This is why we can't have nice things.

They took his Kodachrome away?

No more nice bright colors...

Well, if you think about, developed negatives give you much better security over your images than files. It's just their fault for not having a dark room.

Imagine if Sonny Corleone had smashed that paparazzi guy's camera only to find out the pics had already been bluetoothed to the intertubes.

Agnieska Wojtanowska says Black's violated her Charter rights back in 2001 when a worker handed the photos over to police.

Drug charges were later dropped when the pictures were excluded as evidence because they were obtained without a search warrant.

At least they excluded the evidence.

They sooooo were going out to buy one of them digital cameras. As soon as they were done with.... Hey is that cheetos?!?!?

I thought photo labs were only allowed to do that if they saw a picture of your nine-month old naked in the bathtub.

In related news, people still take film photos...

WTF?

Potheads: less intelligent than psychology majors.

Yeah should have bought one of them new fangled polariod cameras.

/who wrote TFA, Grandpa Simpson?

Ah, Canadians.

Question, why would you take pictures of your illegal activities?

smart move.
eliminate 20% of your remaining clientele by narking on them.

Charges were dropped you got lucky doing something illegal, leave it at that. If not, then you run into this situation, you provide the photos and all of a sudden those charges come back.

Hmmmm... in order to get damages, she needs to produce the photos in a court of law, thus negating the argument that got her cleared of drug charges. In other words, to win the case, she will screw herself.

I like the judge here. "Ok. Show us the pictures please." She just might be stupid enough to fall for it.

Let's guess the over/under on the "WAR ON DRUGS ISN'T WORKING" comment... I'm gonna say 29.

thenateman: Agnieska Wojtanowska says Black's violated her Charter rights back in 2001 when a worker handed the photos over to police.

Drug charges were later dropped when the pictures were excluded as evidence because they were obtained without a search warrant.

At least they excluded the evidence.

Why, through? If a worker found pictures of you raping a two year old, wouldn't those be admissible? They are in the US and I don't think Canada's criminal laws are that different from ours.

LesserEvil: Hmmmm... in order to get damages, she needs to produce the photos in a court of law, thus negating the argument that got her cleared of drug charges. In other words, to win the case, she will screw herself.

This dumbass was bound to get themselves busted doing something else stupid.

LesserEvil: Hmmmm... in order to get damages, she needs to produce the photos in a court of law, thus negating the argument that got her cleared of drug charges. In other words, to win the case, she will screw herself.

How? She won't be presenting them as evidence in her case for growing pot. She'll be introducing them as evidence that they were illegally turned over to police.

They still weren't obtained by the police via warrant, so they'll continue to be inadmissible in court in any case attempting to pin the grow op on her.

/NAL

LesserEvil: Hmmmm... in order to get damages, she needs to produce the photos in a court of law, thus negating the argument that got her cleared of drug charges. In other words, to win the case, she will screw herself.



Wait, Canada? Yeah she's boned...

Satanic_Hamster: Why, through? If a worker found pictures of you raping a two year old, wouldn't those be admissible? They are in the US and I don't think Canada's criminal laws are that different from ours.

Yeah, I always thought that in certain cases (maybe child abuse?), businesses and medical professionals are required to let the police know.

repost from 2001?

/old news is old

The_Six_Fingered_Man: LesserEvil: Hmmmm... in order to get damages, she needs to produce the photos in a court of law, thus negating the argument that got her cleared of drug charges. In other words, to win the case, she will screw herself.

How? She won't be presenting them as evidence in her case for growing pot. She'll be introducing them as evidence that they were illegally turned over to police.

They still weren't obtained by the police via warrant, so they'll continue to be inadmissible in court in any case attempting to pin the grow op on her.

/NAL

Good thing you are not a lawyer.

Anything submitted in court, in any context, can be used against you and result in charges, even civil court.

The pictures may have been obtained "illegally" (I'm surprised that that was even the case, but that's Ontario courts for you), but once she voluntarily turns them over to the court, the justice system can use them anyway it pleases.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: LesserEvil: Hmmmm... in order to get damages, she needs to produce the photos in a court of law, thus negating the argument that got her cleared of drug charges. In other words, to win the case, she will screw herself.

