• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Voice Recorders, videos, photos, and VA law

possumboy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,089
Location
Dumfries, Virginia, USA
imported post

I remember a bunch of discussion with the MMM meetings a while back.

I can find:




[*]18.2-130 (show hits) ..Peeping or spying into dwelling or enclosure.. (2)
[*]18.2-386.1 (show hits) ..Unlawful filming, videotaping or photographing of another; penalty.. (1)

These make it illegal when there is an "expectation of privacy".

Does anyone know of code that states public places are open game or limits what can be done on public property?

I do understand that if there is not a law against it, it is legal, but I figured I would check.

This is not OC related, I'm being told I cannot take pictures of my kids at a public place.

I talked with the manager about the "No Camera" signs and she said that "Risk Management" had been over it. I've placed a call to the directory for the county and I'm waiting to hear back. I'm going to call again tomorrow if I do not hear back by noon.
 

Wolf_shadow

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
1,215
Location
Accomac, Virginia, USA
imported post

See http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=26078&forum_id=54&highlight=recorder



http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/virginia/virginia-recording-law



[align=center]
Virginia Wiretapping Law
Virginia's wiretapping law is a "one-party consent" law. Virginia makes it a crime to intercept or record any "wire, oral, or electronic communication" unless one party to the conversation consents. Virginia Code § 19.2-62. Therefore, if you operate in Virginia, you may record a conversation or phone call if you are a party to the conversation or you get permission from one party to the conversation in advance. That said, if you intend to record conversations involving people located in more than one state, you should play it safe and get the consent of all parties. [/align]
The wiretapping law does not cover oral communications when the speakers do not have an "expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectations." See Virginia Code § 19.2-61. Therefore, you may be able to record in-person conversations occurring in a public place, such as a street or restaurant, without consent. But you should seek the consent of one or all of the parties before recording any conversation that an ordinary person would deem private.
[/quote]

As long as one party to the conversation consents in Virginia you can record.
 

Riana

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2008
Messages
943
Location
Fairfax County, VA
imported post

possumboy wrote:
This is not OC related, I'm being told I cannot take pictures of my kids at a public place.

I talked with the manager about the "No Camera" signs and she said that "Risk Management" had been over it. I've placed a call to the directory for the county and I'm waiting to hear back. I'm going to call again tomorrow if I do not hear back by noon.
I expect that if the private property owner/lessee requests (via the sign) that you not photograph (or carry a firearm), and you do it anyway, then they can ask you to leave.

Out of curiosity, where is this location of which you speak? Perhaps we should snap pictures of ourselves OCing there. :p
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
imported post

possumboy wrote:
I remember a bunch of discussion with the MMM meetings a while back.

I can find:
[*]
18.2-130 (show hits) ..Peeping or spying into dwelling or enclosure.. (2)
[*]
18.2-386.1 (show hits) ..Unlawful filming, videotaping or photographing of another; penalty.. (1)

These make it illegal when there is an "expectation of privacy".

Does anyone know of code that states public places are open game or limits what can be done on public property?

I do understand that if there is not a law against it, it is legal, but I figured I would check.

This is not OC related, I'm being told I cannot take pictures of my kids at a public place.

I talked with the manager about the "No Camera" signs and she said that "Risk Management" had been over it. I've placed a call to the directory for the county and I'm waiting to hear back. I'm going to call again tomorrow if I do not hear back by noon.

I don't know what fool told you that but you cannot photograph (Indecent pictures aside ...like up ladies skirts) anywhere in public. This includes areas that security or squareheads consider security risks. Just stay on public land. As fat as photographing on private property within public view, it can be photographed as long as it can be easily seen from the public right of way.

I, as many photographers, use this attorney's opinion as a guide, and it has been sustained in court many times.

