McSweeney’s Internet Tendency: Dispatches from a Public Librarian

Geez I need a life
I searched ~200 cases in LexisNexis out of the 754 it returned on my most fruitful search when I combined the terms photography and prohibited. (other search terms included library and public property but did not provide relevant results.)

There was nothing exactly on point about prohibition of photography in libraries. However several cases could shed light on the question.

Paulsen v. Lehman [ 839 F. Supp 147] relates to giving out religious leaflets in a State Park. Permits were required for that action. Permits were also required for (commercial) photography among other things. There was an application form that was required from persons wishing to engage in any of the activities that required permits. There was no formal process to evaluate requests, there was no formal policy regarding the approval of permits – in fact ad hoc decisions based on various supervisors impression of the advisability of the action governed the issuance of the permits. There was no formal policy for denying the permits or for notifying applicants that the permit had been denied (it noted on the application to call 5 days before the date of the activity if the permit had not be received) nor was there a formal method to appeal the decision to deny the permit.
The Court found the permitting process and thus the need for permits to photograph, distribute leaflets, or any other activity covered by the permit regulations unconstitutional.

In Sanders v. American Broadcasting Corp a TV reported visited telephone ‘psychics’ and surreptitiously video and audio recorded their conversation. The Court found that one has a reasonable expectation of privacy in one’s workplace, but that in contrast one does not have that same right in public. [52 Cal App 4th 543]

In Houchins v. KQED [ 438 US 1] TV reporters wanted to see part of a county jail. The court found that the reporters were not entitled to any access beyond what was provided to the general public. The held however that the reporters and the general public could photograph, videotape or otherwise record public facilities. They did note that reporters have no right to information from the general public or in this particular case any employees or detainees in the jail, that is the public cannot be compelled to talk to or even be photographed if they do not wish to do so.

In Channel 10 v. Gunnarson the Court held that TV reporters can photograph anything to which the public has access, however the photography cannot interfere with police process. In this case the TV videographer was standing next to a member of the public at the scene of a robbery the police confiscated his camera. That was held by the Court to be an unlawful seizure and prior restraint. [337 F Supp 634]

In Connell v. Hudson [ 733 F Supp 465] a citizen was photographing the scene of a traffic accident from outside the police perimeter. He was threatened with arrest if he continued to photograph the scene. The Court noted in its opinion that it is permissible to photograph where in public areas as long as it does not interfere with the actions of police or emergency personnel. The Court noted that there is “A Constitutional right not to be interfered with.�

I have also found a website that was topical.

Of course I don’t practice law over here so that was an educational exercise not legal research. But I think you can photograph people (or anything else) in the library as long as you don’t compromise library records. I think if challenged the policies would be found unenforceable.