Stupid Cop HARASSES Journalist and Gets Properly OWNED | First Amendment Audit | ID Refusal

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right to free speech, including the right to film public officials in public spaces. This principle is particularly pertinent in the context of First Amendment audits, where individuals record their interactions with law enforcement to test and affirm their rights under the Constitution.

The Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, also plays a critical role in this scenario. It ensures that any restriction of movement by law enforcement must be reasonable and based on clear legal grounds.

The auditor argues that he is not trespassing as the area is public property, a stance rooted in the notion that government-owned property is generally accessible to the public unless explicitly restricted. The absence of clear signage indicating that the parking lot is off-limits to pedestrians bolsters the auditor’s claim. Legal precedent supports this view; in Glik v. Cunniffe, the court affirmed that the First Amendment protects the right to record public officials in public spaces, provided the recording does not interfere with the official duties.

The auditor's request to speak with a supervisor and obtain clarification underscores a demand for transparency and accountability from law enforcement. This insistence is not merely a matter of civil disobedience but is entrenched in legal rights to access public information and challenge the legality of restrictions. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) further supports the public's right to obtain information held by the government, ensuring government transparency and accountability.

The officer’s assertion that the area is restricted, despite the lack of clear signage, introduces a complex legal debate. Law enforcement agencies have the authority to restrict access to certain areas for security and safety reasons. However, such restrictions must be clearly communicated to avoid arbitrary enforcement. The legal principle of qualified immunity protects officers from personal liability unless they violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

The officer’s attempt to question the auditor’s intentions and residency appears to be an effort to assess potential security threats. However, this line of questioning can be problematic if it leads to discriminatory practices or profiling, which the courts have scrutinized under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Several key cases provide a framework for analyzing this incident:

Glik v. Cunniffe (2011): Affirmed the right to record public officials in public spaces under the First Amendment.
Terry v. Ohio (1968): Established the standard for reasonable suspicion necessary for stop-and-frisk procedures.
Bouie v. City of Columbia (1964): Held that laws must provide clear notice to avoid arbitrary enforcement.
Gonzalez v. Reno (2000): Highlighted the necessity of supervisory oversight in law enforcement actions.

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:    / @rowdypodcast  
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