About this Guide
Confrontations that impair the constitutional
right to make images are
becoming more common. To fight the
abuse of your right to free expression,
you need to know your rights to take
photographs and the remedies available
if your rights are infringed.
The General Rule
The general rule in the United States
is that anyone may take photographs
of whatever they want when they are
in a public place or places where they
have permission to take photographs.
Absent a specific legal prohibition
such as a statute or ordinance, you are
legally entitled to take photographs.
Examples of places that are traditionally
considered public are streets,
sidewalks, and public parks.
Property owners may legally prohibit
photography on their premises
but have no right to prohibit others
from photographing their property
from other locations. Whether you
need permission from property owners
to take photographs while on their
premises depends on the circumstances.
In most places, you may reasonably
assume that taking photographs
is allowed and that you do not
need explicit permission. However,
this is a judgment call and you should
request permission when the circumstances
suggest that the owner is likely
to object. In any case, when a property
owner tells you not to take photographs
while on the premises, you are
legally obligated to honor the request.
Some Exceptions to the Rule
There are some exceptions to the
general rule. A significant one is that
commanders of military installations
can prohibit photographs of specific
areas when they deem it necessary to
protect national security. The U.S.
Department of Energy can also prohibit
photography of designated
nuclear facilities although the publicly
visible areas of nuclear facilities are
usually not designated as such.
Members of the public have a very
limited scope of privacy rights when
they are in public places. Basically,
anyone can be photographed without
their consent except when they have
secluded themselves in places where
they have a reasonable expectation of
privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms,
medical facilities, and inside
their homes.
Permissible Subjects
Despite misconceptions to the contrary,
the following subjects can
almost always be photographed lawfully
from public places:
accident and fire scenes
children
celebrities
bridges and other infrastructure
residential and commercial buildings
industrial facilities and public utilities
transportation facilities (e.g., airports)
Superfund sites
criminal activities
law enforcement officers
Who Is Likely to Violate Your Rights
Most confrontations are started by
security guards and employees of
organizations who fear photography.
The most common reason given is
security but often such persons have
no articulated reason. Security is
rarely a legitimate reason for restricting
photography. Taking a photograph
is not a terrorist act nor can a
business legitimately assert that taking
a photograph of a subject in public
view infringes on its trade secrets.
On occasion, law enforcement officers
may object to photography but
most understand that people have the
right to take photographs and do not
interfere with photographers. They do
have the right to keep you away from
areas where you may impede their
activities or endanger safety. However,
they do not have the legal right
to prohibit you from taking photographs
from other locations.
They Have Limited Rights to Bother,
Question, or Detain You
Although anyone has the right to
approach a person in a public place
and ask questions, persistent and
unwanted conduct done without a
legitimate purpose is a crime in many
states if it causes serious annoyance.
You are under no obligation to explain
the purpose of your photography nor
do you have to disclose your identity
except in states that require it upon
request by a law enforcement officer.
If the conduct goes beyond mere
questioning, all states have laws that
make coercion and harassment criminal
offenses. The specific elements
vary among the states but in general it
is unlawful for anyone to instill a fear
that they may injure you, damage or
take your property, or falsely accuse
you of a crime just because you are
taking photographs.
Private parties have very limited
rights to detain you against your will
and may be subject to criminal and
civil charges should they attempt to
do so. Although the laws in most
states authorize citizen’s arrests, such
authority is very narrow. In general,
citizen’s arrests can be made only for
felonies or crimes committed in the
person’s presence. Failure to abide by
these requirements usually means
that the person is liable for a tort such
as false imprisonment.
They Have No Right to Confiscate
Your Film
Sometimes agents acting for entities
such as owners of industrial plants
and shopping malls may ask you to
hand over your film. Absent a court
order, private parties have no right to
confiscate your film. Taking your film
directly or indirectly by threatening to
use force or call a law enforcement
agency can constitute criminal offenses
such as theft and coercion. It can
likewise constitute a civil tort such as
conversion. Law enforcement officers
may have the authority to seize film
when making an arrest but otherwise
must obtain a court order.
Your Legal Remedies If Harassed
If someone has threatened, intimidated,
or detained you because you were
taking photographs, they may be
liable for crimes such as kidnapping,
coercion, and theft. In such cases, you
should report them to the police.
You may also have civil remedies
against such persons and their
employers. The torts for which you
may be entitled to compensation
include assault, conversion, false
imprisonment, and violation of your
constitutional rights.
Other Remedies If Harassed
If you are disinclined to take legal
action, there are still things you can do
that contribute to protecting the right
to take photographs.
(1) Call the local newspaper and see if
they are interested in running a story.
Many newspapers feel that civil liberties
are worthy of serious coverage.
(2) Write to or call the supervisor of
the person involved, or the legal or
public relations department of the
entity, and complain about the event.
(3) Make the event publicly known on
an Internet forum that deals with photography
or civil rights issues.
How to Handle Confrontations
Most confrontations can be defused
by being courteous and respectful. If
the party becomes pushy, combative,
or unreasonably hostile, consider calling
the police. Above all, use good
judgment and don’t allow an event to
escalate into violence.
In the event you are threatened with
detention or asked to surrender your
film, asking the following questions
can help ensure that you will have the
evidence to enforce your legal rights:
1. What is the person’s name?
2. Who is their employer?
3. Are you free to leave? If not, how do
they intend to stop you if you decide
to leave? What legal basis do they
assert for the detention?
4. Likewise, if they demand your film,
what legal basis do they assert for the
confiscation?
Disclaimer
This is a general education guide
about the right to take photographs
and is necessarily limited in scope.
For more information about the laws
that affect photography, I refer you to
the second edition of my book, Legal
Handbook for Photographers (Amherst
Media, 2006).
This guide is not intended to be legal
advice nor does it create an attorney
client relationship. Readers should
seek the advice of a competent attorney
when they need legal advice
regarding a specific situation.
published by:
Bert P. Krages II
Attorney at Law
6665 S.W. Hampton Street, Suite 200
Portland, Oregon 97223
http://www.krages.com
© 2003 Bert P. Krages II
Your Rights and
Remedies When
Stopped or
Confronted
for Photography
Updated November
2006
 

