Know your rights: teen arrested for photographing mall takedown

cybercoma · November 16, 2012

I don't disagree... but when he leaves to go, attempting to take away his camera and assaulting him while attempting to do so is clearly illegal.

Yes it is. Actually, the photographs themselves in Canada are considered the photographer's property and if he took them before he was told not to, then they have no right to confiscate them or his equipment. However, in this case we don't know whether there's a sign at the entranceway (typically on the doors or a community board near the doors) informing clients that photography is not allowed. If it is, then any pictures he took were taken illegally and they have every right to demand that they be deleted.

And the entire premise that security guards should be chasing kids around the mall who are taking cellphone pictures is patently absurd.

Of course it is. Usually they handle it in another manner, but if the owner has indicated that they don't want photos taken then it's part of their responsibility to inform the public of this and the security guards have a responsibility to enforce it.

Years and years ago when I worked in retail, the store that I was at was very adamant that no photos be taken in the store. They posted it on the door and the loss prevention team would actually kick people out for taking photos. Usually they handled it by telling the person that it's not allowed and it's posted on the door. Then they would ask them to delete the photos. If the person became belligerent, then they would be charged with trespassing and kicked out forcefully.

WWWTT · November 16, 2012

I have researched it. There's no reasonable expectation of privacy, but it's private property so they have every right to insist that you don't take pictures. If you do, you're breaking the law (trespassing).

Wrong again!

If you take pictures you are breaking their rules!

Their rules are not the law!

If they ask you to leave and you refuse,then you are trespassing and it is up to the owner to ask for charges to be laid.

If you plead not guilty then you have a right to a fair trial.

If the judge preceding over this case finds you guilty,then you in fact broke the law.

WWWTT

cybercoma · November 16, 2012

You mean to tell me you haven't broken a law until you've been convicted?

Tell me something I don't know, WWWTT.

WWWTT · November 16, 2012

Yes well, it is obvious you have no grasp on this subject, nor are you an honest debator.

I love it when posters start attacking character.

The ultimate admision to defeat!

WWWTT

guyser · November 16, 2012

Not long now, only a couple posts you had cars, and now you cross that out. And for good reason,

Yes becuase I know being phot'd in a car is not criminal.

The devices to monitor you are already there. Got one of those new TVs that has high def cameras and high def mics and connected to the Internet. Some TVs have wifi in them as well. All hackable and all can be tapped in to monitor you. Are they doing it? Quite possibly, you just don't have an idea you are being eavesdropped on. Cell phones, same bit .. even items like the XBOX Kinnect can be tapped into.

And I asked 'Where is this done legally'....none of those would be legal

WWWTT · November 16, 2012

You mean to tell me you haven't broken a law until you've been convicted?

Tell me something I don't know, WWWTT.

I already did in the quote that you croped this sentence from.

WWWTT

Edited November 16, 2012 by WWWTT

guyser · November 16, 2012

I love it when posters start attacking character.

The ultimate admision to defeat!

WWWTT

The shoe fits.

You ask 'A'...get an answer and become aghast because you meant 'B'

Dishonest. Look back some posts, you said in my house, then aghast because you meant using a public restroom.

Shoe fits.

Edited November 16, 2012 by guyser

cybercoma · November 16, 2012

We obviously agree. I'm not sure why you're being pedantic.

In any case, the RCMP and security will lose for confiscating the photographer's property (his backpack, camera, and photos themselves). They're not allowed to do that, even on private property.

g_bambino · November 16, 2012

None the less, you can't confiscate property if someone violates a private property rule.

Assuming it is the "tresspasser's" property: True.

[ed.: +]

Edited November 16, 2012 by g_bambino

g_bambino · November 16, 2012

Are you saying that if I'm in your house and if I want to use the washroom you may suspend my constitutional rights and not let me?

You don't have a constitutional right to use his washroom. It's his washroom; he can allow whomever to use it whenever he pleases.

login · November 16, 2012

Assuming it is the "tresspasser's" property: True.

[ed.: +]

Well yeah, saying don't take pictures with your camera.... sort of implies the presumption that it is his camera.

Thus trying to seize the camera or damage his film is a criminal act for a private citizen to engage in.

Now if the photos or the act of taking photos incorporated illegality or aided and abbeted an indictable offence, I might say it would be justified to seize the camera, such as state secrets, child porn etc.. however these were photos of a violent citizens arrest, which we do not have a background of the reasons the person on the ground was being arrested at the mall.....

deleting the photos destroying the film would be totally out of the question unless it jepordized national security immediately etc.. otherwise it would have to be left to a court order for destruction.

It would definately be mischeif to destroy the property as it is intentional destruction of property totally illegal. Also itmay be worse if that destruction was to obstruct justice due to the nature of the film catching criminal acts by the security gaurds.

The guards have also raised false alarm in telling the kid to stop resisting, as well as getting physical with the kid where no use of force prior existed, meaning the gaurds were not meeting force with force, which means they also definately assaulted him. Making a physical arrest in a non violent person where there is no flight is definately an unreasonable use of force, which may be why the gaurds were all edgy to begin with.. they were using unreasonable amount of force and could be sued and charged for that use of force if it was not requried.

Edited November 16, 2012 by login

WWWTT · November 16, 2012

You don't have a constitutional right to use his washroom. It's his washroom; he can allow whomever to use it whenever he pleases.

Ya no kidding,it's called a joke.

And the joke keeps getting bigger!

WWWTT

guyser · November 16, 2012

Ya no kidding,it's called a joke.

And the joke keeps getting bigger!

WWWTT

It sure does, Im laughing at your attempt to convince anyone you were kidding.

For the record, this was a joke???

