http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/18/10634/2416 John Conover has an August 6th court date in Johnson County, Tennessee. He will be facing charges arising from a traffic stop in Mountain City. Only it wasn't him who was stopped for violating traffic laws. What Conover is charged with are a variety of charges having to do with what he did with his iPhone. Even though the American Civil Liberties Union says they know of no such law, Conover is <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.tricities.com/tri/news/local/article/man_arrested_for_unlawful_photography/1 en-us Sun, 20 Jul 2008 09:12:23 EST Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:26:07 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/18/10634/2416#15 "What really interests me, though, is the whole "laser as threat" angle. Are laser sights so common that a cop can automatically assume that's what it is? Are those little hand lasers so threatening in broad daylight that they're a threat in and of themsel Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:26:07 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/18/10634/2416#14 Why should there be a law prohibiting photography in a mall? If the mall wants to limit photography, it may do so by having a rule against it. Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:45:40 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/18/10634/2416#13 Only as much as it's prohibited anywhere else. I'm adding a second justification <i>for</i> photography (government officials are <i>de jure</i> without the expectation of privacy when acting in official capacity), which would also cover on occasions when Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:17:53 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/18/10634/2416#12 Do you think that photography in a public place should be prohibited? Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:30:01 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/18/10634/2416#11 ... and of a public official while on the job? Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:17:36 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/18/10634/2416#10 <i>"So... what if the new fashion trend in PO157's neighborhood was to fasten lasers on cats heads so that whatever they look at gets lit up by a sniper-sight look-alike?"</i><br><br>It's a slippery slope leading to consequences much <a rel="nofollow" href Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:16:30 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/18/10634/2416#9 No, this wouldn't work - you'd have cats endlessly chasing their own sniper dots in circles. Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:06:58 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/18/10634/2416#8 So... what if the new fashion trend in PO157's neighborhood was to fasten lasers on cats heads so that whatever they look at gets lit up by a sniper-sight look-alike? Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:53:45 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/18/10634/2416#7 <i>"Are laser sights so common that a cop can automatically assume that's what it is? Are those little hand lasers so threatening in broad daylight that they're a threat in and of themselves? Or are the cops being just as dopey for thinking that's enough c Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:16:48 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/18/10634/2416#6 "..in a place where the subject "has a reasonable presumption of privacy" or which is for the sexual arousal of the photographer. Since neither of these conditions obtain..."<p> Well, some folks find men in uniform to be quite <a rel="nofollow" href="http: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:46:00 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/18/10634/2416#5      I think it's almost a lock that the cops will lose if they don't drop the case. The courts, all the way up to SCOTUS, don't want many areas in public earn the "expectation of privacy" protection, and the technology is certainly common e Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:44:56 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/18/10634/2416#4 <blockquote>However, in the arrest report, the police officer claims he believed he was in fear for his life because a laser was pointed at him.</blockquote>If there was evidence of threatening behavior towards the officers then there should be assault cha Mon, 21 Jul 2008 01:04:01 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/18/10634/2416#3 <blockquote><i>I'm not talking about undercover officers who want their annonimity preserved...</i></blockquote>Should that be any different? Why should there be <i>any</i> prohibition of photography in a public place? Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:36:05 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/18/10634/2416#2 So, it's OK for law enforcement officers to photograph everything with dashcams (just watch "Cops" sometime), but illegal for someone to take a pix of the LEO?  I don't get it.  I'm not talking about undercover officers who want their annonimity Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:46:47 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/7/18/10634/2416#1 available from this <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm">informative site</a> as a downloadable, printoutable, carry-with-youable pdf.  <br> from the pdf:<p> <blockquote><br> <b>Permissible Subjects</b><br> Despite  misconc Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:35:45 EST string http://www.treesandthings.com/search/