Maybe because it's harassment, and illegal? Hmmm...

Nope, this is definitely not harassment, and is not illegal. Keep taking photos like these!

The NYS Penal Law defines Harassment in the second degree (240.26 sub 3) as follows: "A person is guilty of harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person: He or she engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose." [Harassment in the second degree is a violation.]
The victim of this act determins what actions "alarm or seriously annoy" them, and the officer determins if the act serves a "legitimate purpose". However, since it is only a violation, it needs to be commited in the presence of an officer for him to be able to take any enforcement action. Either way, if the person you are taking picture of is upset (alarmed and annoyed), you are breaking the law.

Come on 14FeetAway, you gotta be kidding me. Your legal analysis is a little spotty there, methinks. You haven't shown that the photographer intended to "harass, annoy or alarm" this car owner. This photographer, as far as we know, has not done this "repeatedly". And the photographer definitely has a legitimate purpose, which is documenting illegal behavior. Get real here, you're really grasping at straws!

14 your argument is one sided and fallacious.

Hoodwatch, it is not up to the victim to show intent, that happens in court and is decided by a Judge and/or Jury. The same goes for the "legitimate purpose" part, the victim makes the complaint that it's not, and a Jury decides if he is right. As far as "repeatedly", that happens the very second the owner tells you to stop and you don't. If you do, and walk away, then there is no problem.
Hiyall, my argument is stright out of the NYS Penal Law, something I've told you to read up on in the past, but you still refuse to look into.

14FeetAway - I wonder if it has occurred to you that by the standard you are applying, anybody who parks illegally using a placard and whose vehicle is witnessed by the same individual on two occasions would ALSO be guilty of harrasment. Parking in this manner is certainly annoying, and by definition serves no legitimate purpose. Since you say it's not up to the victim to show intent to annoy on the part of the driver... Come to think of it, in most cases it's even committed in the presence of an officer! (Who is unfortunately also the suspect, of course.) But then, we already knew (as almost certainly did they) that they were breaking the law. Thanks to your deft legal analysis, we now realize they've broken it twice!

Keep up the good work!

Buttle, read the law again. The second word explains why you are wrong. It say "A person is guilty of harassment..." A car, parked in any way, CAN NOT be guilty of harassment. It's a very very long stretch to say that the driver intended to harrass anyone just by parking his vehicle in the street (it would be a different matter if he, lets say, parked it on someones front lawn, or something). Also, parking on a street is a legitimate purpose, parking on someones front lawn would not be. Give it up. One (parking a car) is a passive act, and the other (taking photos when people get upset) is an aggressive act. They are way differnt.

14feet what crime would the driver be guilty of if there was a fire and some one was killed. what if that person was a fire fighter? check your little book and ge back to us.

Another thing since when is it a crime to take pics of someone braking the law?

Servant, I'm not a Fire Marshal, and I don't know much about specific fire related laws. I'm sure there is something. If nothing else, it's the parking fine. If you really what to know, you can look it up yourself, I'm not going to waste my time. And in answer to your second question: The minute you break a law too, regardless of what you are taking a picture of, it becomes illegal. (For proof, look at paparatzi photos from NYC. The reason they don't do the crazy in your face style that they do in LA is because NY has harassment laws. In NYC, celebrity shots are usually from across the street, spy shot style, so as not to alarm the celebrity and break the harassement law. Even when they occasionally capture the celebrity breaking the law. One violation does not permit another.)

Sorry folks, I must have missed something here : what happened to the exception "and which serve no legitimate purpose" . Surely documenting a parking violation i.e. a vehicular hazard serves a legitimate purpose ? No to mention the INTENT (we still have intent in this country to define criminal conduct, you see) of annoying, alarming or harassing. You see, even if the other side is alarmed, annoyed and what have you, if there is no intent, there is no harassment. QED - pls go to court with this. And 14feetaway, this is circular agreement - the minute you break the law, it becomes illegal , but if you are not breaking the law, then it is not illegal.