Are you saying that when you enter private property you lose your constitutional rights???
A freekin stupid sign over a door saying "no pictures allowed" in no way can waive away your rights!

Yea right.

Argus · November 17, 2012

his reasons don't matter. By law you cannot take photos on private property without the owner's permission.

Cite the law, please.

Argus · November 17, 2012

Look, it's a public space, so you're allowed to take photos there until you're told otherwise. Since it is private property if you are told otherwise (ie, by mall security, or there's a sign hanging [we don't know if there was or not in this case]), you must stop taking pictures or you will be considered criminally trespassing. What needs to be established is whether 1) the person was told to stop photographing, or 2) there was a sign posted that indicated no photography on mall property. Regardless, the property owner or those acting on the owner's behalf (security) have every right to ask you to stop photographing on their property and you must comply.

Not actually true.

They can ask you to stand on your head if they want. Their only recourse if you refuse to order you to leave. This was not done. Instead the individual was assaulted by the mall's security guards.

Argus · November 17, 2012

. If the person became belligerent, then they would be charged with trespassing and kicked out forcefully.

It's been a while but my knowledge of the law is that the only recourse they have is to order him to leave. If he refuses to leave they can call the police to escort him out. If he refuses a police order to leave he can then be charged with criminal trespass.

The_Squid · November 17, 2012

An interesting take:

Private Property

You can photograph whatever you can freely see. If the public is allowed to enter, then you can take photographs. This includes shopping malls, the lobbies of office buildings, parks, and shops. If a place is open to the public then permission to enter (and thus photograph) is assumed. However, that permission can be revoked. If you are asked to leave and do not, you are then trespassing, which is a separate issue.

Source: http://www.photosecrets.com/photography-law-permission-can-i-take-this-photo

blueblood · November 17, 2012

We obviously agree. I'm not sure why you're being pedantic.

In any case, the RCMP and security will lose for confiscating the photographer's property (his backpack, camera, and photos themselves). They're not allowed to do that, even on private property.

Search incidental to arrest. It's common law. I'm quite sure the kid would have gotten them back when he was released from custody.

blueblood · November 17, 2012

It's been a while but my knowledge of the law is that the only recourse they have is to order him to leave. If he refuses to leave they can call the police to escort him out. If he refuses a police order to leave he can then be charged with criminal trespass.

That would be mischief, I already posted the section of the criminal code.

The_Squid · November 17, 2012

Search incidental to arrest. It's common law. I'm quite sure the kid would have gotten them back when he was released from custody.

The arrest was unlawful.

blueblood · November 17, 2012

The arrest was unlawful.

Refer to page one where i laid out he elements of the offense for cause a disturbance. Swearing is part of it. I agree it's a kick in the balls charge, but nonetheless it is one, and it's a straight summary, which means to be arrested for it he has to be found committing. Dumbass was swearing in a place in a manner in which it was reasonable for an ordinary person to be disturbed by dumbasses swearing.

The arrest was lawful. A gut shot, but lawful. The criminal code is quite clear. Also dumbass was swearing in front of the cops.

Edited November 17, 2012 by blueblood

The_Squid · November 17, 2012

He wasn't charged with anything.

You wouldn't swear if you were assaulted by security guards? The kid wasn't the one who should've been arrested.

blueblood · November 17, 2012

I've never seen the posting. None the less, you can't confiscate property if someone violates a private property rule. Like occured, you can ask them to leave the property which he started doing. But, there was no arrest for tresspassing.

You could apply for a court order, but a breach of personal preference does not facilitate use of force for private citizens.

Also normally security should escort someone off private property, but they do not have the right to make any physical contact whatsoever, unless the person fails to leave the property endangering peoples lives and police will not be available to intervene---

Security are not suppose to make arrests through use of force unless there is no other option and even then they are liable if they act outside of the the TPA or whatever other act exists because individuals do not have immunity, except perhaps indictable offences.

And confiscation of private property is a definate non allowance, that is theft. Also issuing orders to individuals under threat of violence against the indivdiual or their property is also assault,and could be interpreted as uttering threats.

Basically anywhere you can't smoke, you can take photos.

Section 494 says otherwise

Marginal note:Arrest without warrant by any person

494. (1) Any one may arrest without warrant

(a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or

( a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes

(i) has committed a criminal offence, and

(ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person.

Marginal note:Arrest by owner, etc., of property

(2) Any one who is

(a) the owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or

( a person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of property,

may arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property.

And here...

25. (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law

(a) as a private person,

( as a peace officer or public officer,

(d) by virtue of his office,

is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

And here...

27. Every one is justified in using as much force as is reasonably necessary

(a) to prevent the commission of an offence

(i) for which, if it were committed, the person who committed it might be arrested without warrant, and

(ii) that would be likely to cause immediate and serious injury to the person or property of anyone; or

( to prevent anything being done that, on reasonable grounds, he believes would, if it were done, be an offence mentioned in paragraph (a).

R.S., c. C-34, s. 27.

Marginal note:Use of force on board an aircraft

I mean c'mon man!!

Marginal note:Idem

blueblood · November 17, 2012

He wasn't charged with anything.

You wouldn't swear if you were assaulted by security guards? The kid wasn't the one who should've been arrested.

You can be released without charge. Happens a lot.

He was arrested for an offense what he could be charged with. The authorities chose not to charge him probably because it's a mountain of paper for most likely a fine of less than 100 dollars.

blueblood · November 17, 2012

He wasn't charged with anything.

You wouldn't swear if you were assaulted by security guards? The kid wasn't the one who should've been arrested.

How close was the kids to the security guards, do we know if he may have been getting in their way? That's an important part we don't know about. The kid decided to be stupid and start flipping out and got placed in bracelets. Boo hoo!