Criminal Act to Photograph Sunset in Wyoming?

[john_h.1]

<p>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/15/legal-exposure-wyoming-law-could-mean-jail-for-sunset-picture-claims-critic/?intcmp=trending</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>It's illegal in Texas to utter derogatory remarks about cows (beef). That did not sit will with the Federal courts. Is a sunset "data", environmental or otherwise? Where, oh where is Demosthenes' lantern?</p>

[randrew1]

<p>I support reasonable and proper regulation by the government, but this is neither. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>If Wyoming has or is planning one of those religious freedom laws, while it might be illegal to photograph a sunset, they'd at least be forced to allow photos of God!</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Could a legal expert find in this statute... http://legiscan.com/WY/text/SF0012/id/1151882 ...</p>

<p>where it doesn't say this is about trespassing on public or private land to take photos?</p>

<p>That statute is what this whole thing is about and I can't clearly understand where everyone is getting this idea that it's about being prevented from shooting sunsets in Wyoming. But that's just me.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Note that the original article is from Fox "News". Need I say more?</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>This same topic was posted over at LuLa where a guy named Andrew pointed out the implications of distinguishing private owners leasing public land for raising cattle and preventing photographers from trespassing to gather data of their cattle polluting the environment...</p>

<p>http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=100343.msg822581#msg822581</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>where it doesn't say this is about trespassing on public or private land to take photos?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not that it completely counters the trespassing issue, but further research shows that the State Legislature did say it covers non-private land that a person would normally be allowed to be on. So you can photograph on this non-private land and not be trespassing but if you set foot on private land in your journey to the land on which you are not at the time trespassing, you would still be in violation of this law.<br>

<br>

May be a flawed law. Hopefully, more will come out about it. The bigger issue of trying to silence those who are finding violations that are poisoning our environment is probably more worth thinking and doing something about. As more becomes privatized, less is available to public scrutiny and we're being shafted in the process.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Got it, Fred.</p>

<p>Yeah, another tactic of lazily writing law that doesn't take into account the natural unfolding realities of cause and effect, one thing leads to another, etc. so a person exercising freedom of speech as a photographer is now seen as violating the letter of the law whose intent is now defined first as a criminal trespasser forced to fight it out in court instead of being seen as a citizen whistle blower.</p>

<p>Stiff arm penning of law that deeply buries constitutional rights violations within the complexity of the writing very similar to the way law was written that allowed bundled securities to be given AAA ratings where no one was seen as a criminal or went to jail.</p>

<p>If you can't dazzle the public with brilliance, baffle them with BS.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<p>Note that the original article is from Fox "News". Need I say more?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely! You should listen only to unbiased sources like the Daily Beast, Politico or MSNBC (where 3 of the 4 major anchors are being investigatef for income tax fraud).</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"It's illegal in Texas to utter derogatory remarks about cows (beef)"</p>

<p>It just makes you wonder as a species if we have a future.</p>

[andylynn]

This law is almost too stupid for me to mock it by coming up with a crazy set of circumstances that would be criminal, but

I'll give it a try. I'm fishing on a regulated stream and I see another fisherman take an undersized trout. He doesn't notice

I've got a camera and I take a photo of him holding it, intending to report him if I see a ranger. Later that day I do see a

ranger and he asks me what's in my creel, and I tell him two trout, each between 15 and 17 inches. (I know how long

some of my pieces of gear are so I can see if a trout is legal, and in this hypothetical I'm not fishing catch and release

even though that's what I usually do.) I also report the other guy, who I know is just around a bend upstream, and show

the ranger the photo.

 

Under this bizarre broad law, didn't I just commit two crimes?

[William Kahn]

<p>Fortunately, here in Arizona, you can still shoot sunsets. Even at the Grand Canyon - wow! The light belongs to everyone...</p>

[mwmcbroom]

<blockquote>

<p>It's illegal in Texas to utter derogatory remarks about cows (beef)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I just had to find out more of this. Being a Texan I knew that things just weren't that simple. First of all, it isn't about cows, it's about beef. And this all falls under the umbrella of "Food Libel Laws."</p>

<p>Read more about food libel laws here, including the case that made this whole topic infamous (just think Oprah):</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws</p>

 

[mark_pierlot]

<p>So does that mean that if I were to publish an article arguing that raising livestock for food is unsustainable in one of the states that had these so-called "food libel laws," I'd be running afoul of the law? Or would I have to target specific producers?</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. must be looking down on this and shaking his head in dismay.</p>

[sknowles]