Anon, trust me, it's Harassment, and it is illegal. If you are told to stop, and you don't, you are violating the law. You can document whatever parking violations you want, but once it causes Alarm to someone else, you MUST STOP. Otherwise you are now guilty of harassment. Like I said above, the courts will determin "intent" and "legitimate purpose". But, not being sworn to uphold the law, I doubt that you would have a "legitimate purpose" to document the infraction, you would only be free to do so if it does not cause a problem (much like taking a photo of anything else).

If that's the case make sure your first pic is a good one..this way you can comply with the law..i.e. you stop when told to..plus you got the pic of the real law breaker.

Fugedabowdit, you got it. I didn't say not to take photos, I said that you must STOP when it alarms someone else, or they tell you to stop. After this it becomes illegal. Don't cause more seriouse violations (NYS Penal Law) trying to document someone else's petty ones (NYC Traffic Rules).

14feet Its puzzeling that you would argue for this illegaly parked car when your own screen name indicates your understandind of the law. You didnt answer my question of when is it illegal to take pics of someone breaking the law? As for Alarming someone? If you park at a hydrant in my hood I will alarm you!!!

Servant, I did answer your question. I said "The minute you break a law too [alarm and annoy someone], regardless of what you are taking a picture of, it becomes illegal."
And as for me arguing "for this illegaly parked car", when did I do that? Everyone on this site likes to read only what they want to read. Not once did I comment on anything about how this car is parked. I've said numerous times in other posts that blocking the big 3 (hydrants, bus stops, and crosswalks) is a very bad habit. Most other parking violations I've argued are minor, and can be overlooked on a case by case basis.
Anyway, getting back my screen name which "indicates your understandind of the law", my screen name is intended to involk the idea of DISCRESSION. I feel that vehicles, regardless of permits, should be given a "common sence style of discression" in most parking situations. That is not the case in this photo, the vehicle here is not 14 feet, or even 2 feet, away from the hydrant. And while the hydrant is still operational, this vehicle is way too close. It should get a ticket.

14feet are you saying that if I take a pic of you parking at a hydrant and you dont like it, becouse that is upseting to you that I am now breaking the law?

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. Your reason for breaking the law has no effect on whether you are breaking it or not. Your goal might be admirable, but your actions still become illegal the minute they "alarm or seriously annoy" someone. Face it. It's harassment. You might not like it, but it is.

ourlives -- don't let these fearmongers try and dissuade you. keep clicking away.

14feet your interpretation is comical. By your understanding any perp caught on surveillance cameras that are upset or feel harassed by being photographed should counter sue. Or better yet have their indictment/conviction thrown out cuz two wrongs don’t make a right.

14Feet. Based on your reasoning counselor, the burden of "harassment" is based on Napoleonic Code. Since when does an accuser have the advantage of presumption under the U.S. Constitution? In this country, it is the accuser who has the burden of providing proof.
As one who investigated the improper use of genuine and fake parking permits in NYC, (now happily retired), I'll put the blame where it really belongs, and that is in the climate of entitlement that certain city, state and federal employees have come to take for granted over many, many years. It is this same climate that is observed and exploited by enterprising individuals who somehow justify their illegal actions when they utilize a phony/bogus permit.
The solution? Simple. Develop a computerized system, operating under a single agency, (preferably under a newly classified NON-MAYORAL Department of Investigation....which at the moment, we do not have), with law-enforcement powers to issue, track and determine the lawful use of ALL permits issued to ALL agencies regardless of their federal or municipal or whatever governmental/regulatory/authority status. Of course, all the Investigators at DOI would have to be deputized as U.S. Marshalls, the City Charter would have to be amended, and the N.Y.P.D. should not be allowed anywhere near the newly revamped DOI.
Bloomberg had his chance, but he pulled his punch. Still, what he has done so far is a genuine step in the right direction.
Essentially, the public gets what it tolerates.