Posted on 01/26/2009 7:36:02 AM PST by BGHater
From what I was told in my photography class, that when someone told you to give up your camera, you did not give it up, because they do not have the ability under law to take it (I think he said let them call the police and they would tell the guard it was ok, when it wasn’t the police themselves. He said it was better to stand up to the police, it would be sorted out later, but to hang onto film/SD card). Also, if your told not to take pircutes in a place anymore, (like we were told at a mall not to, on the threat that the security guard would take away our cameras :D) you can still shoot them, and they cannot take your camera, and you still own the picture they have taken, and seemed to imply if the story was important enough, to take the pictures, and if you get in trouble for trespassing, invasion of privacy, etc. well it would be worth it.
W
I read the article, what I posted is what I believe would pass a constitutional analysis. I did not say that is what happened.
The article makes no mention of whether the owners have requested the phones back. (although if I was running the Police Department the investigators would have been required to return the phones that night)
Your bias against the police is showing...you couldn’t even digest what I posted and contrast it to the news article and note the differences.
>>What is the police going to do if I refuse to turn over my camera ? Grapple with me ? Shoot me ?<<
Maybe... in some places its now a violation of privacy to film a cop. Sad but true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.