Photog Arrested In Texas

Photos were taken at a street fair. Here is the article.

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/5086442/detail.html

Now here is a quote from the article by police.

You're committing an offense if, a) you're taking a picture of a person who hasn't given you consent to do so, and b) that picture is for the sexual gratification of any person," Douglas said.

I have a real problem with a) especially at a public street fair. I goes against everything I have understood about shooting in a public place. Of course this is Texas but still. Any opinions?

--

John

John Burns said:

Photos were taken at a street fair. Here is the article.

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/5086442/detail.html

Now here is a quote from the article by police.

You're committing an offense if, a) you're taking a picture of a
person who hasn't given you consent to do so, and b) that picture
is for the sexual gratification of any person," Douglas said.

I have a real problem with a) especially at a public street fair.
I goes against everything I have understood about shooting in a
public place. Of course this is Texas but still. Any opinions?

--

John

Click to expand...

Apparently he was obvious in what he was shooting, because the article says, "Investigators said they found more than 12 photographs that depicted specific parts of women's and children's bodies on Vogel's camera."

I don't have a problem with the arrest based on this, but I'm sure others will feel differently.

Maureen

it's A and B. without B, there is no problem.

John Burns said:

Photos were taken at a street fair. Here is the article.

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/5086442/detail.html

Now here is a quote from the article by police.

You're committing an offense if, a) you're taking a picture of a
person who hasn't given you consent to do so, and b) that picture
is for the sexual gratification of any person," Douglas said.

I have a real problem with a) especially at a public street fair.
I goes against everything I have understood about shooting in a
public place. Of course this is Texas but still. Any opinions?

--

John

Click to expand...

I would kick the cr@pt out of someone if they were taking sexual type pics of my kids. Freakin pervert.

I also read it as A and B being together meaning that your taking pictures without someones consent AND using those pictures for sexual gratification. The meaning I take from this is that its ok to take photos of people in public places without their consent as long as those pictures are not pervert pics that this guy was taking. Freakin pervert.

Those are my thoughts on the matter
Jason

John Burns said:

Photos were taken at a street fair. Here is the article.

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/5086442/detail.html

Now here is a quote from the article by police.

You're committing an offense if, a) you're taking a picture of a
person who hasn't given you consent to do so, and b) that picture
is for the sexual gratification of any person," Douglas said.

I have a real problem with a) especially at a public street fair.
I goes against everything I have understood about shooting in a
public place. Of course this is Texas but still. Any opinions?

--

John

Click to expand...

no photos shown. we have no clue to what the cop thinks is
sexual.
i wonder why at a street festival,this cop had nothing to do except

follow someone around for an hour.if there was so little to do why was he even there?

The operative word is the AND between A and B.

In other words, A is NOT a problem if the "B" requirement is not also met.

Make sense?

charli said:

no photos shown. we have no clue to what the cop thinks is
sexual.
i wonder why at a street festival,this cop had nothing to do except
follow someone around for an hour.if there was so little to do why
was he even there?

Click to expand...

This isn't something we read about very often, so I'm guessing some astute parent(s) saw the perv taking shots when kids were bending over, etc., and complained. Think about it - at outdoor events cops are looking more at the teens than they are at men and women over 40.

By the way, I live in a really nice town, and cops are always at the festivals.

Maureen

ekierce said:

The operative word is the AND between A and B.

In other words, A is NOT a problem if the "B" requirement is not
also met.

Make sense?

Click to expand...

Yes. Now who defines "intent" of sexual gratification?

--

John

Then you have to define " sexual gradification ".

Probably to keep guys like this moron from being dealt with the old fashioned way.

The surprise is that there are so many photographers that really think the public knows (or might like it if they knew it) the current state of the law when it comes to pictures in public. But as with most crimes, there are a series of elements and each element must be present. Who'll decide? Typically the D.A. will decide (or not) to charge then bring to trial. The officer making the arrest basically needs to know if there is probable cause to believe the crime has been permitted - the judge and jury are tryers of fact, not him/her.

FWIW, the "intent" issues are probably defined by a series of "elements" or case law, or defined/described by the legislature in crafting the law, or a combination. It may also be defined in a way requiring that a "reasonable person" would come to that kind of conclusion - which might address all kinds of related circumstances.

