For a long time, I've been wondering if photos can be used in court to press charges for a trespassing event after the fact? I'm talking about photos posted on the internet such as the NYC instagram kid who climbed the residential tower.

Does anyone have any experience with this personally or know any relevant law associated with this?

-free

I posted a similar question on UER a few weeks ago. That's why I was interested in your answer to the question last time we met: http://www.uer.ca/...=1&threadid=116092

The general impression I got from the answers is that it's technically possible in some US states, but very rare in practice. The only UER folk who was prosecuted because of exploring pictures was Mike Dijital a long time ago, but the police department already knew him and warned him about trespassing into another location before.

Yes in some cases, like this girl (Susan Marinello) who took this picture and others of herself on the other side of the wall at the Baker hotel and then posted it to Facebook. A so called ''tipster'' sent the Mineral Wells police the photo and then they looked at her Facebook page. I lost track of the story awhile back so I don't know what happened to her in the end, but the few things I had read said that the police were going to use the pictures she had taken against her in hopes it would lead to at the very least a trespassing fine.

The Baker selfie and 1,000 points earned stuff^ was added by
me for another site, but that is the picture she took.

Well if they can use their crappy photos and video from their surveillance cameras to prosecute you then...

Getting charged with something bc of pics found on the internet is rare but it does happen. Seems to be happening more and more.

I'm currently in the process of going through court bullshit because of alleged photos taken at a certain location. Someone reported the photos to the police a MONTH after they were taken... Got charged with criminal trespass, and went to jail for 3 days... so yeah... apparently it CAN happen. But it's rare.

Posted by romainpp The only UER folk who was prosecuted because of exploring pictures was Mike Dijital a long time ago

Nope, others have been arrested for posting photos here and being ratted out by other "explorers".

Posted by ahhntzville Nope, others have been arrested for posting photos here and being ratted out by other "explorers".

did uer just get shut down to modify your post?

No, my original post got deleted because it implicated someone in particular and UER suddenly desires to be drama-free.

Posted by ahhntzville No, my original post got deleted because it implicated someone in particular and UER suddenly desires to be drama-free.

Ahh I thought something along the lines happened lol. I Just came in at the right time I guess lol

I'm always curious about this as well... I'm wondering though if no faces are shown in the buildings/wherever don't they have to prove that it was you that took the pictures?

I guess depending on the place it seems like a waste of time and money for basically trespassing.

Unless it's a high security area or government property, etc.


Also, in the states, there is normally (varies from state to state) a time frame that they have to prosecute you in regards to trespassing.

Posted by CatAndTie I'm always curious about this as well... I'm wondering though if no faces are shown in the buildings/wherever don't they have to prove that it was you that took the pictures? I guess depending on the place it seems like a waste of time and money for basically trespassing. Unless it's a high security area or government property, etc. Also, in the states, there is normally (varies from state to state) a time frame that they have to prosecute you in regards to trespassing.

The problem is that even though it's not enough to convict you, and they can't PROVE it's you, it's enough to press charges. Once in court you can easily get it thrown out, but now you've already possibly been arrested and jailed, spent a couple thousand on your bail, ticket, lawyer, whatever BS court costs, etc.... so in essence guilty until proven innocent, and you can kiss a large wad o yo cash goodbye.

There's no short answer to this as it is up to each individual state. they all have laws on whether digital photographs are submissible in court as evidence or not. If digitals are not submissible then you're likely in the clear but only from a defense stand point, IE it would be a defensive argument you could use in court. it'd likely be enough to get a warrant though and while digital photographs posted to the internet are often not submissible, the digital "negatives" stored on your computer often are submissible.

now on the other hand, if you shoot film, the negatives you may or may not have sitting around your house are absolutely proof of a crime. So if they get a warrant and search your home and find those, you are likely fucked.

your state's legislate will likely have a piece of their website dedicated to laying out all the current laws in your state, some are easier to search than others but it's doable.

I don't know anything about this because I love Obama and never pas a tress.

