A lot of TV shows and movies mix up real life with good stories by playing fast and loose with how the law actually works. In court you aren’t allowed to presume someone’s guilt by showing that they asked for a lawyer. The police might think someone is guilty because of that, but that doesn’t mean they will win in court.
Videotaping them is insulting? So why is it not insulting when the government videotapes us at the DMV? We have gone topsy turvy in the world now, again, and this always happens. The government gets the power from the people and then, rather than doing what the people want, starts doing what they want.
You will say, “because they do it for security reasons.” So do I. I value my liberty and want to be able to prove that what I say is true and not be incarcerated for unjust reasons. So I record my interactions just like the government does.
Recording a video of one’s interactions with government officials is no more inherently insulting than a cop recording their interactions with a civilian via a body cam.
Likewise, there is nothing about recording a video that inherently interferes with the ability of a government employee to perform their duties any more than a police body cam interferes with a civilian’s ability to conduct themselves properly during a police encounter. A clerk at city hall can tell me how to apply for a building permit or stamp my application just as easily whether I do or don’t have a GoPro strapped to my chest.
It’s a fair bet that they are, especially if there are other circumstances suggestive of guilt. But as @Isamu notes, that’s irrelevant when trying to prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a subsequent trial. Since there are reasons unrelated to actual guilt that may motivate an arrestee to insist on having a lawyer present during questioning, doubt regarding their guilt is entirely reasonable. Most notably, you have the right to have an atttorney present during questioning. To punish someone for exercising that right is the same as saying they don’t actually have that right.
Surely you can see the difference. Police wear body cams because the public has demanded that THEIR actions be monitored so that the person being filmed is protected. When you go into the DMV you are filming so as to document what the other person does that may dare offend you. So for that reason, the person in the DMV office being filmed is offended whereas the citizen stopped by the police is not.
For what rational purpose would you want to film a DMV clerk or other government drone doing paperwork other than to be confrontational and/or passive aggressive?
I suppose, but it is kind of annoying, yeah? The purpose of strapping a GoPro to your chest is to annoy the clerk, annoy the security personnel, annoy the police, and hope to catch them reacting poorly so you can add it to your channel. You can argue that they shouldn’t be annoyed by this act, but the fact is many people are, and the intention of these auditors is to capture video of annoyed people in action.
While you have freedom to do things, there are actually laws that prohibit purposefully annoying another person.
That’s not for me to decide. Maybe the clerk has a history of spewing racist bullshit at customers, or they’re in the habit of soliciting bribes.
Same goes for civilians recording interactions with police. How many times have we seen encounters where police conveniently “forgot” to turn on their body cams?
Sure. I’m similarly annoyed by neo-Nazi/white nationalist rallies, but they have a right to engage in such annoying behaviors, and I’m legally obliged to not infringe on those rights. Likewise, government officials (to include police and office clerks) may be annoyed at the prospect of being filmed in public places, but they should be fully educated as to the rights of civilians to record in public.
And if they do this, they will continue to do it when openly recorded?
You haven’t shown the equivalence. Yes, you have cited a few cases which are controlling in some jurisdictions, but until the U.S. Supreme Court rules, there is no national right to do this yet, and my comments were directed to the idea that I don’t see where such a right would come from. You also still have not defined “public.” I agree that on a public sidewalk, done in a non-intrusive way, the government would be hard pressed to justify a restriction on doing that. But the F.A.A. take it to the extreme and demand their “right” to film anyone everywhere in public, including at traffic stops and just bothering people for no reason to hopefully get arrested and/or a reaction. That is not a societal good.
We are mostly talking about inside buildings, owned by the government, and open to the public for a specific purpose. Like any other building, the person in charge may enact reasonable rules of conduct inside the building. Although you may believe that peaceful, non-confrontational recording should be allowed inside those buildings, and I might agree, but I remain unconvinced that it is required by the constitution to be allowed.
Depends how dedicated they are to their misanthropy. 
But it would be bizarre to have a regulation in place that says visitors can record surreptitiously but not openly.
What would convince you that my annoyance toward certain public behaviors is equivalent to that of a city clerk being recorded by a civilian?
The government in the US often operates under restrictions that do not apply to non-government entities. If it’s a government owned (or operated) building, the “person in charge” is ultimately the government, and will be limited by what the government is allowed to do.
For example, a public university can’t restrict speech based on content (with narrow exceptions), but a private university can (also with some exceptions). A prrivate university’s ability to limit speech may be controlled by state laws and regulations associated with receiving federal money, but those limitations do not derive from the US constitution. The rules limiting a public university do derive from the US constitution.
