B.C. teen arrested for photographing mall takedown
 

B.C. teen arrested for photographing mall takedown - British Columbia - CBC News

talk about power tripping...:ahwow:

A B.C. teen who aspires to be a journalist says his rights were violated when he was set upon by security guards and then arrested by police after photographing an incident at Metrotown shopping mall in Burnaby, B.C.

Jakub Markiewicz ,16, said he was in the mall in September and took a picture of what he thought was a newsworthy event — a man being arrested by security guards.


But Markiewicz said the guards quickly turned on him, demanding he delete the photo, which he couldn’t do because he was shooting on a film camera.

Markiewicz said he turned to leave the mall and then snapped a second shot as RCMP arrived.

He said the security guards held him, attempting to grab his camera, and he was pushed to the ground. He said he then tried to use his body to protect two cameras he carried in his bag.

"They're just yelling and screaming, and just telling me to stop resisting," Markiewicz said.

He admits he started swearing and was then handcuffed by police and taken outside the mall to an RCMP cruiser by the officers and mall security.

Markiewicz said the guards again demanded he delete the photos and he told them once more he couldn’t.


http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/to...edown-4col.jpg

saw this one the news, the metrotown manager said the guards did nothing wrong and banned the kid from the mall for 6 months. What a douchebag, makes me want to boycott metrotown until this kid is allowed back

Power tripping

Hope Ivanhoe Cambridge cleans the house in terms of mall management. They can't seem to handle news/PR situations. IIRC when there was that stolen Jeep Cherokee incident, they apparently got the RCMP to take down the CCTV video of the incident cause they didn't like the negative publicity and then they've created their own negative publicity, the irony.

I encourage everyone who is unhappy with the actions of the gaurds and management to voice their concerns:

Administration Office

604-4720 Kingsway (Metrotower II)
Burnaby, BC V5H 4N2
Phone: 604-438-4700
Fax: 604-438-3974

Contact Us | Metropolis at Metrotown

wonder how security would have reacted if it was an adult with a camera. i think the guards assumed they can just bully a kid...funny thing is... i bet there were a few ppl with phones out taking pics that they didn't even notice :derp:

Technically speaking Metrotown is a private property even though it is considered a public space for people to shop in.

But Metrotown could have turned this around and said their malls security are doing their job by arresting thieves and here is a picture of it. TBH the Samsung store is the international brand that I can think of that other malls don't have at the moment. So the teen isn't missing out much since Samsung products are sold in other stores as well.

metrotown is gonna get sued
also, since when can mall rent a cops arrest people?

Property management company behind Metropolis at Metrotown

Ivanhoe Cambridge - Contact Us

Here's the info of that Metrotown rep that appeared on the news report:

Doug MacDougall, Director, Metrotown Properties
Telephone: 604-630-3312
Email: doug.macdougall@ivanhoecambridge.com

they can arrest, but they did it for the wrong reasons.

This is going to become a huge thing. In the states right now, bills are being argued regarding videotaping police in action.

Now, looking at this, you need to understand that a mall is not a "public" place. The public are invited, but at the discretion of the people that own it.

I'm a firm believer that as police are on the public payroll, then they should be able to be photographed and videotaped when in public places, short of when that becomes personally identifiable to the members of the public are shown.

Remember kids, no one would know the name Robert Dziekanski without that video.

It doesn't matter if it's a public place or not. Police cannot demand citizens to delete pictures that are taken on public/private property. That is what they said on the news last night anyway.

and technically, anyone can "arrest" until you can hand over to the police...but i"m not sure what actual good that does.

Any time you open your "private" property up to the general public, you loose the privilege of treating it like private properly and have to follow certain rules. I'll try to find the info I had read regarding this. I read it not long ago.

Security guards sure as hell can't either. The RCMP could potentially seize the pictures as evidence but a security guard has no right to force a person to delete a picture, nor do they have the right to seize a camera.

I say this as a person who holds an active security license.

Technically the kid violated the conditions which allowed him to enter a private piece of property (the mall) by taking a photograph. Most places like malls and stores have placards up saying that you can't photograph or videotape on their premises. The signs are visible but aren't always super obvious. The mall management can legally argue that walking past these signs is "implied consent". If you don't like the rules, don't come inside. 99% of the time they don't care (like in the case of teenage girls taking pictures of each other doing duckface while shopping) but this was the 1% when they did care. All they could legally do was to rescind his invitation to Metrotown and kick him out. The security company stepped over the line because (as we all know) security guards are a joke.

long winded response inbound.



security would probably have reacted the same way. 9/10 you'll have someone who does not know or understand their rights and merely be complacent with commands from figures of authority.



While metrotown is considered to be private property, a trier of fact (judge or judge and jury) would most likely side with the fact that it is public space. Privacy and private property is loosely defined as a place where an individual would have a "reasonable" expectation of privacy. A place like your home or a bathroom are areas where you would expect a certain level of privacy and a judge and/or jury would agree. metrotown while private property, is open to the public unlike your home where individuals require your permission to enter. thus, taking pictures in metrotown would not be contrary to the fact that privacy is being violated because the "reasonable" expectation of privacy is not there.



