Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Filming your police encounters, now ruled illegal.

  1. #1
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690

    Filming your police encounters, now ruled illegal.

    “Absent any authority from the Supreme Court or our Court of Appeals, we decline to create a new First Amendment right for citizens to photograph officers when they have no expressive purpose such as challenging police actions,” the decision concluded.

    Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at UCLA, disagrees with the decision and says he believes it will eventually be overturned by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upon appeal.

    “Whether one is physically speaking (to challenge or criticize the police or to praise them or to say something else) is relevant to whether one is engaged in expression,” Volokh wrote in the Washington Post. “But it’s not relevant to whether one is gathering information, and the First Amendment protects silent gathering of information (at least by recording in public) for possible future publication as much as it protects loud gathering of information.”
    http://yournewswire.com/filming-cops...s-court-rules/
    http://theantimedia.org/federal-cour...ng-the-police/
    If this is what is happening to the first amendment, no wonder those in power are seeking to destroy all of our other protected rights.

    https://phillylawblog.files.wordpres...rt-opinion.pdf
    This last link is the PDF for the opinions of certain criminals dressed in black robes.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    So, is it ruled illegal, or just not yet a protected right? Appears to only be the latter from what I get from your excerpt.

    Being ruled illegal would surely be state specific, no?
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  3. #3
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Fine, I can play that game. Every Time I have my video running it will be because "I have an expressed purpose in exposing police misconduct." I'll even put a sign on the front of the camera if some jacksaw judge says it'll help.

    Bad judge, bad ruling. I think we all know who's pocket the Honorable Judge Whathisname is in.

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    This judge needs to be removed from the bench. The officers in their official capacity have no expectation of privacy.
    Last edited by color of law; 02-27-2016 at 10:36 AM.

  5. #5
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984
    IANAL, as I understand it, the ruling is only binding on the case at hand. If it is affirmed on appeal, it is only binding on that circuit. Until it gets to SCOTUS, it only affects those jurisdictions courts in the 3rd circuit

    Even other district courts in he same circuit are not bound by this decision.

    just my non legal understanding.
    Last edited by swinokur; 02-27-2016 at 03:37 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    You all have valid points thus far.

    I shared this as a heads up and wake-up call

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  7. #7
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    449

    Us vs Them ??

    I bet they become a LOT more critical of the government after their cases are adjudicated. I can see how the judge got there, yet I do not agree with several of the citations that support the conclusion.

    I will have to go back and study the citation to Tenafly Eruv Ass'n Inc v. Borough of Tenafly where the court stated,

    "It is the obligation of the person desiring to engage in assertedly expressive conduct to demonstrate that the First Amendment even applies."

    This seems to conflict with the reference to flag burning recognized as protected speech. So.....photography is not a crime but you can be detained for it; burning a flag is not a crime and you are protected from detention.

    Lots to learn.

    ~Whitney
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 02-27-2016 at 09:09 PM. Reason: rule #19
    The problem with America is stupidity.
    I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

  8. #8
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    Who knows about various corruptions better than a judge? He should be disbarred.

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Kearney, Mark A.
    Born 1963 in Philadelphia, PA
    Federal Judicial Service:
    Judge, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
    Nominated by Barack Obama on June 16, 2014, to a seat vacated by J. Curtis Joyner. Confirmed by the Senate on December 3, 2014, and received commission on December 4, 2014.
    Does this explain the decision??????

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick9 View Post
    Who knows about various corruptions better than a judge? He should be disbarred.
    Better yet, one should be allowed to record the statements and interpretations of all judges in all jurisdictions, this action may help to curtail the statements and decisions of some non-lawyer judges in kangaroo courts...
    A regular Joe citizen, should have all court testimony and statements at his/her deposal, without paying hefty amounts of money for the same transcripts..

    Most interactions bye Joe Citizen with our justice system, occur in local kangaroo courts, and where most judges and prosecutors are employed by the same entity.. Hence the appearance of impropriety and total disregard for law and the Constitution will be greatly exposed.
    Regards

    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    It was a silly question in the first place. Unless it is expressly illegal to record a cop doing his public duty, then it is hands off the recording citizen. One of my all time favorite legal quotes:

    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.
    Union Pac. R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891).

    Without clear and unquestionable authority of law, no cop has the power to seize the camera or even interfere with the person doing the recording. End of discussion. All else is sophistry aimed at destroying one of the primary building blocks of the republic.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,268
    If a cop has to cross the street, or come onto your private property, especially through a closed fence gate, to stop you filming, will subject that cop to legal sanction(s).
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  13. #13
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,268
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    It was a silly question in the first place. Unless it is expressly illegal to record a cop doing his public duty, then it is hands off the recording citizen. One of my all time favorite legal quotes:

    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.
    Union Pac. R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891).

    Without clear and unquestionable authority of law, no cop has the power to seize the camera or even interfere with the person doing the recording. End of discussion. All else is sophistry aimed at destroying one of the primary building blocks of the republic.
    Terry v. Ohio and Heien pretty much nullifies the Union Pac. R. Co. v. Botsford.

    Not to sidetrack this line of discussion too far, but, stare decisis only works when the court wants to infringe upon a right. The cops will decided whether or not to jack you up for recording them and stealing their souls in the process. I pretty confident as to which side of this discussion cops will fall.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  14. #14
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    Better yet, one should be allowed to record the statements and interpretations of all judges in all jurisdictions, this action may help to curtail the statements and decisions of some non-lawyer judges in kangaroo courts...
    A regular Joe citizen, should have all court testimony and statements at his/her deposal, without paying hefty amounts of money for the same transcripts..