How? She won't be presenting them as evidence in her case for growing pot. She'll be introducing them as evidence that they were illegally turned over to police.

They still weren't obtained by the police via warrant, so they'll continue to be inadmissible in court in any case attempting to pin the grow op on her.

/NAL

I wonder what the estimated steet value of this 'pot porn' is?

/prolly like a brazillian dollars!

Why so negative? Let's just wait and see what develops.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: They still weren't obtained by the police via warrant, so they'll continue to be inadmissible in court in any case attempting to pin the grow op on her.

I truly hope she's as dumb as this commenter.

If only she'd had a Polaroid camera.

Yes. Right after she finished installing gramophone in her autogyro, she should have picked up a Polaroid camera. Thanks, The Canadian Press

oldebayer: They took his Kodachrome away?

No more nice bright colors...

No more greens of summers

Pot? Why don't you grow up and do coke like an adult?

/Daniel Tosh

Primitive Screwhead: oldebayer: They took his Kodachrome away?

No more nice bright colors...

No more greens of summers

*nice*

That was especially appropos here.

Are these photo processing things common anymore? I'm not sure I know a single person with a film-camera left, that doesn't have it for (pseudo)professional photography/ect.

strike>"back in 2001 when a worker handed the photos over to police."
did anyone notice - 8 years ago - not everybody had a digital camera back then, if i remember correctly.

IonBeam2: Potheads: less more intelligent than psychology majors.

FTFY

Barakku: Are these photo processing things common anymore? I'm not sure I know a single person with a film-camera left, that doesn't have it for (pseudo)professional photography/ect.

The other day I had to run out and take pictures of a damaged dock, and didn't want to go all the way across the metroplex to grab my digital camera, so I nabbed a disposable camera and had to go get the film developed.

...so there is some use for them.

Only suitable film for psychoactive drugs:

Dude, bogus.

the_sidewinder: Question, why would you take pictures of your illegal activities?

To fondly recollect them in the future. Duh!

"Yes, I used to have a big pot farm, back in the day."

"You are such a liar, grandpa!"

"No I'm not! Let me go get the scrapbook..."

So, a picture of a marijuana plant is illegal to possess? Interesting.

Wal-Mart is notorious for this as well.

My brother's family lost several rolls of vacation film when some Wal-Mart hillbillies decided that a family enjoying a traditional Japanese bath, in Japan, is against the wishes of Baby Jesus. The police wouldn't even do anything, so Wal-Mart destroyed them. Not just the roll with those pics on it, but all of them.

Then of course their stories changed and they "lost" them in the confusion that comes with stopping pedophilia from behind the counter of a Wal-Mart photo lab.

Death to Wal-Mart, and her hillbilly enablers.

Judge to Defendant: "Pic's or it didn't happen, n00b!"

Why are only blacks being sued? That's racist.

n00b_no_skillz: strike>"back in 2001 when a worker handed the photos over to police."
did anyone notice - 8 years ago - not everybody had a digital camera back then, if i remember correctly.


and again I'm reminded of the folly of posting when i DNRTFA
sigh.
good point.

Arklop: the_sidewinder: Question, why would you take pictures of your illegal activities?



"Only insane men would..."

/obscure?



False advertising. Was an hour and a half longer than it purported to be, or should have been.

Thanks for reminding me.

A few years ago I found an old roll of film I had and decided to get it developed at CVS to see what was on it. The girl behind the counter gave me the envelop of prints and flashed a wry smile.

I got home, looked at the pictures, and discovered a naked picture of me my girlfriend had taken without me realizing it. Didn't read the article, but I can see how this sort of thing could happen.

IonBeam2: Potheads: less intelligent than psychology majors.

It's an unsatisfactory explanation. I've smoked pot. Many times. It's never even remotely inspired me to do anything as unnecessary, self-destructive, and mind-bendingly stupid as to photograph an illegal activity I am engaged in - let alone send such photos out to be processed.
No - it's got to be genetics. Booze and glue-sniffing are the only two drugs I know of that can make you that stupid.

IonBeam2: Potheads: less intelligent than psychology majors.

Hey now, that's just unfair.

Potheads don't fork over $40k for a useless degree.

miltonbabbitt: A few years ago I found an old roll of film I had and decided to get it developed at CVS to see what was on it. The girl behind the counter gave me the envelop of prints and flashed a wry smile.

