Do I have to delete photos if security asks me to? The powers of security and police

You are standing on the parking deck, the Airbus is just taxiing to the runway – and suddenly someone in a high-vis vest is standing next to you: “You’re not allowed to do that here. Delete those pictures now, please.” At the latest at this moment, many spotters wonder: do I have to delete photos if security asks me to? The short answer is no – but the situation is still not as simple as it sounds. This guide explains what powers private security, airport staff and the police actually have, where house rules end and how to behave so that an approach does not turn into a conflict.

The short answer

A private security service at the airport cannot oblige you to delete your photos. It can prohibit you from taking photos on the operator’s premises and ask you to leave the premises or an area. You should comply with that. Your pictures remain yours, though – nobody but you may simply delete them, and nobody may take your camera for that.

With the police, the situation is somewhat different: they act with sovereign authority and, if there is a concrete suspicion, can secure or seize a camera or memory card. Deletion on the spot is not the intended means for that, though. How a check works overall is described in the guide Police check while spotting.

Who may do what? The powers at a glance

At the airport, you encounter several parties who can look similar on the outside: high-vis vest, radio, a certain tone. Legally, though, worlds separate them.

Who	Legal basis	May prohibit photography?	May enforce deletion?	May take the camera?
Private security service	Operator’s house rules, citizen’s rights	yes, on the premises	no	in principle no
Airport staff (e.g. observation deck supervisor)	House rules, terms of use	yes, on the premises	no	no
Aviation security staff at the checkpoint	as Beliehene (private persons entrusted with official powers) under the Aviation Security Act for the screening	yes, in the screening area	not as a general power	only as part of the screening
Federal or state police	Police acts, Code of Criminal Procedure	to avert danger in individual cases	not a standard instrument	securing/seizure if there is suspicion

The table simplifies, but shows the core: the only ones who may take items against your will are, in the normal case, police officers – and even they only under certain conditions.

What security may do legally

Private security firms work on behalf of the airport operator. Their powers are clearly limited in Section 34a(5) of the Trade Regulation Act (GewO): toward third parties, they may only exercise the rights that every person has in self-defense, necessity or self-help, plus the self-help rights that the client transfers to them by contract and, where applicable, powers transferred by law. They must also observe the principle of necessity.

Translated into everyday spotting, that means:

• Exercising house rules: The operator may determine who enters its premises and what is allowed there. The security service enforces these rules. So it may tell you that photos are not supposed to be taken in the terminal, the parking garage or at an access road.
• Asking you to leave: If you do not follow the rules, it can ask you to leave the area. Anyone who stays then risks a complaint for trespassing and possibly a ban from the premises. More on this under Removal orders and bans at the airport.
• Calling the police: That is its most important tool if it has a suspicion or you refuse to leave.
• Provisional detention only when caught in the act: Under Section 127(1) StPO, anyone – including a security employee – may provisionally detain a person caught or pursued in the act if they are a flight risk or their identity cannot be established immediately. Photographing aircraft from a permitted location is not a crime, though.

What is not part of it: ID checks with a duty to present documents, going through your pictures against your will and, indeed, ordering photos to be deleted. The basics of house rules are explained in detail in the article The airport operator’s house rules.

House rules mean leaving – not deleting

The crux of many arguments at the fence is a mix-up. House rules allow the operator to set conditions for staying on its premises. In December 2010, in a case brought by the Prussian Palaces and Gardens Foundation, the Federal Court of Justice ruled that an owner may tie entry onto its property to a photography ban and may prohibit the commercial exploitation of photos taken on its premises (case no. V ZR 45/10).

Quite a bit follows from that, but no right to self-help against your camera:

• The operator can tell you: no photos here – or you leave.
• It can defend itself against the commercial exploitation of pictures taken on its premises in violation of its rules. In a dispute, though, a court settles that, not an employee on the parking deck.
• It can not demand that you delete pictures you took from outside its premises. From public paths and streets, its house rules do not reach at all.

So if an employee says, “Either you delete that or you leave,” you have the choice – and the legally clean choice is to leave. Anyone who stays and keeps arguing usually loses the spot without gaining anything on the substance.

