Is it really illegal to snap a picture of a clerk in a Post Office?

Is it illegal to snap a photograph of a clerk inside a post office?

Today, in California, I tried to exchange a book of 32 cent
stamps for current stamps, which is something that I have been doing for
decades (whenever they change the prices) at a value-for-value
rate (lately I've been exchanging for "forever stamps" at the
current rate).

In the past, many times, I merely placed the stamps on a sheet
of paper, in the presence of the clerk, thereby making them
unstamped, but still valid.

However, after watching me, the clerk would not allow the
exchange, citing an unwritten "new regulation" that disallows
this common practice. I snapped photos of the transaction, in the
clear presence of everyone (there were about 3 clerks present),
and there was absolutely no protest (it as a large Nikon SLR
which I happened to have hanging on my neck as I was returning
from an outing and stopped at the Post Office by way of errand).

Later, I called the Officer in Charge of that Post Office, who
indignantly said I was breaking the law by taking a picture of
the clerk "without permission".

I must restate, it was clear as the sun shines that I was snapping
pictures, and NOBODY raised a word of protest - but - I must also
ask if there is ANY legal standing for the OIC's presumption that
I am guilty of breaking the law for doing so.

May I ask:
Legally, in California, in a Post Office, when nobody objects,
is it against the law to snap a photograph or otherwise record
the transaction?

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 02:14:30 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote:

May I ask:
Legally, in California, in a Post Office, when nobody objects,
is it against the law to snap a photograph or otherwise record
the transaction?

I have no idea what the law is about taking the photo, but I'm pretty
sure that whether anyone objects or not is irrelevent. Otherwise, I
could walk into a store, take what I want, and leave. If no one
objected, I'd be in the clear.

Jennifer Murphy wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 02:14:30 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."

May I ask:
Legally, in California, in a Post Office, when nobody objects,
is it against the law to snap a photograph or otherwise record
the transaction?

I have no idea what the law is about taking the photo, but I'm pretty
sure that whether anyone objects or not is irrelevent. Otherwise, I
could walk into a store, take what I want, and leave. If no one
objected, I'd be in the clear.

So you're one of the people that claim photography will steal
your soul, or at least deprive you of cash or goods?

How about looking at something in a store, memorizing prices (or
even writing them down!) and then buying where it is cheapest?
That *does* real financial damage to all the stores where you
didn't buy! There must be a law where you must buy whatever
you look at in a store to protect the rights of the storekeepers
everywhere!

-Wolfgang

On 4/1/2013 6:43 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Jennifer Murphy wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 02:14:30 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."

May I ask:
Legally, in California, in a Post Office, when nobody objects,
is it against the law to snap a photograph or otherwise record
the transaction?

I have no idea what the law is about taking the photo, but I'm pretty
sure that whether anyone objects or not is irrelevent. Otherwise, I
could walk into a store, take what I want, and leave. If no one
objected, I'd be in the clear.

So you're one of the people that claim photography will steal
your soul, or at least deprive you of cash or goods?

How about looking at something in a store, memorizing prices (or
even writing them down!) and then buying where it is cheapest?
That *does* real financial damage to all the stores where you
didn't buy! There must be a law where you must buy whatever
you look at in a store to protect the rights of the storekeepers
everywhere!

-Wolfgang


I think the internet and discount houses have pretty much made
"storekeepers" obsolete. Unfortunate for the purists but nonetheless true.

MaxD wrote:
On 4/1/2013 6:43 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Jennifer Murphy wrote:

I have no idea what the law is about taking the photo, but I'm pretty
sure that whether anyone objects or not is irrelevent. Otherwise, I
could walk into a store, take what I want, and leave. If no one
objected, I'd be in the clear.

So you're one of the people that claim photography will steal
your soul, or at least deprive you of cash or goods?

How about looking at something in a store, memorizing prices (or
even writing them down!) and then buying where it is cheapest?
That *does* real financial damage to all the stores where you
didn't buy! There must be a law where you must buy whatever
you look at in a store to protect the rights of the storekeepers
everywhere!

I think the internet and discount houses have pretty much made
"storekeepers" obsolete. Unfortunate for the purists but nonetheless true.

It may be unfortunate for purists that you think that,
fortunately you are wrong.

-Wolfgang

On 3/29/2013 9:14 PM, Danny D. wrote:
Is it illegal to snap a photograph of a clerk inside a post office?
Later, I called the Officer in Charge of that Post Office, who
indignantly said I was breaking the law by taking a picture of
the clerk "without permission".

I must restate, it was clear as the sun shines that I was snapping
pictures, and NOBODY raised a word of protest - but - I must also
ask if there is ANY legal standing for the OIC's presumption that
I am guilty of breaking the law for doing so.

