fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Pro Digital Corner | Join Upload & Sell

1              end
  

Archive 2009 · Trespassing?

  
 
Osai
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · Trespassing?


mdude85 wrote:
This whole discussion about the ethics of trespassing is a red herring.


Do you know what a red herring is?



Oct 29, 2009 at 07:33 PM
chez
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · Trespassing?


nathanlake wrote:
Red herring....we are not talking about a bunch of kids.


OK, what about a guy with a camera snooping around your property? You OK with that?



Oct 29, 2009 at 07:33 PM
nathanlake
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · Trespassing?


Osai wrote:
Do you know what a red herring is?



Yes, a red herring is an idea introduced into a discussion that while it may appear to be relevant is not...and distracts the convesation away from the intended topic.

If you look at the original question by the OP (My question is can a photographer be arrested for trespassing based on the evidence of the photograph itself (with intact EXIF showing date/time)? Just curious. Anybody know?), the entire question of ethics...and the little kids...were just red herrings.



Oct 29, 2009 at 07:43 PM
400d
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · Trespassing?


nathanlake wrote:
If you look at the original question by the OP (My question is can a photographer be arrested for trespassing based on the evidence of the photograph itself (with intact EXIF showing date/time)? Just curious. Anybody know?), the entire question of ethics...and the little kids...were just red herrings.

Can't agree with you more. The answer is yes, it's possible, end of discussion.



Oct 29, 2009 at 08:14 PM
chez
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · Trespassing?


nathanlake wrote:
Yes, a red herring is an idea introduced into a discussion that while it may appear to be relevant is not...and distracts the convesation away from the intended topic.

If you look at the original question by the OP (My question is can a photographer be arrested for trespassing based on the evidence of the photograph itself (with intact EXIF showing date/time)? Just curious. Anybody know?), the entire question of ethics...and the little kids...were just red herrings.


Red herrings yes, but does that not make a conversation more dynamic. Would we not all just get bored if we stuck to the straight and narrow all the time. Would that not make for a very boring dinner conversation if no red herrings were ever served up?



Oct 29, 2009 at 08:15 PM
Nowhere Man
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · Trespassing?


Very interesting topic. I've trespassed across land before to get to a hidden beach. Mostly just hopping a fence and walking across and empty field. Nothing like breaking windows. I always try to find a 'path' through the field too, so as not to create more damage, and if I know it's an environmentally sensitive area or being rehabbed, then I find another way to the area I want to get to.




Oct 29, 2009 at 09:13 PM
ajkessler
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · Trespassing?


Good topic. You'd have to research your state's law, but bottom line is, unless you do something besides trespass, or the owner has some grudge against you, there's nothing to really get caught for after the fact.

Some misinformation I think I can help clear up: None of this is legal advice, of course, so don't use it as such. Do not rely on any of it for any reason.

400d wrote:
Yes. If you are caught on scene, it would be trespassing, disorderly conduct, or, depending on the cop's mood, they can charge you criminal trespassing and burglary as well.


Burglary, in any jurisdiction I've ever seen, requires breaking and entering with an intent to commit a felony therein. Taking pictures is not a felony, so unless you're planning on doing something extra stupid, it's probably impossible to be charged with burglary.

nathanlake wrote
Usually, recorded data (pictures, voice, etc) require a live person to testity to their authenticity.


Photographs generally require that someone testify that they are a true and accurate representation of the scene. This can be anyone that's familiar with the scene, including the owner. If you're talking about authenticity, as in "I didn't actually take this picture, I just photoshopped it", that would be a pretty interesting defense, which may require some sort of authentication, but it's a pretty weak argument that isn't likely to succeed.

nathanlake wrote:
The case could, and has been argued that images taken by the perpetrator would amount to self-incrimination which is not always admissible. Different states, different courts and different judges on different days may rule on this differently.


Photographs are generally not testimonial evidence, so I would be extreeeeeemely surprised if any judge has ruled that they constitute self-incrimination.

chez wrote:
I always look at it from the other foot. What if it was your property, abandoned and possibly dangerous buildings. How would you feel if say a bunch of kids go exploring those buildings?


Red Herring or not, this is a very important topic to consider. Here in California, we don't distinguish between licensees, invitees or the public at large. So, if someone is robbing your house and gets hurt while trying to maneuver through your obstacle strewn, dangerous backyard, you're liable. Insane, I know, but that's how it works here, and I imagine in other places as well. So, if you own an abandoned warehouse in CA that has a bunch of dangerous stuff just laying around, you've got a big incentive to keep trespassers off your property, and there's often a good reason those no trespassing signs are up, particularly at old abandoned industrial facilities.




Oct 30, 2009 at 08:47 PM
Marty Bingham
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · Trespassing?


Well said.

Thanks for your input.

Marty



Oct 30, 2009 at 10:49 PM
mdude85
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · Trespassing?


ajkessler wrote:
Good topic. You'd have to research your state's law, but bottom line is, unless you do something besides trespass, or the owner has some grudge against you, there's nothing to really get caught for after the fact.


You can still get caught for tresspassing, although it wouldn't really be worth the property owner's time to do so, except maybe to prove a point.



Nov 02, 2009 at 10:08 AM
cgardner
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · Trespassing?


While not addressing photography this site reveals how trespassing laws vary by state and county:
http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/trespassing



Nov 03, 2009 at 08:02 AM
ajkessler
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · Trespassing?


mdude85 wrote:
You can still get caught for tresspassing, although it wouldn't really be worth the property owner's time to do so, except maybe to prove a point.


This is true, but again, the property owner almost certainly has no damages, so unless he's got a grudge against you, deep pockets, and is willing to put the time in to sue you to get a $1 judgment, there's not a whole lot of risk that I can see in that one. And, at least in big cities that I've been in, I imagine the cops would just laugh in your face if you tried to have someone cited after the fact for trespassing and no other damage.

Still, I wouldn't advocate trespassing, especially in old buildings. There's probably a very good reasons those signs are up there.



Nov 03, 2009 at 11:04 AM
1              end




FM Forums | Pro Digital Corner | Join Upload & Sell

1              end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account