Ken

Mark M wrote:

"JohnCM" wrote in message
om...

http://kbak.bakersfield.com/local/st...-5045018c.html
First Amendment Issues Raised As Valley Plaza Security Guards Tackle
29 Eyewitness Photographer To Ground
Mall
owners claim "Private property" and "would you like someone going into
your home and taking pictures?". But a mall is not a private
residence, it's a public access building owned by a mall real estate
company, and the comparison between a mall and a private home doesn't
make sense. In the case of the Valley Plaza Mall attack, I think the
real reason is those guards did what they could to prevent the mall
getting "bad press".


As bad as it all sounds, the fact remains that malls are private property
where the public is allowed access and activity...at the property owner's
discretion.

Hi..

Agreed. But the manner of eviction was completely inappropriate,
wasn't it?

I suspect that even if I visited your home, by invitation,
and somehow managed to make myself unwelcome, you'd "ask"
me to leave, then give me a little time to gather my
things and leave peacefully and quietly?

Ken

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:06:03 -0700, "Mark M"
wrote:


"JohnCM" wrote in message
. com...
http://kbak.bakersfield.com/local/st...-5045018c.html
First Amendment Issues Raised As Valley Plaza Security Guards Tackle
29 Eyewitness Photographer To Ground
Mall
owners claim "Private property" and "would you like someone going into
your home and taking pictures?". But a mall is not a private
residence, it's a public access building owned by a mall real estate
company, and the comparison between a mall and a private home doesn't
make sense. In the case of the Valley Plaza Mall attack, I think the
real reason is those guards did what they could to prevent the mall
getting "bad press".

As bad as it all sounds, the fact remains that malls are private property
where the public is allowed access and activity...at the property owner's
discretion.

Being a formal photojournlist I can tell you that the security
officers are going to be in a whole heap of trouble, from possible
assult charges. Considering they didn't say they are with mall
security. From what I was told by my editor, any time the officals
show up, fire, police etc, they take control of the property until
they leave. So while photographing the police doing thier job, you
can't be charged with a trespass.

Another note, I don't think the mall is going to get good publicity
out of it.

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:06:03 -0700, "Mark M"
wrote:


"JohnCM" wrote in message
. com...
http://kbak.bakersfield.com/local/st...-5045018c.html
First Amendment Issues Raised As Valley Plaza Security Guards Tackle
29 Eyewitness Photographer To Ground
Mall
owners claim "Private property" and "would you like someone going into
your home and taking pictures?". But a mall is not a private
residence, it's a public access building owned by a mall real estate
company, and the comparison between a mall and a private home doesn't
make sense. In the case of the Valley Plaza Mall attack, I think the
real reason is those guards did what they could to prevent the mall
getting "bad press".

As bad as it all sounds, the fact remains that malls are private property
where the public is allowed access and activity...at the property owner's
discretion.

Being a formal photojournlist I can tell you that the security
officers are going to be in a whole heap of trouble, from possible
assult charges. Considering they didn't say they are with mall
security. From what I was told by my editor, any time the officals
show up, fire, police etc, they take control of the property until
they leave. So while photographing the police doing thier job, you
can't be charged with a trespass.

Another note, I don't think the mall is going to get good publicity
out of it.

"Ken Weitzel" wrote in message
news:nNDgd.59621$nl.26168@pd7tw3no...


Mark M wrote:

"JohnCM" wrote in message
om...

http://kbak.bakersfield.com/local/st...-5045018c.html
First Amendment Issues Raised As Valley Plaza Security Guards Tackle
29 Eyewitness Photographer To Ground
Mall
owners claim "Private property" and "would you like someone going into
your home and taking pictures?". But a mall is not a private
residence, it's a public access building owned by a mall real estate
company, and the comparison between a mall and a private home doesn't
make sense. In the case of the Valley Plaza Mall attack, I think the
real reason is those guards did what they could to prevent the mall
getting "bad press".


As bad as it all sounds, the fact remains that malls are private
property
where the public is allowed access and activity...at the property
owner's
discretion.

Hi..

Agreed. But the manner of eviction was completely inappropriate,
wasn't it?

Absolutely agree there.
The trouble is, the guy wasn't complying, so it gets annoyingly muddy.
He was certainly not posing a physical danger to anyone, so I can't imagine
why he needed to be wrestled to the ground. If they were trying to avoid
bad publicity, they certainly created worse than they already had. I think
key here is the understanding that security guard position do NOT attract
the most educated or even level-headed among us. I'm sure there are plenty
of good security guards, but I am continually amazed at some the the guys
who are walking around trying to make anyone feel secure. Many of them seem
like the same type of characters that you would cross the street to avoid...

I suspect that even if I visited your home, by invitation,
and somehow managed to make myself unwelcome, you'd "ask"
me to leave, then give me a little time to gather my
things and leave peacefully and quietly?

Except that most security guard types spend a lot of time fantasizing about
"big things" happening at their otherwise hideously boring jobs. They LOVE
to imagine themselves tackling bad guys to the ground and etc.