I tend to agree with this. Yes, the county courthouse is a public building paid for (partially) by my taxes. But there are degrees of what a “public place” is. I have every right to go to the courthouse to attend court, pay taxes, or conduct other business there, but I don’t believe that the designation of being a public building means I can camp out in the lobby areas, shove my phone in people’s faces, and ask them questions. It is not open to the public for THAT purpose and it impedes the legitimate purpose of that building that everyone else but me has paid for.
IOW, the DMV is public but only insofar as I am there to do things related to vehicles. If anything else, then it is not public. It is not a public area like a park or a sidewalk.
Public areas like post offices have video cameras taking footage of private citizens as they do their business. Why can’t we do the same to them, in the places that we pay for?
I feel quite strongly that police officers should not surrender their right to discretion in enforcing speeding laws. I feel that they should allow at least 20 MPH over the posted limit, in the interest of fairness, justice, and my convenience. It is very important that I get to voice my feelings.
BUT
What if I want to film someone performing their duty? Not harrassing people qua First-Amendment Auditor but because this is the fourth time I’ve been here, everytime I get a different story and when I say< “judy told me …” I’m either told that that’s not true or not how they do things, etc." and I was a record of my interaction with a government agency.
Yeah, I feel like people think if they interact with the police at all, they will be “My Cousin Vinney-ed” into a murder conviction. Police don’t convict you. The jury does. So it seems to me if they like you for a crime because you gave a weird facial expression or said something out of context, they can just as easily like you for a crime because you weirdly refuse to cooperate with them.
The one thing the lawyer in the OP leaves out is that there is a pretty good chance his client did something illegal or is involved with enough shadiness that they have found themselves in an interrogation room. Like why do you even have a criminal lawyer in the first place? I don’t have a “lawyer”. Other than maybe the guy who reviewed my mortgage.
And you’re (presumably) a middle aged, clean cut, well off white dude who only hangs out with people in your own cohort and is never in sketchy neighborhoods. I’m a well off middle aged white dude but that’s where the similarity ends. I hardly live the gangsta lifestyle but I have lots of friends on the fringe and am not uncommonly in situations where I could reasonably get caught up in something. It’s not like I have a lawyer on retainer but two of my acquaintances are criminal defense attorneys and their numbers are in my phone.
No way I answer a cop’s questions unless not doing so would cause someone to die or something. If a cop showed up at my door and just wanted to talk, I have no clue what they really want to talk about. They can fuck off or arrest me and wait for “my” lawyer.
Just found out James Duane has a sequel to his famous video mentioned in the OP: You Have the Right to Remain Innocent. I bought his book for my son because if I am not around I want him to know how to protect himself.
I don’t see how they could since as far as I know there isn’t any state with a general requirement to even have a ID*. I think people sometimes get this idea from a different situation - in at least some places, for some offenses the police can handle it either by 1) Issuing a summons to appear in court on a certain date or 2) taking the person to the precinct, running fingerprints , etc. Where I live, the first option is only available if the person has and shows ID. When someone doesn’t have ID and gets taken to the precinct, etc., they will often describe it as “being arrested for not having ID”. ** But they weren’t actually arrested for having no ID - they were arrested for shoplifting or farebeating or whatever and the ID or lack of it simply determines how the arrest is processed.
You need a driver’s license to drive and might need proof of age (which is usually a document that would be considered D) to buy a drink and you need ID to board a plane - but there is no requirement to have ID if you don’t want to do the specific things that require it.
** Once they are identified through fingerprinting, they might still be given the summons and released.
I’d encourage you to check out the Audit The Audit YouTube channel, which hosts recordings of police encounters in which the narrator reviews/rates the goings-on and cites relevant case law to explain who is or is not justified in their actions. Some of these are situations in which a first-amendment activist is deliberately asserting their rights, e.g. their right to record in a public place or not submit to demands for identification, or what-have-you. In some cases, the cops are smart and try to skillfully intimidate while staying on their side of the law; in other cases they completely break the law, resulting in a lot of bad press and an expensive legal settlement for violating the auditor’s civil rights. When properly done, these are useful exercises that push back on police overreach; it helps avoid a situation where the police believe (and act as if) they have absolute authority simply because they’ve grown accustomed to nobody ever challenging their limits.
I’ve not had occasion to be up on the case law, but where is the right to record government officials in a building? I get that you can be fed up at the DMV, but where in the Constitution or the laws can you point to say that I have some sort of right to document the lazy/sloppy/ignorant treatment that you get?
I can see a reason for allowing it, maybe call it freedom of the press, but when you do, you get the “First Amendment Activists” who exist to cause trouble for no real reason as opposed to documenting a real story.
You know, the guys walking up to traffic stops or just walking into a police station and asking them all to get him a glass of water because they are “public servants” and hope that they react poorly.on camera to “prove” that we live in a police state. I’m all for holding police and other public servants accountable, but not subject them to deliberate harassment.
IANAL, but would the term “right” be appropriate here? Wouldn’t it simply be a matter of law? And if so: you can do anything you want as long as there’s no law against it. Our laws are restrictive, not permissive.
What trouble are they causing by recording (as opposed to merely being present without recording)?
Nobody would deny your right to take detailed written notes about an encounter with government officials. If a cop confiscated your notes and tore them up after such an encounter - or arrested you for attempting to write things down, or refusing to stop writing when so ordered - there’d be a righteous outcry. Why do some people want to treat video recording in a public place so differently?
If you want specific citations of case law, browse the Audit the Audit channel for videos that feature people being harassed for recording in public places, including government buildings. There are many such videos - here’s one:
The police don’t indict you, either. That’ll be the District Attorney, and if the best evidence the police can bring them is that you gave a funny look but they really, really think you did it, the DA is unlikely to proceed.
