At the core of this incident is the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and the press. The right to film or photograph in public spaces is generally protected under this amendment, as established in cases such as Glik v. Cunniffe (2011). In Glik, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that the right to film government officials, including police officers, in public spaces is a constitutional right. The auditors' actions in filming outside the police headquarters fall squarely within this protected activity.
The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. The auditors’ assertion that the officers had no right to question or detain them for filming hinges on this amendment. For a police officer to stop and question an individual, there must be reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, as established in Terry v. Ohio (1968). In this case, the mere act of filming in a public space does not constitute reasonable suspicion. Therefore, the auditors' argument that the officers' presence and questioning were unwarranted has a strong legal basis.
State laws also play a critical role in determining the legality of filming police officers. Many states have enacted statutes that explicitly protect the right to record police activities. For instance, California’s Penal Code Section 148(g) states that the act of recording officers in public places does not constitute interference with their duties. The auditors’ repeated insistence that they had the right to film and their call for the officers’ dismissal underscore a broader societal demand for public accountability and transparency in law enforcement.
The confrontation at the police headquarters can be further examined through the lens of relevant legal precedents. In Turner v. Driver (2017), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that individuals have a First Amendment right to film the police in public places. This case reinforces the auditors' position and highlights the judicial recognition of filming as a critical component of public oversight of law enforcement.
Furthermore, Smith v. City of Cumming (2000) established that citizens have the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, the right to record matters of public interest. The auditors’ actions align with this precedent, affirming their legal right to document police activity in a public setting.
The officers’ response to the auditors raises questions about the appropriate exercise of police authority. When Officer Gonzalez approached the auditors, he cited a call about their filming activities. However, the absence of any criminal activity or reasonable suspicion diminishes the justification for this engagement. The arrival of additional officers and the prolonged interaction further complicate the situation, suggesting a possible overreach of police authority.
Law enforcement officers have a duty to maintain public safety and order, but this responsibility must be balanced with respect for civil 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:
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