buster81

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

possumboy wrote:
This is not OC related, I'm being told I cannot take pictures of my kids at a public place.


Care to elaborate on this public place?

Peter, you beat me to it. I was looking up the photocraphers rights. I carry that around in my camera bag. I was confronted once in San Francisco by a random guy, about taking pictures of the GG Bridge. I had my camera, and a long lense on a tripod and was actually tacking pics of a group of sail boats in the bay, and the bridge just happened to be behind them.

It was his position that I should remember 9-11, think of all the terrorists taking pictures of bridges, and that it was scary. I told him that there was sufficient information on the internet that terrorists didn't need to do their own recon, and that I wasn't taking pictures of the bridge anyway. I advised him that he was bothering me, and that he was free to call the police if that made him feel better. No police showed up.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
imported post

buster81 wrote:
possumboy wrote:
This is not OC related, I'm being told I cannot take pictures of my kids at a public place.


I advised him that he was bothering me, and that he was free to call the police if that made him feel better. No police showed up.
I'm usually a little less polite than that:lol:
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
imported post

Buster, this OT from the original topic...but if you are a freelancer or a blogger...I have found these are extremely good to keep in your bag also.


It's nice to cross that yellow" Police Do Not Cross" tape, and take pictures.

§ 15.2-1714. Establishing police lines, perimeters, or barricades.
Whenever fires, accidents, wrecks, explosions, crimes, riots or other emergency situations where life, limb or property may be endangered may cause persons to collect on the public streets, alleys, highways, parking lots or other public area, the chief law-enforcement officer of any locality or that officer's authorized representative who is responsible for the security of the scene may establish such areas, zones or perimeters by the placement of police lines or barricades as are reasonably necessary to (i) preserve the integrity of evidence at such scenes, (ii) notwithstanding the provisions of §§ 46.2-888 through 46.2-891, facilitate the movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic into, out of and around the scene, (iii) permit firefighters, police officers and emergency services personnel to perform necessary operations unimpeded, and (iv) protect persons and property.
Any police line or barricade erected for these purposes shall be clearly identified by wording such as "Police Line - DO NOT CROSS" or other similar wording. If material or equipment is not available for identifying the prohibited area, then a verbal warning by identifiable law-enforcement officials positioned to indicate a location of a police line or barricade shall be given to any person or persons attempting to cross police lines or barricades without proper authorization.
Such scene may be secured no longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the above-described purposes. Nothing in this section shall limit or otherwise affect the authority of, or be construed to deny access to such scene by, any person charged by law with the responsibility of rendering assistance at or investigating any such fires, accidents, wrecks, explosions, crimes or riots.
Personnel from information services such as press, radio and television, when gathering news, shall be exempt from the provisions of this section except that it shall be unlawful for such persons to obstruct the police, firemen and rescue workers in the performance of their duties at such scene. Such personnel shall proceed at their own risk.
(1984, c. 533, § 15.1-140.1; 1990, c. 327; 1997, c. 587.)

