On 10/16/05, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That really is the crux of the matter, isn't it? > Is the simple act of looking through the viewfinder of a camera enough of a > probable cause to give the police unfettered rights of harrassment?
no - see my response to tom. for reasonable and probable grounds (rpg), all elements of the offense must be made out. if you read this law as presented above, it seems that taking 'sexual" photos isn't enough. they must be for the sexual gratification of the photographer or others. not to be crude, but unless the photographer is walking around with an erection, how are they going to know that? the answer is that they're either going to surveil him for hours, follow him home, see if he uploads them on a lurid site (unlikely) or they're going to ask him questions and see if he's stupid enough to answer truthfully. or, they could just take his camera without consent, then lie in the police report to say that he agreed to let thenm look at it... > If that becomes probably cause, can carrying a camera be next? > How about carrying a concealed camera? > Will the law be enforced with equality? Or will the police be profiling > specific people for intimidation? they'll do whatever the hell they want, i suspect... -frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
