Mall Photos - my turn...

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Many malls since the 1960's have rules about shoot photos on their property; its an ancient rule. One might also discover one cannot shoot images too during some weddings; or go into a Walmart and shoot how their store is layed out; or break into a neighbors house; or have to slow down at a school crossing too; or shoot images at pro sporting events or concerts. Thus your just got caught breaking decades old rules ; and are upset about getting caught. Its called learning personal responsiblity; growing up; admiting that when one breaks rules it is your fault; ie adulthood. :) :)</p>

<p>In areas where a mall has some public funding the "rules" can be a tad or alot different; the government now has its hands too in the matter abit. Thus a loud boombox by a poor person or kid sitting on a mall bench for hours is now a social issue; he may cry foul if asked to leave; he wants the government's drones to allow him to disturb others; make others fear of being pan handled; mugged etc. In malls in decline it can get to where there are more folks using the mall as a place to be thats airconditioned and heated ; than shoppers.</p>

<p>If it makes folks feel better I got asked not so shoot photos in an inside shopping mall back in 1965; I also have been ticketed for going 18 in 15 MPH school zone. I once got a ticket going 58 MPH in a 55; in the slow lane going down the Conjeo Grade. At that time there where 3 lanes going downhill towards Camarillo; and it went to 2 lanes at the bottom; very dangerous. I was going 55MPH in this cheapie old rental car; and speeded up to avoid being rear ended by chap behind me; right where the 3 lane to 2 lane bottleneck was. Thus by speeding up to allow the car behind me not to get into a pickle; ie rear ending me; I got ticketed; by the cop I helped. The other 2 lanes where going about 65 to 70 MPH; thus crap happenes. maybe the car I was in looked like his ex wives car and thus he writes chicken crap tickets.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>I tend to pick my fights rather conservatively</em></p>

<p>If you were not being held against your will and simply acknowledged that you were leaving as directed, and did so, then you would not be 'picking a fight'.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>John - I would have been picking a fight by refusing to do as he asked - delete the images then show him that I had done it.</p>

<p>Kelly - I'm not upset that I broke the rules either written or unwritten and got in trouble for it. If I break the rules and get caught then I have to pay the price. I'd rate taking some photos in a mall which is dieing in a different category then the other things you mention. If they are written then I want to see them posted someplace. I had no problem complying with their request / demand to leave and not return. I'm not going back to that mall again - there's nothing in it that interests me anyway, other than the fact that it is dead or soon to be.</p>

<p>The reason for the OP was to document the experience I had with shooting inside a mall which some Photographers may take as a given right due to the "Public" nature of the location. It's not a given that they will allow you to photograph there. It is rather interesting that we do tend to think of malls as "Public" and "Open" when in fact they are for the most part private property and the owner can ultimately decide what rules apply to their property.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p> </p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> John - I would have been picking a fight by refusing to do as he asked - delete the images then show him that I had done it.</p>

<p>He can ask. And you can say no and walk away. That's not picking a fight.</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>Kelly, you are conflating laws and rules.</p>

[derek_kennedy]

<p>Never delete the images, NO one, even *real* cops cant make you. Its evidence. You just might need those photos to prove your innocense. If they try to force you to delete them, say no - these photos are now evidence and deleting them would actually be even more illegal (it IS evidence after all) than the cop trying to force you to delete them. Course this might be different in different countries.</p>

<p>Sure deleting them may save you from a lot of trouble down at the police station (or being taken to the PS) but after all, if the cops tried to charge you with something, evidence will be needed by both parties anyway and the only evidence is the photos.</p>

<p>Example, if they tried to say you were taking photos of something you shouldnt have been and you were NOT, well - your photos are your proof. Deleting them could very well get you into more trouble since you no longer have proof that you were NOT taking photos of what ever subject they think/said you were.</p>

<p>Funny though. I see lots of people taking photos in malls with point n shoots without getting into trouble but once you whip out that (D)SLR, YOU'RE breaking their rules. Can we say 'discrimination' ?</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Yo Conrad, Jeff (sorry bout using your last name instead of first, was a mistake) thanx, you may be right, I thought that section under t related to the next sections, but it is part of t.<br>

But look at section K. It's silent re open to public or not, and it seems to be relating to intent to interfere, so it's rife for interpretation of many terms. <br>

But I looked at a couple of city codes and they do have a muni trespass codes. They also tend to be very simple and straight to the point, ie., refusing to leave private property after being asked to leave is a trespass, etc. two lines. That Penal Code section is a long accumulation of state trespass law as amended over the years as different problems arose.<br>