§ 27-15.1. Authority of chief, director or other officer in charge when answering alarm or operating at an emergency incident; penalty for refusal to obey orders.
While any fire/EMS department or fire/EMS company is in the process of answering an alarm or operating at an emergency incident where there is imminent danger or the actual occurrence of fire or explosion or the uncontrolled release of hazardous materials which threaten life or property and returning to the station, the chief, director, or other officer in charge of such fire/EMS department or company at that time shall have the authority to: (i) maintain order at such emergency incident or its vicinity, (ii) direct the actions of the fire fighters or emergency medical services personnel at the incident, (iii) notwithstanding the provisions of §§ 46.2-888 through 46.2-891, keep bystanders or other persons at a safe distance from the incident and emergency equipment, (iv) facilitate the speedy movement and operation of emergency equipment and fire fighters or emergency medical services personnel, (v) cause an investigation to be made into the origin and cause of the incident, and (vi) until the arrival of a police officer, direct and control traffic in person or by deputy and facilitate the movement of traffic. The fire chief, director, or other officer in charge shall display his fire fighter's or emergency medical services personnel's badge, or other proper means of identification. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, this authority shall extend to the activation of traffic control signals designed to facilitate the safe egress and ingress of emergency equipment at a fire/EMS station. Any person or persons refusing to obey the orders of the chief, director, or his deputies or other officer in charge at that time shall be guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor. The chief, director, or other officer in charge shall have the power to make arrests for violation of the provisions of this section. The authority granted under the provisions of this section may not be exercised to inhibit or obstruct members of law-enforcement agencies or rescue squads from performing their normal duties when operating at such emergency incident, nor to conflict with or diminish the lawful authority, duties and responsibilities of forest wardens, including but not limited to the provisions of Chapter 11 of Title 10.1. Personnel from the news media, such as the press, radio and television, when gathering the news may enter at their own risk into the incident area only when the officer in charge has deemed the area safe and only into those areas of the incident that do not, in the opinion of the officer in charge, interfere with the fire/EMS department or fire fighters or emergency medical services personnel dealing with such emergencies, in which case the chief or other officer in charge may order such person from the scene of the emergency incident.
(1970, c. 187; 1977, c. 326; 1984, c. 644; 2001, c. 142; 2008, c. 410.)


§ 46.2-890. Stopping in vicinity of fire or emergency.
No vehicle shall be stopped at or in the vicinity of a fire, vehicle or airplane accident, or other area of emergency, in such a manner as to create a traffic hazard or interfere with law-enforcement officers, fire fighters, rescue workers, or others whose duty it is to deal with such emergencies. Any vehicle found unlawfully parked in the vicinity of a fire, accident, or area of emergency may be removed by order of a law-enforcement officer or, in the absence of a law-enforcement officer, by order of the uniformed fire or rescue officer in charge, at the risk and expense of the owner if such vehicle creates a traffic hazard or interferes with the necessary procedures of law-enforcement officers, fire fighters, rescue workers, or others whose assigned duty it is to deal with such emergencies. The charge for such removal shall not exceed the actual and necessary cost. Vehicles being used by accredited information services, such as press, radio, and television, when being used for the gathering of news, shall be exempt from the provisions of this section, except when actually obstructing the law-enforcement officers, fire fighters, and rescue workers dealing with such emergencies.
(Code 1950, § 46-256; 1952, c. 671; 1958, c. 541, § 46.1-248; 1962, c. 175; 1972, c. 63; 1974, c. 230; 1977, cc. 284, 326; 1985, c. 93; 1989, c. 727.)
 

IanB

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
1,896
Location
Northern VA
imported post

NSL's explanation of"expectation of privacy" could be reworded to mean "I can disrobe and prance around naked" in this location. Not following me on this one? Let me explain:

My car: It's my personal private property, but... I am not allowed to be naked in my car, therefore no expectation of privacy.

My home: It's my personal private property, and I can prance around naked if I desire. There is an expectation of privacy.

Changing room at a clothing store: It's not my personal private property, but it is an area where I am allowed to disrobe. I have an expectation of privacy there and store loss prevention security cameras are not allowed to film that area.

Library: Public property, cannot disrobe, no expectation of privacy.

Lactation room (for mothers): Private OR public property where women partially expose themselves for the purpose of feeding younglings. They have an expectation of privacy.

I could list many more examples but I think you catch my drift. If you are out in public, anywhere that the Hollywood paparazzi could operate legally, you have no expectation of privacy.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
imported post

My guess is he was in a museum or otherwise. They can and do regulated flashes and other devices that may harm the art. Some places try to prevent photographing items to prevent copying. They cannot do that.

I often photograph other photographs that the copyright has expired on. My farm is decorated with pictures such as this:

a.jpg



Some places do not want pictures for security purposes. It is almost impossible to enforce.
 

Riana

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2008
Messages
943
Location
Fairfax County, VA
imported post

nakedshoplifter wrote:
NSL's explanation of"expectation of privacy" could be reworded to mean "I can disrobe and prance around naked" in this location. Not following me on this one? Let me explain:

My car: It's my personal private property, but... I am not allowed to be naked in my car, therefore no expectation of privacy.

My home: It's my personal private property, and I can prance around naked if I desire. There is an expectation of privacy.

:what::lol:

This makes perfect sense to me. And yet it scares me. All at the same time.
 