<p>A few problems with the law beside the obvious constitutional issues. First, many federal agencies are charged with collecting data throughout the state, including the USGS with collects water resources, geologic, and wildlife data, on the whole range of land regardless of the owner. The State can't arrest and hold federal employees with a legal right to enter property and collect data, inlcuding those the State has a contract for agencies or companies to collect data. Second, the law requires intent, meaning, "...to submit or intending to submit..." the data to state or federal agences. They can arrest you but can't prove intent. Third, the State has no jurisidiction on or over federal lands. I think the law is more a threat than substance, and the first case will invalidate it.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>So does that mean that if I were to publish an article arguing that raising livestock for food is unsustainable in one of the states that had these so-called "food libel laws," I'd be running afoul of the law? Or would I have to target specific producers?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I had to read the wiki link to see what that was about and how it's related to this topic. In the Oprah Winfrey case where she was sued for making claims against a food that are NOT <em>"based on reasonable and reliable scientific inquiry, facts, or data."</em> ...I think answers your question. Don't say bad things about any food unless you have facts or you just might get sued for libel. I could say I don't eat beans because they give me gas, but I can't say they cause cancer.</p>

<p>It's the same reasons I have issues with Dr. Oz's touting vitamins, herbal ingredients and other unfamiliar natural exotic substances claiming they can improve or change one's health without any scientific facts or data to back it up. But I don't think he's going to be sued for food libel for doing so. Snake oil salesman? I'll go with that.</p>

<p>Preventing a citizen from gathering data (photographs) to prove a private business leasing public land is polluting, damaging or creating a health hazard on that land is what this topic is about. You can't be a citizen whistle blower if you're prevented by being arrested as a trespasser from even seeing whether an event detriment to the public is taking place. I wasn't even aware you could trespass on privately leased public land and I'm still not sure in the writing of that statute you still can. </p>

[charleswood]

<blockquote>

<p>(e) No resource data collected in violation of this section is admissible in evidence in any civil, criminal or administrative proceeding, other than a prosecution for violation of this section or a civil action against the violator.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>which is from the document link provided by Tim <a href="https://legiscan.com/WY/text/SF0012/id/1151882">https://legiscan.com/WY/text/SF0012/id/1151882</a></p>

<p>from which is a definition of resource data:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>(iv) "Resource data" means data relating to land or land use, including but not limited to data regarding agriculture, minerals, geology, history, cultural artifacts, archeology, air, water, soil, conservation, habitat, vegetation or animal species. "Resource data" does not include data:<br /> (A) For surveying to determine property boundaries or the location of survey monuments;<br /> (B) Used by a state or local governmental entity to assess property values;<br /> © Collected or intended to be collected by a peace officer while engaged in the lawful performance of his official duties.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Including but not limited to data regarding" is language that can be broadly construed. Also the word data isn't specifically defined. The word 'collect' is defined:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>(d) As used in this section:<br /> (i) "Collect" means to take a sample of material, acquire, gather, photograph or otherwise preserve information in any form from open land which is submitted or intended to be submitted to any agency of the state or federal government;</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Information in any form" apparently is the definition of 'data', such information not "...admissible in evidence in any civil, criminal or administrative proceeding, other than a prosecution for violation of this section or a civil action against the violator."</p>

<p>So any data collected can only be used in a prosecution of, or a civil action against, the data collector. As to prosecution:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>© Trespassing to unlawfully collect resource data and unlawfully collecting resource data are punishable as follows:<br /> (i) By imprisonment for not more than one (1) year, a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or both;<br /> (ii) By imprisonment for not less than ten (10) days nor more than one (1) year, a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or both, if the person has previously been convicted of trespassing to unlawfully collect resource data or unlawfully collecting resource data.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think the Fox article was fair and balanced because it included the viewpoint of Prof. Pidot. I might have titled it "Evidence A Crime Transmuted Into the Crime of Collecting Evidence - An Offender's Dream Come True" But would that have been a fair title for the piece?</p>

<p>TIm wrote "You can't be a citizen whistle blower if you're prevented by being arrested as a trespasser from even seeing whether an event detriment to the public is taking place."</p>

<p>I read it such that you can be a citizen whistle blower if you don't collect resource data while trespassing.<br /> <br /> Scott wrote "Second, the law requires intent, meaning, "...to submit or intending to submit..." the data to state or federal agencies."</p>

<p>Scott I don't read it that way. If you submit they can convict, OR, if you intended to submit it but didn't: it might be a little harder to convict, conviction would depend on the evidence presented documenting an assertion that intent existed in the mind of the offender. For example, email which showed the send button was clicked but that the email server was down and the email wasn't delivered. Clearly by pushing the send button the offender intended to submit and although a completed submission did not occur, a submission nevertheless was intended.</p>

<p> </p>

[charleswood]

<p>So if you submitted and didn't intend to: no defense because you did submit whether you intended to or not. And if you collected it and didn't submit, if you intended to submit but didn't: that's criminal too if they can prove intent. Proving intent happens all the time.</p>

[bert_krages1]