Why nobody else may delete your pictures

It gets interesting when a security employee wants to take action themselves. The roles shift quickly here:

• Deleting data: Anyone who unlawfully deletes, suppresses or renders unusable other people’s data commits a criminal offense under Section 303a of the Criminal Code. The penalty reaches up to two years in prison or a fine. Your photos on the memory card are such data.
• Taking the camera: Anyone who takes your camera by force or under threat is, depending on the circumstances, in the realm of coercion or even more serious offenses.
• Forcing deletion: Anyone who gets you to delete by means of a threat can, under certain circumstances, also be liable for coercion (Section 240 of the Criminal Code). Whether that applies in an individual case depends heavily on the circumstances, though – threatening a ban from the premises, for example, is in itself a legitimate means for the operator.

That does not mean you should explain this loudly at the fence. It only means: you do not have to hand over the camera, and you may say no, politely but firmly.

What the police may do

If security calls the police, the situation changes. Police officers can establish your identity, issue a removal order and, if there is a concrete suspicion, take further measures.

Securing and seizure: Items that may be significant as evidence in criminal proceedings may be taken into custody or seized under Section 94 StPO. The federal and state police acts also provide for securing items to avert danger. This is a formal measure that you can have confirmed. What happens afterward and how you get your equipment back is explained in Camera or memory card confiscated.

Deletion on the spot: Spotters occasionally hear a request like “Delete that, then the matter is settled” from officers too. There is no express standard power for that in an ordinary check. If a genuine suspicion is involved, deleting is even counterproductive because evidence would be lost. Whether a deletion order is permissible in an individual case to avert danger remains a case-by-case question – but you do not settle it at the roadside.

The right response: ask calmly whether it is a request or an order and what legal basis it rests on. If an order is insisted on, object orally, offer no resistance and afterward note everything down in a written record from memory.

Special cases: when pictures are really problematic

Not every request to delete is plucked out of thin air. There are situations in which you should critically review your shots – even though nobody can force you to delete them.

Security checkpoint: Photography at the passenger and baggage screening is prohibited at practically all airports. The screening staff there often act as Beliehene under Section 16a of the Aviation Security Act, that is, with transferred sovereign tasks for the screening. Why that is and what you risk for violations is covered under Photography at the security checkpoint.

Military facilities: Stricter rules apply at military airfields and at airfields with military co-use. Section 109g of the Criminal Code makes depictions of military facilities a criminal offense if they knowingly endanger Germany’s security or the troops’ fighting strength. No-photography signs must be taken seriously there. You will find details under Photographing military airfields.

Identifiable people: If your picture shows passengers, ground staff or security personnel large and recognizable, it is no longer about the aircraft but about personality rights. The Art Copyright Act and data protection then apply to publication. How to deal with this is explained in People in spotter photos.

Security-relevant details: Close-ups of fencing, gates, cameras or access roads come across to security staff differently than an Airbus on final approach. What applies around sensitive infrastructure is summarized in Photographing critical infrastructure.

How to respond correctly

How to deal with approaches by security in general is covered in the guide When security shows up. For behavior at the fence in general, Proper behavior at the airport fence and the Code of conduct for plane spotters help.

If you did delete

Under pressure, people sometimes give in – that is only human. The pictures are often not completely lost then. When you delete on the camera, as a rule only the reference to the file is removed; the data itself stays until it is overwritten. So:

• Swap the card immediately and do not keep shooting with the affected card.
• Do not format, not even in the camera.
• At home, try to rescue the files with a recovery program. There is no guarantee for that.

Prevention is even better. If you back up regularly, you lose at most the pictures from the last hour in a conflict. Tips are in Backup strategy for spotting photos.

Spot where it is expressly welcome

The simplest way to avoid deletion arguments is a location where plane spotting is intended. Many German airports offer such areas. At Munich Airport, that is the visitors’ hill, in Hamburg the Affenfelsen at Hamburg Airport, and at Frankfurt Airport the Zeppelinheim viewing platform. The respective rules apply there too – but nobody is surprised by a long telephoto lens.

If you spot abroad, the rules can be much stricter. Spotting abroad and Countries with strict photography bans at airports give an overview. For the neighboring countries, there are separate pages on Austria and Switzerland.

Conclusion

A security service at the airport can tell you where you may not take photos and send you off the premises. You do not have to delete your pictures at its request, and you do not have to hand over the camera. The police can go further but, if there is a genuine suspicion, rely on securing rather than deletion. If you stay calm, respect the house rules and use official spots, you rarely end up in this situation in the first place.