And if you’re mute, you go to jail – unless you give them the finger?
I’m not following your disagreement. Do you think police have the power to remove you from a place that you have a right to be sans interference with police activity?
Filming is gathering information which is protected in other cicuits and should be here.
Agreed.
But when the ACLU files your suit after you moved along, for what cause of action, specifically, are they suing?
And there are tests the court can apply to this. Are you allowed to watch an officer interact with someone and testify in court regarding what you witnessed? Was it done in a public place where there is no presumption of privacy?
If the court acknowledges this then a camera is not only an extension of this but adds a considerable amount of accuracy to any testimony.
As with all legal issues they do not occur in a vacuum so there will be cases where privacy could be an issue that benefits the public at large.
Wouldn’t one way of putting this issue to rest (i.e. the need to announce that one’s filming is a protest or a challenge) be to organize a national ‘film-the-police-to-protest-their-presence initiative’ to run indefinitely? By definition, then, anyone filming the police thereafter could be viewed as participating in the protest?
In fact, as a result of this ruling, could not a case be made that any person filming the police can now be viewed as protesting the ruling?
One of the persons took classes? From copwatch on how and what types of activity to film, instructing on the rules. It’s not realistic to think he wasn’t capturing film for the purpose of potential future dissemination.
Do you mean " … if the ACLU files … "? In the Miller case, there were about 20 police officers involved in the activity, maybe “across the street” is too close for such a large action. In the Geraci case, she got the beat crapped out of her.
I’m envisioning a camera man outside the zone of the police activity. If an officer says “you can’t film this action, move on along”, then I think the ACLU has a case they can file under the right to observe and record. On the other hand, if an officer says “the suspect is threatening to machine gun down everybody they see, move on along”, the ACLU may disdain any filings. On the third hand, the cameraman’s holding a sign that says “Black lives Matter”, and the officer says “you can’t have that sign here, move on along”, then the ACLU can file under Free Speech rights.
If I was to guess, I’d guess there’s a written law that says one can observe and record a police activity from outside the zone, so Miller had a statutory right to have his photograph returned to him promptly upon release. His Free Speech rights have not been infringed.
As predicted, this bad decision was reversed. You cannot be arrested for recording the cops.
TG!, IANAL. Which means I rely on other sources for info. There are some sources for “That’s what he says, so it isn’t!”. You, I listen to more closely, outside of a few occasional spasms of unwarranted moderation and centrism. You’re welcome.
So, expand and expound. Is this actually “reversed”, in the firmly negative sense of “No, fuck this shit, forget it!”, or is it more like sent back down for correcting a minor technical flaw that would render the result kosher and “Mmmm-good!”. Advise.
Good. Because they probably -oops- have their own cameras turned off.
“Good!” tinged with “Why was there ever a question in the first place?” Still, good.