• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
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:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
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:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
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.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Wai.... wha? You're expecting those in charge of enforcing the rules to actually know the rules?
David... haven't you been paying attention????:shocker::cool:

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:

onus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
699
Location
idaho
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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
Wai.... wha? You're expecting those in charge of enforcing the rules to actually know the rules?
David... haven't you been paying attention????:shocker::cool:
..... 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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
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:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
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 :cuss: outta my face, homie, it's legal."
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
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:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
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:

onus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
699
Location
idaho
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 ?
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
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.

EyePhone-Install.jpg
 

Logan 5

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2012
Messages
681
Location
Utah
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?
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
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.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,415
Location
White Oak Plantation
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?
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,689
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 
Top