Here's section k:<br>

"(k) Entering any lands, whether unenclosed or enclosed by fence, for the purpose of injuring any property or property rights or with the intention of interfering with, obstructing, or injuring any lawful business or occupation carried on by the owner of the land, the owner's agent or by the person in lawful possession."<br>

In the penal code section, a connection could be made to the type of activity we're discussing or not. But the individual City codes tend to be very much straightforward. <br>

Thanx for pointing that out. I'm going to talk to one of our code enforcement attorneys who is an ex DA and see what he has to say. Practically, all this doesn't really matter, If you're asked to leave, or not take pics you comply, it's rarely a battle worth fighting. I probably wouldn't delete my images though. However, now I'm just intellectually curious about the law relating to it.<br /> <br>

It's very difficult to believe a private property owner or their authorized agent or occupier of a property can not have someone arrested for refusing to leave a property when asked any where in the state unless a local ordinance allows it.<br>

<br /> </p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>Hard to believe people STILL <a href="http://www.infowars.com/st-louis-man-arrested-for-shoe-bomb-comment/">do this</a> too.</p>

<p>Check out all the "comments" following the story.</p>

[nathancraver]

<p>The best thing I can suggest is to keep a file on your card that is a black image that says "No Images". If someone asks you to erase your card, just navigate to that one and show them. It would fool anybody.</p>

[jeff_conrad]

<p>Barry, believe it—at least in California; the <em>Cox</em> court made that quite clear. It seems to be drilled into everyone's consciousness (including mine until I read the law) that a private property owner has an absolute right to exclude persons that he or she does not want. But again, in California, that isn't the case even when there is a local trespass ordinance. In <em>Cox</em> , the Court held that</p>

<blockquote>“The San Rafael trespass ordinance does not endow the shopping center with an absolute power arbitrarily to exclude a would-be customer from its premises.” — [3 Cal.3rd at 211]</blockquote>

<p>Unfortunately, I don't think it's really known how non-absolute the right to exclude is, and we may never know unless someone with some extra time and money wants to call the question. That ain't gonna be me ...</p>

<p>Much of the rationale for limiting the right to exclude derives from the concept that at least to some extent, shopping centers have replaced city streets as public forums; this idea was central to <em>Pruneyard</em> . We could forever debate whether this is as it should be, but such a discussion would seem irrelevant. What's relevant is the law.</p>

<p>I don't think anyone would get very far claiming that photography per se was a violation of Penal Code § 602(k). This isn't to say that someone wouldn't try; see, for example <em>Hamburg v. Wal-Mart Stores</em> (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 497. But the move backfired in that case, with those arrested getting $90,000 from Wal-Mart for simply getting booked and released (Ukiah police assisted in a citizen's arrest). Admittedly, a couple of technicalities were involved, but it's still quite a different situation from being subject to arrest simply for refusing to leave.</p>

<p>Local ordinances are usually more succinct but not always that clear. Many have exceptions for expressive activity that are similar to those in the San Rafael ordinance at issue in <em>Cox</em> , but absent a clear interpretation of a law that a certain activity (like photography) is permitted, one who would assert such exceptions as a basis for refusing to leave is probably asking to get arrested. It's not worth the time, trouble, and expense to me.</p>

<p>I tend to agree with Barry and several others that it may not be worth the hassle even when there is no criminal trespass law. I also agree that there's no need to delete images; if one were to simply comply with a request to leave without deleting images, I doubt that most security personnel would push the matter. If they did resort to force in deleting an image, it probably would constitute robbery; whether a DA would charge would be another matter, but the guards and their employers would presumably subject to civil action. In any event, I agree with Brad that refusing to delete an image isn't picking a fight (unless you do so in a particularly obnoxious manner).</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Those security guards (not cops) will now believe they have the right to insist that photographs are deleted.</p>

[jeff_conrad]

<p>Barry, there is of course another angle on this, and it's one to which I've never gotten a solid answer—the right to use reasonable force (possibly with the assistance of a peace officer) to remove a person from private property under theory of civil trespass. It is my impression that police and the courts take a dim view of those who resort to self-help remedies (and property owners are reluctant to employ them because of liability concerns), but one attorney who specializes in commercial real estate did tell me that an owner's agent (i.e., a guard) might resort to it. It would be interesting to hear what your associates think of that option.</p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>Given all the aggravation associated with shooting in a mall, and the general lack of interesting things to shoot, why would anyone even want to shoot at a mall. Too many other interesting things in life...</p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<blockquote>

