Court Opinion

ID: 9454389
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:45:13.169479+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:05.994326
License: Public Domain

PECK, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
While I am in agreement with the conclusions reached in the majority opinion, I have reservations concerning the emphasis placed on the fact that the photographs in controversy were not introduced into evidence in the injunction proceedings, and that some “were never developed and others were processed after’ the suits had been terminated.” Unquestionably, as stated in the majority opinion, “ [r] espondent’s activities [with unloaded cameras] not only tended to, but did interfere with protected activity. * * * ” This being true, whether photographs were ultimately received in evidence or even developed is immaterial and the emphasis on those subjects seems capable of being read as a limitation on what would otherwise be a proper means of recording occurrences.