Photographers busted for laws they didn't violate

[roger krueger]

In Chattanooga two men were arrrested for photographing people (teens) at an outdoor

festival. <a href = "http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/

article_51870.asp">Original article at chattanoogan.com</a><br>

and a <a href = "http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_51989.asp">Follow-up

article</a><br><br>

 

The charges were completely erroneous. The <a href="http://www.tncrimlaw.com/

TPI_Crim/39_07.htm"> Tennessee Statute Crim 39.07</a><br>shows that "expecation

of privacy" is a required element of the offense of "observation without consent",

something completely absent at an outdoor festival, unless they were "upskirters", which

I'm pretty sure they weren't. (the news media would NOT have missed that

angle.)<br><br>

It seems similarly unlikely that they're remotely guilty of stalking as defined under <a

href="http://www.tncrimlaw.com/TPI_Crim/30_12.htm"> Tennessee Statute Crim

30.12</a><br><br>

Yet another case of gung-ho officers enforcing the laws as they ain't. I'm just waiting

though, for some incident like this to get Draconian laws passed that DO effectively ban

street photography.

[Alex_Es]

This is truly disgusting. To my mind it all goes to show the

following. One: The terrorists one has to fear most in the US on a

day to day basis are American cops. Two: Tenn. hasn't changed much

since the days of the Scopes Monkey Trial. Morons still write the

state's laws. Three: No matter how lousy Tenn. is NYC is worse. At

least these photogs weren't tossed into into a detention cell and

tortured.

 

There are moments like this that I am glad that I expatriated.<div></div>

[neal_shields]

Several years ago we had a young child kidnaped (and subsequently killed) from a socer game. Someone suggested that a lot of parents had been taking video and still pictures at the game which showed the crowd. The police decided to try to match known sex offenders to people in the pictures. They found something like 22 convicted child molesters were in the crowd that day. One turned out to be the kidnaper. All were in volation of the conditions of their parol.

 

About 3 months ago, I went into the bathroom a Barns and Nobel and there was a small child in there with his pants down to his ankles that wanted help pulling them up and zipping them up. I wouldn't say that I ran, but I exited in a hurry and went to find his father.

 

If the story is as reported, and I find more and more that it never is, I hope that they sue for false arrest.

 

Maybe the photographic commuity needs to set up a legal defence fund for exactly that purpose.

 

Most police that I know only want to do their job and protect citizens. Most see things regularly that probably cause them to jump to the wrong (and sometimes right) conclusions when they see someone photographing other people's pubesant children.

 

A lot of people's attitudes about police would change pretty quickly if they did a "ride along" on a Friday or Saturday night.

[john_h.1]

Many states have enacted voyuerism laws which feature the reasonable expectation of privacy as an element. In most, if not all, such states, someone merely walking through a park or a festival is not one who will have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If the girls were merely walking or loitering about a festival, a public event, the charges are outrageous and chilling.

 

People signing documents to waive their consitutional rights is chilling to themselves and self inflicted. Its rather amazing that people do this. Some, in such instances, think that if they cooperate, the police will go easier on them. The reality is that if police are asking you to deprive yourself of your rights, they have already decided NOT to go easy on you.

 

Voyeurism laws, applied correctly, serve a legitimate purpose to protect people from predatory intrusions into their private moments and safe places. They are not a basis to infringe upon the freedom of citizens to engage in photography. I hope you will keep us posted on where this case goes.

[john_sidlo]

Somewhere someone will have to sue for false arrest in some case like this. Police need to be aware (many are) that photographing people in public places needs no consent and is the photographer's right. By arresting them, they are violating the photographer's (and our) civil rights, it seems to me.

 

Arresting people and charging them with violating a law they are clearly not violating is false arrest, although I understand those are difficult cases to win. But you can get punative damages if you win a case.

 

Somewhere along the line I hope a defining case emerges and a loud (i.e. punatively expensive) precedent gets established, enough to educate those unaware of the law.

[neal_shields]

I have driven past a field covered over 2000 with young girls in short skirted multi-colored costumes. It is a Velvia 4x5 looking for a place to happen.

 

The atmosphere as it is and Texas being a community properity state, and I have an extensive camera collection that I would hate to lose.

