"Ill have to ask for youre film as well..."

mysteryscribe · May 23, 2007

And as I said before:

the next thing you hear from a cop, who also knows your rights is: You Have the right to remain silent ect.. You are under arrest for criminal tresspass and I will have to hold your camera as evidence until this comes to trial in about a year. It's up to you..... I am absolutely sure this is THEIR right in the case mentioned above....

If you push therr buttons and they have a reason to shut you down, they will. Cops have been known to take it personal when an individual fails the attitude test. Been on both sides of the desk in an interview room.

skieur · May 23, 2007

mysteryscribe said:
And as I said before:

the next thing you hear from a cop, who also knows your rights is: You Have the right to remain silent ect.. You are under arrest for criminal tresspass and I will have to hold your camera as evidence until this comes to trial in about a year. It's up to you..... I am absolutely sure this is THEIR right in the case mentioned above....

Actually a camera is not evidence of tresspass and holding it requires a warrant from a judge.

skieur

mysteryscribe · May 23, 2007

Actually you are right, in the case of simple tresspass, but not in criminal. If i could make a prima facia case that you entered with the intent of setting up a burglaryat least possible to use the warehouse as storage for something worse wink wink, which I could only establish with the contents of the camera. I simple state to judge at the time of the court hearing several weeks later, that I observed you with the camera and at the time I saw you, you were pointing it at a surveilence camera. That led me to believe it was more than simple treasspass. I believe at that time the camera becomes an element of the criminal treasspass. Were you photographing secruity on the site. I believed at the time your honor the the accused was photographing the secruity system of the building to plan a burglary.. I needed to process the film and use it in evidence against him. Since the camera was evidence in the crime by the simple fact that a police officer saw the defendant in a place he knew was restricted. The defendant was photographing the security system. So the camera was evidence and was fair game to be used as evidence and the images as well. At least that would be my reasoning for taking the camera into evidence and storing it till the trial. Im not sure your lawyer could get it back before the trial date. Then if I lost it would be sorry I made an honest mistake.

If I didn't want to go that route, I would just take the camera as property in your possesion at the time of arrest. Property to be safeguarded by ME. Until you are booked. You can't go into the slammer holding your nikon or your car keys. Oh that's right your car is In the impound yard anyway. I have to hold the camera till after you are arraigned before the magistrate or judge depending on how it is done in your juristiction. At which time bail will be set pending your court appearance. Then when you make bail you could claim your camera and other possessions. Then you could call have your lawyer drive you back to your car. Fat chance. Or you could call a family member to do it, and explain to them how you got tossed into the slammer to protect your right to keep a $2 roll of film or to keep you memory card from being cleaned.

Cost of lawyer... impound fee for towing the car.... bail bondsman cost... cab fare to the impound.. and a couple of hours in the slammer. All for a few shots of a deserted building.

OF COURSE IT'S THE PRINCIPLE OF THE THING

You would be surprised in the real world how few people think that kind of inconvenience is worth a roll of film .....

Sorry professor it just don't work that way. In some point the cost of keeping a $2 roll of film or not cleaning a card becomes prohibative. Explaining to your wife why it cost you 200 bucks for the picture of an empty warehouse is going to be hard, especially if she goes to court and finds out how easy it would have been for you to back down anywhere along the line.

Your statement about as is my right will come in and sound like a dodge to keep the illegal image. If you were breaking the law by being there it has to be an image gained illegally therefore an illegal image. I think that is how the law convolutes it.

And that isn't even going into the african version of the bullet in the head for the wiseassed photographer.

highwoodhiker · May 26, 2007

d1a1s1 said:
Looks like someone has beat me to it. Great pictures too. He doesn't explain how he got in though...hmmm

http://www.opacity.us/gallery103_lockdown.htm

It's probably the security guard. :lol:

You should appply for his position when he leaves.

mysteryscribe · May 26, 2007

apply for his job is the best idea yet.

Riggaberto · May 27, 2007

Well you dont have to give up the images, but cant they report you for tresspassing if they dont like your attitude, no?

skieur · May 27, 2007

mysteryscribe said:
Actually you are right, in the case of simple tresspass, but not in criminal. If i could make a prima facia case that you entered with the intent of setting up a burglaryat least possible to use the warehouse as storage for something worse wink wink, which I could only establish with the contents of the camera. I simple state to judge at the time of the court hearing several weeks later, that I observed you with the camera and at the time I saw you, you were pointing it at a surveilence camera. .

You could not make a prima facia case at least in Canada and probably in the US too, unless I had some criminal background and previous arrests.

skieur

coastietech · May 27, 2007

mysteryscribe said:
Actually you are right, in the case of simple tresspass, but not in criminal. If i could make a prima facia case that you entered with the intent of setting up a burglaryat least possible to use the warehouse as storage for something worse wink wink, which I could only establish with the contents of the camera. I simple state to judge at the time of the court hearing several weeks later, that I observed you with the camera and at the time I saw you, you were pointing it at a surveilence camera. That led me to believe it was more than simple treasspass. I believe at that time the camera becomes an element of the criminal treasspass. Were you photographing secruity on the site. I believed at the time your honor the the accused was photographing the secruity system of the building to plan a burglary.. I needed to process the film and use it in evidence against him. Since the camera was evidence in the crime by the simple fact that a police officer saw the defendant in a place he knew was restricted. The defendant was photographing the security system. So the camera was evidence and was fair game to be used as evidence and the images as well. At least that would be my reasoning for taking the camera into evidence and storing it till the trial. Im not sure your lawyer could get it back before the trial date. Then if I lost it would be sorry I made an honest mistake.

