When did the U.S. Supreme Court make the "privacy" ruling?

When did the USC first make the ruling "There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place" and what was the name of the case (xxx Vs. yyy)?

I'd like to read up on it a bit to head off problems with my camera out in public.

the criminal case that first dealt with legitimate expection of privacy is Katz v. US (1967). However it held that just because you're in public it doesn't mean you don't have a LEoP. There is also Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971) which deals with plain view and therefore LEoP.

Since then there has been many other cases but that's basically where it started. However for photography the best general rule is if you're on public property you can take pictures of anything you can see, the exception being bathrooms. Search on here for "photographers rights" and you'll find a pdf that has a what to do if guide.

Now realistically speaking if a cop is hassling you I wouldn't go quoting Katz or any other case. It's typically best to just leave if a cops tells you to leave. Feel free to ask him (or her) if what you're doing is illegal, if they say no then ask what the problem is. If they say yes then ask what law you are breaking.

Things completely change when you're on private property however and gets worse when you're on public property taking pictures of private property because security guards know less about law than a beaver.

Katz, from the Wikipedia article I read seems to be about expanding/defining the powers of Federal government Vs. the fourth amendment.

What's LEoP?

In this thread I talked about having problems with some parents on a school field trip. It turns out that the parent being the leading "**** stirrer" (who, before approaching me, ran around getting people all upset about my camera) is a cop in a department adjoins the agency which would come to the location of the field trip.

I've decided that next year I'm going to stand my ground and shoot whatever the hell I think will be a good shot. To do this I want to provide as much photography-related legal precedent as I can to head off problems before they start.

My greatest joy will be to tell that parent/cop if he doesn't go away he'll run the risk of having to explain to his chief why he's being charged with a crime. Mostly though, I just want to take preemptive measures to make sure the BS doesn't happen again. There was much more drama than what I saw, and if I can do one little thing to prevent it I'll give it a shot. (Especially if it means making that drama-queen dad/cop shut his pie hole.)

LEoP = Legal Expectation of Privacy

Canonista wrote in post #4581028
Katz, from the Wikipedia article I read seems to be about expanding/defining the powers of Federal government Vs. the fourth amendment.

What's LEoP?

In this thread I talked about having problems with some parents on a school field trip. It turns out that the parent being the leading "**** stirrer" (who, before approaching me, ran around getting people all upset about my camera) is a cop in a department adjoins the agency which would come to the location of the field trip.

I've decided that next year I'm going to stand my ground and shoot whatever the hell I think will be a good shot. To do this I want to provide as much photography-related legal precedent as I can to head off problems before they start.

My greatest joy will be to tell that parent/cop if he doesn't go away he'll run the risk of having to explain to his chief why he's being charged with a crime. Mostly though, I just want to take preemptive measures to make sure the BS doesn't happen again. There was much more drama than what I saw, and if I can do one little thing to prevent it I'll give it a shot. (Especially if it means making that drama-queen dad/cop shut his pie hole.)

The 4th amendment part deals with whether Katz had a legitimate expectation of privacy (LEoP) when making that phone call in public.

Now for your hope to quote case law to a cop, you'll get arrested, seriously. Cops don't care about case law, that's what court and the judge is for. Telling a parent case law will fall on deaf ears and they'll either leave you alone or call the cops anyway. When the cops get there and you start spouting all this legal stuff they'll enforce the law how they see it. Cops don't have to give you the rights you're entitled to via the constitution, they will and do violate civil rights all the time.

So while you may win your day in court and a cop might get a slap on the wrist, it'll be after you've been arrested, booked, maybe even pepper sprayed or tazered, and then hopefully bailed out.

I know that sounds bleak and like we're in China but that's seriously what can happen. I'm not saying it'll happen for sure, most places you'll just be asked to leave, but if you refuse to leave expect what I said above to happen. Is it wrong? yeah, but it's what really happens.

Deadpass, I have a friend in the pool's jurisdiction. I can do advance work so if the police are called, they're primed with the right info.