Isn’t photography a protected 1st Amendment activity?
He’s being held on a $100,000 bond.
She’s in a nursing home, not out in public. Trespassing at the very least.
[QUOTE=The Article]
Police say Kelly broke into the facility and took the picture by Rose Cochran’s bedside.
[/QUOTE]
Taking a picture of someone in a public place is generally a protected first amendment activity. Breaking and entering and taking a picture of someone in private? Not so much.
In general, no. Especially after 9/11 many places were put off limits to photography.
You do forfeit some expectations of privacy in a public place. In this particular case, he broke into the facility to take a picture of someone obviously not in public. Hard to see how the First Amendment would cover that
Simulposted.
Aren’t you an attorney? What an odd question from a person who has studied law for three years and passed a bar examination.
They’re saying he’s being held for picture-taking, not trespassing.
I hadn’t read he’d broke in. I’m not super familiar with nursing homes, but I figured he probably just used the front door.
Right: “illegally obtaining” = “breaking in to a private location”.
It’s the first sentence of the fifth paragraph of your own link. Did you just read the first two paragraphs? :dubious: It’s not like it’s buried in a 5 page article.
Seriously, if you’re going to ask questions in GQ, it would be a good idea to read the article all the way through to see if it might shed some light on your question.
Yeah. That’s why I’m interested in the story.
I’m not familiar with this particular statute, but what could possibly be a constitutional problem with a law against photographing people when they are in a private place like a nursing home bed? Is it okay if I walk through your unlocked front door and take and publish a picture of you sleeping?
You mean the sentence that starts, “Police say…”?
I assume there’s some hyperbole going on there.
You don’t think he actually busted down the door, do you?
Anyway, I’m not so much interested in burglary or trespassing, (which I doubt he did, or else they would have charged him with that) as the actual charge.
Even if he hadn’t “broken in”—what would be the legal status of taking pictures of people (without their consent) in various stages of undress in the locker room of a public gym or pool?
:dubious:
Under the law where are there places one can’t take pictures today where one could on 9/10/01?
Bridges, dams, power plants, I’d expect. Infrastructure that could be a terrorist target.
I don’t think it has much to do with the legality of illegally entering a nursing home to photograph senile patients for political gain.
I have a friend who got into a boatload of trouble for doing exactly that. Had a membership, even. Someone else found stuff on my friend’s computer and created a fuss over it. My friend got two years probation, computer confiscated (basically ruined by the police), was prohibited from Internet, and could not own a camera-enabled phone (had to break the camera if the phone had one). As far as I know, the pictures were for personal use and did not get shared around at all.
Idiot political bloggers are saying he’s being held for taking a picture. The prosecutor has a different explanation.
It’s some combination of tresspassing, invasion of privacy, and elder abuse. The 1st Ammendment’s not gonna bail his dumb ass out.
OTOH, on a tangent, authorities themselves are often either misinformed about photography being prohibited, or downright obstructionist without actually having the authority. For example, TSA agents have sometimes told people they are not allowed to take photos in an airport security area where the TSA itself has issued statements that this is legal. There have been other threads in these forums specific to photographers being harassed in public places where there is no legal prohibition.
While we are on this subject, can someone please explain to me what his purpose was in taking that picture? I know that he was a supporter of the political opponent of the husband of the woman in the nursing home but her existence and condition were openly known facts. What purpose could taking her picture serve?