But I've heard that some people remove the EXIF info from whatever photos they publish electronically and are cautious about what they admit to in the photo captions. They claim this makes it difficult for investigators & prosecuting attorneys/district attorneys/assistant US attorneys to even roughly establish at least one fact necessary to establish probable cause that a crime has taken place -- "On or about (date), suspect(s) _____ did violate Penal Code ###..."



However, especially for some high-profile/sensitive sites (Freedom Towers, for example!), the photos or video themselves might be enough prima facie evidence necessary to obtain a search warrant for a suspect's camera, computer, & other hard drives where the original images with intact EXIF files may exist.

Once they have an exact or approximate date for the alleged crime, further investigative methods (site/area CCTV, cellphone tower logs, etc.) could help put together a pretty good case.

Prosecutors wont (at least not in Texas, even at the Baker Hotel) wont take a case based solely on a digital photo, Hell I could Photoshop myself racing through the front door of the Whitehouse with a knife. A serrated knife!

That being said they can and will use an image extracted from the source like a camera card or home computer as supporting evidence. They do this all the time in felony cases.

I just don't see a DA (unless he/she is a real dumbass) going to a jury with something as weak as a pic that may or may not show someone trespassing that they copied off the Internet.

As we all know however, some states may do just about anything they want so your mileage may vary.

Posted by 2Xplorations Prosecutors wont (at least not in Texas, even at the Baker Hotel) wont take a case based solely on a digital photo, Hell I could Photoshop myself racing through the front door of the Whitehouse with a knife. A serrated knife! That being said they can and will use an image extracted from the source like a camera card or home computer as supporting evidence. They do this all the time in felony cases. I just don't see a DA (unless he/she is a real dumbass) going to a jury with something as weak as a pic that may or may not show someone trespassing that they copied off the Internet. As we all know however, some states may do just about anything they want so your mileage may vary.

Sorry man but I'm going to either have to tell you respectfully you are ENTIRELY wrong or I got THAT dumbass DA because that is PRECISELY what is happening to me. Only evidence they have are digital copies obtained from the internet.

Posted by AdventureDan Sorry man but I'm going to either have to tell you respectfully you are ENTIRELY wrong or I got THAT dumbass DA because that is PRECISELY what is happening to me. Only evidence they have are digital copies obtained from the internet.

It is election time. So I am going with a dumbass DA.

1. Make sure you aren't in any photos you post
2. Make sure there is no evidence that you are the person who posted the photos (use no real information when establishing your account)
3. Make sure that you scrub the EXIF data on the off chance it can be used to prove you are the person who posted the photos

not sure how you can be prosecuted if you do these things. I'd stop short of using a proxy to access UER, but only because who's going to pursue a trespassing charge with such low stakes? In LA where I live it's no more than 30 days or $100 for a first offense.

The more high-profile the site and the more attention it garners will determine this. Basically why I rarely post on Facebook, slowed down with posting here, and don't use Instagram at all.

Posted by AdventureDan Sorry man but I'm going to either have to tell you respectfully you are ENTIRELY wrong or I got THAT dumbass DA because that is PRECISELY what is happening to me.

Sorry to hear that, man. I recall you making a post about your ordeal and having been mugged or chased (something like that) and getting thrown in jail afterwards. Was the food at least okay for the 3 days you were in there?

As for the rest of this thread, we can only be too careful about publicly giving details of our adventures. One precaution I take (being the paranoid prisonplanetdotcom follower that I am) is having my phone's GPS settings turned OFF so that the few times I actually do take a ducklips selfie in an abandonment, the location's latitude and longitude is not encoded into the shot; thus aiding me to cover my tracks if caught by authorities.

TL;DR?
How were the prison sammiches, Dan?
I change the name of locations for facebook urbex selfies. I don't even know what an Instantgram is, and turn off your phone when exploring in the city.

Posted by A Through Z Explorations How were the prison sammiches, Dan?

God awful! They didn't even put jelly on em!!! But the real crime there was the "milk" *grimaces*

And lol my truck got stolen.