Pentax K-30: a pretty package of a camera
Can you fix the focus on a blurry photo after the fact?
The birth of Mirrorless Cameras
The Joy Of Winning A Photo Contest
Choosing your first dSLR camera
New York City can be beautiful!
Choosing the Right Light Stand
Photojojo iPhone Telephoto Lens review — AudioCast
How To Buy Digital Photo Frames For An Exhibit - Part 2
Hey MAC users! A great source and an April Fool that is no joke
My week with Q
How To Become A Successful Photographer
"When the Wind Stopped" — poem with 4 photos
Creating The New Family Portrait
Tips for Textures 
Cast aways - saving those photographic memories
One Man Show: My 25 Years With Digital Photography
Studio, Flash, & Available Light — Three Books Reviewed
Portrait styling: dangerous pairings
Adobe Photoshop CS6 Product Managers Interview Audiocast
A gift of flowers: unfold your senses
On Set of "Love & Robots" the Film
No-Brainer Setup For A Digital Photo Frame Exhibit - Part 3
Exhibiting With Digital Photo Frames (DPF) Part 1
Planning “National Geographic” style photo travel
Find Inner Peace and Beauty at San Jose, California, Airport
Wilderness Travel 1 Rainforests – Essential Gear
Backlighting Basics
What Moves You?
FIGURES IN MOTION: Decades of Evolving Personal Imagery in Photography, Part 7
Lomography Store, Austin, Texas — GALLERY
GALLERY — Up to $1,000 Reward for Cattle Rustlers
25% off on photography eBooks
eyePhone: The eBook for iPhone Photographers
Interview with Harold Davis — Closeup Maestro of Flowers & Water Drops
Interview with Steve Caplin — Photoshop Digital Artist, Commercial Illustrator, & Author
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 3 of 3
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 2 Of 3
Easy technique to select, edit and sequence keywords for web
How much should you charge for a photograph?Female Magistrate Accused Of Photographing Men At Public Urinals
Rhonda Hollander, a female traffic magistrate in South Florida, apparently believes she has the right to walk into men’s public bathrooms and photograph them while urinating because the bathrooms are, well, public.
The attorney obviously missed the section of the law stating it is illegal to photograph people who have an expectation of privacy.
According to the South Florida Sun Sentinel.
A man named Willie Jackson Jr., of Tamarac, said Hollander snapped a picture while he prepared to use a urinal in the courthouse at 100 N. Pine Island Road in Plantation. She took a picture of another man as he entered the bathroom, according to the (arrest) report.
When Broward Sheriff's Deputy Darlene Harden confronted Hollander a short time later, the magistrate admitted taking a picture but refused to turn over her phone, arguing that it was a public restroom and she was not violating any laws, according to the report.
As Harden escorted both Hollander and Jackson to an office in the courthouse, Hollander continued to take pictures, according to the report. Harden pointed her finger at Hollander and ordered her to stop. "At that time she lunged towards my finger in an attempt to bite it," Harden wrote in the report.
The two women struggled and Harden arrested Hollander. There was no indication in the report of whether Hollander and Jackson know each other.
Hollander, who has been licensed to practice law in Florida since 1990, faces charges of resisting an officer without violence, assaulting an officer, and obstruction with violence, the latter which felony that can land her in prison for five years.
Curiously, none of the charges relate to her walking into men’s bathrooms and photographing them while urinating.
In fact, all the charges seem to stem from what happened after she tried photographing the deputy, which is not a crime (as long as the deputy wasn’t urinating in a public bathroom).
Nevertheless, the deputy confiscated her camera as evidence.
I can’t wait to see pictures from this case.
Comments
Sometimes photography is a crime.
It's a public bathroom so one could can easily argue that unless you're inside a stall you really don't have an expectation of privacy since anybody can enter and see you using the urinal or doing whatever it is people tend to do in public bathrooms.
But have you ever gone on a cross-country trip and stop at any of the major truck stops? People are half-naked at the sinks, brushing their teeth, shaving their bodies, and so forth.
It's disgusting and I did not appreciate seeing any of it, but had to deal with since it was a public bathroom. Next trip people using the truck stop bathrooms will just have to deal with my camera.
