Man arrested for taking pictures at HEB

[Nathan Explosion]

Exactly what crime are people breaking?

Privacy laws. However, people will try to discourage you from taking pictures outside a building. This is legal because it falls under public domain.

And you can actually take photos in public buildings like a courthouse. Again, people will probably try to discourage you from doing this, but it is legal.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Privacy laws.

So you will have me arrested if I take photos inside an HEB?

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

I'm pretty certain that while it may be company policy, it's not against the law.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

I am a criminal.

I was in Target this evening and had to take a picture of this.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Privacy laws. However, people will try to discourage you from taking pictures outside a building. This is legal because it falls under public domain.

And you can actually take photos in public buildings like a courthouse. Again, people will probably try to discourage you from doing this, but it is legal.

I call bull . I've taken hundreds of photos inside buildings, like say the AT&T Centre and Taco Cabana and bars and malls. Wanna see my Taco Cabana panormama? The didn't say anything about it.

This guy was taking photos of little girls, that's why they nabbed him, no other reason.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

NM.

[exstatic]

That would be YOUR aisle, JB. It's for Mexican Asians, and says so.

[Nathan Explosion]

I call bull . I've taken hundreds of photos inside buildings, like say the AT&T Centre and Taco Cabana and bars and malls. Wanna see my Taco Cabana panormama? The didn't say anything about it.

This guy was taking photos of little girls, that's why they nabbed him, no other reason.

As a journalism student, I can tell you that after having a lecture with the head of the NPPA, who resides in San Antonio and works for the Rumbo, yes, it is illegal to take photos inside a private establishment without permission.

I had to meet with the GM of Pat O'Brien's because of this once.

These were the images.






The man was not arrested for taking photos. What I said was he was probably noticed for taking photos. You see, not only do I know the rules as a student, I also worked in the photo lab, and we had a customer who used to take photos of girls asses inside the store. We had to tell him to stop or he would be kicked out of the store because it's illegal to take photos in a private establishment without permission. Add onto that that he was taking photos of our customers, and we had just cause to kick him out.

It's up to the discretion of the employees and management as to what's allowable and what isn't. I've had many customers take photos of each other inside the store. Harmless. I've also had vendors take photos of displays inside the store, and they all had to have permission from our unit director. Anyone who takes photos inside the store of the store itself or its displays, departments and what not, has to have permission from management. Ask any of the the local news station cameramen. Since our store is very close in proximity to downtown, our store tends to have lots of cameramen coming and going for various reasons. The last time they were in there was when the new Tony Parker CD came out.

Again, it's a matter of public vs private domain.

This should help.

http://www.rcfp.org/photoguide/intro.html

The flight attendant could not claim an invasion of her privacy occurred, however, because she knowingly spoke to a member of the media about a newsworthy topic and was filmed in public view from a public place. In rejecting her claim, the majority of the federal appellate court in Pasadena noted that the producer "[d]id not enter her home. There was no evidence that any intimate details of anyones life were recorded."

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

As a journalism student, I can tell you that after having a lecture with the head of the NPPA, who resides in San Antonio and works for the Rumbo, yes, it is illegal to take photos inside a private establishment without permission.

I had to meet with the GM of Pat O'Brien's because of this once.

These were the images.






The man was not arrested for taking photos. What I said was he was probably noticed for taking photos. You see, not only do I know the rules as a student, I also worked in the photo lab, and we had a customer who used to take photos of girls asses inside the store. We had to tell him to stop or he would be kicked out of the store because it's illegal to take photos in a private establishment without permission. Add onto that that he was taking photos of our customers, and we had just cause to kick him out.

It's up to the discretion of the employees and management as to what's allowable and what isn't. I've had many customers take photos of each other inside the store. Harmless. I've also had vendors take photos of displays inside the store, and they all had to have permission from our unit director. Anyone who takes photos inside the store of the store itself or its displays, departments and what not, has to have permission from management. Ask any of the the local news station cameramen. Since our store is very close in proximity to downtown, our store tends to have lots of cameramen coming and going for various reasons. The last time they were in there was when the new Tony Parker CD came out.

Again, it's a matter of public vs private domain.

This should help.

http://www.rcfp.org/photoguide/intro.html

It seems that you and I are in a discussion over word choice. "Crime" to me is a criminal act. IIRC, taking photos on private property which are then granted the expectation of privacy result in a civil tort, not criminal.

I'm not saying people have the right to not follow the private owner's request to cease or leave, I'm only saying it's not a criminal act.

As a journalist myself...

