Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Austin, >>Store/mall policy does not have anything to do with the law, period. They have no right to take your film, much less your camera, though they can ask you to leave. If you refuse, they can not physically touch you, they must call the Police to have you removed, unless you are causing or I believe threatening to cause someone else (possibly some thing too) physical harm.<< This is not entirely true. First, a store/mall policy must comport with the law or the owner is subject to an injunction allowing the prohibited activity. Second, while an owner (or their employee/agent) does not have the legal power to seize your property, they do, in most U.S. jurisdictions, have the right to detain you in order to investigate criminal activity. This detention can be physical if it remains reasonable under the circumstances. If you are asked to leave and you refuse, you are committing a criminal trespass and you can be physically detained while the police are called. In most places this is called the merchant/shopkeeper/librarian's privilege. It usually comes into play in shoplifting cases, but applies in other instances of criminal activity. It may be helpful to view these store/mall cases from the First Amendment perspective of the property owner. Most of the litigation in this area has come in cases where the property owner objects to being forced to furnish a forum for a position with which they disagree. For instance, allowing labor picketers to enter an enclosed shopping mall (privately owned) in order to picket at the door of a specific store. Or, allowing anti-fur demonstrators access to the interior common area of a mall so that they can demonstrate in front of a clothing store. Taking a photograph is an act of expression and, in the U.S., has First Amendment implications. But the First Amendment applies to government action - not private action. And, First Amendment protection is not absolute. The government may impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on First Amendment expression so long as it does so in a content neutral manner. Private property owners are not (generally) required under the federal constitution to allow First Amendment rights to those who enter onto their property. Bryan - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 2:37 PM Subject: RE: [Leica] Home depot and the rest