# "New" Wyoming Law



## JumboShrimp (May 14, 2015)

Interesting ... see link here:

http://www.popphoto.com/did-wyoming-just-make-it-illegal-photograph-public-land?cmpid=enews0501415&spPodID=020&spMailingID=7742780&spUserID=NDY1NjE4OTYzODAS1&spJobID=681537860&spReportId=NjgxNTM3ODYwS0


----------



## AcutancePhotography (May 15, 2015)

As long as you have legal authority to be on the land, you can take the pictures. 6-3-414 (a) (ii) (A) for public land and 6-3-414 (b) (ii) (A) for private land. 

What these sections define is trespassing which is nothing new. This legislation addresses the collection of data (to include photography) while engaged in trespass.

This is to address a situation where a person may claim that their "right" to take a photograph supersedes trespass law.

What is of concern with this legislation is 6-3-414 (e) "No resource data [to include photography] collected in violation of this section is admissible in evidence in any civil, criminal or administrative proceeding, other than a prosecution for violation of this section or a civil action against the violator."

This means that if you trespass and take pictures that indicate an unlawful operation by, for example, the government, your picture can not be admissible as evidence. Think about that for a bit. 

You can take photographs if you have legal authority to be on public or private land.... the real question is when can this legal authority be taken away?

If LE is responding to an incident, does LE have the authority to temporarily revoke a citizen's authority to legally be in a specific area? If so, and LE does revoke this authority, then the citizen would not only be trespassing but any photographs of, for example, police brutality, would be inadmissible in any court proceedings that would involve the police. 

It will be interesting to see if this new legislation survives higher court review.


----------



## fragilesi (May 15, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> This means that if you trespass and take pictures that indicate an unlawful operation by, for example, the government, your picture can not be admissible as evidence. Think about that for a bit.
> 
> It will be interesting to see if this new legislation survives higher court review.



Very interesting . . . so if you managed to photograph an assault or homicide would this also then be inadmissable in court because you are trespassing?


----------



## AcutancePhotography (May 15, 2015)

fragilesi said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > This means that if you trespass and take pictures that indicate an unlawful operation by, for example, the government, your picture can not be admissible as evidence. Think about that for a bit.
> ...



According to that section of the law, yes, it would be inadmissible. However, like I wrote, I don't know if this section of the legislation will pass judicial review. 

On the other hand, this is like the restrictions that LE has to deal with. Evidence that LE collects that is later deemed to be collected illegally, can not, in most cases, be admissible as evidence. 

So in this context, this legislation is just placing the same restrictions that LE deals with onto citizens. 

Just another way to look at this legislation.


----------



## Eagle Eye (May 15, 2015)

Uh, so this law has nothing to do with what has been discussed so far. If you're a photographer, don't trespass (separate statute from this). If you're not trespassing, no problem. If you are trespassing, don't turn your photographs over to the government and you won't trigger this provision; see the definition of "collect." As for photographs of a crime, there's nothing in the legislative history that would cause a court to apply this provision, especially given the broad carve outs for law enforcement acting in official capacity. The irony of this bill is that it's designed to prevent the EPA from checking pollutants in waterways but the EPA is not bound by this law. The supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution exempts federal officials acting in official capacity from being subject to local laws. This bill is 1) ineffective at what it claims to do and 2) nothing additional to existing trespass statutes.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (May 15, 2015)

I am reminded of one of my favourite legal quotes

"You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered; but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered." -- Lyndon Johnson


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 15, 2015)

The wording of the law includes all public land (State and Federal). You are "Trespassing" if you photograph on public land without written permission.

Its clearly aimed at hiding pollution, and even claims State jurisdiction over public land.

That part of it would not stand up in court.

You are not even allowed to collect air. So hold your breath while taking photos in Yellowstone Park, or get written permission to do so.

You can't take any diseased fish you catch to have them inspected either.

Wyoming was considering buying a Aircraft Carrier to defend their territory a few years ago, but found no suitable places to sail it.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/25/1068222/-Wyoming-legislature-wants-to-buy-Aircaft-Carrier


----------



## NancyP (May 15, 2015)

Like most such laws, it is meant to be an anti-journalist, anti-citizen law. I am pretty sure that even the current Supreme Court would throw it out.


----------



## ajperk (May 15, 2015)

I have heard of similar laws being passed in states with large farming sectors, particularly poultry, cattle, pig, etc... In those cases, the laws were drafted and passed in response to videos and pictures of animal cruelty (and other questionable farming practices) that were later used to put pressure on large farms to reform practices and improve the treatment of their animals. In nearly all the cases the photographic evidence was acquired by trespassing or by undercover activists who obtained temporary jobs as farm workers.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 15, 2015)

ajperk said:


> I have heard of similar laws being passed in states with large farming sectors, particularly poultry, cattle, pig, etc... In those cases, the laws were drafted and passed in response to videos and pictures of animal cruelty (and other questionable farming practices) that were later used to put pressure on large farms to reform practices and improve the treatment of their animals. In nearly all the cases the photographic evidence was acquired by trespassing or by undercover activists who obtained temporary jobs as farm workers.




Some of those laws go one step further, you can't photograph those areas from a public place either, so taking your photo out of a car window as you drive down a interstate highway was also banned.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (May 15, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Some of those laws go one step further, you can't photograph those areas from a public place either, so taking your photo out of a car window as you drive down a interstate highway was also banned.



That is an excellent and very important point. There is a misconception that you can legally take a photograph of anything as long as you are on public land. In most cases, that is true, but not in all. The President can establish national security locations in which photography, even from public areas is prohibited.


----------