If you want privacy find a private bathroom with a locking door where no one else can enter.
discarted - I have to disagree with you. Whether or not the bathroom is 'public' is not the deciding factor.
People can have an expectation of privacy out in public. One example that comes to mind is a person entering their PIN in an ATM machine. They are out in pubic but they do have a legal expectation of privacy.
I think they same would hold true in a public bathroon
Please provide that actually law, MC, or statue.
Also, do you believe that privacy extends to the woman in front of me at the store typing in her pin number that is clearly visible? Or just ATMs?
What about someone who puts their ATM/credit card down on the counter at the checkout line—do they have an expectation of privacy regarding the number even though I can clearly see it.
Finally, what about conversations in a public bathroom in relation to each state's wiretapping laws? Based on your reason all conversations in public bathrooms, which can be heard by anyone (including strangers) in the bathroom, would be private.
I don't think so, and in California I can record your conversation in a public bathroom because an expectation of privacy does not exist. It's public space.
Does it have to be a law to expect decency and dignity? (Doesn't seem to matter with serial-offender law enforcement employees.)
So you would need a law to keep you from just waiting in the bathroom of the opposite sex until you think you should leave? Camera waiting and ready in hand?
Unless it is clearly marked as uni-sex or not designated as either but has a locking door, basic privacy should be respected. Once a child is in the public bathroom what then? It all goes bad from there...
I was in a uni-sex bathroom in Korea once. It was truly weird everyone sharing the mirrors and sinks. Sturdy locking doors were used but there still was a gap under the door. A lower gap but still there.
So if you believe an expectation of privacy does exist inside a public bathroom, then does that mean you also believe that conversations that occur inside public bathrooms where all kinds of people can listen to what is being said are private and can't be recorded?
Here's a very nice photo from Guy Reynolds, which was taken inside a public bathroom and it seems like nobody's privacy was violated.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/guyr/365567811/in/set-72157594495833639/
“One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.”
—Restatement (Second) of Torts, 652B, American Law Institute.
The right to photograph in public is not absolute.
Can a "reasonable person" standing inside an LAX bathroom surrounded by 50 strangers have an expectation of privacy?
Doesn't seem likely.
Discarted - can you have an expectation of privacy in your home if you have 50 guests there? The answer is a solid yes.
The number of people in an area is not the deciding factor in whether or not a reasonable person would expect privacy.
An ATM on the street can gave any number of people walking past it. It is not private in the sense that you have the area all to yourself. But there is an expectation of privacy.
While in your local Walgreen's there are any number of people milling around and shopping. Even though they attempt to give a private area for prescription consultations it is not a vacuum. Conversations can be overheard. The customers do have an expectation of privacy here.
As a reasonable person I believe that I have a reasonable expectation of privacy when I am facing a urinal in a public bathroom.You may feel differently.
@discarted You try taking pictured of dudes cleaning up in a truck stop bathroom and see how many teeth you leave with. It's common sense man. You DON'T photograph people using the restroom behind closed doors, unless you just woke up one day and decided it would be a good day to add some knuckle shaped color to your eyes.
If you wanna take pictures of half naked men "shaving their bodies", be my guest, but don't come back here crying when they destroy your face with your camera. Personally I don't swing that way, but I'm not one to judge.
Like most people, truckers bark loud but have a weak bite.
A sense of an expectation of privacy versus a real and actual expectation of privacy are completely different realities. Like decency and dignity a sense of privacy is subjective and everyone has their own interpretation. You know some people actually think photographing people on the street without their permission is indecent. On the other hand, it's been establish via the court system and through law that an expectation of privacy does not exist when you are in public.
It's obvious that there are two very opposing viewpoints regarding this issue. However, it's hard to understand how someone can argue that someone using a public ATM does have an expectation of privacy at the machine when the entire transaction is being documented/recorded by the bank.
So it's okay for a private corporation to record, but we can't? That's not how it works—it's a two way street and if ever becomes a one-way street (for instance, Illinois) then we have a problem. Moreover, that ATM camera is able to record you because you don't have an expectation of privacy!!! There aren't separate laws for ATM cameras in this country!
When you're anywhere in public, including at an ATM machine or in a public bathroom, where you can be viewed or heard by anyone, an expectation of privacy is unwarranted. More important, the burden is on ourselves to keep our private information and our private parts private while exposing them in public places.
