taking pictures in public -- Texas news story

Police Arrest Man For Improper Photography At Octoberfest

 

Police Say Photos Were Of Sexual Nature

 

POSTED: 5:17 pm CDT October 11, 2005

UPDATED: 9:42 am CDT October 12, 2005

SOUTHLAKE, Texas -- Thousands of people milled through the Southlake Town Square

Sunday night during the community's Octoberfest celebration. One man, however, was

arrested during festivities after police said he used a digital camera to take inappropriate

photographs of women and children.

 

Louis Vogel, 60, of North Richland Hills, was arrested by Southlake Police after officers

observed him for about an hour snapping pictures. Police said the photos were of a

"sexual nature."

 

"He had a camera with him. It was obvious he was taking photographs," Southlake Police

Lt. Ashleigh Douglas said. "But during their investigation, (investigators) determined the

photographs were deemed inappropriate."

 

Photography in a public place is not illegal. Southlake police, however, said the nature of

the pictures Vogel took violated state law.

 

"You're committing an offense if, a) you're taking a picture of a person who hasn't given

you consent to do so, and b) that picture is for the sexual gratification of any person,"

Douglas said.

 

Investigators said they found more than 12 photographs that depicted specific parts of

women's and children's bodies on Vogel's camera.

 

Vogel could face up to two years in jail if convicted of violating state law. He has bonded

out of jail, but has not responded to repeated attempts to contact him.

Unless he was photographing up dresses, this is very

disturbing.

That's the impression I get Ray but the article doesn't exactly say so. The way the law is stated by Lt. Douglas is not the way I understand it and that troubles me is that officers are enforcing law that they may not understand. I guess that's why we have trials. But the law does give the right to privacy to anyone where a reasonable person would expect to find privacy: public bathroom, under a woman's dress. If this guy is shooting up women's skirts he makes it hard for all photographers. If the police are wrong that's also bad for photographers unless the photog sues the city and wins and they publish the story widely. The sad thing is that only photogs and civil libertarians are there to worry about photogs rights. People don't have much sympathy for photogs these days.

"Investigators said they found more than 12 photographs that depicted specific parts of women's and children's bodies on Vogel's camera."

and the point is, michael?

"..."You're committing an offense if, a) you're taking a picture of a person who hasn't given you consent to do so..."

 

that much of the policewoman's statement is dead wrong.......and put's major doubt on the rest of it IMHO

There is a big "and" after that partial quote, Thomas.

Perhaps the question, is there any picture that can be taken in public with out the consent of the photoee, that would be out of taste?

yep, there is an "and"....just goes to show how you can slant something when you leave something out....or selectively report. Like what specific parts of women's and children's bodies. They could have said that, but chose to insinuate something else.

Dangerous precedent. If the guy's trafficking child porn, sure, then arrest him. But the problem is that even if he's a creep, the language they're using to declare this illegal could be used against any of us. Below is a from-the-hip shot, taken without consent. It's perfectly legal, and I used it as an amusing candid of the East and West Coast archetpyes meeting. I've gotten LOTS of kudos for it, but under this precedent a cop could look at it and say "There's a butt in this photo; you're going to jail."<div></div>

I used to live in the Dallas-Fort Worth area and I must say that Southlake is a very conservative, mostly white middle/upper middle class community. These folks are liikely to be more suspicious and paranoid. That's how a lot of conservative, middle class white folks are.

 

Unless this guy was trying to shoot up skirts, I'm thinking this might be paranoid overreaction. I'm not sure how clothed pictures of women or children could be classified purely for sexual gratification. I wonder if this guy was only taking pictures of women and children?

 

Anyway this kind of story is always bad news for legit street photographers. Since 9/11 it's really been absurd. In 14 months of S&D work I've been stopped and/or questioned by police officers, security guards or border patrol agents nine times just because I was carrying a camera. I almost had my camera confiscated for taking pictures on the US side of a US/Mexico bridge.

No citation, no evidence to evaluate/judge (with respect to Texas law, which is?), not enough

information in general - why jump to conclusions based on nothing more than the

incomplete information above? Does anyone really know what happened?

 

Why not wait for details and specifics before expressing outrage.

<I>...and I must say that Southlake is a very conservative, mostly white middle/upper

middle class community. These folks are liikely to be more suspicious and paranoid.

</I><P>

 

 

More suspicious than say, for example, latinos and blacks, observing someone with a

camera snapping "parts" of women and children, in circumstances outside of the norm?

<P>

 

I think generalizations and characterizations based on race and class are dangerous.

Hey Brad,

 

Your first part? True. Probably need more information before we really decide. If he's an upskirter I have no sympathy for him.