<p>Given all the aggravation associated with shooting in a mall, and the general lack of interesting things to shoot, why would anyone even want to shoot at a mall.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Steve, you don't find those fake perfume stores and cell phone kiosks interesting? </p>

<p>Mall cops are emboldened by those new security guard movies.</p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>Thomas..nope......nor do I have much interest in shooting displays in stores... the generally speaking are pretty boring.... <br>

Much rather have a great portrait, a challenging lighting situation or a drop dead gorgeous model to shoot....))</p>

[lisa_c9]

<p>this doesnt surprise me..<br>

i work in a mall and in my down time i often take out my camera to grab some candids. i was informed by a co worker that its against mall policy..<br>

i continue to do it but on the sly.. recently a security guard approached me and asked me if i was taking pictures of 'my family' or 'the mall'..i guess thats the catch. so from now on i tell them im taking pics of my kids lol.. <br>

fyi im not sure of the reason for this policy. i've heard everything from homeland security issues to prevention of robbery.</p>

[william_brodie_tyrrell]

<p>Legality and horribleness/stupidity of mall rent-a-cops aside, you know that deleting the photos actually does nothing other than remove the respective directory entries, right? Unless you've gone and used that card since then (which will start overwriting the image data), you can still recover all of the images from it. Have a google for media recovery tools and my bet is that most of them will get every single image back from it.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Jeff, we had a case (i'm a paralegal) where our cops got called to a trespass situation where security guards, really bouncers, were verbally tussling with a whole family that refused to either take their knives to their cars or leave. The venue had a shooting incident between rival gangs a month before and were therefore very leery of large groups with knives. The family was a large, and some of the guys pretty tough looking dudes, italians with wives and children. The venue formally requsted our officer remove, not arrest the family from the premises unless they were willing to put their knives in their cars. A physical then arose between some members of the family and the police.<br>

Family sued the officers for excessive force, and false arrest racial discrimination. Plus 1983 Monel claims, also negligent hiring and training etc. The security guards were also sued for illegal use of force and violation of civil rights, based on racial discrimination. I don't think the security guards had any physical contact. But because they were "swarthy" and a group, and had knives and some tatts, they felt that the venue discriminated against them by labeling them as gangbangers and potentially violent. They also had all the othe allegations for negligent hiring, training, etc.<br>

We went to trial and got a defense verdict for all the officer and the city. In talking to the jurors post trial, it revolved around the one independent witness who was not affiliated with the cops or the venue. <br>

In the trial, our officers stated they were lawfully called and asked to handle the matter as a trespass, and told our officers if the family was willing to simply take their knives to their cars, they were welcome to stay. The officers testified that they were polite to the family and simply asked them to comply, that they would not arrest them if they would put the knives away or leave. The the family members got verbally abusive, used foul and abusive language (oh my) and ultimately started shoving the officers. The officers then took the violators down, arrested them for assualt, and trespass, not sure if they used the obstruction section that is so populler these days. They also arrested some other family members for trespass, some of the wives that actually tried to kick some of the officers.<br>

The family testified they never raised voices or used foul or abusive language and that the cops just took them down for no reason.<br>

No independent witness that wasn't either a cop, a security guard or a family member saw the initial pushing and shoving by either the family or the cops. The security guards backed the cops version.<br>

So the only person not a party said she couldn't see the initial beginning of force and who started it. But she saw and heard the family members cussing the officers up and down in the most fowl, provocative and abusive manner. No big to a trained officer, not justification for force normally, but the point is, it undermined the Plaintiff's credibility. The point of this war story?<br>

The security guards and venue settled out prior to trial for a tidy little sum. So I think you have an interesting point there. It seems common sensicle that bouncers can break up fights, can use force to protect themselves or others from bodily harm, but I'm sure they're open to civil claims as much or more than the cops. In this case they got sued without even using physical force. i will check it out as soon as I get a free moment.</p>

 

[Uhooru]

<p>What's interesting in the above case, not that were discussing it, is that there was never any challange of the trespass law itself. Hmmmm some answers are needed.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>Those security guards (not cops) will now believe they have the right to insist that photographs are deleted.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

They already did but even more so now.</p>

[jeff_conrad]

<p>Barry, if they weren't talking arrest, a trespass law may not even have been at issue—the case you described sounds much like the civil trespass that I mentioned. The advice I was given was simple—if the police get called in, get out unless you want to pay for my new Benz.</p>

<p>I'd guess that the venue and the security guards settled because their legal counsel had concluded that, even if they were likely to prevail, contesting would cost far more than settling. As a middle-aged Euro type, I'd probably have a lot less leverage with a claim of discrimination.</p>