    Most interactions bye Joe Citizen with our justice system, occur in local kangaroo courts, and where most judges and prosecutors are employed by the same entity.. Hence the appearance of impropriety and total disregard for law and the Constitution will be greatly exposed.
    Regards


    CCJ
    The problem is they know it and they don't care. And they know you won't do a damn thing about it because they know you ain't got the gonads to take them on.....Remember, the judges previous job was assistant prosecutor.

  15. #15
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Terry v. Ohio and Heien pretty much nullifies the Union Pac. R. Co. v. Botsford.

    Not to sidetrack this line of discussion too far, but, stare decisis only works when the court wants to infringe upon a right. The cops will decided whether or not to jack you up for recording them and stealing their souls in the process. I pretty confident as to which side of this discussion cops will fall.
    The police chief where I live and who is about ready to retire has told me that the young officers and new hires actually want body cams and cruiser cams. Of course he is a by the book leader.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059
    "...we decline to create a new first amendment right..."
    WTF does that mean? You don't create rights, and unless a thing is expressly prohibited, it is not the domain of cops or judges.
    A cop can't facilitate the creation of "law" by a court by enforcing a non-existent law and then getting the court to agree. It simply can't be allowed.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  17. #17
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,268
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    The police chief where I live and who is about ready to retire has told me that the young officers and new hires actually want body cams and cruiser cams. Of course he is a by the book leader.
    Cops having cameras and recording is not the issue. Cops jacking up citizens for exercising a constitutionally protected right is the problem. Has the chief stated that his cops will not interfere with citizens filming them?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  18. #18
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Cops having cameras and recording is not the issue. Cops jacking up citizens for exercising a constitutionally protected right is the problem. Has the chief stated that his cops will not interfere with citizens filming them?
    Never asked him directly, but knowing him as I do I would believe that his answer would be: as long as the person that is doing the videoing does not interfere with the incident the videoing would be of no concern. He has said that his concern is that video of an incident could be taken out of context; no matter whose video it is.

    He has said that the complaints he gets about his officer violating someones rights usually turnout to be unfounded. Meaning that during the investigation the complainant once interviewed usually admits the officer did nothing wrong. He runs a tight ship.

    I live in the second largest township in Ohio, 60,000 residents. Half of the border abuts a major metropolitan city and yet his officers only issued 2,300 traffic tickets. That is roughly 6 per day. He has over 56 officers for 3 shifts covering 26 sq. miles.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Terry v. Ohio and Heien pretty much nullifies the Union Pac. R. Co. v. Botsford.

    Not to sidetrack this line of discussion too far, but, stare decisis only works when the court wants to infringe upon a right. The cops will decided whether or not to jack you up for recording them and stealing their souls in the process. I pretty confident as to which side of this discussion cops will fall.
    As long as we're clear about the context of nullify.

    Inalienable rights are rights that cannot be taken away. They cannot be separate from a person--they are not alienable.

    Did I refuse to recognize your rights, I still did not take them away. I merely deluded myself that I had taken them away. I confused refused recognition with removal.

    Just because the ambitious and controlling, in their short-sighted, pea-brained, pathetic inability to evaluate can't see that certain rights cannot be alienated does not make it true. It just means they can't see it.

    As long as we understand that context for nullify. And, assuming arguendo, a legitimate basis for non-consensual government in the first place.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  20. #20
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Eastern PA District Judge: First Amendment Doesn't Cover Filming Cops!

    Awful ruling. Seems to fly in the face of many well-established precedents. On par with the recent ruling that you must say you are invoking the Fifth Amendment in order to actually exercise the right to remain silent.

    TFred

    Photographing police not always protected by First Amendment, judge rules

    Photographing police activity without “any stated purpose of being critical of the government” isn’t constitutionally protected, a federal judge in Philadelphia has ruled.

    In a 21-page decision put out Friday by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, District Judge Mark Kearney dismissed First Amendment retaliation claims filed against the city of Philadelphia by two individuals who had been restrained while filming police in action.

  21. #21
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    Is photography in public places a criminal offense in Pennsylvania? Why were the photographers detained?
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    Is photography in public places a criminal offense in Pennsylvania? Why were the photographers detained?
    ".... Fields refused to leave, Officer Sisca detained him, ... he cited Fields for Obstructing Highway and Other Public Passages under 18 Pa.C.S.§5507."
    Last edited by Nightmare; 03-02-2016 at 06:04 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  23. #23
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,601
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    Is photography in public places a criminal offense in Pennsylvania? Why were the photographers detained?
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    ".... Fields refused to leave, Officer Sisca detained him, ... he cited Fields for Obstructing Highway and Other Public Passages under 18 Pa.C.S.§5507."
    Forcing the shoe to fit, not the foot, but the eliminatory orifice. Works best when the OD is excessive.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  24. #24
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,268
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    As long as we're clear about the context of nullify.

    snip
    Do I care, should I care, if you recognize/recognized my rights if you are willing to use lethal force against me for exercising them.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  25. #25
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    And if that's the statute alleged to have been violated, there should have been evidence that some specific person actually attempted to pass, but was prevented from having done so. Evidence in support of each of the elements of the offense would have had to have been presented. My guess is that there was none and the case was dismissed, which is why the civil suit was filed. When I read the article, I thought, why is their case so overcomplicated that the judge was able to use their own pleadings against them? I have to confess, I'm somewhat skeptical of the quality of the lawyering here. I hope the plaintiffs were given leave to amend their pleadings and that they'll have someone competent to do that for them. I also suspect that they may have sued under the wrong causes of action. And all the cops needed was a defense sufficient to show they had probable cause to detain.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

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
  •