 

Second question. Well I lived in that area. Not Southlake, but about 25 miles away. And when you quoted me, you left out the last sentence that stated, "That's how a lot of conservative, middle class white folks are." I realize this is a generalization and doesn't apply to all, but there is something to white flight to suburbia (which Southlake is), gated communities, etc. People who live in these areas are generally more suspicious, or you might say alert. I used to live in an older suburban subdivision and witnessed this myself. As more minorities moved in, more white people moved out. The wealthier the neighborhood, the more conservative (and white) it usually is.

<div></div>

<i>for mash get smash</i>

Two minutes of research got me to Sec. 21.15 of the Texas Penal Code, which states:

 

**********

 

Sec. 21.15 Improper photography or visual recording

 

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

 

(b) A person commits an offense if the person:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

© An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

 

(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.

 

***********

 

[indentations are likely out of whack. I'll furnish a link as well.]

 

For starters, it would appear that Lt. Douglas was quoted as accurately paraphrasing the statute.

 

My problem with this statute at first glance is that it fails to specify that to subject one to criminal prosecution, the photos or video must be taken in a way that violates one's reasonable expectation of privacy. Nor does the law appear to require that a photo or video, in order to fall within the statute, must depict particular parts of the body.

 

Put aside for the moment whether *these photos* might, under a well worded statute, fairly subject *this photographer* to prosecution. We don't know enough to say, though the cryptically worded reference to "specific parts of women's and children's bodies" suggests he'd be in trouble.

 

My concern is that this statute is written so broadly that a publicly taken photo of the publicly visible *face* or *hand* or *leg* or *foot* or of a woman, man, or child might subject one to prosecution if the picture is taken without consent and the underlying purpose is to "arouse or gratify ..."

 

If this law is to be challenged for vagueness or overbreadth, however, I worry that this defendant might not make for a very attractive challenger.

<a href=http://www.texaspolicecentral.com/title_5.html#21.15%20Improper%20photography>Link to Sec. 21.15</a>

I just noticed an <a href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BkxY>earlier thread</a> on this statute.<p><p>

 

For ease of reference, I should've pointed out that this falls under Chapter 21 (Sexual Offenses) of Title 5 (Offenses Against the Person).

Don't take pictures in Texas if there are any people in it if they didn't sign a release. If you, or someone you give it to, thinks that anyone or part of anyone in the picture is hot, you are subject to arrest.

 

Yes, its unlikely that there will be mass arrests or that people who are not acting creepy will be arrested. Nevertheless, the statute encompasses the activity described above. Even if the reeasonable expectation of privacy element were left out, it should have at least included terms that required the activity to be disturbing or menacing to a reasonable person. If one took shots of children's butts or something in public, they would covered. Taking pictures of swimsuit contest would not.

I'm inclined to agree with Brad that, as usual, we don't have enough

information to make a solid assessment. Stories such as these get everyone

excited, but we hardly ever know exactly what happened. Moreover, the

press almost never manage to properly describe the offense for which a

person has been arrested. Judging from Officer Douglas's statement,

however, it would seem that Mr. Vogel was arrested for violation of the

following Texas statute:

 

<blockquote>

[Texas Penal Code]<br>

[Title 5. Offenses Against the Person]<br>

§ 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>

 

© An offense under this section is a state jail felony.<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.<br>

 

<p>

Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 458, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. Amended

by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 500, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

</blockquote>

<p>

As much as I don't like it, Officer Douglas would seem to have gotten this

one right. Obviously, we'd need to see the pictures and possibly would

need to have observed Mr. Vogel's behavior to see if his actions

reasonably constituted a violation of the statute.

<p>

What's most disturbing about § 21.15 is that determining "intent to

arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person" would seem to be

completely at the whim of a police officer, and accordingly, I don't see

how this law cannot be void for vagueness. Language such as this actually

isn't that uncommon; we have it even in California. In most places,

however, the person photographed without consent must have a reasonable

expectation of privacy for the photography to be an offense; this was the

case even with the very poorly crafted Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of

last year. Texas, of course, isn't "most places" ...

Don't even try photographing your partner breastfeeding your one year old child if you live in Texas ......

 

http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2003-04-17/feature2.html

Imagine if Sally Mann lived in Texas.

Escape To Canada

 

http://www.montrealmirror.com/2005/092205/film2.html

The most violent reaction I've had to shooting on the street was a couple months ago in a poor part of town, where a black male youth got very irate over the fact I'd shot a pic of his nephew; so I think Brad most definitely has a point. Conservatism or paranoia or reactionary attitude is not necessarily delineated by race or class.