Man sentenced to 90 days for taking pictures

[winsley]

90 days and 5 yrs on probation.... If you think that's crazy, try working as in the business and you'll see alot crazier!!! Spend a day in the court room and watch what goes on. It will make you sick.

 

[tnvol]

If I caught some pervert sneaking pics of my young daughter in wal mart I would definetly have a "talk" with the guy.

 

[JerryPH]

This is not a real surprise if you were from Texas or follow what happens there. There have been several arrests and convictions under this statue.

Link to the statute please.

...I don't doubt you, but your google-fu is stronger than mine, and I'd like to read it.

ec. 21.15. IMPROPER PHOTOGRAPHY OR VISUAL RECORDING.

His Google-Fu *is* srong!

 

[Crazydad]

This is not a real surprise if you were from Texas or follow what happens there. There have been several arrests and convictions under this statue. One person was arrested for photographing two topless women at Hippy Hollow, the states only public nudity beach in a state park. There have been several cases of this type.

That case was actually dismissed because the DA felt they couldn't prove the "intent to arouse or gratify". There was a lot of discussion here around this case when it happened and the general consensus was there was no expectation of privacy and what constitutes "intent to arouse".

Meant to add the link to the article: http://www.statesman.com/blogs/cont...2009/04/30/da_nothing_wrong_with_topless.html

I agree about the law being not well written. But the suburban soccer moms (and I am married to one ), who like the nanny state, want it to be as broad as possible so almost anything they don't like can fall into it. It is pretty scary if the definition is determined by the officer on the scene.

 

[Josh66]

...I still can't get over the fact that "improper photography" is a felony.

That's a pretty serious conviction just for taking some pictures...

 

[epp_b]

Taking pictures up some girl's skirt? Fine, lock him up.

Taking a completely harmless and innocent picture of some girl and her mom shopping? This man needs to sue.

Their law is not well written in my opinion.

What is well-written in Texas?

Well first off inside of Wal-Mart is not in public.

Actually, it's a private location that allows public access. That usually means you can photograph all you want until an authority figure tells you stop.

 

[Big]

I don't know man, even though I love photography, if I had a little daughter and I caught some guy taking pictures of her with a cellphone in Wal-Mart, I would kick his... and then call the cops!

 

[Joves]

Well first off inside of Wal-Mart is not in public.

Actually, it's a private location that allows public access. That usually means you can photograph all you want until an authority figure tells you stop.

Ummm no. It is a private area. As is if you are standing in their parking lot. A big part of having your right is using it responsibly.

 

[PhilGarber]

Sure, maybe a 'lil weird but, the "crime" of photography? All this guy needs a book on photography law and he can act as his own lawyer.

 

[TheOtherBob]

Well first off inside of Wal-Mart is not in public.

Actually, it's a private location that allows public access. That usually means you can photograph all you want until an authority figure tells you stop.

Ummm no. It is a private area. As is if you are standing in their parking lot. A big part of having your right is using it responsibly.

Actually, he was right -- it's a privately-owned public area. The distinction between public and private differs depending on the subject matter (speech, privacy, discrimination / equal access, etc.) But for these purposes the question is whether you're in a public space with no expectation of privacy or a private space with an expectation of privacy. The answer's pretty cut and dried -- you have no expectation of privacy in a Wal-Mart. Everyone can see you. You can see everyone. It's "in public." You have an expectation of privacy in your house, in a bathroom, etc. Not in a Wal-Mart.

Now, does that mean you're free to take pictures? Yes and no. Is it illegal to take pictures in a Wal-Mart? Of course not. But Wal-Mart can restrict photo-taking -- just like it can require shoes. It's allowed to make rules. If you do it after being asked to stop (or in violation of a clearly-posted sign), then Wal-Mart could ask you to leave -- refusal to do so would be trespassing. But, absent such a rule, it's not illegal.

That being said:
A) There are photos that violate an expectation of privacy, even in public spaces (i.e. up a skirt or the like).

B) That it isn't illegal...doesn't mean it isn't creepy in some cases.

(However, I do want to say that we can take this "everyone's a child molestor" thing too far. There are evil people out there -- but a world where we raise our kids in cocoons out of a fear that every male may be a potential abuser...it's not really a great world. There are lots of good, innocent reasons to take pictures of kids -- they can be adorable (well, some of them...). It's unfortunate that we jump to the conclusion that any picture of a child is meant for sexual purposes. In some, rare cases it is -- but in the great majority of cases it's not.)

