Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 24 Jan 2010 (Sunday) 16:36
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Can the police make you delete your pictures?

 
shomat
Senior Member
Avatar
730 posts
Joined Jan 2008
     
Jan 25, 2010 11:57 |  #16

Pheonix1 wrote in post #9462511 (external link)
if it's a mall which is private property, they can require you to dete photos you take.
You must usually obtain permission to photo on private property.
The owners of the property have the right to make you delete the photos you take on their property.
The owners can have you arrested for trespassing at a whim, and then police will force you to delete the photos, or do it for you.

You can alwasy try to recover them later, but dont take any new phtos until you do the recovery.

This is completely false. The act of taking a photograph is not illegal. If you are on private property you can be asked to leave, in which case if you do not comply you are trespassing. The act of trespassing is what's illegal, NOT the photography. If you're dealing with a police officer they need a warrant. If you're dealing with security or some other private party, they're going to have to sue you for the photos.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
TMCCaptured
Senior Member
Avatar
529 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Italy / New Zealand
     
Jan 25, 2010 13:35 as a reply to  @ post 9466344 |  #17

Since this is heading somewhere where it will never be good or constructive, and is off topic I really can not be bothered with a slinging match...just far too easy.

The OP asked a question and I gave a recent example also the NZ Police, if they never did anything wrong then New Zealand would be a perfect place to live...hang on it is for some people, pitty I only spend the summers there.

motion_projekt thanks for the link.


Why Die Wondering?

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Aaron ­ Peabody
Member
Avatar
109 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Everett, WA
     
Jan 25, 2010 14:40 |  #18

shomat wrote in post #9467295 (external link)
This is completely false. The act of taking a photograph is not illegal. If you are on private property you can be asked to leave, in which case if you do not comply you are trespassing. The act of trespassing is what's illegal, NOT the photography. If you're dealing with a police officer they need a warrant. If you're dealing with security or some other private party, they're going to have to sue you for the photos.

I was going to say essentially the same thing, but you beat me to it. In the case of private property which is expressly made available to the public, like a shopping mall, you can be asked to leave (thereby stopping the picture taking) but you cannot be told simply to stop taking pictures and your equipment cannot be confiscated. In addition to that you can take all the pictures you want of a mall or anything else like that if you are on public property while doing so, and the mall can't do a thing about it.

On public property (a sidewalk, city park, etc.) you can take all of the pictures you like.

All of that being said, the police can come up to you and tell you to delete your photos, hand over your memory cards or even your camera. They can arrest you. They can beat you (I'm not saying they would). In any of those actions they would be legally wrong, but that's something that can only be established after the fact, unless you happen to have your lawyer standing right there with you. So you have to decide for yourself what you want to do during and after the fact. I can't tell you what you should do. I can't even say for sure what I would do. All I can say is that the law is far more closely on your side then it would be on the private property owners' or police officers'.


Aaron G. Peabody
Certified Aperture Trainer
http://www.aarongpeabo​dy.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Aaron ­ Peabody
Member
Avatar
109 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Everett, WA
     
Jan 25, 2010 14:44 |  #19

Chairman7w wrote in post #9466344 (external link)
How come nobody ever posts rants getting mad at the wack terrorist nutjobs who brought all this to be? If there weren't the threat of random psycho bombers trying to kill civilians in the name of "religion" than the cops wouldn't be on edge to the extreme they are. Put the blame where it belongs.

Perhaps because the "terrorists" aren't the ones coming up to you on the sidewalk or in the shopping mall and demanding that you delete the photo you just took? I mean, that was the purpose of the original post, after all.

Chairman7w wrote in post #9466344 (external link)
Finally, I've shot in many places with an extreme military or police presence. and it was easy. I walked up to the cops and just said, "Hi, I'm Bob Jones, and I'm a photographer (gave him my card), would it be okay if I got some shots of XYZ? It's a very cool structure and wanted to capture it." Most all the time, they've said "Sure, no problem."

I've also been told no, and I've thanked them and moved on. It's a two way street, we (photogs) can be cool, too.

I think this is exactly the way to handle things.


Aaron G. Peabody
Certified Aperture Trainer
http://www.aarongpeabo​dy.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
asysin2leads
I'm kissing arse
Avatar
6,329 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Lebanon, OH
     
Jan 25, 2010 14:54 |  #20

Chairman7w wrote in post #9466344 (external link)
A couple of thoughts:

1 - I've seen a lot of rants about jerk cops. There's jerk cops just like there's jerk cashiers, jerk congressmen, and jerk race car drivers. There's jerks in all levels of society. From many of the descriptions of incidents, seems like the photogs can be jerks, too.

2 - THIS PORTION EDITED OUT AFTER READING TMCCAPTURED FOLLOW UP EDIT.