<p>It still would be interesting to learn the legal theory that was involved. I've discussed this with five different attorneys and gotten at least three different answers.</p>

[dougscroggins]

<p>What an interesting read. I love the fact that now Italians can claim racial discrimination in this politically correct country of ours. What is happening to our beloved nation when people that are asked to leave a shopping mall because they are in possession of weapons are able to sue, and subsequently receive payment, for behaving like idiots. For fricks sake there was a gang shootout in that same mall just a month prior! I need to know what part of the country you live in Barry because not only will I never move there, I will have to probably take it off of my vacation list. Absurd! Sorry if I have assisted in hijacking this post. Let me part with a reminder. Rules, policy, and most importantly laws are being passed and changed daily. This stems from situations that arise that invite and force reflection on laws as they are written and how they fail to cover all scenarios at all times. The request to delete the images is a perfect example. By complying with the request the Officer's can say that the photographer has remedied the complaint himself wherein the Officer used his discretion to deem the situation resolved. On the other hand I would feel pretty confident that anybody outside of the D.A.'s office, up to and including the most experienced Law Enforcement Officers, would have a hard time determining wether they have the right to demand that they be deleted. Even fewer would be able to advise what crime is committed via the refusal alone. A violation of a business's policy or rules is not necessarily a violation of criminal law in this instance. From my understanding the only violation that can be deemed criminal in the OP's scenario is trespassing. Again falling back on the trespass law which is one of the most universal in this country, he was not in violation if he complied with the request to leave. Thus, by leaving the OP ended the Officer's right to detain him and force the deletion of any existing photos. So much to digest but so interesting to debate and contemplate.</p>

[john_reynolds10]

<p>This is really an issue about the commercialisation of public space - where a privite individual or corporation can create a mini-totalitarian state.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p><em>This is really an issue about the commercialisation of public space - where a privite individual or corporation can create a mini-totalitarian state.<br /></em><br />What (dangerous) nonsense. When a company builds a shopping mall in which to run their business (the business of leasing out space to smaller businesses), it is a private venture on private property. It's no more a "public space" than is your own front yard or the bathroom in your apartment. Look to the city park or other <em>actually </em>public space, instead. Being <em>open</em> to the public doesn't deprive the property owner of their rights to do things like forbid photopgraphy on their property, or to tell people they can't drink beer, or ride skateboards, or play loud music on the property they maintain, and over which they can be sued if someone gets hurt or otherwise damaged there.<br /><br />A man's home, as they say, is his castle. Unless you're lobbying to give up your own rights to dictate how your own property is used, or think that other people should be able to tell you how you conduct your own business on your own property, then please knock it off with the sophomoric "totalitarian" rhetoric. If there's a compelling market for shopping malls that <em>do</em> provide for photography, skateboards, loud music, gang parties, or any other thing that most long-time retail property owners/managers have realized they don't want to support, then the market will <em>choose</em> such places and reward them.<br /><br />Personally, I reward businesses (with my patronage) that <em>don't</em> allow disruptive, obnoxious behavior by other visitors. We can debate whether or not using your D300 and a 70-200/2.8 in the mall is somehow obnoxious or disruptive or odd enough for the management company to ask you to stop... but there's no debating the absolute need (and moral justifcation) for the law to err on the side of allowing a property's owner to say how their property may be used. That's not "totalitarianism," that's <em>freedom</em>. I'll never understand the Orwellian double-speak sort of thinking that arrives at the notion that it's somehow <em>more</em> "free" to let <em>you</em> tell someone else how they may use their own property, or protect that in which they've invested. That's the <em>opposite</em> of freedom... your sentiment suggests that you actually <em>do</em> want tyranny: you want to be able to dictate someone else's actions and use of their own property. It's not that you don't like tyrrany, it's that <em>you</em> want to be the tyrant.<br /><br />You have a choice to go buy socks, DVDs, and scented soap from any number of places. Don't like the way a business is running and protecting its physical property and huge exposure to all sorts of legal liabilities? <em>Just don't go there</em>.</p>

[nishnishant]

<p>Wow this happened to me last month in Cumberland Mall, Atlanta. I was taking pics of my wife and son coming down the escalator when a staff-lady asked me to stop. She said I cannot take photos in the mall. She did not ask me to delete what I took though. Funnily, I had previously taken pics there on so many previous occasions - this was the first time anyone stopped me. I haven't gone back there with a camera since then. I was a little annoyed at that time and was going to follow this up - but then I thought it'd be too much hassle.</p>