The crux of the auditor's argument lies in the First Amendment, which protects the right to free speech, including the right to record matters of public interest in public spaces. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that streets, sidewalks, and parks are traditional public forums where individuals enjoy broad First Amendment protections (Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, 1939). In this context, the auditor's presence on public property outside the firehouse and their filming activities fall squarely within these protected rights.
However, the situation is complicated by the specific nature of the firehouse property. While the auditor claimed to be on public property, the firehouse personnel argued that certain areas, marked with signs like "Authorized Vehicles Only," are restricted. The distinction between public and restricted areas is crucial. Public property generally accessible to all does not automatically include every part of publicly owned land or buildings. For instance, areas that are necessary for the safe and efficient operation of public services may be legitimately restricted (United States v. Grace, 1983).
The firehouse’s signage indicating restricted access to certain areas must be considered within this framework. The Supreme Court in Adderley v. Florida (1966) upheld the government's right to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated. Thus, the firehouse personnel had a reasonable basis to restrict access to certain areas critical for emergency operations.
During the interaction, the firehouse captain questioned the auditor's intentions and requested their details. This request, while potentially intimidating, is not in itself unlawful. Public officials may inquire about individuals' activities, especially when security or operational concerns are raised. However, the refusal to provide personal details by the auditor, asserting their rights, remains legally permissible. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004), the Supreme Court ruled that while states can require identification during police stops, the specifics of such laws vary, and there is no federal obligation to identify oneself to non-law enforcement officials under these circumstances.
The arrival of the police and their subsequent questioning of the auditor introduced another layer of legal scrutiny. The police officer’s insistence that the firehouse property was not public and that the auditor should leave if asked by firehouse personnel presents a potential conflict with the auditor's First Amendment rights.
Police directives must align with constitutional protections, and any orders to leave public property must be legally justified. The officer’s instructions, if based solely on the discomfort of the firehouse personnel without clear evidence of illegal activity, may infringe on the auditor’s rights.
THIS VIDEO IS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ..
This video was created to educate citizens about constitutionally protected activities, law, and civilian rights, and emphasize the importance of constitutional awareness.
FAIR USE NOTICE.. this video may contain copyright material, the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available for the purposes of criticism, comment, reviews and news reporting which constitute the fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Notwithstanding the provisions of sections and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, comment, review and news reporting is not an infringement of copyright.
Disclaimer: NONE of our videos should be considered a "call to action." We are not attorneys. Our videos should not be construed as legal advice. You should seek legal counsel if you believe that you are a victim of police misconduct. The facts presented in our videos are not indicative of our personal opinions. Laws, case law, ordinances, policies, legal doctrine, and all other jurisprudence is subject to the interpretation of the court. The videos shown are designed to be educational, and informative based on the information available at the time the video was published. All claims made are alleged.
Original video: / @goodguyactivism
First Amendment audit 1st Amendment audit cops get owned id refusal dui checkpoint refusal auditing britain Amagansett press
#idrefusal #CopGetsOwned #dismissed #firstamendmentaudit #4thAmendment #CopWatch #Trespassing #Dismissed #copdismissed #RookieCop #1aAudit #Cop #Police #CopsOwned #1stamendmentaudit #Trespassing #rookiecops #4thamendment #5thamendment #walkofshame #1aAudits #copwatch #CopsGetOwned #CopsGettingOwned #lawenforcement
Информация по комментариям в разработке