George Steinmetz arrested while shooting for Nat Geo in....
- Thread starter little big man
- Start date
I can understand them getting arrested for trespassing and parking their car on land that was clearly posted. There's no disputing that. That's a no-brainer and the fines are a small price to pay to get the good shots. They knew the risks and factored that minor detail in.
"We made contact with the individuals and arrested them for criminal trespass," Bascue said. "We had an obligation to the property owner, since they had driven on the property without permission and it was clearly posted."
What I don't understand is at what altitude over private property does the air space become public space? Or does all of this fall under FAA jurisdiction and one has to follow their guidelines no matter if the land is public or private?
Well they trespassed when they drove onto someone else's property. So the case is a no brainer. They did something he shouldn't have done. Nat Geo photographer or not. Plea to a non criminal offense, pay the fine and move on.
Now if he launched from a place where he was entitled to be that would be far more interesting. If that were the case I would want that sheriff to send criminal trespass tickets to Google, the weather channel and any other satellite flyovers. But in reality, air space is a Federal jurisdiction, and not a State one. So a State officer can't enforce laws dealing with air space.
Now if he launched from a place where he was entitled to be that would be far more interesting. If that were the case I would want that sheriff to send criminal trespass tickets to Google, the weather channel and any other satellite flyovers. But in reality, air space is a Federal jurisdiction, and not a State one. So a State officer can't enforce laws dealing with air space.
In the US, the Supreme Court in the United States vs Causby rules the following (emphasis added):
(a) The common law doctrine that ownership of land extends to the periphery of the universe has no place in the modern world. Pp. 328 U. S. 260-261.
(b) The air above the minimum safe altitude of flight prescribed by the Civil Aeronautics Authority is a public highway and part of the public domain, as declared by Congress in the Air Commerce Act of 1926, as amended by the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938. Pp. 328 U. S. 260-261, 328 U. S. 266.
(c) Flights below that altitude are not within the navigable air space which Congress placed within the public domain, even though they are within the path of glide approved by the Civil Aeronautics Authority. Pp. 328 U. S. 263-264.
Concerns over food security and agriterrorism.
Legit concern. See Chicago tylenol murder case. Safety of the food chain and water supply is one of the highest concerns. There is no easier way to attack an entire population than thru food and water. The CDC would be the primary response team for civilian bio-terrorism events (IIRC they work closely with the USDA and the FBI on food bio terrorism issues). The military also has response teams if it's a military issue.
Should they be excused from trespass just because they are Nat Geo? I don't think so. Should they know better? I think so. The only reason this is news is that it is someone who is known.
The air space issue is interesting to me for two reasons. One is the cited issue of any food supply issue, the same could be said for things like water sources. Per the cited Supreme Court rulings noted above, was he below that "navigable" altitude? The second thing I can think of regarding the air space, is what affect that could have in stampeding a herd of cattle. Perhaps not an act of food terrorism, but it could sure cause a lot of damage.
We photograph a lot around here on and around farm property. We are very careful to watch for any signs of private property and no trespass. A number of area, one just recently in fact, have been closed to us because of the bad behavior of some individuals.
Just because it is Steinmetz and Nat Geo should not make any difference at all. Of all people, he should know better.
The air space issue is interesting to me for two reasons. One is the cited issue of any food supply issue, the same could be said for things like water sources. Per the cited Supreme Court rulings noted above, was he below that "navigable" altitude? The second thing I can think of regarding the air space, is what affect that could have in stampeding a herd of cattle. Perhaps not an act of food terrorism, but it could sure cause a lot of damage.
We photograph a lot around here on and around farm property. We are very careful to watch for any signs of private property and no trespass. A number of area, one just recently in fact, have been closed to us because of the bad behavior of some individuals.
Just because it is Steinmetz and Nat Geo should not make any difference at all. Of all people, he should know better.
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 2,507
I'm afraid it is, it's also common to be chased by private security guards on land which has little or no value. One of the biggest shocks I had when I first started taking holidays in the States is that so much of it is fenced off with endless No Trespassing signs. You look on Google Earth before hand to try and scout out good photography places only to find that it's nearly all off limits. I'm used to going to the countryside in the UK and elsewhere in Europe and pretty much being able to ramble wherever I want within obvious limits but in America it is very rare to find any open ground that is truly open access. It's a shame when it's such a beautiful country. Even the supposedly open public areas have paths and boardwalks that you have to stick to. There are exceptions (San Luis Obispo was amazingly open and free) but generally speaking the frontier mentality is still pretty prevalent and people will defend their land even if it's just open desert!
