Police Arrest Man For Improper Photography At Octoberfest

nbc5i.com ^ | October 11, 2005 | Staff

[baystaterebel]

SOUTHLAKE, Texas -- Thousands of people milled through the Southlake Town Square Sunday night during the community's Octoberfest celebration. One man, however, was arrested during festivities after police said he used a digital camera to take inappropriate photographs of women and children.

Louis Vogel, 60, of North Richland Hills, was arrested by Southlake Police after officers observed him for about an hour snapping pictures. Police said the photos were of a "sexual nature."

"He had a camera with him. It was obvious he was taking photographs," Southlake Police Lt. Ashleigh Douglas said. "But during their investigation, (investigators) determined the photographs were deemed inappropriate."

Photography in a public place is not illegal. Southlake police, however, said the nature of the pictures Vogel took violated state law.

[baystaterebel]

So the question is, did he have a right to do what he did?

Imagine if he had been shooting neg/ slide film and the cops demanded that he turn the film over as evidence.

Some photogs would say his rights were violated even though he is shooting sexually charged shots of children or their body parts.

What say you?

[JohnnyZ]

Shove the camera down his throat and photograph what the heck's going on inside his mind.

[Psycho_Bunny]

If he was putting the camera beneath women and taking picks the police should treat him exactly the same as if he were walking up and laying underneath them: arrest him.

[tallhappy]

There's a thing called a warrent.

[pillut48]

I'm sure the ACLU will be jumping on this in a heartbeat.

Doesn't the law say that police can do this if they
have a reason to believe he was taking pornographic pictures? If they just walked up to people and demanded their cameras, yeah, I think that's violating civil rights. But if the guy was sitting at a picnic table reviewing the pics and maybe fondling himself or something in public, then I think the cops made the right call.

[aft_lizard]

I guess the first charge would be easy to prove or disprove, the second charge would be tougher, and I assume the harsher sentence.

[NJ_gent]

I think it depends on the actual content of the pictures. Taking pictures at normal angles would seem to be legal regardless of zooming and the like. However, if this guy was shooting pictures at angles designed to photograph things not intentionally exposed (upskirts, down tops, etc), then I think they ought to lock him up so long as there's a law covering the situation (which apparently there is).

Now, their 'sexual gratification' part is pretty vague. Some guys have a foot fetish; does that mean it's illegal to take pictures of feet? That seems a bit overboard to me.

[dead]

What say you?

I say this article tells you absolutely nothing about the nature of his offense.

He took surreptitious pictures of people’s body parts in public? For the purposes of sexual gratification? Huh?

He's probably a weirdo, but you can't confirm that from this article. The arresting officer could be the weirdo, for all I know.

[LibertarianInExile]

I'm still trying to figure out if he was REALLY charged with 'improper photography' or not. And whether I should worry next time I go out taking vacation photos at Oktoberfest.

"Sorry, son, you'll have to come with us. You overexposed that last shot, and I see you have your filter on backwards, and the law says you have to photograph proper like a pro or you're doing hard time."

"But...but..."

"No buts, boy, come along quiet now, you knew what you were doing when you picked up that hand Canon!"

[Nascar Dad]

I see nothing here that offends me.

[frogjerk]

There's a thing called a warrent.

What's a warrent?

[IamConservative]

The article gives the impression the pictures were perhaps normal angles, but zoomed into a specific body part - breast or backside for example.

However distasteful I find this to be personally, I suspect this case will be thrown out for illegal search and seizure - assuming they merely observed his behavior and the confiscated the camera as the article would lead us to believe.

Of course that is a constructionists viewpoint. This is what makes the SC debates so interesting. Sometimes things in poor taste are not illegal and vice versa.

[raybbr]

Photography in a public place is not illegal. Southlake police, however, said the nature of the pictures Vogel took violated state law.

"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.

Oh boy, is that ever open to interpretation. What if someone get sexual gratification of pictures of women in loose blouses? Not to mention that taking pictures in a public place would be impossible if you had to everyone's permission.

[Reaganghost]

Sounds like the thought police are on the job. Wonder what other crimes were committed or prevented while the legislature and the police were occupied with this particular law and person?

[stuartcr]

I agree. I bet you can see more on the beach any summer day. Who determines what is a sexual photo?

[bigsigh]

nice jugs, errr mugs!

[beezdotcom]

Now THIS may be an example of something best handled with a public a$$-kicking, instead of some vague law...

[MineralMan]

"There's a thing called a warrent."

Really. What sort of thing is that? I tried looking it up.

[tallhappy]

You know, same as a warrant, just spelled incorrectly.

[BTHOtu]

This past weekend in San Antonio, a similar incident occurred:

Man Snaps Improper Teen Pictures at Football Game