I got home, looked at the pictures, and discovered a naked picture of me my girlfriend had taken without me realizing it. Didn't read the article, but I can see how this sort of thing could happen.

Well, I guess a wry smile is better than a belly laugh.

/but was there any incriminating weed in the photo?

What's film?

dabbletech: What's film?

It's that white layer of filth on your tongue that smells like arse.

dabbletech: What's film?

It's what we used to use way back in the 1900's to photograph our pot farms.

IonBeam2: Potheads: lessmore intelligent than psychology majorsIonBeam2.

FTFY

FTFA: The high court's dismissal essentially means the lower-court judge's ruling stands, and the photos must be shown.

Of course they want to see them. It's the whole I-need-to-compare-mine thing...

Arklop: the_sidewinder: Question, why would you take pictures of your illegal activities?



"Only insane men would..."

/obscure?


Hollywood movie? Unlikely. Everyone wants their 15 min. :-)

6502programmer: FTFA: The high court's dismissal essentially means the lower-court judge's ruling stands, and the photos must be shown.

Of course they want to see them. It's the whole I-need-to-compare-mine thing...

The court was high???

Blacks is photography!

/thinks back to the ol' jingles.

I'm a Walmart Photo employee, and I'm really getting a kick...

/no we wouldn't turn this over to the cops.

In other words, "charges were later dropped when the defendant handed the canadian court justices a big bag of canadian kind bud"

Derek313: I'm a Walmart Photo employee, and I'm really getting a kick...

/no we wouldn't turn this over to the cops.

You just blackmail her into dropping off "shipments" of "film" from now on.

Morton_toes:

/but was there any incriminating weed in the photo?

Thank god no. It was hidden behind the hookers and blow.

/I keed, I keed

miltonbabbitt
A few years ago I found an old roll of film I had and decided to get it developed at CVS to see what was on it. The girl behind the counter gave me the envelop of prints and flashed a wry smile.

I got home, looked at the pictures, and discovered a naked picture of me my girlfriend had taken without me realizing it. Didn't read the article, but I can see how this sort of thing could happen.

THAT made my day!

As a photo lab manager, I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

vertiaset: Drug abusers are generally not known for their common sense.

I have often wondered about Methamphetamine, how could anybody that has ever known a tweaker consume something manufactured by tweakers from deadly poisons?

I dunno, I enjoy salt sometimes. That's a combination of deadly things that turns out to be awesome.

This past weekend I found my old polaroids of the plants my ex and I used to have...both the pics and the content reminded me of good times, man.

Did you guys know they've discontinued the Polariod instamatic film? I had to go out and buy a bunch for my daughter before they're all gone.

Derek313: I'm a Walmart Photo employee, and I'm really getting a kick...

/no we wouldn't turn this over to the cops.

Really? I worked at Black's when I was younger, printing photos all day. The shiat people put in to have developed is insane. Anything cool we made copies of and stored in the back. Anything illegal was laughed at... though other stores did turn their pictures into the police.

TallyGirl: This past weekend I found my old polaroids of the plants my ex and I used to have...both the pics and the content reminded me of good times, man.

Did you guys know they've discontinued the Polariod instamatic film? I had to go out and buy a bunch for my daughter before they're all gone.

...you seriously kept photographic evidence of your pot plants?

/sigh

Treygreen13: ...you seriously kept photographic evidence of your pot plants?

is simply having photos of marijuana illegal now??

wow.

GanjSmokr: Treygreen13: ...you seriously kept photographic evidence of your pot plants?

is simply having photos of marijuana illegal now??

wow.

That isn't what I said at all. However, it seems like a bad idea to take photographic evidence of your illegal activities. Call me crazy.

Of course, I'm on Fark.com, where saying anything that could even be remotely negative about any marijuana-related-activity will elicit a dozen angry comments with names much like yours, so I should sort of expect your comment.

THIS stoner is trying very hard not to be seen.

I thought there was some sort of protection regarding these sorts of handing over of incriminating materials...

...like if I were to work in a photo place or at a computer repair shop and ran across child pornography, I thought they were obligated to go to the proper authorities.

Not that I'm equating cultivation of pot and kiddie porn at all...but you know what I'm sayin'...