People in the area I work, call the police for everything. No one wants to "confront" anyone about anything. Instead of being adults and working things out, they call the police and expect us to be mommy and daddy for them.
This being the norm in the US, when I was in Ireland a few years back it was refreshing to see the opposite. It makes you wonder why us Americans are so cranky about our property. There are so many amazing places that are on private property here.
With that said, they should have simply got permission. I have a feeling that most people would be fine with this as long as you lay out your intentions before hand. Its just sad that you can come across an amazing scene and have to weight is it worth going to jail/getting fined for. If I owned a large open area I wouldn't care unless something nefarious was going on.
To be quite honest, and remember this is the opinion of one born in America, I think this happens sometimes because some Americans feel that we have an "entitlement" to do whatever we please, whenever we please, no matter how it may disrupt others.
The piece of land I referred to in my post above is on a large private farm. They sell permits to duck hunters for hunting season, which is quite common here. Some of us have purchased permits to be allowed access as well for year-round photography, the land owner has been very gracious over the years. This past year we had our 2nd influx of Snow Owls, one over-zealous birding enthusiast decided to tell everyone about the permits, how to get them, etc. Some of the people then took it upon themselves to harass others, photographers and hunters, legally on the property. To the point where the land owner simply shut it down again, do to incidents that continued to occur. Sad part, it was probably less than 10% of the people who caused the issues, the rest of us lose.
Perhaps it is the number of people we have, I personally think it is simply a case that because our population is larger, the small percentage that have this attitude are still enough people to cause issues.
This also goes to why many won't confront people, as they are afraid of what the reaction will be. Just read posts in this forum to see the wide range of attitude when an article is posted about a photographer being "confronted" by a security person. Some, like me, take the polite approach, others take a more confrontational stand vis-a-vis their "rights". Would you, as a private land owner, feel comfortable walking up to a truck with perhaps 3 or 4 people, not knowing the kind of reception you might get?
Long cultural memory, historical legal rights, one of the issues that started the War of Independence. Property ownership was so important it was incorporated into the Bill of Rights in the 5th amendment.
In Wisconsin, private property does not have to be posted. It is automatically assumed that trespassing is not allowed.
I know only Florida and Michigan laws. But in both of those States the title of the Statue (paraphrasing) trespass after warning. Which would include a sign or verbal statement from a property owner or law enforcement acting on the owner's behalf. Weird thing is most police will give that verbal warning. So I'm wondering what really happened.
The altitude required for that operation is not the minimum safe altitude of flight which is the downward reach of the navigable airspace. The minimum prescribed by the authority is 500 feet during the day and 1000 feet at night for air carriers (Civil Air Regulations, Pt. 61, §§ 61.7400, 61.7401, Code Fed.Reg.Cum.Supp., Tit. 14, ch. 1) and from 300 to 1000 feet for
In this instance, trespassing was used a pretext to prevent photographing feedlots. Laws have been passed that explicitly prevent photographing feedlots, even if done from public property.
Feedlot owners don't want people to know what's going on in feedlots. Simple as that. In Kansas, where this took place, feedlots and cattle are big business.
Feedlot owners don't want people to know what's going on in feedlots. Simple as that. In Kansas, where this took place, feedlots and cattle are big business.
And that's the most troubling part about this - big business doesn't want you to know anything about your steak until you see it wrapped in plastic in the grocery store. They can throw the anti-terrorism aspect flag up in the air all they want but I'm not buying it. 'Move along, citizen, nothing to see here.' Land of the free, huh?
Sean
Are you Serious? It would be rude to come past a posted sign. If they come past all my signs, we do a good bit more than talk. One never knows if they are casing your place for a later robbery. Police are 14 miles away.
Seriously, my remote rural home has a driveway that is a mile long off of 2 other dirt roads; at 2:00 AM they leave with a damaged car. Not idle talk, recently, I nailed the right front quarter panel of one this winter. They will not be back.
It is a shame there are thieves and worthless folks riding about, when we go on a trip we have to block the driveway a half mile out with a large truck.
Similar threads
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemojiForum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/