RCFP says the issue of whether the media have the right to cover breaking news on Private Property – residences, businesses, shopping centers, nonpublic housing developments – awaits a Supreme Court test.

Of course, reporters frequently cover fires and police activity on private property, often at the invitation of a public safety agency. With such consent, journalists "should have little or no problem gaining access or defending coverage from any trespass and privacy suits," the group says.

But reporters who enter private property to cover news without invitation or consent can face lawsuits for trespassing or invasion of privacy.

RCPF says, "Courts frequently focus on whether the media had consent either from the owner or from law enforcement officials to enter the property to gather news….In many cases, journalists enter without asking permission and the owner is not present to object, or is present but fails to voice objection. The court must then determine whether the owner's silence amounted to 'implied consent.'"

(The site is down, so here is the link to the Google cache)

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a

Again, I think I'm stuck on one word, as I tend to get sometimes. It becomes a criminal act for the trespass one would likely face if they failed to acknowledge the wishes of the private property owner, but the act of photographing on private property is not illegal.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

The man was not arrested for taking photos. What I said was he was probably noticed for taking photos. You see, not only do I know the rules as a student, I also worked in the photo lab, and we had a customer who used to take photos of girls asses inside the store. We had to tell him to stop or he would be kicked out of the store because it's illegal to take photos in a private establishment without permission. Add onto that that he was taking photos of our customers, and we had just cause to kick him out.

It's up to the discretion of the employees and management as to what's allowable and what isn't. I've had many customers take photos of each other inside the store. Harmless. I've also had vendors take photos of displays inside the store, and they all had to have permission from our unit director. Anyone who takes photos inside the store of the store itself or its displays, departments and what not, has to have permission from management. Ask any of the the local news station cameramen. Since our store is very close in proximity to downtown, our store tends to have lots of cameramen coming and going for various reasons.

Those statements, while correct from a permission standpoint, show that the act itself is not a criminal act. Your statement says it'd be your discretion as to whether a crime is taking place, and not that of law enforcement.

Regardless, I think we might need a ruling from FromWayDowntown, Kris or LittleBlackJersey.

[Ignite]

i wonder if that person is one of the dude on the site that posted about picking up a checkout chick at HEB???

LMAOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

[Nathan Explosion]

Almost all law is subject to interpretation though. That's why we have judges and what not.

A tricky one had to do with child pornography. Lots of times parents take pictures of their kids in the tub or on the toilet. Is it some sicko taking photos, or just parents taking embarrassing photos of their children because that's what parents do?

And there was one time when this girl brought in nude photos of herself. The thing was, she was a minor. Assuming that she was a minor, we couldn't reproduce the photos as that's illegal. At the same time though, we couldn't really report her as it was herself taking photos. She was clearly a high school student (some of the photos were taken at school and in her uniform), but she could have been 18.

It's all about interpretation. But yes, taking photos inside a private establishment without permission is illegal. Like I said, it's open to interpretation, but under the strictest interpretations it is illegal as it's against the law. You're focusing on the criminal aspect because as a journalist, you know that one word can change the entire meaning of a phrase or even the the way it's going to be read. 3 years of speech classes can teach you that as well.

Saying something illegal is basically saying that it's criminal. But one sounds much more powerful than the other. Also remember, there are different types of crimes, and this one would be considered a civil crime, although I don't claim to be a lawyer so I can't really be sure of that.

[Nathan Explosion]

Of course, reporters frequently cover fires and police activity on private property, often at the invitation of a public safety agency. With such consent, journalists "should have little or no problem gaining access or defending coverage from any trespass and privacy suits," the group says.

But reporters who enter private property to cover news without invitation or consent can face lawsuits for trespassing or invasion of privacy.

From your own quote, your just proving my point. That in a nuts was what I was saying all along. But again, it is open to interpretation. Another example.

Was I speeding, or taking my pregnant GF to the hospital because she was in labor? It's important to determine what was going on because one can get you a ticket and the other a police escort. Again, another law open to interpretation.

Even our greatest do ent (US Cons ution) is open to debate. Again, that's why we have judges, to interpret the law. Are you saying that because almost all law is open to interpretation, that there are no criminal acts? I highly doubt it, but it could be spun that way, right? (A Future spin doctor in the making right now by the way.)

Was it murder, or self defense? A former friend of my dad is going to face that question soon. He's a bar owner and his bar kept getting broken into, so he stayed at the bar overnight one night. Someone tried to break in, so he shot and killed the guy. Obviously this is a more extreme case, but it shows how even the most clean cut laws still have wiggle room in them.