Confiscation or Theft?

Confiscation or Theft?, originally uploaded by M.V. Jantzen.

M.V. Jantzen writes I parked my bike on Jackson Pl NW (just south of H St), in Lafayette Park. After locking it up and walking away, some guy in black yelled at me. He told me they didn't allow people to lock their bikes here, and said if someone leaves a bike here they can confiscate it, and that in fact they have indeed confiscated several bikes left here. I asked him how on Earth anyone would know that, and he said as a cyclist it's my responsibility to know I can't park here. So, I moved it down the block on H St. Washington, DC.

It's only ones responsibility to know they can't park there if that information is somehow knowable. As near as I can tell it is not. It's not in DC's municipal regulations. It's not available online anywhere. There are no signs in the area to that effect. How is one actually supposed to know that?

The Secret Service doesn't like bikes I guess.

Comments

[Michael]

I have heard of a similar "regulation" being enacted in certain neighborhoods of DC too.

[Fred]

Typical idiocy by the National Security State.

[Read Scott Martin, 13th Street NE]

Private building owners have been known to send out building security to cut locks and confiscate bikes that are locked to trash cans on certain sidewalks. This happened to me outside one of the covered entrances to Metro Center.

[wil]

Without signage, or some clearly stated policy about this, I would think a confiscation here would fall under unlawful search and seizure. Then again, I won't be the guy trying to determine this.

[contrarian]

Read, if that happened to me I'd try to find out who did it and press charges.

I also wouldn't rest until there was a bike rack on the spot.

[DaveS]

I just can't get too worked up about this...

First, even if it wasn't for the bollards and the proximity to federal offices, Lafayette Square is managed by the NPS.

NPS general rules refer frequently to allowing activities in "designated areas". If the place M. V. Jantzen tried to park was a bike rack there would be a problem, but all we know is that it was somewhere "on Jackson Pl NW". Rack? No rack? Other bikes parked there?

Then the obvious: it IS within the bollards guarding the White House, Blair House, and a number of federal offices.

At the road entrances on H St. there are signs designating it a restricted area. What those restrictions are we can only guess, but again, I can't get too worked up if some MiB near the White House says I can't park my bike somewhere other than a bike rack.

I agree that the MiB was a bit overextended to say that people on bikes should know unspecified restrictions, but it also seems he was stating one.

I find it wonderful that we can bike past and even up to so many secured locations without even a challenge or ID check. But in this strange and unique place we call DC a lot of normal rules don't exactly apply.

And Washcycle, there's a world of difference between bringing a bike into a restricted area to be told not to park it somewhere and the NYPD retro-restricting an otherwise open area and cutting locks to remove bikes.

[washcycle]

And Washcycle, there's a world of difference between bringing a bike into a restricted area to be told not to park it somewhere and the NYPD retro-restricting an otherwise open area and cutting locks to remove bikes.

What is that world of difference, and how is it relevant? The thing that ties the two together is that is seems the SS wants to keep strange bikes away from the President.

[MB]

The Secret Service, in my experience, works primarily through intimidation of the public and aggressive exercise of some awfully vague powers (I got interested in this when I had a SS guy scream at and threaten me for looking through my own window when Clinton held a reelection rally right in front of my window).

There may or may not be a lawful basis for the removal of bikes. But I have a feeling that figuring it out would be a pointless exercise.

Forget it, Jake, it's Lafayette.

[SJE]

DC has so many overlapping police forces and jurisdictions that you cannot merely cite to DC municipal regs for something you are doing e.g. around the Whitehouse (secret service), on the congress (Capitol police), or in any national park (NPS).

Of course, the SS should not just remove/steal your bike, but the solution lies in talking to SS, not MPD.

[washcycle]

If the SS really wants this area (or some other area) to be off limits to bike parking, they should have DDOT mark that on their bike map.

[M.V. Jantzen]

BTW, a similar incident happened to me at 3rd & Maryland SE, by the Botanic Garden. Some officer told me I couldn't lock my bike to a sign; they would confiscate if I did. But in this case, he helpfully advised that I use the bike rack directly in front of the Garden conservatory.

How does using a bike rack prevent people from putting bombs in their frames?

@DaveS: I geotagged the location if you want to see where this happened. Furthermore, if you go to http://tinyurl.com/jackson-and-h you'll see the post I used - it isn't even in the area marked off by bollards, not that it should matter.

The point is, law enforcement agencies are given their legal authorities in order to enforce the law. To use their authority to enforce rules that they make up is wrong. That changes us from a democracy to a police state. That's why this is worth debating, and fighting, if necessary.

[ontarioroader]

Ho hard would it be to just put little 2" square "no bikes" sign on the sign if they didn't want bikes there?

[DaveS]

@Washcycle: the only connection I see is that there are bikes involved.

