The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech, which encompasses the right to record matters of public interest, including law enforcement activities in public spaces. This right has been affirmed by multiple Supreme Court rulings, including Glik v. Cunniffe (2011), where the First Circuit Court of Appeals held that individuals have a constitutional right to record public officials in public spaces. Similarly, the Seventh Circuit in ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez (2012) recognized the right to record police officers performing their official duties in public.
In the current incident, the auditor was in a publicly accessible parking lot, which, despite being used by police officers, is not explicitly marked as restricted or private. This distinction is crucial because public spaces generally allow for recording activities, as long as they do not interfere with the operations or safety of the facility.
The police sergeant’s argument that the auditor’s actions constituted counterintelligence by recording license plates raises concerns about the limits of police authority and the application of laws intended to protect sensitive information. While law enforcement officers have the duty to protect sensitive information and ensure public safety, their actions must be balanced against citizens' constitutional rights. The concept of "counterintelligence" implies a higher threshold of proof and justification, typically involving clear and present danger to national security, which was not evidently present in this situation.
A critical aspect of this incident was the exchange regarding identification. The auditor requested the sergeant's name, which was reluctantly provided, whereas the sergeant demanded the auditor’s name, which the auditor lawfully refused to give, citing his right to remain anonymous in the absence of reasonable suspicion of a crime.
This aspect is underscored by the Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004) decision, where the Supreme Court upheld that states can require individuals to identify themselves if there is reasonable suspicion of a crime. However, in this incident, the auditor was not engaged in illegal activity, thus his refusal to identify himself is legally protected.
Furthermore, police officers are typically required to identify themselves when asked, a policy aimed at maintaining transparency and accountability. The failure of some officers to comply with this policy promptly reflects poorly on the police department’s adherence to procedural standards and undermines public trust.
The auditor’s reflection on the unprofessional behavior of some officers highlights a significant issue in law enforcement interactions with the public. Professional conduct by officers, including proper identification and respectful communication, is essential in fostering a positive relationship between the police and the community.
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: / @bayareatransparency1722
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