Filming your police encounters, now ruled illegal.

Freedom1Man · Feb 27, 2016

“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-is-now-illegal-appeals-court-rules/
http://theantimedia.org/federal-court-rules-can-arrested-simply-filming-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.wordpress.com/2016/02/the-trial-court-opinion.pdf
This last link is the PDF for the opinions of certain criminals dressed in black robes.

MAC702 · Feb 27, 2016

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?

Fallschirjmäger · Feb 27, 2016

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.

color of law · Feb 27, 2016

This judge needs to be removed from the bench. The officers in their official capacity have no expectation of privacy.

swinokur · Feb 27, 2016

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.

Freedom1Man · Feb 27, 2016

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

Whitney · Feb 27, 2016

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

Maverick9 · Feb 28, 2016

Who knows about various corruptions better than a judge? He should be disbarred.

color of law · Feb 28, 2016

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??????

countryclubjoe · Feb 28, 2016

Maverick9 said:
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

Citizen · Feb 28, 2016

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.

OC for ME · Feb 29, 2016

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).

OC for ME · Feb 29, 2016

Citizen said:
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.

color of law · Feb 29, 2016

countryclubjoe said:
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.

color of law · Feb 29, 2016

OC for ME said:
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.

nonameisgood · Feb 29, 2016

"...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

OC for ME · Mar 1, 2016

color of law said:
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?

color of law · Mar 1, 2016

OC for ME said:
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.

Citizen · Mar 1, 2016

OC for ME said:
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.

TFred · Mar 2, 2016

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.

Filming your police encounters, now ruled illegal.

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Active member

Accomplished Advocate

Activist Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member