Walmart Photo Shop Turns in Deer Hunter

Press Republican ^ | 11/24/02 | Dennis Aprill

[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.

[El Gato]

All the deer hunters I knew used compound bows or rifles and actually did trudge around hunting. Most of the ones I know sit in a blind, somewhere where they think the deer will walk by. That blind might be in a tree, but it might not too. Different techniques are used in different terrain and on different species, including elk, antelope and of course the FR favorite Moose.

[El Gato]

I eat kosher meat. It's isn't slaughtered the same way.

Well they used to get a big dumb guy to stand over the chute and hit them in the head with a sledgehammer, but whatever the method, the animal has no chance and is just as dead, and pretty much just as tasty.

[Cultural Jihad]

Ahhhh....when citizens...begin turning in citizens.

As opposed to alien residents or foreign tourists? Those Carville-like posters who decried Tripp-like 'snitches' are a pathetic lot, and are not unlike Clinton who was only sorry that he was caught.

[PokeyJoe]

"Officer, I shot that bear in Alaska - where bait traps are legal."

[SengirV]

"What appears to be in a still photo may not actually be reality"

You had me until that sentance. It's a story about a Walmart employee going that Extra mile to screw over a customer. It's not a debate over the value of a real life photo.

[PokeyJoe]

Actually, Alaska bear hunting regulations state that you can't hunt using scent, unless you have a base scent permit. =)

[chadwimc]

One of my favorite deer hunting tactics is to watch the trail going from the oak trees. Am I guilty of shooting deer while looking for food? The acorns are like Lays potato chips to a deer, they just can't stop...

[nicmarlo]

where the picture was taken

It is legal to bait bears in Canada.....what right did this person have to ASSUME that the hunter committed any crime? to report the "crime," as he couldn't "know" where the animal was killed? I would say this was an invasion of privacy. It's not like a human being was videotaped being killed.

[July 4th]

Yup. The new Epsons (1280, or even better, the 2200) can make a better print off a film scan than conventional photo print process.

I'm in the process of pulling all of my treasured negs and getting them on PC. The photo lab doesn't see much of my money any more...

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Never have your photos processed at Walmart... especially if there should be nude underage children or game out of season on them.

It is very important that the authorities be notified and prosecution initiated if a parent takes a photo of his/her infant's first... GASP! ...naked bath! < /bubba bait>

[MattAMiller]

Ahhhh....when citizens...begin turning in citizens

So we're supposed to ignore it when people break the law? Or just some laws?

[Riley]

Try and antagonize the bear to attack, and then shoot him in self defense for dinner...

Mighn't that be...'bear baiting', as in 'Red baiting'? You could stand there and call him a filthy, worthless, disloyal, anti-American Pinko Commie fur-headed stubby tailed spy ba$tard until he charged you- then nail him.

Frickin' left-wing Eco-nut bear had it comin'...:-)

[BraveMan]

All poachers must hang!

Roger THAT! Poachers provide the cannon fodder for the gun-grabbers anti-sportsmen crowd. Poachers suck . . .

Speaking of Bears, I received this in an e-mail from a relative in Colorado . . .

The following photos are of a guy who works for the forest service in Alaska. He was out deer hunting and a large (did I say LARGE?), world record Grizzly charged him from about 50 yards away. The guy unloaded a 7mm Mag Semi-auto into the bear and it dropped a few feet from him. The Bear was still alive, so he reloaded and capped it in the head. It weighed over one thousand, six hundred pounds, and stood 12'6" high at the shoulder.

It's a world record. The bear had killed a couple of other people and was being hunted by other forest service and Game personnel. Of course, the Game department did not let him keep it.

[Still Thinking]

Now you have me intrigued. What did they try to do to prevent you from buying a product stocked by their store??

[MattAMiller]

Animals are NOT people, they don't have "feelings" and they are our food

Actually they do, to varying degrees. My concern is mostly about maintaining the populations of these animals. The herds need to be thinned from time to time, but the fact that we have farms makes indicriminate killing unecessary.

[rockfish59]

I'm tellin' youse, it was raspberry do-nuts!

[rockfish59]

Oso grande!

[Paulus Invictus]

Correct! Wal-Mart made a deal with Fuji for photofinishing at all W-M stores and it seriously hurt a US company--Kodak. Why does W-M support a subsidized foreign company? Low costs, that's all. But the Japanese govenrment makes up the difference in income for Fuji. The US government never did that for Kodak and will not do so (although they did bail our Chrysler and the airline companies.--go figure). I hate Wal-Mart!

[GovernmentShrinker]

I agree with your sentiment but, fact is, in most of the U.S. the deer population is so out of control that they've wiped out nearly all the vegetation they depend on for food, and as a result are virtually ALWAYS looking for food.

[Libertina]

Not only the photo police, but liberals. My brother hunts bear and it's dangerous even with the bait. No doubt libs would preferr calling "Here baby, baby, baby!" (And then having the bear eat the hunter.) Here in WA animals who are affected by the imbalance stemming no hunting, are coming into suburban areas - backyards where kids play etc. My brother's largets bear was a mile/two? from a local school. I do NOT condone poaching, but not being able to hunt with dogs or are rules made by non-hunters.