 

(I had a friend that collected cars. He ran around on his wife. She got his favorite convertible in the divorce. Put the top down and has left it parked in the same spot outside for 20 years.) She finds excuses that have to do with his children that force him to come over to the house where he has to see it.)

 

This does raise the question though: can it be an "up skirt shot" if the camera is on a tripod and 5? off the ground?

 

Note: found out something else that has been bothering me. Quotes imported from Word become question marks on this forum. Go figure.

[silent1]

<i>Note: found out something else that has been bothering me. Quotes imported from Word become question marks on this forum. Go figure.</i><p>

 

That's because you have Word set to use "smart quotes" -- that is, the open quote and close quote aren't the same character. That's better for printing, because the result will look more like what's published in books and magazines, but it's worse for reading with other software, most of which isn't capable of rendering the "smart quote" characters as common keyboard quotes. It'll happen with single quotes and Spanish punctuation (the upside down question and exclamation marks at the beginning of the sentence) and most diacritical marks as well, BTW. One possible fix is to export the text from Word as HTML before copying for import here; that should convert such characters to something a browser can interpret.<p>

 

Best to compose in Notepad if you intend to paste it in to the composition box here, though I have no problems composing in the box provided, including typing in HTML tags as needed -- I expect people who have problems with it have a browser setting in a non-standard value somewhere.

[roger krueger]

Alex: The laws seem well written, and prohibit things that should be prohibited.

 

The problem is the officers, who enforced their own "laws" bearing little resemblence to

the actual laws. (Also the DA, who should have had the sense to not waste taxpayer money

filing these ridiculous charges)

[rod g.]

Roger, I don't think the problem is with officers enforcing their own laws, I think the problem is the absolutely, incredibly stupid and destructive application of a good law by some officers who need to go back to Police Academy for a refresher course.

 

In Toronto the Police wanted to place cameras on the streets in areas that were know to be troubled (There was a pretty strong 'respect my civil liberties' reaction against it). So we may conclude that you will not get busted in Toronto for taking pictures of people and that there is no consistent social norm on this issue. It seems reasonable that you may end up on film in the normal course of living your life in public places and unreasonable that it be an indictable offense that you do so.

[e_dejesus]

<I>...They found something like 22 convicted child molesters were in the crowd that day.</I>

<P>

Care to provide a link to this? Sounds like urban folklore crap to me.

[gib]

Stockholm used to have the claim to fame of having the most public surveillance cameras for many years. I recall seeing a documentary about the adoption of the idea of policing via surveillance camera in the UK.

 

I wonder how many cameras are watching us as we spend a day in a city going about our business in public?

[________1]

"I wonder how many cameras are watching us as we spend a day in a city going about our business in public?"

 

Good point, and why isn't the Chattanooga police force doing something about it!

[bob soltis]

Roger,

 

thanks for the post. From the perspective of this former cop now atty, the arrests are way

off base.

 

The prosecutor and the two local yokels deserve a reprimand from Judge Moon.

 

Gonna give Southern Hospitality a bad name.

 

 

Regards,

[Alex_Es]

I was referring to Tennessee Statute Crim 39.07. It is extremely vague and can easily be used to justify the abuse of authority that Roger has alerted us to. Read it and you'll see what I mean.

 

I might add that I have a relative who is a retired police officer who was decorated several times for bravery beyond the call of duty. I appriciate the fact that a police person's life is not an easy one. That said, police abuse of people's human rights can never be justified or forgiven. New York City has a big police abuse problem. It is not "a few bad apples" but systemic. And this a national problem.

 

The fact is that any of us could end up being arrested for doing street photography in a place like Tennessee.

[roger krueger]

Alex: Tennessee Statute Crim 39.07's saving grace is the REQUIREMENT of a "reasonable

expectation of privacy."

 

By definition, if you surreptitiously photograph someone who has a "reasonable

expectation of privacy" you've already comitted the tort of "invasion of privacy", and can be

sued for damages. This law merely makes it a criminal offense as well.

 

The area where the officers erred is in thinking the subjects had a reasonable expectation

of privacy in a public place (not just "public property", but "premises open to the public" as

well). That's just nuts.

 

You have very nearly zero "reasonable expectation of privacy" in these circumstances.

