Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=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."
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=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."