Re: [Leica] Cops run amok

["Bryan Caldwell" <bcaldwell@softcom.net>]

Eric,

You certainly can argue that you have a First Amendment right to exhibit a
picture that you didn't take. I just don't think that the free speech
guarantee applies to taking a picture - much as I would like to see it
apply.

I know all about prior restraints - they don't apply to the taking of a
photograph by a private individual.

As to the Fourth Amendment - remember that it does not forbid searches by
the government. It forbids "unreasonable" searches. Searches with warrants
are presumed reasonable, but there are circumstances in which warrantless
searches are also deemed reasonable. And, as evidenced by the U.S. Supreme
Court this past week, the grounds for reasonable warrantless searches are
expanding.

Note that I'm not happy with the current state of the law - I'm a criminal
defense attorney <g>, and I fight these battles every day.

Bryan


- -----Original Message-----
From: Eric Welch <ewelch@ponyexpress.net>
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Date: Friday, April 09, 1999 7:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Cops run amok


>At 09:59 PM 4/8/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>Displaying a photograph would more likely be found to be an
>>expressive act of "speech," but I'm not sure about the taking of the shot.
>
>You can't express (exhibit) it if they won't let you take it. It's called
>prior restraint, which is legally only applied to publications, but as far
>as I'm concerned, every person has the same right to not be censored, not
>just the press.
>
>>As to the second part of your post, do you mean the Fourth Amendment
>>instead of the Fifth?
>
>Oops, yep, I meant the fourth. Unreasonable search and seizure applies.
>
>
>Eric Welch
>St. Joseph, MO
>http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch
>
>Buddhist to hotdog vendor: "Make me One with everything"
>