 

This is not some novel legal term, it's something that's been kicking around courts

forever. Where you do and don't have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" shouldn't be a

matter of uncertainty to anyone. In your home, in a restroom, in a dressing room, yes. In a

crowd at a public festival? No way.

[billangel]

> Where you do and don't have a "reasonable expectation of privacy"

> shouldn't be a matter of uncertainty to anyone. In your home, in a

> restroom, in a dressing room, yes. In a crowd at a public festival?

> No way.

 

What about if you are shopping in a store on private property? I believe that there are limits on what a photographer can do when the people he would like to photograph are engaged in activites on private property, such as a shopping mall. And suppose that an outdoor concert were held on private property? Would the same restrictions on photography then apply? In fact I've attended

theatre performances (on private property) where photography was banned.

[roger krueger]

Bill: Privacy is not the only issue that can prevent photography, merely the one relevant

here:

 

Malls (and other private premises open to the public) offer little, if any, greater expectation

of privacy than the street. What is different when you are standing on private property is

that you can be ordered to leave upon threat of a trespassing charge. But you haven't

broken any laws by shooting there until you refuse an order to leave. (Security guards are

fairly likely to lie about this.)

 

Mall security, in fact, can't really prohibit photography. All they can do is kick you out, and

tell you to never come back.

 

Theater offers the possibility of copyright violation, although I don't think there's ever

been a case where someone's been found guilty of infringement for still photos at taken at

a live performance. But you're still on private property and can be ejected.

[cálico]

There ARE indeed too many instances of police officials not knowing the exact laws they PRETEND to uphold. Case in question, the issue of expectancy of privacy; the only issue that the photographer has to contend with is that the police, too often, use "bully" tactics to exercise authority not given them! For example, they have no right to touch you. They cannot search you without your permission unless you are the object of their investigation (so, ask them if you are the subject of their investigation and they HAVE to tell you the truth). They cannot enter your home unless you allow them to. They cannot "just look around" your home unless you let them look around; you can tell them to stay seated or to leave. You do not have to open your door to any police officer unless he/she has a court order and you do NOT have to step outside of your door (that's how they can arrest you without a warrant, if you step outside of your home); they WILL ask you to step out and if you do, you can be arrested or handcuffed.

 

They often push people around, are too often very rude, and break laws they're supposed to uphold (going past red lights when they are not in direct pursuit of a "perpetrator," or parking by hydrants and/or bus stops, or double park, while they have a leisurely lunch... etc.

 

If someone is in a bathroom or in a changing room, he/she HAS the expectancy of privacy; so, what about those surveillance cameras in changing rooms? If you're in a night club or a restaurant, you CAN expect privacy (in other words, don't snap a photo of someone in a restaurant).

 

The seizure of one's camera for taking a photo in a public place? Check with the Constitution; it's clear enough! The authorities (govenment agents, like police) nor private citizens (security guards) cannot confiscate your property that easily. They can be prosecuted, fined and/or arrested for confiscating your property, which is a violation of your constitional rights; trust me or read the Constitution or ask a Constitutional Attorney.

 

You may be arrested for refusing to give up your property, and that's the chance you must risk to uphold your rights, but you ARE within your rights NOT to give up your personal property; this wouldn't happen if you had your attorney with you! Why will you be arrested? Because the police will use ficticious causes ("Resisting Arrest" "Disturbing the Peace") and a hoarde of ficticious reasons that are on the books to empower police officers to commit abuse on the publics' civil and constitutional rights; you may/will have these dismissed sometime in the future but you will have incurred the cost of an attorney to represent you and who knows how many inconveniences you will have had to endure.

 

Unfortunately, I trained about 7 kids who are now police offices, including my brother-in-law! I hear enough "war stories" from these guys to disgust me! And if you believe that police officers are beyond lying, I have a very nice bridge that stretches from Brooklyn to Manhattan (NYC) to sell you at a very reasonable price!

 

By the way, police officers don't practice with their weapons as they should but there are no regulations requiring them to once they're on the force. Also, they do NOT take refresher and/or update courses on Law, and they are not required to. They also don't know half as much as they'd like you to believe insofar as the laws... you'd be surprised how much of what (little) they "know" is because someone else said something that sounds "right" and they repeat it. Don't forget, police officers are NOT attorneys!

