Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 42

Thread: Do recent SCOTUS cases in videoing cops allow cameras in courtrooms now?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    Do recent SCOTUS cases in videoing cops allow cameras in courtrooms now?

    Recent SCOTUS cases have said the public videotaping cops is OK.

    So does this mean that we can now video in all courtrooms ... they all have marshals or bailiffs that can arrest too.

    Would be sweet to go to SCOTUS with a video camera to record the marshals there in a session .... what these dudes in robs going to say?


    I am posing this question to my state's Chief Court Administrator ... as well as clarification of current policies of the courts

    Recently I was not allowed to bring my camera into a courthouse that I just happened to have on me ..

    http://www.jud.ct.gov/Publications/ES230.pdf
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 01-16-2014 at 10:03 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    The Supreme Court is currently split 4-3 towards not allowing cameras, but those two undecided votes could swing the majority in favor of allowing them.

    Courts are bound by Federal Rules, Federal Rule 53 states:
    Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom.
    The rule previously included radio broadcasting, but that was later deleted. I am supposing that FR53 was put into effect at a time back when radio and television broadcasting equipment was fairly new, quite bulky, and with television requiring intense lighting.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 01-16-2014 at 12:07 PM.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    The Supreme Court is currently split 4-3 towards not allowing cameras, but those two undecided votes could swing the majority in favor of allowing them.

    Courts are bound by Federal Rules, Federal Rule 53 states:


    The rule previously included radio broadcasting, but that was later deleted. I am supposing that FR53 was put into effect at a time back when radio and television broadcasting equipment was fairly new, quite bulky, and with television requiring intense lighting.
    I believe that the rules are promulgated by judges themselves and the rule seems in conflict with recent other SCOTUS rulings regarding the ability to videotape LEOs .... I got a call back from my chief administrator office and they find the argument to allow cameras for the purposes of recording the marshals to be one of interest and one which they are going to review. Of course state rules are different than federal.

    Right now, marshals don't allow cameras or video recorders into courthouses, let alone courtrooms ... in direct violation of their own policy that was noted in a link in the orig. post...and my state's chief court administrator (we have a new one, the previous one (who served for like 10 yrs) just retired), is now reviewing the current policies and how they are enforced.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Wai.... wha? You're expecting those in charge of enforcing the rules to actually know the rules?
    David... haven't you been paying attention????

    Although... note:
    The Use and Possession of Electronic Devices in Superior Court Facilities
    The following guidelines are subject in all cases to a judge or other judicial authority issuing additional specific orders or guidelines for the use of electronic devices in his or her courtroom or hearing:
    If the judicial authority in charge of your particular court says, "Nope, not happening", then that's what the Sheriff's Deputies are going to enforce. It's merely a guideline, the judge or other authority is free to issue orders with more restrictions... or none at all.

    My local judicial authority has the same rules "No cameras, no recording devices". My phone has both; the nice Deputies just reminded me not to use them in court.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 01-16-2014 at 03:11 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    759
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Recent SCOTUS cases have said the public videotaping cops is OK.
    I am not aware of any SCOTUS cases that have ruled video taping police in public is a constitutional right. I know that there are a few circuit court rulings but to my knowledge SCOTUS has not ruled on the matter yet.

    Filming in court rooms is allowed but only by permission of the judge.

    My experiences have shown it widely varies as far as judges allowing cameras in a court room. Basically, judges usually say no and then make a person sue if they really want to film. Generally people DO have the right but tha doesn't matter to most judges. They will still make you sue to be allowed.

    For major news companies who want to cover a trial like Anthony Casey they pool their resources and the cost is very low to sue.

    However, if someone like me wants to film my friends trial or my own trial then we are basically at the mercy of the judge because we don't want to pay $25,000 to sue just to film a misdomeanor trial even though its our right to film a trial.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    Wai.... wha? You're expecting those in charge of enforcing the rules to actually know the rules?
    David... haven't you been paying attention????
    ..... My phone has both; the nice Deputies just reminded me not to use them in court.
    I did speak to a Mr. Getz at my Supreme Court yesterday (Chief of Police for the Judicial Branch); he provided some history in respect to our current court policies...and yes, they now always allow phones in that can take pics, video etc w/o issue. They used to disallow such devices but in some courthouses it became a great big hassle as they also have libraries too...so they were allowing people going to the library to take their phones but people going into the court areas have to give them their phone. You can imagine the issues with people who have a court date and want to examine some opinions in the library beforehand.

    Now the policy linked in the 1st post is the ONLY policy of our Chief Court Administrator that directly relates to the public. They have this policy posted at most entrances so its not that they don't know the policy, its just that they enforce it improperly.

    If people like us do not point this out to them and complain, why would they change their behavior?

    Now the Chief Court Administrator here in our state is a judge ... I am hopeful that he'll change the policy to allow video recording in non-courtroom areas and am very hopeful that the electronic devices listed as being able to be allowed into the courthouses will have the behavior of not allowing them in reversed.

    Not so hopeful that he'll allow video recording inside a courtroom. But one can ask.

