The auditor's primary contention revolves around his First Amendment right to film in a public facility. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. The Supreme Court has long upheld that these rights include the ability to record public officials in public spaces, as seen in cases like Glik v. Cunniffe (2011). The court in Glik affirmed that the right to film police officers performing their duties in public spaces is a constitutional right.
The auditor argued that there were no signs indicating restricted access to the facility, which is a critical point. In legal terms, public facilities are generally considered public forums unless explicitly marked otherwise. The absence of restrictive signage supports the auditor's claim that he was in a public area where he had the right to film. This aligns with the Glik ruling, which underscored the importance of transparency and accountability in law enforcement through public observation.
Moreover, the auditor's refusal to provide identification is supported by the precedent set in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004), where the Supreme Court held that an individual is not required to identify themselves unless there is a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. The auditor maintained that his actions—filming in a public space—did not constitute such activity, thus protecting his right to remain anonymous.
On the other hand, the officers insisted that the area was secure and that the auditor's presence posed a potential security risk. This assertion invokes the need for a balance between individual rights and public safety. Law enforcement officers are tasked with ensuring security, and their authority to remove individuals from potentially sensitive areas is supported by statutes and precedents designed to protect critical infrastructure.
The officers repeatedly requested the auditor's identification, citing a need to establish his purpose for filming. This raises the question of reasonable suspicion. According to Terry v. Ohio (1968), officers must have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a person is involved in criminal activity to detain them for investigative purposes. The mere act of filming, without additional suspicious behavior, is unlikely to meet this standard, thereby making the officers' demands legally questionable.
The threat of arrest for obstruction of a legal process further complicates the analysis. Under many state laws, obstruction requires actions that physically hinder or impede law enforcement officers in their duties. The auditor’s behavior, which involved standing his ground and verbally asserting his rights, does not appear to meet this threshold. Case law such as Houston v. Hill (1987) has reinforced that verbal challenges to police actions are protected under the First Amendment unless they constitute fighting words or direct threats.
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
Информация по комментариям в разработке