The interesting thing will be seeing how the officer/officers or other folks that may have complained came to see the pictures - that's going to perhaps turn this.

While ordinances and statutes are frequently vague in such a way as to make them void I don't think either "intent" or "sexual gratification" is subject to such a criticism. If a judge struck down such general and understandable terms of usage then he would necessarily need to strike down hundreds of similar stautes/ordinances with such common terms.

The real thing that scares me about this law is that if a normal person took completely innocuous pictures (say a little girl smiling) for fun and a different person took the same pictures for his own perverted reasons we would be charging the second with a crime regardless of the fact than an average person looking at the pictures might conclude they contained nothing of a sexual nature. There should be objective criteria imposed upon the photos. Otherwise this law is too subjective. Of course, under the facts here the photos may have actually been lewd, etc, but the law might still be able to be attacked as generally overbroad.
--

http://mufdi.smugmug.com/ )

Findedeux said:

The real thing that scares me about this law is that if a normal
person took completely innocuous pictures (say a little girl
smiling) for fun and a different person took the same pictures for
his own perverted reasons we would be charging the second with a
crime regardless of the fact than an average person looking at the
pictures might conclude they contained nothing of a sexual nature.
There should be objective criteria imposed upon the photos.
Otherwise this law is too subjective. Of course, under the facts
here the photos may have actually been lewd, etc, but the law might
still be able to be attacked as generally overbroad.
--

http://mufdi.smugmug.com/ )

Click to expand...

A picture of nothing more than a girl smiling would be thrown out of a court of law. That's not the type of photo they're referring to. A pervert might include a picture like that, but the rest of the photo's would be less innocent.

I'm sure the law is further defined, but for the sake of brevity, they don't go into that in writing a person up.

Maureen

I was told to stop taking photos at a park ..I took 3 pics in maybe 5 minutes there, here is one.



kids playing in water fountain. And a park employee asked me to stop. Now I have to think more about what I shoot, heaven help me I should take a picture of a stranger. If it was one family , YES I would ask first but this was a park full of people.

--
Ed in Arizona...fz2O

http://arizonadaze.smugmug.com

I've taken pictures of children in parks, but I have had some sort of 'in' with the parents.

My child attends a daycare, and at the yearly picnic I took lots of pictures of children being children, as well as children with their parents. Before I would do so I made clear who I was and that our children attended the daycare also, and I asked the parents' permission. I never was told "No" and after I got home and post-processed the pictures I gave copies, along with model releases, to the parents if the photos turned out good. So far I've gotten all of the model releases back.

I think the issue here is one of photographer intent. I don't want a pervert taking pictures of my 4-year old son cavorting with his pants hanging down just a little, and then selling those pictures that expose his rear end on the Internet... and I don't want the pervert getting off in the privacy of his home on those pictures, either. We live in a time where perverts graduate from this to kidnapping children whom they are attracted to, sodomizing them, and then killing them, and I don't want anyone developing enough of an attraction to my son by masturbating to images of him to decide to take the next step.

If you use ANY common sense you will never have a problem. Don't expect to be able to take crotch shots of the neighborhood kids and not be challenged on it, though.

Do you think the police would actually have arrested this person if he hadn't been doing something wrong?

Look, the police received complaints about this guy. They observed him taking photos of children that he didn't know. They went up to him, asked him about it, and evidently viewed the images that he had taken. Based upon the images, they arrested him.

This guy isn't Mr. Innocent. Yes, he's presumed innocent by the courts until proven guilty in a court of law... but based on what I've read he isn't innocent.

I won't throw the switch on him, but don't condemn the police for investigating this. That's what the police are for. The courts will decide if he was doing anything wrong. The police are there to say, "We think this guy's behavior was illegal."

If it were your kids' bodies being captured for a pedophile's sexual gratification, what would you want the police to do? Leave the man alone and say, "That's the price we pay for freedom" or arrest a pedophile and maybe take him off the streets before he molests another child... perhaps your child.