May I ask:
Legally, in California, in a Post Office, when nobody objects,
is it against the law to snap a photograph or otherwise record
the transaction?



Sounds like there are two issues he

Your ability to exchange stamps that you've been doing, apparently,
since Christ was a pup. The second is this BS with the photos.

Want to have some fun AND get both questions answered? Go in to visit
the O-I-C and tell him how upset you are that you may have inadvertently
run afoul of some regulation that even his subordinates were not aware
of. "To get this cleared up, why don't you show me the regulation that
prohibits photography of this sort and while you're at it, show me the
regulation that prohibits me from turning in unused postage for credit?"

If/when he refuses or starts back peddling, look him in the eye and
request, then demand, if necessary that he reach out and get the postal
inspection service involved. If this pompous jerk is constipated, that
will clear him out real fast.

I've personally used this ploy when told by somebody who didn't know
better that this or that could not be done when, in fact, I already knew
the regulation and that it COULD be done. As soon as the Inspection
service "button" was pushed, their attitude changed dramatically.

Great fun! Go for it!

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:47:04 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
wrote:
: On 3/29/2013 9:14 PM, Danny D. wrote:
: Is it illegal to snap a photograph of a clerk inside a post office?
: Later, I called the Officer in Charge of that Post Office, who
: indignantly said I was breaking the law by taking a picture of
: the clerk "without permission".
:
: I must restate, it was clear as the sun shines that I was snapping
: pictures, and NOBODY raised a word of protest - but - I must also
: ask if there is ANY legal standing for the OIC's presumption that
: I am guilty of breaking the law for doing so.
:
: May I ask:
: Legally, in California, in a Post Office, when nobody objects,
: is it against the law to snap a photograph or otherwise record
: the transaction?
:
:
:
: Sounds like there are two issues he
:
: Your ability to exchange stamps that you've been doing, apparently,
: since Christ was a pup. The second is this BS with the photos.
:
: Want to have some fun AND get both questions answered? Go in to visit
: the O-I-C and tell him how upset you are that you may have inadvertently
: run afoul of some regulation that even his subordinates were not aware
: of. "To get this cleared up, why don't you show me the regulation that
: prohibits photography of this sort and while you're at it, show me the
: regulation that prohibits me from turning in unused postage for credit?"
:
: If/when he refuses or starts back peddling, look him in the eye and
: request, then demand, if necessary that he reach out and get the postal
: inspection service involved. If this pompous jerk is constipated, that
: will clear him out real fast.
:
: I've personally used this ploy when told by somebody who didn't know
: better that this or that could not be done when, in fact, I already knew
: the regulation and that it COULD be done. As soon as the Inspection
: service "button" was pushed, their attitude changed dramatically.
:
: Great fun! Go for it!

The difference between your situation and that of the OP is that you knew the
legal ground you were on and the OP doesn't. Under the circumstances I'd
suggest that he not conflate the two issues. I'd deal with the stamp exchange
question by going to another post office and finding out what they have to
say. Only when that issue was settled (and maybe not even then) would I go
back to the first P.O. and deal with the photography issue.

FWIW, I once photographed an event in a post office (a tribute to the late
postmaster after whom the building was named), and nobody said a word. But of
course I wasn't there to complain about the service at the stamp window. :^)

Bob

"Danny D." wrote:
May I ask:
Legally, in California, in a Post Office, when nobody objects,
is it against the law to snap a photograph or otherwise record
the transaction?

It is private property that is open to the public.

That means you can photograph to your heart's content as
long as the manager or clerks do not object. They do
have the option to ask you to leave if you don't stop.
Not leaving would put you in violation of tresspass
laws.

Your described incident did not involve anyone
suggesting that you leave. Therefore you do not appear
to have broken any law.

(In fact I do not really know if it would be legal for a
postal employee to demand that you leave a Post Office
because you are taking pictures. If one did that, I
would consult an attorney if it was actually a problem.)

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 18:54:31 -0800 Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

It is private property that is open to the public.

That means you can photograph to your heart's content as
long as the manager or clerks do not object. They do
have the option to ask you to leave if you don't stop.
Not leaving would put you in violation of tresspass
laws.

Do you know where we can find this written down so that
I can show it to the postal service?

Here, for example, is a sample pic (with identities blurred):
http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/...g/12561500.jpg

On 3/31/2013 11:46 PM, Danny D. wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 18:54:31 -0800 Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

It is private property that is open to the public.

That means you can photograph to your heart's content as
long as the manager or clerks do not object. They do
have the option to ask you to leave if you don't stop.
Not leaving would put you in violation of tresspass
laws.

Do you know where we can find this written down so that
I can show it to the postal service?

Here, for example, is a sample pic (with identities blurred):
http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/...g/12561500.jpg


The USPS is an independent government agency and not a private company

Post offices are either federal buildings or leased space.