Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 117

Thread: Video of Norfolk PD Officer Unlawfully Detaining Gun Owners and Interfering in Videotaping

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...deoID=44410738

    Amazing arrogance and ignorance by this officer.


    And as for the illegal order by the officer to stop videotaping, a recent federal court case where police were sued for interfering in videotaping of their activities in pennsylavnia is instructive:

    --

    Robinson v. Fetterman
    378 F.Supp.2d 534
    E.D.Pa.,2005.




    United States District Court,E.D. Pennsylvania.Bartle, J., held that:
    (1) arrestee had First Amendment free speech right to videotape state troopers as they inspected trucks on public highway;
    (2) troopers violated arrestee's First Amendment free speech right by arresting him under state harassment statute in retaliation for his protected conduct;
    (3) troopers' conduct amounted to an unlawful prior restraint upon arrestee's protected speech to extent they restrained him from making any future videotapes and from publicizing or publishing what he had filmed;
    (4) troopers lacked probable cause for the arrest;
    (5) arrestee was not subjected to excessive force when he was arrested;
    (6) neither the warrantless arrest nor arrestee's consequent appearance in state court proceedings on the citation qualified as malicious prosecution; and
    (7) arrestee was entitled to $35,000 in compensatory damages and to punitive damages of $2,000 from each of the three defendants.

    Judgment for plaintiff.
    --

    ORDER

    42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;

    (2) plaintiff is awarded counsel fees in the amount of $45,352.13; and

    (3) plaintiff is awarded costs in the amount of $2,081.35.

    E.D.Pa.,2005.
    Robinson v. Fetterman
    387 F.Supp.2d 432

    --

    See also: Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. Ga. 2000):



    "As to the First Amendment claim under Section 1983, we agree with the Smiths that they had a First Amendment right, subject to reasonable time, manner and place restrictions, to photograph or videotape police conduct. The First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest. . . . Thus, the district court erred in concluding that there was no First Amendment right."

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Cottonwood Heights, Utah, USA
    Posts
    545

    Post imported post

    Wow! Good luck to all in getting this resolved.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    "As to the First Amendment claim under Section 1983, we agree with the Smiths that they had a First Amendment right, subject to reasonable time, manner and place restrictions, to photograph or videotape police conduct. The First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest. . . . Thus, the district court erred in concluding that there was no First Amendment right."
    Dan's case seems to hinge on whether the Waterside complex is public property, but the videotape issue might carry because of matters of public interest....

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    This appears to be in a mall, which would be private property. That is a big difference when you look at the case of videotaping on a public highway. Some malls even have "no videotaping" signs due to terrorism and men's bathroom type issues.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Milton, West Virginia, USA
    Posts
    65

    Post imported post

    The old police standby--"wiretapping" has been brought up before, but wiretapping has generally been defined as "Interception of electronic communication"--videotaping an encounter between yourself, others, and public officials--police officers--hardly falls into this category.



    If a police officer touches or forcibly takes a video camera from a civilian wouldn't it qualify as assault ?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    nitrovic wrote:
    This appears to be in a mall, which would be private property. That is a big difference when you look at the case of videotaping on a public highway. Some malls even have "no videotaping" signs due to terrorism and men's bathroom type issues.
    Catch up time, Vic.

    Waterside gets public funding, and in the way it receives public funding, the mall area itself is public property.

    The store.... booths, for lack of a better term, are still going to be private, I would figure, however, but the open "mall" area would be public.

    The original thread for this, as well as the VCDL email both relay this information.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sierra Vista, AZ
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    Anyone transcribed the audio? My hearing isn't what it used to be.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    CaptainFinn wrote:
    The old police standby--"wiretapping" has been brought up before, but wiretapping has generally been defined as "Interception of electronic communication"--videotaping an encounter between yourself, others, and public officials--police officers--hardly falls into this category.



