[Mad Dawgg]

Ok I'll break it down:"This is an office building. The property is privately owned. He is not constitutionally protected to trespass, taking photos of the building."

First sentence: No law against photographing an office building...

Second Sentence: No Law against photographing a private property if you are on a public street or alley or any other public property.

Third Sentence: No where in the story does it say he was trespassing...

I notice you assume that he was trespassing even though the story does not mention it but disregard the story where it clearly points out he owns the building...

You have no grasp of the facts presented...

Either you don't understand the case presented OR you have a hidden agenda.

Which is it?

[stanne]

Which is it?

Ok I’ll break it down again as I did in my first statement

IF it happened as the guy said it did, the cops were 100% wrong and they had better get sanctioned

[stanne]

Which is it?

Ok I’ll break it down again as I did in my first statement

IF it happened as the guy said it did, the cops were 100% wrong and they had better get sanctioned