    If the administrator does not take steps that make me happy then I'll be off to my legislators.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    I am not aware of any SCOTUS cases that have ruled video taping police in public is a constitutional right. I know that there are a few circuit court rulings but to my knowledge SCOTUS has not ruled on the matter yet.

    Filming in court rooms is allowed but only by permission of the judge.

    .
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glik_v._Cunniffe details right to record

    Regarding video taping police .... why would it not apply to court "cops" is my argument I tossed out.

    Oh, I fully expect to lose this argument in the admin arena but ya never know.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 01-16-2014 at 03:33 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    759
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    The Glik case was a circuit court, not SCOTUS.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    I am not aware of any SCOTUS cases that have ruled video taping police in public is a constitutional right. I know that there are a few circuit court rulings but to my knowledge SCOTUS has not ruled on the matter yet.
    The Supreme Court has not ruled that eating a peanut butter and mayonnaise sandwich is a constitutional right either, what's your point, Onus?
    The Supreme Court has refused to hear appeals from Circuit Courts rulings that filming/photographing the police was legal. That means they see no need to address the issue as the lower courts decisions were considered proper.

    The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to review a federal appeals court decision finding it unconstitutional to enforce an Illinois state law that makes it a felony to videotape police officers working in public if a microphone is turned on.

    Supreme Court rejects plea to ban taping of police in Illinois

    The United States Supreme Court sided with a lower court decision protecting the rights of Americans when it comes to privacy under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

    The Supreme Court has addressed the issue and they said, paraphrasing, "Get that outta my face, homie, it's legal."
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 01-16-2014 at 05:44 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    I emphasized Illinois above because it is one of the few states that has tried to misapply 'wire tapping' laws, and they do it specifically to benefit law enforcement to the detriment of the public.

    38 states plainly allows citizens to record police, as long as you don't physically interfere with their work.
    12 states require the consent of all parties for you to record a conversation.
    50

    2 of these states-Massachusetts and Illinois-have an "expectation of privacy provision" to their all-party laws that courts have ruled does not apply to on-duty police (or anyone in public). In other words, it's technically legal in those 48 states to openly record on-duty police. (And please read the recent refusal of the Supreme Court to hear Illinois' appeal when their law was struck down.)


    Massachusetts is the only state to uphold a conviction for recording on-duty police, but that conviction was for a secret recording where the defendant failed to inform police he was recording. (As in the Glik case, Massachusetts courts have ruled that openly recording police is legal, but secretly recording them isn't.)

    City of Boston agreed to pay Simon Glik $170,000 in damages and legal fees to settle a civil rights lawsuit stemming from his 2007 felony arrest for videotaping police roughing up a suspect. Prior to the settlement, the First Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that Glik had a "constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public." The Boston Police Department now explicitly instructs its officers not to arrest citizens openly recording them in public.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 01-16-2014 at 05:41 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    The Glik case was a circuit court, not SCOTUS.
    The Supreme Court is a Court of Appeals (Appellate Court) it receives thousands of requests each year for hearings. It reviews the cases presented before it and where there is an appeal due to alleged error or sufficient controversy it may decide to hear the case.

    GLIK v CUNNIFFE, SAVALIS, JEROME HALL-BREWSTER, CITY OF BOSTON was decided in favor of the plaintiff. Boston, et al, as the losing party had the opportunity to appeal the decision and chose not to do so.

    Seeing no appeal and no controversy, there was no need for the Supreme Court to accept a case that never existed.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 01-16-2014 at 06:02 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    759
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    The Supreme Court has not ruled that eating a peanut butter and mayonnaise sandwich is a constitutional right either, what's your point, Onus?
    [/B]
    I think my point was that the SCOTUS has not heard a case on this specific issue and hasn't issued a ruling on this specific issue and that the Glik case was in a circuit court.

    Whats your point ?

  13. #13
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Not so hopeful that he'll allow video recording inside a courtroom. But one can ask.

    If the administrator does not take steps that make me happy then I'll be off to my legislators.
    Just wait until GoogleGlass technology becomes more widespread and even more miniaturized. Remember how technology progresses; GG is amazingly compact and it's just beyond the prototype stage.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	EyePhone-Install.jpg 
Views:	78 
Size:	13.1 KB 
ID:	11135

  14. #14

  15. #15
    Regular Member Logan 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    690
    Would the Garrity Rule protect a cop during a hearing like this, or not? Is it applicable only for interviews/interrogation or it is something that is across the board?
    Lifetime member, Gun Owners of America (http://gunowners.org/)
    Lifetime member, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (http://jpfo.org/)
    Member, Fraternal Order of Eagles since 8/02 (http://www.foe.com/)

    Registering gun owners to prevent crime, is like registering Jews to prevent a HOLOCAUST.

    I am not a lawyer in real life, or in play life. So anything I say is for debate and discussion only.

  16. #16
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Stupid Garrity rule!.....Grrrrrrrrr.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan 5 View Post
    Would the Garrity Rule protect a cop during a hearing like this, or not? Is it applicable only for interviews/interrogation or it is something that is across the board?
    How so? This was a civil case ... plus it was the airlines being sued ...

