Reasonable expectation of privicy?

<p>http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/02/06/2009-02-06_cell_phone_pic_gets_park_visitor_busted_.html<br>

If you are sunbathing in a public park do you have a reasonable expectation of privicy?</p>

<p>No, but taking a picture of an unknown girl's butt is something I'd only recommend to those wanting to get tagged as sexual miscreants. That's just begging for trouble.</p>

<p>No.</p>

<p>If someone exposes herself in public, there's no reason to complain. It's reassuring to know the photographer sued and settled for $8,000. MAYBE the police learned something.</p>

<p>I don't think there should be any expectation of privacy if sunbathing in a public park or other place. OTOH, it's not my nature to want to snap a shot of it (unless all the elements of light and scene came together<g>).</p>

<p>No, of course not. It's good that the photographer won the lawsuit.</p>

<p>Of course if you live in Texas and do this and somebody doesn't shoot you then there's always the "improper photography" law.</p>

<p>§ 21.15. IMPROPER PHOTOGRAPHY OR VISUAL RECORDING. <br>

a) In this section, "promote" has the meaning assigned by Section 43.21.<br>

b) A person commits an offense if the person:<br>

(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means visually records another:<br>

(A) without the other person's consent; and<br>

(B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; or<br>

(2) knowing the character and content of the photograph or recording, promotes a photograph or visual recording described by Subdivision (1).<br>

c) An offense under this section is a <a href="http://blog.austindefense.com/2006/10/articles/state-jail-felony-range-of-punishment-texas-penal-code/">state jail felony</a>.<br>

d) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor may be prosecuted under this section or the other law.</p>

<p>It never fails to amaze me when photographers are admonished for taking a photgraph in public of a person performing a questionable act..</p>

<p>Any woman that <strong>chooses</strong> to pull up her skirt in a public place thus exposing her underwear encased buttocks has to have questionable judgement..If the police were going to arrest the photographer, then at the very least, the woman herself should have been arrested for exposing herself in public..You cannot have the second act (photography) without having the first act occur (woman exposing her bottom in panties) that set up the circumstances that allowed the second act to be performed..Where was this woman's modesty?..</p>

<p>What possible difference can there be between dozens, perhaps hundreds of people passing by this woman and viewing her exposed panty-clad buttocks; and in someone capturing that image for posterity in a camera?..The truth is, very little difference..Either way, other human beings were able to look at her exposed bottom unrestricted for as long as they wished..She apparantly did not care if people <strong>saw</strong> her panty-clad bottom..It was only when her friend told her that she was being photographed that she got upset..Instead of being angry at herself for her questionable behavior that <strong>allowed</strong> someone to photograph her, she chose to take her anger out on the photographer..If I was the photographer I would have wanted to sue the woman in question as an accomplice to the police stupidity that got the photographer arrested in the first place..She was even more culpable than the NYC police officers were..</p>

<p>I completely agree with Bruce's analysis. I just find the outcome to be unsurprising in today's world. Too much illogical thinking out there.</p>

<p>Here's the NY statute on "unlawful surveilence", the crime he was arrested for:</p>

 

<p align="left">

<blockquote>

<p>Under NY law, a person is guilty of Unlawful Surveillance in<br />the Second Degree when, for his or her own, or another person’s<br />sexual arousal or sexual gratification, he or she intentionally uses<br />or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging<br />device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record a person<br />dressing or undressing or the sexual or other intimate parts of such<br />person at a place and time when such person has a reasonable<br />expectation of privacy, without such person’s knowledge or<br />consent.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>He could well have been guilty of that, if you suitably define "sureptitious", "intimate parts" and "expectation of privacy". It's a typically poorly written law which seems to be intended to make things like putting hidden cameras in changing rooms a crime, but leaves the door wide open for zealous law enforcement officials to arrest people for what Monty Python once termed "Doing things not normally considered illegal". At least they aren't arresting too many people for "Willfully and persistantly being a foreigner", though at times they do seem to try to do that too.</p>

</p>

<p>I don't know if the photographer really won - he got an out of court settlement and got 8 grand plus no ticket or fine - So I guess that's a win, but I would have preferred this go to trail so there would be a case law precedence.... but that's the business law student in me....</p>

<p>It's the age old debate - you're doing something in public, do you then have a reasonable expectation of privacy? Most of us would argue no, but apparently she made her case to a couple of cops and boom...</p>

<p>As Bob mentions above - the laws quoted are designed to prevent or at least deter the "Shoe" cameras or someone sticking a camera in a hotel bathroom (or any other public restroom) or the like... Kind of like the law that is now being debated that would require cameras to make a noise when they take a photo... to prevent the "unknown" photo from being taken.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p>That Texas law Bob cited, which I'm sorry to say is a sad reflection on my home state, tends to produce what journalists call a "chilling effect" on free speech.</p>

<p>I used to shoot a lot of school sports for family members, mostly to document those memories. Occasionally I'd burn CDs for the coaches and schools to use as they saw fit. No charge, just something I did for fun. After that law was passed I stopped. A few parents who didn't know me asked who I was, what I was doing, whether I had a "license", permission, etc. No school officials, coaches, teachers, students or law enforcement officials ever objected. But it wasn't worth the hassles for me anymore. I only took the photos for fun and the memories. Dealing with bug-eyed moms who see bogeymen under the bleachers tended to make this slightly less fun than brushing my teeth with a brick. I just showed my relatives a few tricks for getting better photos of their kids in these events and let them deal with the aggravation.</p>