If I didn't want to go that route, I would just take the camera as property in your possesion at the time of arrest. Property to be safeguarded by ME. Until you are booked. You can't go into the slammer holding your nikon or your car keys. Oh that's right your car is In the impound yard anyway. I have to hold the camera till after you are arraigned before the magistrate or judge depending on how it is done in your juristiction. At which time bail will be set pending your court appearance. Then when you make bail you could claim your camera and other possessions. Then you could call have your lawyer drive you back to your car. Fat chance. Or you could call a family member to do it, and explain to them how you got tossed into the slammer to protect your right to keep a $2 roll of film or to keep you memory card from being cleaned.

Cost of lawyer... impound fee for towing the car.... bail bondsman cost... cab fare to the impound.. and a couple of hours in the slammer. All for a few shots of a deserted building.

OF COURSE IT'S THE PRINCIPLE OF THE THING

You would be surprised in the real world how few people think that kind of inconvenience is worth a roll of film .....

Sorry professor it just don't work that way. In some point the cost of keeping a $2 roll of film or not cleaning a card becomes prohibative. Explaining to your wife why it cost you 200 bucks for the picture of an empty warehouse is going to be hard, especially if she goes to court and finds out how easy it would have been for you to back down anywhere along the line.

Your statement about as is my right will come in and sound like a dodge to keep the illegal image. If you were breaking the law by being there it has to be an image gained illegally therefore an illegal image. I think that is how the law convolutes it.

And that isn't even going into the african version of the bullet in the head for the wiseassed photographer.

Its LEO's like you that give all LEO's a bad name. Your post screams jack booted thug. I deal with LEOs like you all the time. I am a huge gun rights activist and quite a few cops don't think anyone other than them should own guns so they try an bully people and make them think what they are doing is wrong when in fact it isn't. I verse myself in the law fairly well because of cops like you. You try to play the law in a way that isn't right because you don't like someones attitude. That is unprofessional and extremely dishonorable. But thats ok, because cops like you make people like me rich off of lawsuits. Oh and by the way I have no problems with LEO's. I have quite a few friends that are LEO's and I am considered a LEO. I do have a problem with Jack booted thugs. And your posts sound like a very typical jack booted thug. Essentially your posts amount to "do as I say or I will make your life hell." That attitude is what shows LEOs in a poor light and it's what gets them in trouble. And one day you will try that with someone like me who is well versed in his rights and that person will do everything in their power to get you fired.

coastietech · May 27, 2007

Not to mention the fact that the worst person to talk about laws with is a LEO. It's ashame that American citizens have come to take a LEOs word as law. Very rarely do people question something that a LEO says, this is what gives them their perceived power. As a citizen you have rights take the time to learn them and question people when they attempt to take them away from you.

abraxas · May 28, 2007

"I simple state to judge at the time of the court hearing several weeks later, that I observed you with the camera and at the time I saw you, you were pointing it at a surveilence camera. ."

Is the photo the surveilence camera took in evidence?

Garbz · May 28, 2007

For those non Americans among us I assume LEO is law enforcement officer? Police or otherwise?

We've had a case in Sydney were the police arrested someone who was taking photographs of two sleeping backpackers on Bondai beach. Confiscated the camera, took the guy back to the station claiming he is what's wrong with society (they assumed the worst ofcourse. Camera + Beach must = pedophile). Anyway the version of the story I heard is that this guy turned around and sued the police for all sorts of missuse of law charges. Anyway turns out the guy was Rex Dupain the son of one of Australia's most highly regarded photographers who was writing a book about the beach in question.

I've also had a run-in with a police officer who pulled me over for "dangerous driving" after I got cut off and was forced to slam on the breaks. When he threatened to try and suspend my licence because I was "just another 19 year old idiot on the road" which he clearly couldn't do I spent about 10 minutes shouting at him.

Really LEOs are our friends and we will treat them with respect and honour if we are returned the favour.

mysteryscribe · May 28, 2007

Sweetie I'm not a cop. I'm a retired professional photographer. So you are starting with the wrong premise. I was a police photographer and a cop many years ago. Now as to your rant about cops and being badge heavy. Wear one a while then get back to me.

Ps. I'm not sure I ever saw a pair of jack boots on a US cop. I have seen paratrooper boots.

The discussion was about the real world not a some pie in the sky I have my rights. If you think the right to take a picture of a building on private property is worth all the bs then hey shoot the damn thing.

mysteryscribe · May 28, 2007

abraxas said:
"I simple state to judge at the time of the court hearing several weeks later, that I observed you with the camera and at the time I saw you, you were pointing it at a surveilence camera. ."

Is the photo the surveilence camera took in evidence?

Gee your honor I saw him point it I had no way of knowing if he took it or not.

mysteryscribe · May 28, 2007

coastietech said:
Not to mention the fact that the worst person to talk about laws with is a LEO. It's ashame that American citizens have come to take a LEOs word as law. Very rarely do people question something that a LEO says, this is what gives them their perceived power. As a citizen you have rights take the time to learn them and question people when they attempt to take them away from you.

Okay guys you just refuse to give them your film or wipe your card when YOU are on private marked property stand on your rights... LOL

Pss... I'm telling you how it is and you want to make it a personal thing. Problem is I'm not a cop and cops aren't the enemy... Real world is seldom what you think it should be cause everybody wants it different.