    One can refuse to answer any question that can be used against them in criminal proceedings ... and in a criminal trial, the refusal is OK and cannot (should not) be seen as being anything suspicious and no inferences can be made...not so with civil cases; take the 5th and the jury can infer from your silence.

  18. #18
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Would the Garrity Rule protect a lying cop? C'mon man, if ya got nothing to hide cuz you didn't break the law, why not tell us your story.....ya feelin me bro?

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Would the Garrity Rule protect a lying cop? C'mon man, if ya got nothing to hide cuz you didn't break the law, why not tell us your story.....ya feelin me bro?
    No immunity rule equals a free for all .. one must tell the truth.

    Ask a cop a question if he pulls you over for a simple speeding ticket .... he'll just say "ask me in court" ... the same exact response you should give when he asks you questions.

  20. #20
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    No immunity rule equals a free for all .. one must tell the truth.

    Ask a cop a question if he pulls you over for a simple speeding ticket .... he'll just say "ask me in court" ... the same exact response you should give when he asks you questions.
    Had to laugh at that one, because a cop did tell me that and I said I would have several questions for him in court......he never showed.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    759
    Story about filming in a court room......

    Today I went to court with a friend who routinely films police. (some posters think its me)

    He has been arrested 5 times on CA pc148 charges while filming and so far 4 have been dismissed or fail to file.

    Todays court appearance is for his last remaining charge.

    I had filed the necessary papers 2 weeks ahead of time for permission to film the trial. I was denied.

    When we entered court today there were 3 cases ahead of ours. We had just sat down and my friend noticed a police officer from a jurisdiction that he films a lot and has won two lawsuits against for illegal arrests.

    About 10 seconds after we sit down, the police officer who is sitting 3 rows in front of us is talking to the bailiffs and he says loud enough for everyone to hear "that's Daniel saulmon, he makes his living suing police and being a parasite".

    My friend tells him to shut up and mind his own business. The cop turns back to him and says "we are in a courtroom now and you cant film and put me on the internet so i'll say whatever I want to you. YOU shut up".

    At that point my friend and the cop start to argue and exchange insults. Believe it or not, the bailiffs told the cop to be quite and respect the court !!!

    There was a break in the court proceedings so everyone went outside in the hallway and the cop starts in again with my friend and they almost come to blows.

    The whole time the cops kept ranting about how my friend is a wuss when he cant film people and too bad they are in a court room where he cant film.

    The joke is going to be on the cop though because the courtroom has security cameras all over so we filed a public records request for them.

    The government doesn't want you to know what goes on in their extortion chambers.

  22. #22
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    The Supreme Court has not ruled that eating a peanut butter and mayonnaise sandwich is a constitutional right either, what's your point, Onus?
    The Supreme Court has refused to hear appeals from Circuit Courts rulings that filming/photographing the police was legal. That means they see no need to address the issue as the lower courts decisions were considered proper.

    The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to review a federal appeals court decision finding it unconstitutional to enforce an Illinois state law that makes it a felony to videotape police officers working in public if a microphone is turned on.

    Supreme Court rejects plea to ban taping of police in Illinois

    The United States Supreme Court sided with a lower court decision protecting the rights of Americans when it comes to privacy under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

    The Supreme Court has addressed the issue and they said, paraphrasing, "Get that outta my face, homie, it's legal."
    The Justice Dept. thinks you can video tape the cops......

    http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl...tr_5-14-12.pdf

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    Story about filming in a court room......

    Today I went to court with a friend who routinely films police. (some posters think its me)

    He has been arrested 5 times on CA pc148 charges while filming and so far 4 have been dismissed or fail to file.

    Todays court appearance is for his last remaining charge.

    I had filed the necessary papers 2 weeks ahead of time for permission to film the trial. I was denied.

    When we entered court today there were 3 cases ahead of ours. We had just sat down and my friend noticed a police officer from a jurisdiction that he films a lot and has won two lawsuits against for illegal arrests.

    About 10 seconds after we sit down, the police officer who is sitting 3 rows in front of us is talking to the bailiffs and he says loud enough for everyone to hear "that's Daniel saulmon, he makes his living suing police and being a parasite".

    My friend tells him to shut up and mind his own business. The cop turns back to him and says "we are in a courtroom now and you cant film and put me on the internet so i'll say whatever I want to you. YOU shut up".

    At that point my friend and the cop start to argue and exchange insults. Believe it or not, the bailiffs told the cop to be quite and respect the court !!!

    There was a break in the court proceedings so everyone went outside in the hallway and the cop starts in again with my friend and they almost come to blows.

    The whole time the cops kept ranting about how my friend is a wuss when he cant film people and too bad they are in a court room where he cant film.

    The joke is going to be on the cop though because the courtroom has security cameras all over so we filed a public records request for them.

    The government doesn't want you to know what goes on in their extortion chambers.
    A story about two people being jerks.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    A story about two people being jerks.
    Isolated incident 88,691.
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuller Malarkey View Post
    Isolated incident 88,691.
    The cop did not violate any rights by being a jerk. Not an "incident," good or bad, just a silly interaction between two jerks, neither of which was exercising power over the other.

    BTW, you don't have to interact with a cop to have a jerk exercising power over you to his own advantage!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •