Comments on: “You can’t take pictures of a federal building … that is against the law” http://carlosmiller.com/2009/05/19/you-cant-take-pictures-of-a-federal-building-that-is-against-the-law/ It's a First Amendment Right Sun, 26 Jun 2011 02:03:25 +0000 hourly 1 By: Matt http://carlosmiller.com/2009/05/19/you-cant-take-pictures-of-a-federal-building-that-is-against-the-law/#comment-20592 Matt Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:33:25 +0000 http://carlosmiller.com/?p=6648#comment-20592 http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=&vps=1&jsv=212a&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=22.431602,60.820313&ie=UTF8&geocode=FYyQewIdMBjd-g&split=0 http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=&vps=1&jsv=212a&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=22.431602,60.820313&ie=UTF8&geocode=FYyQewIdMBjd-g&split=0

]]> By: Matt http://carlosmiller.com/2009/05/19/you-cant-take-pictures-of-a-federal-building-that-is-against-the-law/#comment-20591 Matt Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:28:45 +0000 http://carlosmiller.com/?p=6648#comment-20591 Oh but on the other hand GOOGLE earth can stroll through and take pictures of every house in mishawaka including where we lived at (Hud) owned property and they probably won't ever get a call for filming on HUD owned land Oh but on the other hand GOOGLE earth can stroll through and take pictures of every house in mishawaka including where we lived at (Hud) owned property and they probably won’t ever get a call for filming on HUD owned land

]]> By: Matt http://carlosmiller.com/2009/05/19/you-cant-take-pictures-of-a-federal-building-that-is-against-the-law/#comment-20590 Matt Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:25:30 +0000 http://carlosmiller.com/?p=6648#comment-20590 Because the lawyer they use is also on on the town council plus it's now illegal to film on federal land. Those are the grounds they used on my wife and i. Now that it's illegal to film on federal land a crime can take place on HUD property and nobody can film it for evidence purposes. They used the excuse that Mr james Niswonger (the harasser) felt intimidated by me with the camera,combined with the new patriot act law. It's nice to know now that you can commit a crime on government property and nobody can film you doing it. Because the lawyer they use is also on on the town council plus it’s now illegal to film on federal land.
Those are the grounds they used on my wife and i.

Now that it’s illegal to film on federal land a crime can take place on HUD property and nobody can film it for evidence purposes.

They used the excuse that Mr james Niswonger (the harasser) felt intimidated by me with the camera,combined with the new patriot act law.

It’s nice to know now that you can commit a crime on government property and nobody can film you doing it.

]]> By: Shawn http://carlosmiller.com/2009/05/19/you-cant-take-pictures-of-a-federal-building-that-is-against-the-law/#comment-20292 Shawn Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:15:09 +0000 http://carlosmiller.com/?p=6648#comment-20292 That's an unjustified eviction. Why didn't you fight it? That’s an unjustified eviction. Why didn’t you fight it?

]]> By: Matt http://carlosmiller.com/2009/05/19/you-cant-take-pictures-of-a-federal-building-that-is-against-the-law/#comment-20278 Matt Thu, 04 Mar 2010 07:45:42 +0000 http://carlosmiller.com/?p=6648#comment-20278 My wife and i were EVICTED from Government housing in Mishawaka Ind Barbee Creek apts after a heated discussion with the admin there about a man that was harassing older women while they were in the laundry facilities that is in the building where the would be harasser lives. I had told them (the admin) that if this man harassed my wife again i would videotape it,they then proceeded to tell me i would be evicted if i did. I cannot even record a crime on federal property to protect my wife and other women across the street that are in the same situation. This man has shown tenants in our building a knife that is stuck in the tip of his cane and the office still favors this mam/harasser cause he is a VET. I will NEVER live in public housing again let alone one that is on federal property. Oh i forgot to mention i had permission from Corporal jojo who spoke to Sgt Fox at the police dept,they are the ones that gave me that go ahead to film. The housing authority calls it harrasment yet i was following every law not filming in windows etc. All i was using it for was to escort my wife in the evening to the laundry facility. I swear to god i will never stop video taping the wrongs in this world and i have even upgraded my camcorder with a very powerful telephoto lens so i can see up to 3 miles away. I know thats a little extreme, But after this experience and the fact we lived there 10 years with no problems is only proof that the government cannot be trusted anymore to right the wrongs in life. In that housing development what is wrong is right and what is right is WRONG. My wife and i were EVICTED from Government housing in Mishawaka Ind Barbee Creek apts after a heated discussion with the admin there about a man that was harassing older women while they were in the laundry facilities that is in the building where the would be harasser lives.
I had told them (the admin) that if this man harassed my wife again i would videotape it,they then proceeded to tell me i would be evicted if i did.
I cannot even record a crime on federal property to protect my wife and other women across the street that are in the same situation.

This man has shown tenants in our building a knife that is stuck in the tip of his cane and the office still favors this mam/harasser cause he is a VET.
I will NEVER live in public housing again let alone one that is on federal property.
Oh i forgot to mention i had permission from Corporal jojo who spoke to Sgt Fox at the police dept,they are the ones that gave me that go ahead to film.