Treygreen13: That isn't what I said at all. However, it seems like a bad idea to take photographic evidence of your illegal activities. Call me crazy.

Of course, I'm on Fark.com, where saying anything that could even be remotely negative about any marijuana-related-activity will elicit a dozen angry comments with names much like yours, so I should sort of expect your comment.

Well, my reply wasn't really an "angry comment". More of a "you're a moron for implying that pics of an apparently defunct growing operation would land you in jail". Maybe I wasn't clear enough for you.

/you're crazy

Dave?

GanjSmokr: Treygreen13: That isn't what I said at all. However, it seems like a bad idea to take photographic evidence of your illegal activities. Call me crazy.

Of course, I'm on Fark.com, where saying anything that could even be remotely negative about any marijuana-related-activity will elicit a dozen angry comments with names much like yours, so I should sort of expect your comment.

Well, my reply wasn't really an "angry comment". More of a "you're a moron for implying that pics of an apparently defunct growing operation would land you in jail". Maybe I wasn't clear enough for you.

/you're crazy

They were obviously alive whenever she took the pictures. So for a while, she had photos of currently ongoing illegal possession. Also, how do the police know that the picture isn't of a currently living pot plant growing in her home?

I must be crazy. I'm imagining someone trying to convince me that keeping little portable probable cause nuggets around is smart.

so I was about to boone my girlfriend when the cops busted in and then she was like no way...

Treygreen13: I must be crazy. I'm imagining someone trying to convince me that keeping little portable probable cause nuggets around is smart.

Today's brainiacs don't just keep them, they post them on Facebook.

I was recently on vacation with my Mom. She took a lot of pictures with a film camera. Drives me bonkers but she likes it.

I'm sure you wanted to preserve this moment forever- but is this WISE??

Apik0r0s: Wal-Mart is notorious for this as well.

My brother's family lost several rolls of vacation film when some Wal-Mart hillbillies decided that a family enjoying a traditional Japanese bath, in Japan, is against the wishes of Baby Jesus. The police wouldn't even do anything, so Wal-Mart destroyed them. Not just the roll with those pics on it, but all of them.

Then of course their stories changed and they "lost" them in the confusion that comes with stopping pedophilia from behind the counter of a Wal-Mart photo lab.

Death to Wal-Mart, and her hillbilly enablers.

No sympathy for anyone who gives money to Wal-Mart.

Fark soooo needs a POTHEAD tag

Black's Photography
Everything from cameras and film to photo finishing, frames, albums, unique gifts and of course, the expert advice of our Memories Specialists..

100 Watt Walrus:

No sympathy for anyone who gives money to Wal-Mart.


Well now, that would be a really silly thing to get your sympathy all worked up for someone over. Now, if you had said no sympathy for anyone who gets cancer, that would have just been nasty. I generally agree that no good will come of running around handing out sympathy willy-nilly, but is there really a danger of people having sympathy for someone because they gave money to Wal-Mart?

What kind of do-gooder busybody Dudley Dooright Mickey Mouse asshole gives a shiat about pot?

CaesarSneezy: What kind of do-gooder busybody Dudley Dooright Mickey Mouse asshole gives a shiat about pot?

When a city is running a deficit, and they can fee the shiat out of you for growing it... then they care.

I'm sympathetic to the decriminalization movement, but damn it some people in the lifestyle are dumb.

I'm no lawyer now ya'll hear, but can't you not be brought to trial on the same charges twice?

Which is why people try and get as much evidence as possible to bust?

So if she was acquitted of those charges of growing those pot plants, then even if she were to be like YUP I GREW DAT POT DERE they couldn't try her again?

Oznog: I'm sure you wanted to preserve this moment forever- but is this WISE??

Relax, it's fine. In many places growing marijuana is perfectly legal. Even in parts of America. You aren't so small minded as to think everyone lives in your city/state/country do you?

Used to be manager of a Wal-Mart photo lab, our official company-wide policy said we didnt give a fark about illegal activities in pictures because we could never be sure of context, etc and it opened the company up to liability issues EXACTLY like this.

The only thing we wouldnt print was nudity, but youd get your negatives back.

The ONLY exception was anything involving children, those get handed over to police by management. Never had to deal with that thankfully.

