The right to photograph in public spaces is fundamentally supported by the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and press. This includes the right to gather information, a crucial element in a democratic society. The Supreme Court has long held that public places such as streets, sidewalks, and parks are traditional public forums where expressive activities, including photography, are protected (in accordance with Hague v. CIO, 3'0'7 U.S. 4'9'6 (1939)). Thus, the Journalists in this incident were engaging in an activity safeguarded by the Constitution.
The officers' request for identification must be evaluated within the scope of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. According to the landmark decision in Terry v. Ohio, 3'9'2 U.S. 1 (1968), police officers may stop and briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity. However, in this case, the Journalists' mere act of taking pictures in a public space does not inherently provide reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. Therefore, the demand for identification, absent any specific and articulable facts suggesting illegal activity, is legally questionable.
Law enforcement's heightened sensitivity to security, especially near government buildings, is understandable in a post-9/11 context. The officers' concerns about potential threats, including terrorism, align with their duty to protect public safety. However, this duty must be balanced against individual rights. The courts have consistently ruled that general security concerns do not justify infringing on constitutional rights without specific evidence of a threat (in accordance with City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 5'3'1 U.S. 32 (2000)). In this incident, the officers' broad security rationale lacks the specificity required to override the Journalists' First Amendment rights.
The Journalists' refusal to provide identification invokes the protections established in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 5'4'2 U.S. 1'7'7 (2004). In Hiibel, the Supreme Court upheld a state statute requiring individuals to identify themselves during a police stop if there is reasonable suspicion of criminal involvement. However, in jurisdictions without such statutes, and in the absence of reasonable suspicion, individuals retain the right to decline identification. Given the lack of specific suspicion in this case, the Journalists' refusal to identify themselves is legally defensible.
The officers' argument that photographs could be used for nefarious purposes touches on the broader issue of the potential misuse of publicly gathered information. While this is a legitimate concern, it does not provide a sufficient legal basis to preemptively restrict the right to photograph in public spaces. The principle of prior restraint, as articulated in Near v. Minnesota, 2'8'3 U.S. 6'9'7 (1931), prohibits the government from restricting speech or expression before it occurs, except in extreme cases such as national security threats. Therefore, hypothetical misuse does not justify immediate restrictions on lawful photography.
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: / @newsnowcommunity
#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