 

I HAVE been in a police cruiser on a Friday night and a Saturday night during the summer months. It's not as horrendous and/or dangerous as they would like you to believe, but they have to justify themselves (more like EXCUSE their ineptitude and general malfeasance). If the job was/is so dangerous, why then don't they practice at shooting ranges regularly and why are there so many fat, overweight cops on the force? If the dangers they are constantly telling us about were so real, wouldn't it behoove anyone in uniform to stay in shape and practice with his/her weapon regularly? (In photography, don't we lose something when we don't practice?)

 

Oh, yes, my buddy of 42 years, his brother just retired from the law enforcement, too; he and I are the same age and we went to the same high school at the same time; I was the one with better grades!

[spanky]

About a year ago or so, a man was arrested for taking pictures of girls at a public swimming pool. He was standing outside the fence encircleing the pool area and shooting from there. I can't remember what reason he used for doing this (I seem to recall it was not the first time he was noticed at this pool taking pictures) but it's kind of a gray area. Yes, a photographer has a right to photograph anyone in a public setting, but then again did these cops just stumble onto these two men taking pictures or did somebody call them to complain? The girls mentioned certainly didn't but maybe their parents did? What rights to those photographed have? I know it's illegal to use somebodies image to sell a product without permission, and in some cases it can be illegal to portray somebody in a false light. I don't even think loitering laws apply to public spaces do they? This might be the only charge the police can make stick in a case like this. I think if a photographer is making other people uncomfortable and he/she realizes this or is told this, then they have an ethical issue to think about.

Still, I don't think the police can seize ones film and camera without a search warrant can they?

Also, am I the only one that thinks that if it were a woman or two women in this case, they might not have aroused suspicion or at the most arrested. Wrong or right, when male photographer and teenage girls are mentioned in the same sentence, eyebrows will be raised.

Just a couple random thoughts.

Regards,

Marc

[chris_waller]

It seems to be open-season on photographers. I'm seriously thinking of selling my gear and taking up something which these days is more socially acceptable like running a crack-house or a bordello. Let's face it, we bring it on ourselves. Who else do you know that spends there evenings and weekend skulking around in a room illuminated only by dim red light. Hold on - maybe I'm already in a bordello.

 

Had the above mentioned photographed the Chattanooga Choo-Choo they'd probably have violated some other anit-terrorist statute and got sued into the bargain by the estate of Glenn Miller for intellectual copyright breaches.

 

The only thing all this does is keep officialdom and attorneys in a job.

[spanky]

I was thinking about this yesterday, and what I think is really going on in this case is whoever called the police on the two guys is just doing a formality of sorts prior to bringing a civil suit on. Since these two guys didn't break any laws, it's possible that whoever called the police will say their presence made them uncomfortable thereby interfering with their constitutional right to pursue happiness. Getting a police report is just getting ones ducks in line so to speak. Yeah, I know this is quite a stretch, but it seems people will sue over anything these days, and there are a lot of wacky judges out there that will take a case like this. Just watch as one of those teen girls shows up in court with all kinds of doctor statements stating she as become depressed because her picture was taken.

Regards,

Marc

[mark_gatehouse]

"Since these two guys didn't break any laws, it's possible that whoever called the police will say their presence made them uncomfortable thereby interfering with their constitutional right to pursue happiness."

 

which, however, isn't in the US Constitution...

 

SOme of us seem to know our law as well as the cops :-)

[lucas_griego]

hilarious. what country are you livin' in?!

sign me up!

[john_riedel]

The information about Stockholm having more public cameras is funny. Just go to any green area downtown on a nice sunny day around lunch time. You will see more skin than at most US beaches.

 

No one cares, little kids are playing with no clothes on in the fountains. I also recall that a law is still on the books that allows someone to take their weekly bath in any public fountain.

 

The people and the police just have better things to worry about than someone snapping pictures out on the street.

[john_h.1]

"What about if you are shopping in a store on private property? I believe that there are limits on what a photographer can do when the people he would like to photograph are engaged in activites on private property, such as a shopping mall."

 

While you may feel this way, the general intent behind the phrase 'reasonable expectation of privacy' is to identify those who are in a setting where they should expect to be free encountering others. If you are in a shopping mall, you are placing yourself in an area where you can expect to encounter others. In your home, you might reasonably expect to be free from such interaction. Its all very simple.