So the question is not, “what purpose do you have in recording your interactions with the DMV?” but “what purpose does the government have in prohibiting recording your interaction with the DMV?” Some court might agree that “it annoys the employees” is a valid first amendment exception (I assume the person doing the recording has one of those hats with a “Press” label on it, so we all know they’re a journalist).
You wait for them to keep coming to you instead and asking “just more more thing.” That always works!
AFAIK the way the law works is that it tells you what you can’t do, or must do, but it does not enumerate what you may do. So unless there’s a law that says you can’t record at the DMV, or that you must leave recording devices at the door, then you may record at the DMV.
FWIW I agree with the intuition that this is (or should) be restricted to some extent. The need of the public to document the deeds of government workers is valid, but I think workers should not be implicitly and unnecessarily exposed to hostile or vexatious recording just because Uncle Sam signs their paycheck. I don’t know if that’s what the law says, but it wouldn’t surprise me if workers had some degree of protection.
As I pointed out above, this is covered in the Glik case.
The same restraint demanded of law enforcement officers in the face of “provocative and challenging” speech, id. at 461 (quoting Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949)), must be expected when they are merely the subject of videotaping that memorializes, without impairing, their work in public spaces.
OK, not a perfect example but I don’t think it’s too far to assume the courts recognize a difference when filming interferes with the official performing their duty as opposed to passively filming a normal interaction.
(I know this is way back in the thread, but I got here late…)
I hope they had other evidence.
AIUI, DNA testing doesn’t usually mean testing an entire genome such that only one person on earth could match. It just involves testing a subset.
So even an innocent person’ DNA has a high likelihood of matching something somewhere.
Or do they test more of the genome now? Perhaps my understanding is out of date?
Generally speaking, that’s what all the lawyers I’ve known have said as well. Basically you don’t have to answer anything, you don’t have to consent to searches, etc… Essentially you should just shut up and not answer anything as much as you possibly can- talking with the cops yourself is likely to get you in more trouble than less if you’re in the hot seat.
Of course, they’re not saying you shouldn’t talk to a cop at a traffic stop, but that if he wants to take a look in your car, you’re well within your rights to refuse and demand a warrant first. And that it’s extremely unlikely that a judge will issue a warrant without actual legitimate probable cause first.
And if it’s a situation where something else is going on- someone else was attacked, there’s danger involved, etc… then yes, talk to the cops.
In the video linked upthread, there is a specific answer to this question. It’s a long video, so the relevant part should start at 14:28.
Of course. And there are legions of cases that talk about government as sovereign vs. government as proprietor and it is very complicated. But even assuming a sovereign role, I still haven’t seen a right to film inside a government building covered by the Constitution.
Yes, and in these situations the “law” meaning the designee of the government building, empowered by law to make regulations for that building, says that you cannot film there. Other posters are saying that such a regulation is a violation of the Constitution, so therefore the burden flips and they must show that the government is not permitted to make such a regulation.
This is why lower court opinions are just batter for the ultimate cake. The court just declares that it “must be expected” without justifying why the same standard should apply to a 70 year old frail clerk and a hardened police officer on the beat who deals with criminals every day. The court’s decree notwithstanding, I am not seeing the same thing it does and it has not made the rationale behind its judgment clear.
Because it is TV, not IRL.
True, cops hate it when a perp lawyers up, but they give some small grudging props too. Smart people lawyer up. Dumb ones don’t. People who think they are smart are the worst
.
The Usual Suspects is fiction.
If the cops think you are guilty, anything you say will make it worse(a great alibi will convince them you are guilty, oddly). If they do not think you are guilty, you may say something which will incriminate you.
If you have a iron clad alibi “I was in a balloon with 3 Supreme court justices” “I was orbiting the moon”, let your lawyer break the news. He will delete the extraneous and incriminating stuff, polish it up and then present it.
Same with fingerprints, they are rarely looking for an exact match,
Hey guys, just a tiny request- videotaping at the DMV is a bit far from the Op innit?
So whether or not a place is public/private depends on a person’s age and health?
I apparently got the facts backwards. The DNA did not match a sexual assault investigation, but did match evidence tying him to a burglary of his former employer.
The case is Wyche v. State
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1146129.html
Right, so are you saying you’re prepared to show that this is the case? Is there such a regulation for a non-sensitive building like the DMV? It seems reasonable to me that employees should be free from frivolous and hostile filming, but I’m unable to locate any actual example of such a regulation or case law regarding a non-sensitive government installation.
I didn’t see anyone making that claim, but I agree it’s not a violation of the Constitution. AFAIK there’s nowhere in the Constitution that says you have any right at all to know what the government is doing, it would have to be one of those imputed rights like the right to privacy.