Did have a grey situation one time, high school kids dropped off some film, chicks flashing, etc. Didnt print those, told the kids when they picked them up that if they were smart theyd destroy the negatives.

the_sidewinder: Question, why would you take pictures of your illegal activities?

BECAUSE THEY'RE F*CKING STUPID POTHEADS!

"Where did you get crack?"

"From Blacks."

"What?!"

"Yah right behind Blacks Hardware Store, there's a white guy selling it."

I used to run a photo lab next to the Ohio State University campus. You'dbe amazed at the things I've seen...a man who enjoyed inserting glass rods into his anus (and then coming in and ordering lots of reprints)... Women being friendly with hairbrushes and vegetables... More passed out drunk sorority girls than I could shake a stick at.

Yes, I look at the film. Yes, I look at the pictures. Yes, I laugh at the stupidity of my customers and mock them.

And yeah, I've seen lots of photos of people doing bongs or smoking joints. On occasion, I would put a note in their envelope suggesting that they NOT take photos of such activities, since not all lab techs would be as lenient as I was.

Basically, here's my rule of thumb. Don't take pictures of yourself or your friends doing illegal things, since it might come back and bite you on the ass.

Primitive Screwhead: oldebayer: They took his Kodachrome away?

No more nice bright colors...

No more greens of summers

I run a photo lab. My opinion, and what I tell my minions... err.. employees, is that we don't care about drugs. We don't know if it's medicinal, or even real drugs. We see them all the time. One customer was telling me about the 60 thousand dollar grow operation he has. My personal favorite was the roll of film where the first picture was of the Medical Marijuana license, and the rest were of his plants. If only I weren't at work so I could ask to buy some...

Also, people bring in thier digital photos to get them printed all the time as well, including drugs, nudity, and other questionable materials. Its actually worse, as those pictures (in order to print them ) are copied to our computer, wehre they sit until we wipe the harddrive once a month. So we can go back and 'review' them later. At least with negatives, the customer is getting all evidence back.

godsgopher: I run a photo lab. My opinion, and what I tell my minions... err.. employees, is that we don't care about drugs. We don't know if it's medicinal, or even real drugs. We see them all the time. One customer was telling me about the 60 thousand dollar grow operation he has. My personal favorite was the roll of film where the first picture was of the Medical Marijuana license, and the rest were of his plants. If only I weren't at work so I could ask to buy some...

Also, people bring in thier digital photos to get them printed all the time as well, including drugs, nudity, and other questionable materials. Its actually worse, as those pictures (in order to print them ) are copied to our computer, wehre they sit until we wipe the harddrive once a month. So we can go back and 'review' them later. At least with negatives, the customer is getting all evidence back.

Is that you, Leo?



Aamelrons: I'm no lawyer now ya'll hear, but can't you not be brought to trial on the same charges twice?

Which is why people try and get as much evidence as possible to bust?

So if she was acquitted of those charges of growing those pot plants, then even if she were to be like YUP I GREW DAT POT DERE they couldn't try her again?

She wasn't acquitted, the case was dismissed due to the "illegally obtained" evidence. A prosecutor can also withdraw a case if there is a sudden lack of evidence due to some technicality like this.

Of course, even a "Not Guilty" verdict can be vacated by a judge due to a technicality to bring a retrial. Unfortunately, "jury stupidity" isn't a valid reason.

Satanic_Hamster: Why, through? If a worker found pictures of you raping a two year old, wouldn't those be admissible? They are in the US and I don't think Canada's criminal laws are that different from ours.

Admissable into court as evidence, yes. Proper evidence needed to support a search warrant no.

For crimes, and the reason you need a search warrant, it's a lot easier to prosecute if you catch the person in the act, so searching the place gives you a record of who was where and had what. You can argue about a photo's meaning - who owned it, who was just visiting and had no idea what they were getting into.

In your example, that's pretty much being caught in the act. You're not going to do a warrant and surveillance and try to catch it happening - you're going to get the kid out of the situation as quickly as possible.

I don't know about a professional obligation, but I'd say a moral obligation would keep the first one quiet and bring the second one to the coppers. Especially if you know enough about pot that you know it is pot - you might be setting yourself up there.

horonto: Dave?

Dave's not here man.