For the most part I avoid public bathrooms, but if there aren't any dividers between the urinals in a bathroom I pick the last one and turn my body toward the corner so no one can sneak a peak. When I'm at the bank and the teller asks me what's my social security number, I write it down on a piece of paper, show it to her, and keep the paper because I know I'm surrounded by all kinds of wonderful L.A. people who could easily hear me say it and write it down. When I use my debit card I make sure I cover the card number with my hand and cup the machine with my hand when typing in my pin. That way no one can see it. I also shield my niece and nephew when they have to be changed in public. If somebody takes a picture of me doing it, then oh well I'm the jackass who chose to expose my family in public.
These are just some steps I take to protect what I consider private while in public because I know anybody can photograph/record me at any time.
Despite all of that, nobody has answered whether or not, conversations in a public bathroom are private. I think we all know the answer to the question though, which means photography is permitted in public bathrooms.
This would be a very gray area that would probably rely on quite a bit of case law. My understanding is that bathrooms aren't public spaces but simply open to the public which is why restrooms can be separated by sex. In SD this could be very illegal depending upon the case law in how SDCL 22-21-4 has been interpreted and implemented in the past. "No person may... visually record any other person without clothing or under or through the clothing, for the purpose of viewing the body of, or the undergarments worn by, that other person, without the consent or knowledge of that other person" http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statu...
A bathroom, whether open to the public or not, is not a public space in the typical sense. There is a great expectation of privacy when one is using the restroom because people are vulnerable in those situations. In addition they are designed to maintain privacy (dividers, solid doors and walls et cetera) A conversation that can be clearly heard is quite different than an image of a person using the restroom. This is about the kind of privacy people expect. It is not unreasonable to expect some privacy in any restroom, therefore it is not fair game for photography. One cannot reasonably expect to run around it naked and not be seen or talk without being overheard. If im pissing in a toilet i shouldn't have to worry about being photographed. If I do it in plain view of the entire public then be my guest. It may or may not be illegal, criminal law, but it is 100% a tort and could result in a costly civil lawsuit.
""No person may... visually record any other person without clothing or under or through the clothing, for the purpose of viewing the body of, or the undergarments worn by, that other person, without the consent or knowledge of that other person""
Laws created by non-intellectual heavyweights (particularly on the state and local level) in power have been ruled on unconstitutional throughout US history.
If you can see it from a public sidewalk (such as the girl with the creme translucent dress that clearly revealed her ass and white thong with the little blue flowers on it walking in front of me last night), then we can photograph it without her permission despite what SD county code says.
If you read the entire text, which is why I linked to it, it stipulates that the photography must be "with the intent to self-gratify, to harass, or embarrass and invade the privacy of that other person" as is the case in the article here. Your example doesn't violate that because she is essentially in her underwear out in public, in clear view of everyone and anyone. So as long as you weren't doing it out of lust or was not doing so as harassment then it wouldn't be illegal here.
We get lots of those types around here during the motorcycle rally. I know of no one getting arrested for photographing any of the many people exposing themselves.
That was good for a laugh.
I think she also needs to register as a sex offender for life.
They can't seem to get it right from either side of the camera.
I was surprised by the weirdness until I saw the word "Florida."
I don't care who she was and what she did in the men's room. Outside while in "public" she had every right to photograph, and you people should be supporting her. She was arrested for resisting an unlawful order pertaining to her public photography. It had nothing to do with her previous actions. Putting the peeping tom and biting stuff aside, she was abused by the system for exercising one of her first amendment rights.
Yeah, that's great. But if you actually read the article, you would have noticed that the deputy was escorting her to another location in the courthouse.
So your entire argument kind of just falls apart, because once you're officially detained, you no longer have the same freedom of action that you did right before.
You still have the right to do things that don't interfere with the investigation that you are being detained for. Taking pictures does not interfere with anything.
Yikes- I assumed she had some pretend law degree, like some of those boobs who worked in the Bush era Justice Department... but this broad got her bona fides at Boston College. Guess they won't be bringing HER back for any commencement exercises.
She's confusing "pubic area" with "public area"
+1
Post new comment