<p>It is a poorly drafted and vague bill that could be applied against photographers in some circumstances. I think it is unconstitutional, but it could be upheld by courts for a period of time, much in the way that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals did not toss out Texas Penal Code § 21.15 until last year (that statue criminalized photography with a dirty mind). The prosecution that led to the demise of the Texas statute was of a person who took photographs of women, some of whom were wearing swimsuits. <br /><br />The basic elements of the crime are:<br />1. entry onto open land (i.e., land that is outside city boundaries);<br />2. for the purpose of collecting “resource data” (including the photographing of open land) for submission to a state or federal agency; and <br />3. the person collecting the “resource data” is either not the owner or does not have the owner’s permission, or other legal authorization to enter or access the land. <br /><br />The ambiguities include:<br />1. whether “to enter” means a physical entry or whether it applies to an entry over airspace or the monitoring of the property by an offsite recording device (e.g., a camera, video recorder, or sound recorder);<br />2. whether the open land on which the information is collected has to be same as the open land on which the collection is be done (i.e, taking a photograph of an adjoining parcel);<br />3. whether it applies to public lands used for grazing, etc.;<br />4. the scope of what is meant by “resource data” (e.g., would operating a meth lab or harboring stolen property be considered “land use” under the statute?); <br />5. whether it applies to “resource data” collected from federal land;<br />6. what does “to access” mean?<br /><br />There are a lot of scenarios in which the statute could be applied in ways not intended by the legislature, which was to impede the collection of environmental data. So if someone is rafting on a river and photographs a cow defecating on the bank, and then submits the image to the U.S. Copyright Office for registration, can they be convicted? I can’t say it wouldn’t happen because photographers have been arrested or harassed for violating other stupid laws.<br /><br />The statute also has a provision that excludes the collected resource data from being admissible in court. So, in theory, if a victim of a human trafficking operation that takes place outside of city limits manages to escape, and then shows photos of the traffickers and their victims to a state or federal agency, then the sex traffickers would be entitled to exclude the photograph from evidence if they were put on trial. This obviously does not make sense.<br /><br />It would have been better for the Wyoming Senate to acknowledge what many people have known for a long time, that cattle make manure. Now the world knows that the Wyoming Senate can make it too.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>It is a poorly drafted and vague bill that could be applied against photographers in some circumstances. I think it is unconstitutional, but it could be upheld by courts for a period of time, much in the way that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals did not toss out Texas Penal Code § 21.15 until last year (that statue criminalized photography with a dirty mind). The prosecution that led to the demise of the Texas statute was of a person who took photographs of women, some of whom were wearing swimsuits.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, as a Texan I'm quite familiar with Texas Improper Photography Law and now just heard on the news weeks ago that they're adding new wording to expand the law, but for the life of me I can't decipher the wording in the Bill that indicates what that encompasses.</p>

<p>Here's the page that has the Bill and its analysis... http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=84R&Bill=HB3196</p>

 

[charleswood]

<p align="LEFT">Bert I don't think entry, purpose, and no permission or ownership are all required to prosecute and convict.</p>

<p align="LEFT"> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>6-3-414. Trespassing to unlawfully collect resource data; unlawful collection of resource data.<br>

<strong>(a)</strong> A person is guilty of trespassing to unlawfully collect resource data if he:<br>

(i) Enters onto open land for the purpose of collecting resource data; and<br>

(ii) Does not have:<br>

(A) An ownership interest in the real property or, statutory, contractual or other legal authorization to enter or access the land to collect resource data; or<br>

(B) Written or verbal permission of the owner, lessee or agent of the owner to enter or access the land to collect the specified resource data.</p>

<p><strong>(b)</strong> A person is guilty of unlawfully collecting resource data if he enters onto private open land and collects resource data without:<br>

(i) An ownership interest in the real property or, statutory, contractual or other legal authorization to enter the private land to collect the specified resource data; or<br>

(ii) Written or verbal permission of the owner, lessee or agent of the owner to enter the land to collect the specified resource data.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can you be guilty of (a) and not guilty of (b)? I think so. It looks like having the purpose without permission is to be guilty under (a); and if you've been on the property long enough to have realized your purpose then you're guilty under (b). </p>

<p>Trespass is an unlawful intrusion, a misdemeanor. But in this law an unlawful intrusion for the purpose of collecting resource data is a bigger crime than trespass. And actually collecting that data while trespassing is also a bigger crime than trespass.</p>

<p>So it's a law that protects environmental law breakers by making felons of those who would give evidence of those environmental crimes. </p>

 

[tholte]

<p>Edward, what's a little income tax fraud where the truth is concerned.</p>

[bert_krages1]

<p>Charles,</p>

<p>You are correct, the statute specifies two separate crimes: (1) entering a property to collect data and (2) actually collecting data. However, the punishment appears to be the same for both. </p>