Photog assaulted by cops in Florida

[DanielHayduk]

For more reading, check out this thread on this topic at Sportsshooter. http://www.sportsshooter.com/message...html?tid=12734

/daniel

[BobBranam]

HGregory,
I would like to thank you for being one of the few that list their location... you don't have an email addy in your profile....can you please shoot me an email....I use to live in Fairhope. For those that don't know... Fairhope is a rather small very beautiful place across the bay from Mobile, Al.

[ToddBuchanan]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that the TV news report makes it sound like a first amendment issue and it's not. On private property, members of the media have no more right to be there than any other citizen.

Dave

[/ QUOTE ]

Dave,

When police or the fire department arrive on the scene, this changes many of the dynamics of your private property rights. If there is a legitimate news story happening, courts have often (but not always) sided with the rights of the media to gather the facts. There is a lot more to this story. Security guards are NOT local police.

Todd Buchanan

[Chuck_Kimmerle]

[ QUOTE ]
When police or the fire department arrive on the scene, this changes many of the dynamics of your private property rights. If there is a legitimate news story happening, courts have often (but not always) sided with the rights of the media to gather the facts. There is a lot more to this story. Security guards are NOT local police.

Todd Buchanan

[/ QUOTE ]

Todd,

Are you sure? I thought that courts have begun to side more with property owners. I remember a case not too long ago where the police invited tag-a-long media members into a house during a drug raid. The homeowner sued, with the court deciding that police do not have the right to invite media members, or any member of the public, onto private property.

Also, courts have been all over the place when it comes to shopping mall property. Some say it's private property, others say it's public access. That issue will be discussed, debated, and litigated for years.

Chuck

[Nigel_Anscombe]

Hi All,

A few things about Shopping Malls which could point to them being private rather than public property, as far as I know, are:

1) They are probably owned by a property Company to whom the Shop owners pay rent, in other words they belong to a private company.

2) The Malls probably have doors which are locked at night to keep people out, ie public access is controlled.

3) They are policed by private Security firms not the local police department.

Just a few thoughts.
Regards
Nigel

[DavidHarpe]

Private property does not become public just because the police are on the scene. Police/Fire/EMS have rights on the scene that are pretty clear-cut and necessary for them to do their job. None of these rights are transferred to the media. It just doesn't work that way.

I'd be interested in seeing references to the court cases you've mentioned. I bet the issue decided in court is not about whether the media had the "right" to be there, but some issue about how they acted once a property owner made their wishes known. The court cases also probably revolved around what was said/photographed while the people were on the scene and not about being on the scene as a separate element.

There are several books written about the topic of "photographer's rights", and every one of them that I've read makes it quite clear: Private property owners have the last word when it comes to allowing the media on their property.

[RandleBate]

To Dave:

I respectfully disagree with your conclusion that the mall owners can forbid a cameraman from coming on the premises. Once a retail establishment opens it doors to the public it can not discriminate against any member of society without prior notice. Those signs you might see that say, "We have the right to refuse service to anyone," have no legal efficacy whatever. If the mall wants to exclude photographers from the premises they must make that distinction clear; perhaps they should have a sign or some other manner of giving notice. Notice is a fundamental requirement of Due Process. The owners of a retail establishment have a duty to serve all members of the public unlease of the public unless perhaps, they are comporting themselves in an illegal manner.