Thanks.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 18:58:49 -0400, Mike <none_at_none.invalid>  wrote this:

>http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers

>

>Taking photographs of things that are plainly visible from public spaces 

>is a constitutional right ? and that includes federal buildings, 

>transportation facilities, and police and other government officials 

>carrying out their duties. Unfortunately, there is a widespread, 

>continuing pattern of law enforcement officers ordering people to stop 

>taking photographs from public places, and harassing, detaining and 

>arresting those who fail to comply.

>

>

>When in public spaces where you are lawfully present you have the right 

>to photograph anything that is in plain view. That includes pictures of 

>federal buildings, transportation facilities, and police. Such 

>photography is a form of public oversight over the government and is 

>important in a free society.

>When you are on private property, the property owner may set rules about 

>the taking of photographs. If you disobey the property owner's rules, 

>they can order you off their property (and have you arrested for 

>trespassing if you do not comply).

>Police officers may not generally confiscate or demand to view your 

>photographs or video without a warrant. If you are arrested, the 

>contents of your phone may be scrutinized by the police, although their 

>constitutional power to do so remains unsettled. In addition, it is 

>possible that courts may approve the seizure of a camera in some 

>circumstances if police have a reasonable, good-faith belief that it 

>contains evidence of a crime by someone other than the police themselves 

>(it is unsettled whether they still need a warrant to view them).

>Police may not delete your photographs or video under any circumstances.

>Police officers may legitimately order citizens to cease activities that 

>are truly interfering with legitimate law enforcement operations. 

>Professional officers, however, realize that such operations are subject 

>to public scrutiny, including by citizens photographing them.

>Note that the right to photograph does not give you a right to break any 

>other laws. For example, if you are trespassing to take photographs, you 

>may still be charged with trespass.

>If you are stopped or detained for taking photographs:

>

>Always remain polite and never physically resist a police officer.

>If stopped for photography, the right question to ask is, "am I free to 

>go?" If the officer says no, then you are being detained, something that 

>under the law an officer cannot do without reasonable suspicion that you 

>have or are about to commit a crime or are in the process of doing so. 

>Until you ask to leave, your being stopped is considered voluntary under 

>the law and is legal.

>If you are detained, politely ask what crime you are suspected of 

>committing, and remind the officer that taking photographs is your right 

>under the First Amendment and does not constitute reasonable suspicion 

>of criminal activity.

>

>Special considerations when videotaping:

>

>With regards to videotaping, there is an important legal distinction 

>between a visual photographic record (fully protected) and the audio 

>portion of a videotape, which some states have tried to regulate under 

>state wiretapping laws.

>

>Such laws are generally intended to accomplish the important 

>privacy-protecting goal of prohibiting audio "bugging" of private 

>conversations. However, in nearly all cases audio recording the police 

>is legal.

>In states that allow recording with the consent of just one party to the 

>conversation, you can tape your own interactions with officers without 

>violating wiretap statutes (since you are one of the parties).

>In situations where you are an observer but not a part of the 

>conversation, or in states where all parties to a conversation must 

>consent to taping, the legality of taping will depend on whether the 

>state's prohibition on taping applies only when there is a reasonable 

>expectation of privacy. But that is the case in nearly all states, and 

>no state court has held that police officers performing their job in 

>public have a reasonable expectation. The state of Illinois makes the 

>recording illegal regardless of whether there is an expectation of 

>privacy, but the ACLU of Illinois is challenging that statute in court 

>as a violation of the First Amendment.

>The ACLU believes that laws that ban the taping of public officials' 

>public statements without their consent violate the First Amendment. A 

>summary of state wiretapping laws can be found here.

>Photography at the airport

>

>Photography has also served as an important check on government power in 

>the airline security context.

>

>The Transportation Security Agency (TSA) acknowledges that photography 

>is permitted in and around airline security checkpoints as long as 

>you're not interfering with the screening process. The agency does ask 

>that its security monitors not be photographed, though it is not clear 

>whether they have any legal basis for such a restriction when the 

>monitors are plainly viewable by the traveling public.

>

>The TSA also warns that local or airport regulations may impose 

>restrictions that the TSA does not. It is difficult to determine if any 

>localities or airport authorities actually have such rules. If you are 

>told you cannot take photographs in an airport you should ask what the 

>legal authority for that rule is.

>

>The ACLU does not believe that restrictions on photography in the public 

>areas of publicly operated airports are constitutional.