Posted on 11/25/2002 3:28:03 PM PST by rs79bm
In September, during the early bear hunting season, according to information from the Department of Environmental Conservation, William Terry Jr., who lives near Redford NY, shot a bear that was coming to a bait pile. His photo hunter-type camera device that was facing the bait took Terry’s picture, along with the bear and bait pile.
Terry took the roll of film to the Wal-Mart 1Hour Photo processing center at Consumer Square, Plattsburgh. A Wal-Mart employee, also called an associate, saw the photo of Terry with the bear and bait pile as the photos were being developed and called the DEC. He also made extra copies of Terry’s photos and gave them to DEC.
The two DEC conservation officers assigned to the case then contacted the Clinton County District Attorney’s office and were given the go-ahead to proceed with the investigation.
Armed with prints of the bear and bait scene given them by the Wal-Mart employee, the two CO’s went to Terry’s house and read him his rights, after which, according to their statement, Terry confessed to the crime. The term "crime" is used here because under Conservation Law Section 110107.1, shooting a deer or bear with the use of bait fits the "taking wildlife, except as prescribed by law" misdemeanor.
Misdemeanors differ from violations, like traffic tickets, in severity. A misdemeanor also stays on the person’s record and could re-surface in a background check, as, for example, a firearms purchase under the Brady Bill.
I was asked to cover this case by Press-Republican Managing Editor Bob Grady, probably because of the hunting backdrop; however, the implications of the actions described earlier go far beyond a typical "Outdoors" article.
After doing extensive research on this case, I re-affirmed what I already knew: I am certainly not a lawyer, have little background with the judicial system and in no way want to pass judgment on a pending case (Terry has hired Livingston Hatch as his council). On the most basic level, DEC was presented with what it perceived to be a crime, got legal support, and moved forth. It is now up to a judge or jury to decide who is right.
But it really isn’t that simple. If you look at the overall "picture," as I tried to do, you begin to realize the complexities of navigating through the legal forest. With each path I followed, the trail led back to that 1Hour Wal-Mart photo shop, and each step of the way raised more questions than answers.
For one, that Wal-Mart associate who originally called DEC must have been somewhat aware an illegal act had been committed. But, can a photo be relied on to provide concrete evidence? Photos are snapshots of a moment in time, not videos of a complete event with a storyline. What appears to be in a still photo may not actually be reality, and who is to decide that? A one-hour photo-shop employee? Then again, is it the employee’s moral responsibility to call the authorities in such an instance, or it this an invasion of privacy? And finally, what should a consumer expect in the way of confidentiality when he or she takes a role of film in to be developed?
Another question involves the duplication of a photo. Does a photo-shop worker have a right to copy someone’s personal photos, photos that may someday be used against that consumer? There may be no clear answers. For example, On January 29, 2001, a one-hour photo employee in San Jose, California, working for Long’s Drug Store, noticed some of the photos she was developing showed caches of automatic weapons and bombs. She contacted the police who arrested a man who had evidently planned to commit a reign of carnage on nearby Anza College. According to the account on the webSPIRS5 records, the Santa Clara County Deputy DA is quoted as saying," If he (the defendant) had been successful, this would have overshadowed anything that Timothy McVeigh did." In this instance, the employee’s actions seem justified, but where do we draw the line?
There were still more questions I asked, two being: "Did the Wal-Mart associate go through his supervisor first, and what exactly is Wal-Mart’s one-hour photo policy?"
Cynthia Illick, Wal-Mart Spokesperson at the company’s central office in Bentonville, Arkansas, told me in a telephone interview, "In this case (the Terry incident), we did find our policy of insuring a customer’s confidentiality to be violated." "But," she continued, "the associate meant well." She also added, "Wal-Mart is taking steps to clarify its policy to insure it doesn’t happen again." According to Illick, memos are being sent to all Wal-Mart one-hour photo processing centers as a result of this incident.
Will this stop Wal-Mart (or other photo processing centers if they too have similar policies) from closely examining and even copying someone’s personal photos? Who knows?
Ironically, there was a movie out recently that dealt with the same theme. In "One Hour Photo," Robin Williams stars as a lonely photo developer who increasingly becomes obsessed with a family, whose photos he has been developing and copying over the years. They hang on a wall in his house, a pictorial essay of what he believes to be an ideal family’s life. Then, another woman brings in a roll of film to be developed. On it are vacation pictures that show her and the family’s husband blatantly having an affair. This infuriates William’s character.
I won’t ruin the ending for anyone who hasn’t seen the movie and wants to get the video when it is released, but the scenario is not as far fetched as it first sounds. Granted, that movie is fiction, but it does "focus" on a key point that should now be a reality for anyone getting his or her film developed: if you drop off your roll of film, there is a good chance someone else will see your photos, whether for quality control or other reasons. Most of us probably never think of that; we believe the machine does it all.
Probably the only sure way to make certain no one ever sees your photos without your permission is to develop them yourself, use a Polaroid-type camera or go digital.
If he eats it, it's no worse than killing a cow. Course you might be against that as well.
Yep, if you do something illegal, don't take a photo. But if you must have a picture of your lawlessness, use a digital camera. Not wise to entrust to anyone your undeveloped film showing your illegal activity.
16 posted on 11/25/2002 3:48 PM PST by duckman
Yeah, nothing like duck hunters who sit in blinds all day waiting for ducks to come to the pond to feed before they blow their brains out..... ;o)
Just a minor nit-pick...Hunting is NOT a sport. It is exactly what it is...It is HUNTING. That's not anything against hunting. I've hunted before, and I refuse to see it lowered to the level of softball. Hunting will become a sport when the deer can return fire. Hunting has been a time honored activity since man found out just how tasty meat is! What this George Eastman wannabe did is poaching. Hunters (at least the non-tree stand kind) look down on poachers and are likely to turn one in faster than this punk at Walmart did.
Deer are always looking for food.
I'm proud to say that I have never hunted that way and neither has anyone I have ever hunted with. I had never really heard of such tactics until I started finding out about white-tail deer hunters (I've only ever hunted mule deer). I think some of the guys who bow hunt the mulies might use tree stands, but, I agree with you, it doesn't really seem like "hunting".
In an effort to try and keep it more sporting I do not use a scope on my rifle (and in fact I hunt with a black powder flint-lock rifle sometimes). My brother has switched almost completely to bow hunting. Either way, we have to get a lot closer to the deer to be sure of a shot. I would like to try bow hunting, but I have always had trouble with the bow due to being double-jointed in my elbows. If I am not extremely careful and very conscious of how I hold my arm, I get the skin ripped off when I fire the arrow.
As to the article, I think that the Wal-Mart employee overstepped their authority. It's not their job to make legal judgements about people photos.
A similar situation arose last year when a Yellowstone Ranger accused a number of bear hunters of this. He was fired but the union got him reinstated with back pay.
What does a hunter do if he happens onto a bear feeding on the remnents from another hunters kill.
Slowly.... I turn...step..by step....
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.