Anyone can perform an "arrest". An arrest does not necessarily mean being detained by police and it does not require handcuffs. Simply being stopped by a person who has the "lawful" authority to do so is considered an arrest.

In the instance of security guards they are merely excercising the same legal rights that you as a Canadian enjoy everyday.

Criminal Code of Canada:

s. 494(1) Any one may arrest without warrant
(a) a person whom he finds committing an
indictable offence; or
(b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he
believes
(i) has committed a criminal offence, and
(ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued
by persons who have lawful authority to
arrest that person.
(2) Any one who is
(a) the owner or a person in lawful possession
of property, or
(b) a person authorized by the owner or by a
person in lawful possession of property,
may arrest without warrant a person whom he
finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation
to that property.
(3) Any one other than a peace officer who
arrests a person without warrant shall forthwith
deliver the person to a peace officer.

The teenager was not in my opinion committing an indictable offence by taking pictures of the security guards at metrotown. It is also of my opinion that an individual with a reasonable level of cognitive processing capabilities would realize that the teenager had not recently committed a criminal offence nor was he escaping and freshly pursued by law enforcement.

Subsections 2 and 3 of this section would most likely not apply or bear relevance.


^posted above.


editted to add:

off the top of my head they violated the following charter rights against the teenager:

security guards:
section 7: right to life, liberty and security of the person
section 9: freedom from arbitrary detention or imprisonment

RCMP:
section 8: freedom from unreasonable search and seizure

Totally agree. Nobody have the right to tell you to delete the photo taken. They can tell you to stop taking photo. In order for people to get you to delete photo, a court order is needed, no?

Thing is... we only know ONE side of the story. You are all too eager to jump sides. You should know better, especially if it is something on the news. News may be "facts", but there is always 2 sides to a story.

Who knows, the kid could have been obstructing the guards from doing their job. I really doubt an RCMP member would arrest the kid, or take over custody of him, if they didn't think they had legit grounds to have him in their custody.

You guys should really read this thing once in a while its full of a buncha interesting stuff lol.

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/to...rights-cbc.jpg


Also, a useful resource: http://www.bearpaweducation.ca/sites...olice-2012.pdf

While its published/funded by the Alberta Law Foundation it applies across Canada. You have 3 unalienable rights as a Canadian:

1. The right to silence
2. Your guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt
3. The right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

there are other rights that are of importance under section 11 of the charter that people should be aware of.

In the States, law enforcement is hiding behind and OLD law that prohibits wiretapping. Audio recording in the US of a police officer violates wiretapping laws so police are able to use it to hide behind it.

Police actions should be scrutinized behind the lens because they are given a great amount of power and thus required to behave responsibly with said power. So long as one isn't going into the face of the officer or creating a danger for the officer, video recording should be and is in Canada, perfectly legal.

Police will often use obstruction of justice to seize and prevent people from recording them. In the present case, photographs are the least harmful because they only take still images of a milli-second in time. But malls do have a strict no-photography policy. I think it's because they don't want people taking photos of their advertisements and signage. Nevertheless, you violate this rule and you can be kicked out. It's protected under copyright law. I am curious whether there is a sign at the front doors that says no photography. Someone should check the next time they are there.


What does this have to do with the case presented by OP? I'm a little confused. Or are you just providing general information for RevSceners so they know their rights?

That is quite interesting that you mentioned the no photos. I never knew that. If it is true, this kid really has no case.

lol... the security at metro is a fucking joke...

from a personal experience, friends and i were accused of theft, and we didnt do it, we emptied our pockets in front of em and swore, which pissed em off, so they tried to grab us and threaten to break our jaws as they tried to lead us into one of those worker's back entrance... we caused a scene and had people taping it so they instead banned us for 6 months.. watta fuckin jokes

^They've probably put them up since this incident.

Genuinely curious, how do they enforce a ban from metrotown?

I dont think that the taking of photographs is considered obstructing the guards from doing their job. There are no legal provisions for the obstructing of a security guard from performing their duties. There are however, legal provisions for the obstruction of a police officer in Canada.

129. Every one who
(a) resists or wilfully obstructs a public officer
or peace officer in the execution of his
duty or any person lawfully acting in aid of
such an officer,
(b) omits, without reasonable excuse, to assist
a public officer or peace officer in the
execution of his duty in arresting a person or
in preserving the peace, after having reasonable
notice that he is required to do so, or
(c) resists or wilfully obstructs any person in
the lawful execution of a process against
lands or goods or in making a lawful distress
or seizure,
is guilty of
(d) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment
for a term not exceeding two
years, or
(e) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Therefore i would suggest the argument that no, the individual was not obstructing justice by taking photographs of security guards detaining an individual.