<p>The law stated for Texas:<br>

(A) without the other person's consent; <strong>and</strong> <br /> (B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; <strong>or</strong><br>

(2) knowing the character and content of the photograph or recording, promotes a photograph or visual recording described by Subdivision (1).</p>

<p>That 'and' is important. If the police can't prove the "intent to arouse or gratification" then no law is broken.<br>

And NY;<br>

for his or her own, or another person’s <strong>sexual</strong> arousal or <strong>sexual</strong> gratification<br>

Again, the police have to prove intent. If the intent is not sexual then no crime has been commited.</p>

<p>True, John, but I pick and choose my battles carefully. Since I'm not a working PJ and not shooting school sports for money, this is one battle not worth the effort. If I wanted to pursue shooting school sports, especially indoors, I'd get specific written permission from the schools. But it's no longer a priority for me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>for his or her own, or another person’s <strong>sexual</strong> arousal or <strong>sexual</strong> gratification</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, since I'm not sure how that can <em>ever </em>be 100% proved (at least after the fact...) unless the photographer was strapped into an MRI machine and had their brain scanned while looking at the pictures. Even in the US, and even in Texas, that's probbaly going too far. I guess it has to be the old "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, which in court probably means the opinion of the judge or jury. Otherwise you could secretly photograph or video anyone doing anything anywhere as long as you claimed you were bored by it!</p>

<p>Of course reading the NY statute, if you do it openly, then you have committed no crime as it specifically states that "... he or she intentionally uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device to<strong> <em>surreptitiously</em> </strong>view, broadcast or record a person dressing or undressing...", so if you use a DSLR with a 24mm lens for a closeup, it would appear that you have broken no law (or at least not that law, I'm sure there must be another one they could apply if they wanted to).</p>

It's probably not going too far in Texas. Anything there that supports the death penalty there goes.

<p>I don't see the Texas law as stated above surviving a constitutional challenge ; it is overbroad. It does not include the requirement of a reasonable expection of privacy which probably saves the New York Statute. I lived in Austin for awhile in the 80's and Travis Lake had a majority of nude and or topless female swimmers( i did't keep track of the men) Also Barton Srings was topless. There is no way that photographing a nude or topless or bottomless person in public can be constituionally criminal. If I still lived in Texas, i would take that one on in a heart beat</p>

<p>That Texas law has already been used. A man in Grand Prairie was arrested and charged when his photos were found to contain closeups of the groins of female wrestlers, taken at a local school. Not sure what the resolution was, whether he was convicted or, if so, filed an appeal.</p>

<p>The definition in NY law as applied to some portions of ARTICLE 250 <strong>OFFENSES AGAINST THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY</strong> . (the format came with the copy)</p>

<p>§ 250.40 Unlawful surveillance; definitions. The following definitions shall apply to sections 250.45, 250.50, 250.55 and 250.60 of this article: 1. "Place and time when a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy" means a place and time when a reasonable person would believe that he or she could fully disrobe in privacy.</p>

<p>Lex, Texas is an odd place. But ever since I was a 42 year old bald headed person that was bounced out of a Texas Bar for no ID while a White House kid had the Secret Service buy her some weed, well, I'll never go back there. Except for DFW to kill some old air miles and the only place in America that knows BBQ (ecepct the Loosiana place) and Blues.</p>

<p>What the hell are you guys thinking down there?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What the hell are you guys thinking down there?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thinking? Thinking takes brain. We are <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pooh">bear of very little brain</a> . <a href="http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/mattrider/zombie_brain.jpg">Zombies</a> ate most of our brain. The rest is used on <a href="http://images.buycostumes.com/mgen/merchandiser/18699.jpg">football</a> .</p>

NY statute: "a place and time when such person has a reasonable

expectation of privacy" ...in Central Park?

<p>I'm in Seattle where people look for any excuse to have a parade and ride bicycles in the nude.</p>

 

<p>In the UK, because of public photography is so very risky many that photographers have been driven to only taking photos of fungi, wildflowers and copulating dragonflies, etc. I know very few people find any of these particularly stimulating or gratifying, let alone original or even mildly interesting. There is 'landscape' and protraiture of course, but it ain't what photography really excels at: that is <em>recording our whole world </em> - warts and all, not just politically sanitized glimpses through legally regulated peep-holes.</p>

<p>Compared to previous (more enlitghtened decades) we now hardly recording our contemporary social history, largely through the lunacy of the law and perniciousness of political correctness that , sadly, the "great unwashed" and hoi polloi - and politicians - seem to subscribe to.</p>

<p>I no longer desire to find a <em>nicer country </em> to live in, I want to go back to my home planet now please, please, please - this one is beginning to suck!</p>

<p>Reading this thread, I'm really thankful that I live in Sweden! The government here seems to understand that limiting the rights of photographers, journalists or average citizens doesn't help make a country in any way safer. I still have the right to photograph whenever and almost whatever I want to, if I had the urge I could set up a tripod and buy myself a 400mm lens to snap pictures of naked neighbours through the window and be perfectly within the limits of the law, provided that I won't use the resulting images for advertisment.</p>

<p>But overall, I agree with you Alan - I want to go back to planet Earth!</p>

<p>Mental note to self: "DO NOT take pictures of naked behinds in public, unless you know them well. It may be misunderstood" There, problem solved (for me). I am with Chris W. It is one thing to be right.... but one also has to apply some common sense.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Kabakoff, who spent the night in jail, shot her photograph with his phone"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now you have to be pretty close with a phone to still recognize a butt, even it is big.....</p>