3 - How come nobody ever posts rants getting mad at the wack terrorist nutjobs who brought all this to be? If there weren't the threat of random psycho bombers trying to kill civilians in the name of "religion" than the cops wouldn't be on edge to the extreme they are. Put the blame where it belongs.

4 - Finally, I've shot in many places with an extreme military or police presence. and it was easy. I walked up to the cops and just said, "Hi, I'm Bob Jones, and I'm a photographer (gave him my card), would it be okay if I got some shots of XYZ? It's a very cool structure and wanted to capture it." Most all the time, they've said "Sure, no problem." THIS PORTION EDITED OUT AFTER READING TMCCAPTURED FOLLOW UP EDIT.

I've also been told no, and I've thanked them and moved on. It's a two way street, we (photogs) can be cool, too.

Very well put. Even if someone doesn't introduce themselves, how we react to being approached by LEO will go a long way. If we're jerks, you can bet that they are going to push the issue and insist you leave. If we react in a positive and cordial manner, I'll be 100% of the LEO will respond the same way. I've worked in law enforcement and everyone that got smart w/ me when I pulled them over got a ticket. It is YOUR fault that I had to stop you, not mine. I do like the idea of introducing yourself, though. It provides a form of professional courtesy and there is no question why you're there.

shomat wrote in post #9467295 (external link)
This is completely false. The act of taking a photograph is not illegal. If you are on private property you can be asked to leave, in which case if you do not comply you are trespassing. The act of trespassing is what's illegal, NOT the photography. If you're dealing with a police officer they need a warrant. If you're dealing with security or some other private party, they're going to have to sue you for the photos.

I'm not going to delete w/out a court order. I will, however, comply w/ a lawful order and move on. It's when we fail to comply that we're going to get in hot water.


Kevin
https://www.google.com ….com&ctz=Americ​a/New_York (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gkarris
Goldmember
1,882 posts
Joined Jun 2009
     
Jan 25, 2010 15:10 |  #21

shomat wrote in post #9467295 (external link)
This is completely false. The act of taking a photograph is not illegal. If you are on private property you can be asked to leave, in which case if you do not comply you are trespassing. The act of trespassing is what's illegal, NOT the photography. If you're dealing with a police officer they need a warrant. If you're dealing with security or some other private party, they're going to have to sue you for the photos.

Actually, I mentioned in another post - SOMEONE owns the property, whether a person, company, or government. Is "public" really "public"?

In answer to the OP's question:

Well, they're the ones with the gun... :eek:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
thebishopp
Goldmember
1,903 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Indiana
     
Jan 25, 2010 15:12 |  #22

asysin2leads wrote in post #9468536 (external link)
I've worked in law enforcement and everyone that got smart w/ me when I pulled them over got a ticket. It is YOUR fault that I had to stop you, not mine. I do like the idea of introducing yourself, though. It provides a form of professional courtesy and there is no question why you're there.

I've worked in law enforcment too (city) and while I agree with most of this (the parts about being cordial to EACH OTHER) the fact is we are not talking about a traffic violation or some sort of criminal conduct. It is not neccesarily their FAULT (fault implying wrong doing of some sort) if they are just taking photos. Now as far as being called out on a trespassing complaint... depending on the state/city/local ordinances it isn't even trespassing if there are no posted signs and in some states a trespassing charge requires a documented warning of some type.

asysin2leads wrote in post #9468536 (external link)
I'm not going to delete w/out a court order. I will, however, comply w/ a lawful order and move on. It's when we fail to comply that we're going to get in hot water.

I think the question would be what exactly constitutes a "lawfull order". LEOs can't legally enforce an order to move on if there isn't some type of legal reason for doing so such as securing a crime scene and you happen to be within the area they wish to secure, you are somehow blocking traffic or causing an actual and not fabricated safety hazard or disturbance, etc. Several big city departments have already seen some heat for hooking photogs on trumped up charges of this nature.


"Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Also, be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor even implied. Any irrelevancies you can mention will also be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous." My Zen (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Chairman7w
Goldmember
Avatar
1,259 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2009
     
Jan 25, 2010 15:58 |  #23

Aaron Peabody wrote in post #9468471 (external link)
Perhaps because the "terrorists" aren't the ones coming up to you on the sidewalk or in the shopping mall and demanding that you delete the photo you just took? I mean, that was the purpose of the original post, after all.

