What are the circumstances under which pictures or filming
of registrants might be permitted or prohibited?
Before reviewing that question: We have already shown how registrants' federal rights are widely violated by releasing registry information -esp. pictures- by those in control of registries. Further unfortunately 42 USC 16988 Authorizes Home Address Checks: ((a) Establishment: There is established the Jessica Lunsford Address Verification Grant Program (hereinafter in this section referred to as the “Program”. (b) Grants authorized: Under the Program, the Attorney General is authorized to award grants to State,  local governments, and Indian tribal governments to assist in carrying out programs requiring an appropriate official to verify, at appropriate intervals, the residence of all or some registered sex offenders.)
However, SWAT like, or several police cars, to perform home visits to verify, does not seem to fit "an appropriate official." That federal law underlies our further -at home- research below.
On to the question about filming/pictures:
When performing in-person registering:
by Police or Registration Personnel: Cannot complain, state laws permit pictures for registry purposes only. If police want pictures for any other purpose (nude photos) during registry verification then OBJECT and ask for your lawyer to be present.
by the Media: If registration is inside a public building I would bet they need permission or a permit to do this. Time to object and ask for your lawyer to be present.
However, if the media is filming folks going into a place of registration, doubt that much can be done. Yet have heard this, when folks were forced to register all at the same time. Maybe time to get the ACLU involved, to stop this harassment.
During Home (Nursing Home/Hospice) Visits:
by Police performing severely disabled in-person registration and home address checks: This is a very rare circumstance only granted after a pre-approved Americans w/Disability Act, reasonable accommodation request. There are folks who are near death or so disabled that it is impossible for them to go to a normal place of registration. One can expect exactly what it shows above under "by Police or Registration Personnel:." The media is never allowed under these circumstances. Under AWA's SORNA there is a provision for such allowance.
by Police performing home address checks: This is the most likely circumstance where we have seen the media getting involved.
It has been suggested that since the police are performing "Public Business" then the media is allowed to film what police do. Well that is a FALSE belief, under "Home Address Checks (Compliance Checks)" this deals with PRIVATE property rights and that limits the media. ex: in a crime scene on private property the media is not allowed unless the police permit them and they cannot follow the police into a registrant's home. Why, there are limits to what the media can do, court cases have carved out limitations.
Registrants do not lose all rights, but often they are trampled on. Now until registrants start to draw lines their rights will be violated with impunity.
Consider: If the media were to photograph a registrant during a home address check, even doing so from the public street, will the final article the media posts place the registrant in false light?
(False light invasion of privacy occurs when information is published about a person that is false or places the person in a false light, is highly offensive to a reasonable person, and is published with knowledge or in reckless disregard of whether the information was false or would place the person in a false light.)
You would have to check the published article to know.
Reporter Privacy Check List: Why do these exist? They exist simply because there are loopholes in laws and reporters do not wish to get caught in one. So RSOs need to be mindful of these and follow cases, if possible, which deal with private property rights and the media..
Below are two links and within "Private Property" link are cases involving private property rights and you'll see when the media has been stopped. i.e., lost cases when sued. The media is not allowed on private property unless specifically invited. Registrants need to evaluate the circumstances and OBJECT to the police, say if the media was following them around, and if the police do nothing then it is time for ACLU/Lawyer involvement.
Cite From "Private Property":
"Ride-alongs," in which journalists accompany law enforcement officers during searches and arrests, present unique problems. Because ride-alongs often involve news that happens on private property -- especially private residences -- journalists need to take care to get the proper consent from the appropriate people.
Courts differ on what kind of consent to enter is required. Some courts have stated that the owner's silence alone is enough to imply consent. Others have found that police permission is sufficient if the owner is not present and cannot be asked for consent.
Accordingly, if a RSO does no research, does not raise issues -in court-, fails to object and/or fails to post appropriate signs, then rights will likely be violated. Do not look for the ONE perfect case, you must follow property rights cases and equate them to circumstances in a "Property Rights" context, then seek a lawyer. Remember, in California residency laws were the rule until RSOL brought the issue to court.
Filming or Picture taking by the Media:
The best way to find out whats permitted and what isn't, is,
to see what the media has learned through
their court cases: Private Property
At times there are registrants who because of their disability (Physical, mental or developmental), and the requirements of the registration laws, the registrants are not able to comply with the registration laws.
An example of this might be, a registrant who doctors have said they only have a short time to live, one example. The point is, that the registrant's circumstances are DIRE in some way making it impossible to comply with the law.
Under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) they can request a "reasonable accommodation," explaining their circumstances and the accommodation they wish and the State must consider the request and render a decision, whether or not to grant the request. The state may also propose some alternate method of compliance as part of their decision.
There is a special way this must be done and remember the registrant's circumstances MUST BE DIRE, don't think of this unless DIRE can be met; lying under state registration laws or federal law which ADA is, is a crime. Registrants are forewarned, truthful DIRE circumstance is the standard!