 

[Joves]

It is not a public area. It is private property much like your house that allows the public in there is a difference. While you are shopping in wether it be a mall or, store you have the expectaion of privacy while doing so. When you are in a park, on a sidewalk or, on a roadway you have no expectation of privacy.

 

[epp_b]

^ Oh really? Go ahead, get naked and run around in a Wal-Mart, then try telling your arresting officer, "It's a private place, I have the same expectation of privacy as in my own home!"

 

[TheOtherBob]

It is not a public area. It is private property much like your house that allows the public in there is a difference. While you are shopping in wether it be a mall or, store you have the expectaion of privacy while doing so. When you are in a park, on a sidewalk or, on a roadway you have no expectation of privacy.

Three quick things:

1. They videotape you to watch for shoplifters.
2. You can't take your pants off.
3. Anything you do in there is viewable by anyone.

I think perhaps you have a personal, subjective expectation of privacy in a Wal-Mart -- but, if so, it's an unreasonable one. Sorry, man, it's a public place.

In fact, if you allowed any and all people into your house, it, too, would be a public place for however long you allowed everyone to come in. By inviting the public to invade your privacy, you give up any expectation thereof. You'd have no right to complain that everyone saw your personal effects -- because you invited them in, and left the personal effects within their range of vision. Similarly, if you didn't forbid photography, you'd have no right to complain about it later if someone took pictures. Whatever you make public, you can't simultaneously expect to be private.

In fact, there's a thorny issue of whether a person in their own backyard is in private or public. They're on their private land, sure. But if they're naked and right next to a public road, with no fence...can someone take a picture? It's a little unclear in some jurisdictions (because of other laws targetting paparazzi), but probably yes.

There is a movement, of which this law seems to be a part, towards forbidding certain types of photography even in public places. But that's not because the places are "private" or because there's a reasonable expectation of privacy therein. Rather, it is because lawmakers have decided that some types of public photography have negative social effects and should be banned. The wisdom of that view is...debatable -- but it certainly doesn't mean that otherwise public spaces become private. (You still can't take your pants off. )

 

[KmH]

I don't know man, even though I love photography, if I had a little daughter and I caught some guy taking pictures of her with a cellphone in Wal-Mart, I would kick his... and then call the cops!

And then wonder why the cops were taking you to jail and not him.

About a year after getting out of jail for assault you would then be trying to figure out how the hell you would pay the settlement his attorney won against you in civil court.

Happens just like that every day, somewhere in America as the result of kicking some's @ss.....before they let the cops do their thing.

Sounds good in theory, but usually backfires big time.

 

[Joves]

It is not a public area. It is private property much like your house that allows the public in there is a difference. While you are shopping in wether it be a mall or, store you have the expectaion of privacy while doing so. When you are in a park, on a sidewalk or, on a roadway you have no expectation of privacy.

Three quick things:

1. They videotape you to watch for shoplifters.
2. You can't take your pants off.
3. Anything you do in there is viewable by anyone.

I think perhaps you have a personal, subjective expectation of privacy in a Wal-Mart -- but, if so, it's an unreasonable one. Sorry, man, it's a public place.

In fact, if you allowed any and all people into your house, it, too, would be a public place for however long you allowed everyone to come in. By inviting the public to invade your privacy, you give up any expectation thereof. You'd have no right to complain that everyone saw your personal effects -- because you invited them in, and left the personal effects within their range of vision. Similarly, if you didn't forbid photography, you'd have no right to complain about it later if someone took pictures. Whatever you make public, you can't simultaneously expect to be private.

In fact, there's a thorny issue of whether a person in their own backyard is in private or public. They're on their private land, sure. But if they're naked and right next to a public road, with no fence...can someone take a picture? It's a little unclear in some jurisdictions (because of other laws targetting paparazzi), but probably yes.

There is a movement, of which this law seems to be a part, towards forbidding certain types of photography even in public places. But that's not because the places are "private" or because there's a reasonable expectation of privacy therein. Rather, it is because lawmakers have decided that some types of public photography have negative social effects and should be banned. The wisdom of that view is...debatable -- but it certainly doesn't mean that otherwise public spaces become private. (You still can't take your pants off. )

Untrue but you keep believing that. The store has a right to videotape people in their store. They also have the option of banning you from entering the stores for no reason at all if they choose to and, have you arrested for tresspassing. In public areas you can not be randomly tossed from those areas it is totally different.
And you do have an expectation of privacy not from the owners of the property but, from other people in the store.