Heh - a fair statement.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheFloridaShooter
Senior Member
713 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 27
Joined Nov 2008
     
Jan 25, 2010 16:05 |  #24

Here is about 4 hours of research. Photography is not a crime...............

http://carlosmiller.co​m/ (external link)


1Dx MKII | 1Dx | 5D MKIV | 5D MKIII | 5Ds r | 5Ds | 7D MKII | 7D | G16 | G3x | EOS M & M3 | 800 f5.6 | 600 f4 | 400 f2.8 | 300 f2.8 | 200-400 f4 | 100-400 f4.5 - 5.6 II x 2 | 70-200 f2.8 | 14 f2.8 II | 50 f1.2 | 50 1.4 | 85 f1.2 | 135 f2 | 24-70 f2.8 II | 11-24 f4 | 35 f1.4 II | Pentax 645Z | SMC Pentax-DA 645 25mm F4 AL | SMC Pentax-D FA 645 55mm F2.8 AL | Pentax 90mm f/2.8 D FA 645 Macro ED AW SR | SMC Pentax-D FA 645 200mm f/4 IF | SMC Pentax-D FA 645 300mm f/4 ED IF | SMC FA 645 400mm f/5.6 ED IF Lens

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
asysin2leads
I'm kissing arse
Avatar
6,329 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Lebanon, OH
     
Jan 25, 2010 16:48 |  #25

thebishopp wrote in post #9468672 (external link)
I've worked in law enforcment too (city) and while I agree with most of this (the parts about being cordial to EACH OTHER) the fact is we are not talking about a traffic violation or some sort of criminal conduct. It is not neccesarily their FAULT (fault implying wrong doing of some sort) if they are just taking photos. Now as far as being called out on a trespassing complaint... depending on the state/city/local ordinances it isn't even trespassing if there are no posted signs and in some states a trespassing charge requires a documented warning of some type.

In the Hoosier state? Which part? I didn't mean to imply that the one taking pictures was in the wrong. Someone had mentioned being in the mall and I took that concept and ran with it. I didn't get my entire point across. I would have no issues w/ someone taking pictures unless it hindered me from doing my job. The same goes when I am on a fire or EMS scene. I have had PD remove someone who was too close to the scene, but it was for safety's sake. Otherwise, I don't care if they're snapping away. It's the society we live in.


thebishopp wrote in post #9468672 (external link)
I think the question would be what exactly constitutes a "lawfull order". LEOs can't legally enforce an order to move on if there isn't some type of legal reason for doing so such as securing a crime scene and you happen to be within the area they wish to secure, you are somehow blocking traffic or causing an actual and not fabricated safety hazard or disturbance, etc. Several big city departments have already seen some heat for hooking photogs on trumped up charges of this nature.


That's what I was referring too. I don't think I eluded to that though. It's my fault for the lack of clarity. That's how I took shomat's post. I may have mis-read it. ORC 2917.13 (external link) is a pretty blanket code, "Misconduct at Emergency." Also, sometimes my fingers get WAY ahead of my brain.


Kevin
https://www.google.com ….com&ctz=Americ​a/New_York (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
asysin2leads
I'm kissing arse
Avatar
6,329 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Lebanon, OH
     
Jan 25, 2010 16:57 |  #26

TheMissouriShooter wrote in post #9469103 (external link)
Here is about 4 hours of research. Photography is not a crime...............

http://carlosmiller.co​m/ (external link)

In this case (external link), the officer is dead wrong. I think he started the conversation in the right tone, but chose the wrong words. It was only after she refused her name did his demeanor change. Don't get me wrong. I am NOT faulting the woman for what she did. Chances are, the cruisers' dash cams caught all the evidence they needed.

Thanks MOshooter for the link. Interesting reading.


Kevin
https://www.google.com ….com&ctz=Americ​a/New_York (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
thebishopp
Goldmember
1,903 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Indiana
     
Jan 25, 2010 22:45 |  #27

asysin2leads wrote in post #9469382 (external link)
In the Hoosier state? Which part? I didn't mean to imply that the one taking pictures was in the wrong. Someone had mentioned being in the mall and I took that concept and ran with it. I didn't get my entire point across. I would have no issues w/ someone taking pictures unless it hindered me from doing my job. The same goes when I am on a fire or EMS scene. I have had PD remove someone who was too close to the scene, but it was for safety's sake. Otherwise, I don't care if they're snapping away. It's the society we live in.

Kentucky actually. When I got out of active service from Ft. Knox I joined the force in Henderson. Pay sucked (21.5/yr after 3 years) so I moved over the bridge to Evansville and got my P.I./Security License back in 98. Couple of old partners moved here to and tried to talk me into joining EPD but I figured I'd try my hand in the private sector. Made some good money in NOLA after Katrina and Rita as a contractor for Steele and a few others but things have been slow lately (and the GF doesn't like me being gone for months at a time) so I am trying to concentrate more on this photography thing. Besides, it's more fun then civil investigations and insurance fraud & surveilence.

I used to carry a little 35mm with me while "on the job" which I found incredibly handy and I have to admit I never had an issue with someone taking photos as long as they stayed on their side of the yellow tape. I know there were some officers who were paranoid but they had things to be paranoid about if you know what I mean.

asysin2leads wrote in post #9469382 (external link)
That's what I was referring too. I don't think I eluded to that though. It's my fault for the lack of clarity. That's how I took shomat's post. I may have mis-read it. ORC 2917.13 (external link) is a pretty blanket code, "Misconduct at Emergency." Also, sometimes my fingers get WAY ahead of my brain.