JohnClif said:

If you use ANY common sense you will never have a problem. Don't
expect to be able to take crotch shots of the neighborhood kids and
not be challenged on it, though.

Click to expand...

You didn't have to tell me that, my photo does not reflect that either..

--
Ed in Arizona...fz2O

http://arizonadaze.smugmug.com

Why is the camera so important? If some fellow in a trenchcoat is seen leering at kids and women, is that actionable?

Or, what if he is using a sketchpad or just writing? Hmmm ...

"As I sit here in the mall, there is a woman with absolutely outstanding s. I can imag9ne what she looks like in a negligee, high healed mules and . I'll sketch you as my own sex toy ... a..."

So some cop comes over and asks to see what the perp is writing?

It seems to me that the ebhaviour is or ought to be protected as part of the man's right to privacy. Would ity be better of he was using an empty cmaera in a provocative way?

The real issue, and a much harder one, is our right to be recorded in public. As the Bushites keep reminding us, the Constiitution does not grant us the right of privacy. OTOH, photography is a form of public expression and that right is part of the First Amendment. So, it seems to me that the strict constructionist POV may protect the photographer.
--
Stephen M Schwartz

Yes, I would tend to agree. BUT, The legal thorn is going to be: How could anyone know what was on his camera BEFORE they saw the pictures. You cannot establish that an A + B crime crime was committed without "B". Prior to the arrest, THERE WAS NO "B".

Having said so, I agree that perverts are the worst kind of scum, generally unrehabilitatable, and deserving of EXTREME punishment for the destruction of innocence that they are responsible for. BUT, I also believe that laws must be followed to the letter, else we all lose.

Tom

Its never a problem until it happens to you, and until I see all of the photos on that card, I'll have to side w/the shooter(unless he is a known perv.) each of us has a different view of perversion, does anyone remember the old Coppertone ads(shown on national TV & mags), with a dog pulling down (half way) a little girl's bottom showing her rear? in todays world, the ad dept. would go to jail. If any of you really believe that the law does not make a mistake, try it yourself.

18 years as a freelancer,(news,magazine, wedding photography) camera equip. over the years: Practica MLT, Canon A1, Minolta 9xi, 7xi, Dimage Z1(see my Z1 shots at http://www.photobucket.com ALBUM NAME: buckl the COMMUNITY album was done with the Z1, and most of the photos in the album:Other were w/the Z1)

The problem with this argument, in my opinion are twofold, one, I do not believe that prior to viewing the pictures, anything I have read, indicates that the police had probable cause to ask the man to show his pictures. In fact the article seemed to imply that the pictures were not viewed until after the arrest. This is the only problem I have with this, and is the probable reason that this guy will walk. You are allowed to take pictures in a public place, of anything there. You cannot know what the guy's intent was. Again I say, LOCK ALL THE PERVERTS UP FOREVER! And throw away they key, but do it right, and in a way that is not going to hurt all photographers by way of precedent. I like to photograph airplanes, the logical extension of this is that I can be arrested as a potential terrorist, and can do nothing about the allegation until the courts make a determination. C'mon people, I am completely against perverts, but don't you see that this is exactly the scenario by which rights are lost?!?

Two, you have read one short article that tells one side of the story, so your assertion that "This guy isn't mr innocent" is completely bogus. That is for the court to decide, not you.

JohnClif said:

Do you think the police would actually have arrested this person if
he hadn't been doing something wrong?

Look, the police received complaints about this guy. They observed
him taking photos of children that he didn't know. They went up to
him, asked him about it, and evidently viewed the images that he
had taken. Based upon the images, they arrested him.

This guy isn't Mr. Innocent. Yes, he's presumed innocent by the
courts until proven guilty in a court of law... but based on what
I've read he isn't innocent.

I won't throw the switch on him, but don't condemn the police for
investigating this. That's what the police are for. The courts will
decide if he was doing anything wrong. The police are there to say,
"We think this guy's behavior was illegal."

If it were your kids' bodies being captured for a pedophile's
sexual gratification, what would you want the police to do? Leave
the man alone and say, "That's the price we pay for freedom" or
arrest a pedophile and maybe take him off the streets before he
molests another child... perhaps your child.

Click to expand...