Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/01/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On 1/30/02 5:18 AM, "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >>> Hi Bryan, >>> >>>> prohibit [taking pictures in private places] >>> >>> What can they do to prohibit me? What exactly does prohibit >> mean? Can they >>> physically take my camera from me or even remove the film and >> keep it, or >>> even the camera? Can they only ask me to not do it? What, >> exactly CAN they >>> do to prohibit me? >>> >>> Austin > > Hi Bryan, > >> The >> situation is really no different than if someone came onto your front lawn >> and began exercising their 'right' to speak and ignored your requests to >> stop. > > I already understand all that...and really wasn't interested in the trespass > issue... > >> As for taking a photographer's film, that is unlikely, although it's not >> inconceivable that some sort of civil action could lead to an injunction >> preventing its use - and certainly preventing its use for any kind of >> profit. > > I meant prohibit you, as what physically can they do to you while you are in > the store to prohibit you from taking pictures? Obviously, they can stand > in front of you...but what about touching you, or the camera? > > Sorry, I thought this was a rather simple question... > > Austin > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html Austin, I thought it was a rather simple answer. The owner of a Starbucks is no different than any other owner of property when it comes to someone on their property without their permission. I can't be much simpler than that. They can do exactly the same things that you could do if someone marched onto your front lawn and began taking pictures without your permission and refused to stop or leave. Do you have the right to take their camera/film? I don't think so. I don't know what you're looking for - but you're not going to hear from me that anyone (non-law enforcement) has the right to take cameras/film on the spot. If a patron in a retail establishment is breaking the law (i.e., trespassing, interfering with customers, violating a previous court order to stay away, etc.) most jurisdictions have some sort of statute based on the common-law notion of "shopkeeper's privilege" which allows the owner to use 'reasonable' force to detain an individual while the police are summoned. This is how most shoplifters are apprehended. This would, of course, only apply when picture-taking rose to a violation of the law because of one of the circumstances I've mentioned above. What is "reasonable" force? This is something a jury might be called upon to decide should the detainee decide to sue. This concept is really not much different than that of making a "citizen's arrest." Why would you detain someone who was trespassing? So that they could be arrested and prosecuted. Things change a bit if our fictional Starbucks photographer has previously been successfully prosecuted for trespassing at the same location. As part of a successful prosecution, he or she would probably have been probably ordered by the court to stay away and placed on, at least, informal probation (again, there can be slight differences from jurisdiction to jurisdiction). Then, a subsequent incident is no longer just trespassing, it becomes disobedience of a court order and a violation of probation. Trespassing is crime for which the penalties are initially rather light, but can escalate rather quickly upon subsequent offenses. Again, as simple as I can make it. The owner of a Starbucks is no different - - has no greater or fewer rights - than any other property owner. Bryan - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html