Wolf_shadow

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
1,215
Location
Accomac, Virginia, USA
imported post

Riana wrote:
nakedshoplifter wrote:
NSL's explanation of"expectation of privacy" could be reworded to mean "I can disrobe and prance around naked" in this location. Not following me on this one? Let me explain:

My car: It's my personal private property, but... I am not allowed to be naked in my car, therefore no expectation of privacy.

My home: It's my personal private property, and I can prance around naked if I desire. There is an expectation of privacy.

:what::lol:

This makes perfect sense to me. And yet it scares me. All at the same time.
How the name nakedshoplifter came about worries me.
 

possumboy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,089
Location
Dumfries, Virginia, USA
imported post

The signs are up at DCRC. I placed a call to the director of parks about the signs.

He returned my call and said he is talking to the County's attorney and would call me back.

Their major defense is "parents have complained about people taking pictures of their kids".

I'm going to call back tomorrow and ask for an update.

I had a discussion with him back in 2006 about rude employees harassing me over my gun. He handled it quickly and professionally.

I'll update what I hear tomorrow.


On a side note, my wife said a mother was filming there the other day. We are guessing that they have problems with men filming. Which upsets me more that they assume I'm a pedophile.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
imported post

The "reasonable expectation of privacy" refers to Fourth Amendment privacy, not First Amendment privacy.  That's because the Eavesdropping, Wiretapping, and Electronic Surveillance Act was incorporated into the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 as a restraint against unlawful eavesdropping by law enforcement and agents of The State.  (This is the statute that George Bush admitted on television to having violated thousands of times.  The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act only gave the president an easy way to get the required warrant.  Each instance of wiretapping without a warrant was a felony.)

The Act states that each state may adopt its own version as long as it is no less restrictive than the federal statute.  So Maryland, Illinois, and a half a dozen other states with a history of political corruption, passed statutes that were more restrictive, in that cops had to have the consent of every party to the conversation before warrentless wiretaps could be performed.  That's because the politicians were afraid of prosecution.

Anyway, the expectation of privacy required is one where the person being observed has taken steps to ensure his own privacy; i.e., he's in his own bedroom, with no one else present, and the door is shut.  The "open fields" doctrine applies to conversations that take place in public or unsecured areas, even where one might feel he would be entitled to privacy.  For example, at a small table located at a remote corner of a restaurant.

The issue of taking pictures of kids in public is a concern.  It is a felony to be in possession of more than two images of persons who look like they might be (!) less than eighteen years old, if any part of the buttocks, breast, or "pubic region" is showing.  I.e., it's a crime to take pictures at the beach.  Even of your own kids.  Btw, the phrase, "pubic region" has been taken by a U.S. Court of Appeals to mean "the inner part of the thigh".
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

user wrote:
The Act states that each state may adopt its own version as long as it is no less restrictive than the federal statute.
Does this parse as '... as long as it is more than or as restrictive than the federal statute'?

It is a principle of formal logic that not less than is formally equivalent to greater than or equal to. De Morgans' theorem IIRC
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
user wrote:
The Act states that each state may adopt its own version as long as it is no less restrictive than the federal statute.
Does this parse as '... as long as it is more than or as restrictive than the federal statute'?

It is a principle of formal logic that not less than is formally equivalent to greater than or equal to. De Morgans' theorem IIRC

stake.jpg
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
user wrote:
The Act states that each state may adopt its own version as long as it is no less restrictive than the federal statute.
Does this parse as '... as long as it is more than or as restrictive than the federal statute'?



It is a principle of formal logic that not less than is formally equivalent to greater than or equal to.  De Morgans' theorem IIRC
 

Ahh, but that assumes that law has something to do with logic!

Actually, I had trouble with that one, too - but what it boils down to is that the prohibition against surreptitious recording must be at least as restrictive as the federal law, or else the federal statute will apply.
 

buster81

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

user wrote:
The issue of taking pictures of kids in public is a concern. It is a felony to be in possession of more than two images of persons who look like they might be (!) less than eighteen years old, if any part of the buttocks, breast, or "pubic region" is showing. I.e., it's a crime to take pictures at the beach. Even of your own kids. Btw, the phrase, "pubic region" has been taken by a U.S. Court of Appeals to mean "the inner part of the thigh".

How often does this becomea problem for people? I think it's safe to say that many people have more than two pictures of their own children when they were young that show at least the buttocks.

Is it really a crime to take pictures at the beach? I just got done taking dozens of pictures at the beach. They were all of parasailing. No kids at all, but it's hard to believe I was breaking a law? A few weeks ago, there was a volleyball tournament at Virginia Beach. I saw a ton of people taking pics there.
 
Top