    If a police officer touches or forcibly takes a video camera from a civilian wouldn't it qualify as assault ?
    yes.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    AbNo wrote:
    nitrovic wrote:
    This appears to be in a mall, which would be private property. That is a big difference when you look at the case of videotaping on a public highway. Some malls even have "no videotaping" signs due to terrorism and men's bathroom type issues.
    Catch up time, Vic.

    Waterside gets public funding, and in the way it receives public funding, the mall area itself is public property.

    The store.... booths, for lack of a better term, are still going to be private, I would figure, however, but the open "mall" area would be public.

    The original thread for this, as well as the VCDL email both relay this information.
    I got lazy on this one and didn't read the whole thing. I was too busy laughing at some pictures of Doug Hoffman somebody sent me. Exactly as I imagined him.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    CaptainFinn wrote:
    The old police standby--"wiretapping" has been brought up before, but wiretapping has generally been defined as "Interception of electronic communication"--videotaping an encounter between yourself, others, and public officials--police officers--hardly falls into this category.



    If a police officer touches or forcibly takes a video camera from a civilian wouldn't it qualify as assault ?
    Yes, if it wasn't impeding an on-going investigation. Which the one in this story did not appear to be impeding at all.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Gloucester Point, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    899

    Post imported post

    AbNo wrote:
    nitrovic wrote:
    This appears to be in a mall, which would be private property. That is a big difference when you look at the case of videotaping on a public highway. Some malls even have "no videotaping" signs due to terrorism and men's bathroom type issues.
    Catch up time, Vic.

    Waterside gets public funding, and in the way it receives public funding, the mall area itself is public property.

    The store.... booths, for lack of a better term, are still going to be private, I would figure, however, but the open "mall" area would be public.

    The original thread for this, as well as the VCDL email both relay this information.
    Is the bold fact or opinion?

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    It's fact.

  13. #13
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    The key issue here is not ownership of the facility, but whether a charge for criminal tresspassing lies for refusing a police officer's apparent order to leave - the video was turned off as a result of unlawful police conduct so we can;t see what happenned exactly, but I have not heard that any owner or agent of the facility provided Dan notice to leave - that's the first thing that usually has to happen to trigger criminal tresspass liability.

    Maybe some tresspass expert can post the annotated code section under which dan was charged so we can see the text and what the key cases have to say about it.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    The key issue here is not ownership of the facility, but whether a charge for criminal tresspassing lies for refusing a police officer's apparent order to leave - the video was turned off as a result of unlawful police conduct so we can;t see what happenned exactly, but I have not heard that any owner or agent of the facility provided Dan notice to leave - that's the first thing that usually has to happen to trigger criminal tresspass liability.

    Maybe some tresspass expert can post the annotated code section under which dan was charged so we can see the text and what the key cases have to say about it.
    Doesn't "owner or agent of the facility" kind of imply private property?

    If it's public property, the police officer would be the agent. (But then the whole issue would be bizarre.)

    I'm told by several people that the Waterside complex is well-posted with "no firearms" signs. It would seem that would include Hooters, but perhaps their outside patio isn't so posted?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Merrimack, New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    370

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Maybe some tresspass expert can post the annotated code section under which dan was charged so we can see the text and what the key cases have to say about it.
    http://law.justia.com/virginia/codes.../18.2-119.html
    § 18.2-119. Trespass after having been forbidden to do so; penalties.
    If any person without authority of law goes upon or remains upon the lands, buildings or premises of another, or any portion or area thereof, after having been forbidden to do so, either orally or in writing, by the owner, lessee, custodian or other person lawfully in charge thereof, or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign or signs posted by such persons or by the holder of any easement or other right-of-way authorized by the instrument creating such interest to post such signs on such lands, structures, premises or portion or area thereof at a place or places where it or they may be reasonably seen, or if any person, whether he is the owner, tenant or otherwise entitled to the use of such land, building or premises, goes upon, or remains upon such land, building or premises after having been prohibited from doing so by a court of competent jurisdiction by an order issued pursuant to §§ 16.1-253, 16.1-253.1, 16.1-253.4, 16.1-278.2 through 16.1-278.6, 16.1-278.8, 16.1-278.14, 16.1-278.15, 16.1-279.1, 19.2-152.8, 19.2-152.9 or § 19.2-152.10 or an ex parte order issued pursuant to § 20-103, and after having been served with such order, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. This section shall not be construed to affect in any way the provisions of §§ 18.2-132 through 18.2-136.
    ===============