Otherwise, this is clearly marked as a restricted area, while NYC was an open public street. This is a fixed and historic location, the edge of the heart of the Executive branch of our government, within a line of sight to White House bedrooms, but NYC was (as far as I know) just a street. This is a street sign, while NYPD removed bikes from regulation bike racks. In NYC there was no indication that bikes would be removed, and here, well, the fuss seems to be that some officer (we’re assuming USSS, but it could have been three or four other services) told someone not to park a bike there or else.

I’ve looked for more info about the NYC bike removal, and I can’t find anything that says out loud that the USSS was behind that either. The video I saw only shows NYPD directing NYPD, and none of the blog posts or comments I’ve seen have called it anything other than over-reaching by NYPD.

Why does this blog assume the USSS is behind either of these events, let alone both?

@M.V. Jantzen: At your street view link, zoom out one step and look to the right to see the “Restricted Area” sign – and the sign post in question is clearly farther into the area than the sign. There’s some smaller print I can’t read, but I’m sure it doesn’t explain everything that’s restricted there or under what authority. Still, it’s a fair assumption that within any restricted area certain otherwise permitted things may be restricted. That’s pretty much the point.

I agree that the area may not be clearly delineated. I understand that there’s no easy way to know what is expected there, and that it doesn’t feel fair if the authorities seem to make up rules on the spot.

But in response to your action you got a clarification of one explicit prohibition from a trusted authority. Your bike wasn’t confiscated, your lock wasn’t cut, you weren’t arrested or detained – you were informed what was expected, it was not unreasonable, and you complied. That doesn’t sound like a police state to me; it seems more like a civil society under the rule of law.

[Read Scott Martin, 13th Street NE]

@ contrarian - Oh, I saw the guard who did this and talked with him at length. He didn't know I was present, thought I'd walked away. Then he told me his intention and that they do this regularly. He said the sidewalk 10 feet from the top of the Metro escalator (but under the cover of the building, whose second story overshadows the Metro entrance) was private property and they would be within their rights. Private security hired by the building. He was able to direct me to the location of the (invisible from the Metro entrance) bike rack. No signs anywhere in view.

[Blue-eyed Devil]

I love the comments about it being unlawful to confiscate bikes without notice and "if that were me, I'd" etc. Good luck with that. Like the federal government, the city can do what it wants when it wants, irrespective of law, and no one on his/her own has the time or resources or wealth or power to stop it (doesn't anyone follow real reporting on real issues?. Police state? It's already here (and that is NOT hyperbole).

Does anyone really think the law is going to side with some (ostensible) sclub dressed in spandex on a(n) (ostensible) child's toy over the government/private business? Just sayin'...

[washcycle]

@DaveS, the only connection I see is that there are bikes involved

Really? That's the only connection? Not the confiscation of bikes? Not that it involves "security"? Specifically security related to the President?" Just bikes? So this story has nothing more in common with the NYC story than it does with a story about new SmartBike stations?

this is clearly marked as a restricted area...the edge of the heart of the Executive branch of our government... I agree that the area may not be clearly delineated.

There you've hit on part of the problem. It is isn't "clearly" marked, you say so yourself. He was outside the bollards, on the public sidewalk. The "restricted area" is clearly meant to alert drivers that the street isn't open to all traffic. Nor is what is restricted stated. What else is restricted? Can you not practice any religion you want, for example? The answer to what is restricted can not be "whatever we decide."

Why does this blog assume the USSS is behind either of these events, let alone both?

I don't know, because the USSS is the agency tasked with protecting the President and both of these actions were done for that purpose and they didn't deny it in NY, which they could have easily done.

“All I will say is we work very closely with the N.Y.P.D. all the time for presidential visits of foreign heads of state,” said a spokesman, Edwin Donovan. “We work very closely with them. But we will not talk about the particulars of a specific visit.”

I understand that there’s no easy way to know what is expected there, and that it doesn’t feel fair if the authorities seem to make up rules on the spot.

But it is easy. Define the rules, publicly vet them and then post them some place. This isn't that hard. M.V. is right, if they are allowed to make up any rule they want, then that isn't the rule of law.

That doesn’t sound like a police state to me; it seems more like a civil society under the rule of law.

No. The word civil refers to the populace, not the state. The people make the rules, not the police they hire to enforce them. That is how a civil society works.

[kt]

i was under the impression that it is unlawful for a private entity to remove bikes, only law enforecement may do that. (but as far when they are legally allowed to remove them, i have no idea.) i know my apartment building threatens to confiscate bikes that are locked to the property's fence, but i think it would be illegal for them to actually do so.

[SJE]

KT: my understanding is that the apartment building owns the fence, and if you are locked to it, and your bike is on their property, they can remove it. The building that I work in (DC) does this all the time.

Of course, my building has clear signs about bikes, and offers multiple bike racks. Also, it does not just take the bike, but puts it in storage, and you claim it.

Hopefully any owner will exercise good judgement. Is the fence right next to the public sidewalk? Is the bike blocking anything or anyone? Has it been there for 5 minutes, or more than a week? Is bike parking offered elsewhere?

[Justin]

Laffayette Park is a national park under the jursidiction of the National Park Service, regulated by the Code of Federal Reglations. You will find your answers there...