It's been awhile but in my dept. "problem" citizens got hooked under Disorderly Conduct (1st Degree A misdemeanor - 2nd Degree B misdemeanor). Usually used as a catchall by some guys when they got pissed off and couldn't think of anything legitimate to charge a person with and it normally got thrown out by the prosecutor. Of course these officers aquired a bad reputation for this and things like stacking but it didn't help the knucklehead they took to jail lol (not that I agree with it, in fact I don't, but I have developed an odd sense of humour over time).

It seems that codes such as DC, failure to obeys, Misconducts, etc. are deliberly written in a blanket type way. I personally believe it is to enable an LEO to excercise discretion and give them a tool they can use however like most things (tools, alchohol, food, etc.) it can be abused.

In anycase it seems we agree.


"Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Also, be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor even implied. Any irrelevancies you can mention will also be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous." My Zen (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
13,102 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 619
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
Jan 26, 2010 08:24 as a reply to  @ thebishopp's post |  #28

In the US, there is only one circumstance in which--by law--you can be ordered to delete images. That is when you are on a military facility which has been explicitly identified as an installation that must be secured against all photography (not all military installations are so designated). In that case, the military commander has the authority to "review and censor" any photography taken of that installation.

There is no other circumstance in which a private or government official is permitted by law to order you to destroy your own property without a court order. They can arrest you if you're breaking the law and they can take custody of your property as evidence. Under some state laws, in connection with drug offenses they can confiscate your property permanently.

But they can't order you to destroy your property.


TANSTAAFL--The Only Unbreakable Rule in Photography

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
asysin2leads
I'm kissing arse
Avatar
6,329 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Lebanon, OH
     
Jan 26, 2010 09:25 |  #29

RDKirk wrote in post #9473520 (external link)
In the US, there is only one circumstance in which--by law--you can be ordered to delete images. That is when you are on a military facility which has been explicitly identified as an installation that must be secured against all photography (not all military installations are so designated). In that case, the military commander has the authority to "review and censor" any photography taken of that installation.

Good point, but I think these incidents are few and far between. It is still lawful to be on public property and shoot into military installations.

RDKirk wrote in post #9473520 (external link)
There is no other circumstance in which a private or government official is permitted by law to order you to destroy your own property without a court order. They can arrest you if you're breaking the law and they can take custody of your property as evidence. Under some state laws, in connection with drug offenses they can confiscate your property permanently.

There is a big difference from taking pictures lawfully and a camera being used in a commission of a crime or being the fruit of a crime. For instance, a few years back when those idiots went around video taping themselves shoot pedestrians w/ paintballs, the camera and tape was used as evidence. If someone was on the street corner video taping whatever and they happen to catch the same crime being committed, they are not required to turn over their tape as evidence w/out a court order. They can, on their own, turn it over to police to aid in the investigation.

All good points, RDKirk.


Kevin
https://www.google.com ….com&ctz=Americ​a/New_York (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
13,102 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 619
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
Jan 26, 2010 09:39 as a reply to  @ asysin2leads's post |  #30

Good point, but I think these incidents are few and far between. It is still lawful to be on public property and shoot into military installations.

In those cases where a military facility is supposed to be secured against photography, I would expect that commander will erect sight shields where necessary to protect specific sensitive areas from at least casual ground-level photography. That's a pretty obvious precaution--anything less than that would be dereliction of duty--he certainly can't expect to catch everyone driving by his base with a cell phone camera. There will also be plenty of warning signs posted.

There is a big difference from taking pictures lawfully and a camera being used in a commission of a crime or being the fruit of a crime. For instance, a few years back when those idiots went around video taping themselves shoot pedestrians w/ paintballs, the camera and tape was used as evidence. If someone was on the street corner video taping whatever and they happen to catch the same crime being committed, they are not required to turn over their tape as evidence w/out a court order. They can, on their own, turn it over to police to aid in the investigation.

In a practical manner of thinking, the issue is really only an issue if the photographer is otherwise not committing a crime.

If a crime is involved, the images themselves might be material evidence--that would be determined by someone other than the arresting officer. The arresting officer could not delete the images legally. That would be like an arresting officer deciding to mop up the blood at a murder scene.

There just is no legal reason whatsoever for a photographer being ordered to delete images--except in the one circumstance I mentioned. And as you say, that's going to be pretty rare, and not a surprise when it happens.


TANSTAAFL--The Only Unbreakable Rule in Photography

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

13,328 views & 0 likes for this thread
Can the police make you delete your pictures?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is quadrentau
2089 guests, 203 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.