    In other words, a police officer acting on his own, without any direction or request from the owner, lessee, custodian, or other person lawfully in charge of the premises, does not have the authority to demand that someone leave under threat of trespass prosecution.

  16. #16
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    mvpel wrote:
    In other words, a police officer acting on his own, without any direction or request from the owner, lessee, custodian, or other person lawfully in charge of the premises, does not have the authority to demand that someone leave under threat of trespass prosecution.
    I bet that explains why sometimes when I listen to my scanner, the dispatcher adds "at the request of management" when they take late night "clear the parking lot" calls. The things you learn!

    TFred


  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Merrimack, New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    370

    Post imported post

    Look at it this way...

    Suppose you were sitting in your car in your friend's driveway, waiting for him to get home, having just talked to him on the cellphone.

    A cop comes up on your friend's property to check you out, runs your plates, and demands you leave the property, without contacting or attempting to contact your friend.

    No dice on any kind of trespassing charge by that cop.

  18. #18
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Getting busted when you're not expecting it would be inconvenient, to say the least.

    Why not mount a sting operation?

    Get a bunch of your friends with video and audio recorders to follow you around discreetly...

    Have an attorney ready to file the lawsuit...



  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    I used to manage the Auntie Annes Pretzel place at Waterside. It is private property.

    While I do believe that some laws state that if a property were to receive public funding, say to have a fireworks show on the 4th....that it can be determined public property in common, non-privae areas...like say commons of a public-college are public, but the dorm rooms would not be.

    One related note, the Waterside cops are punks! I came out of BAR one night and a cop asked me a question while I was walking to my car and then just hit me in the jaw with his flashlight...TWICE! He went to do it a third time but I took it from him and hit him with it.

    I was himmed up for a short period, but luckly his partner testified on my behalf saying it was unproviked and out of line. . . And I am not the first that I know to have problems with them being OVERZELOUS.

  20. #20
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Just a "wannabe" in Mtn. Top, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,441

    Post imported post

    Wow.I fianally got to watch the video again where I could crank up the sound...

    When officer "OFF DUTY" demands ID, and Danbus refuses, *suddenly* the video becomes a problem! OMG! Where have we seen this before?!?

    Nice job officer "Off Duty", the unemployment line has a spot reserved for you



  21. #21
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Pa. Patriot wrote:
    Wow.I fianally got to watch the video again where I could crank up the sound...

    When officer "OFF DUTY" demands ID, and Danbus refuses, *suddenly* the video becomes a problem! OMG! Where have we seen this before?!?

    Nice job officer "Off Duty", the unemployment line has a spot reserved for you
    I'm confdused. Is it established that the officer was off duty?

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Gainesville, VA
    Posts
    549

    Post imported post

    I'm not sure a law enforcement officer, much like a military member, is ever "off duty". Reno229, care to chime in

  23. #23
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    The tape had to be stopped for "officer safety".

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Missouri, ,
    Posts
    79

    Post imported post

    buster81 wrote:
    The tape had to be stopped for "officer safety".
    Officer was afraid the tape would be incriminating.

  25. #25
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Just a "wannabe" in Mtn. Top, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,441

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Pa. Patriot wrote:
    ~snip~
    Nice job officer "Off Duty", the unemployment line has a spot reserved for you
    I'm confdused. Is it established that the officer was off duty?
    As reported in article here:
    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum54/17293-1.html

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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
  •