The housing authority calls it harrasment
yet i was following every law not filming in windows etc.
All i was using it for was to escort my wife in the evening to the laundry facility.
I swear to god i will never stop video taping the wrongs in this world and i have even upgraded my camcorder with a very powerful telephoto lens so i can see up to 3 miles away.

I know thats a little extreme,
But after this experience and the fact we lived there 10 years with no problems is only proof that the government cannot be trusted anymore to right the wrongs in life.

In that housing development what is wrong is right and what is right is WRONG.

]]> By: tom http://carlosmiller.com/2009/05/19/you-cant-take-pictures-of-a-federal-building-that-is-against-the-law/#comment-12655 tom Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:29:21 +0000 http://carlosmiller.com/?p=6648#comment-12655 They file charges to justify having made an arrest and harassing the reporter, and they don't suffer a penalty like they should. Dock them a month's pay for that kind of performance and they won't be so eager. They file charges to justify having made an arrest and harassing the reporter, and they don’t suffer a penalty like they should. Dock them a month’s pay for that kind of performance and they won’t be so eager.

]]> By: Roy http://carlosmiller.com/2009/05/19/you-cant-take-pictures-of-a-federal-building-that-is-against-the-law/#comment-11774 Roy Sat, 23 May 2009 15:15:07 +0000 http://carlosmiller.com/?p=6648#comment-11774 Carlos, I enjoy your blog and agree with you most of the time. However, you are not being consistent. Just like the earlier Ron Zigler incident, this is a very bad example of how photographers should defend their rights. I agree that she would have been well within her rights to video anyone and everyone - including the audio - had she been on public property. However, she was *not* on public property, she was on private property. And you do *not* have the right to photograph or video from private property once the owner, or his representative, have ordered you to cease and desist and leave. The woman was clearly committing trespass. She had been warned at least three times to leave or be arrested. She didn't start to go until the cop finally declared her under arrest and ordered her out of the car. Once you are under arrest, you don't get to say "never mind" and then go on your way. Personally, I'm glad the charges were dropped - including the trespass charge. But this woman was clearly in the wrong and did indeed deserve to be arrested. I think she learned a valuable lesson here and so should we. And by the way, "Uncle Sam", the instigator of the whole thing, is one of those types that I have utter contempt for. (And it has nothing to do with his ideology.) He seems to think that his opinion means more than the property right of others. If it had been *my* sign, on *my* property that he was defacing, I would have been sorely tempted to shoot his ass off the top of that billboard. However, that's my anger talking. Calling the cops on him was the proper thing to do. But I hope he got jail time. Carlos, I enjoy your blog and agree with you most of the time. However, you are not being consistent.

Just like the earlier Ron Zigler incident, this is a very bad example of how photographers should defend their rights. I agree that she would have been well within her rights to video anyone and everyone – including the audio – had she been on public property. However, she was *not* on public property, she was on private property. And you do *not* have the right to photograph or video from private property once the owner, or his representative, have ordered you to cease and desist and leave.

The woman was clearly committing trespass. She had been warned at least three times to leave or be arrested. She didn’t start to go until the cop finally declared her under arrest and ordered her out of the car. Once you are under arrest, you don’t get to say “never mind” and then go on your way.

Personally, I’m glad the charges were dropped – including the trespass charge. But this woman was clearly in the wrong and did indeed deserve to be arrested. I think she learned a valuable lesson here and so should we.

And by the way, “Uncle Sam”, the instigator of the whole thing, is one of those types that I have utter contempt for. (And it has nothing to do with his ideology.) He seems to think that his opinion means more than the property right of others. If it had been *my* sign, on *my* property that he was defacing, I would have been sorely tempted to shoot his ass off the top of that billboard. However, that’s my anger talking. Calling the cops on him was the proper thing to do. But I hope he got jail time.

]]> By: Carlos Miller http://carlosmiller.com/2009/05/19/you-cant-take-pictures-of-a-federal-building-that-is-against-the-law/#comment-11755 Carlos Miller Fri, 22 May 2009 22:10:26 +0000 http://carlosmiller.com/?p=6648#comment-11755 Roy, It looked as if she was leaving. Besides, there was still no basis for an illegal wiretapping charge. Also, they dropped the trespassing charge. Roy,

It looked as if she was leaving. Besides, there was still no basis for an illegal wiretapping charge.

Also, they dropped the trespassing charge.

]]> By: Roy http://carlosmiller.com/2009/05/19/you-cant-take-pictures-of-a-federal-building-that-is-against-the-law/#comment-11754 Roy Fri, 22 May 2009 22:08:33 +0000 http://carlosmiller.com/?p=6648#comment-11754 I distinctly heard the manager of the property tell that woman to leave at least three times. She had the right to video those people but *not* from private property where she had been asked, then told, to leave. That's called trespass. She deserved to be arrested. And Bush had nothing to do with any of it - nor Obama. I distinctly heard the manager of the property tell that woman to leave at least three times. She had the right to video those people but *not* from private property where she had been asked, then told, to leave. That’s called trespass.

She deserved to be arrested.

And Bush had nothing to do with any of it – nor Obama.

]]>