Supreme Court declares right to film police is protected under First Amendment
 

Ever since ordinary Americans have been able to instantly videotape any given situation, there have been powerful forces working to circumvent the Constitution and prohibit use of such technology.

The most recent example involves a California man who was tossed in jail for four days after he attempted to videotape police officers on a public street.

In that case, Daniel J. Saulmon was charged with resisting, delaying and obstructing an officer, even though the video clearly shows him standing well away from a traffic stop, and that he was only arrested after he failed to produce identification for an approaching officer. As an aside, there is no California law that requires a citizen to produce identification. And, as others have pointed out, even if there was such a law on the books, officers would be required to have reasonable suspicion that the person being asked for ID was committing a crime.

Unable to defend the indefensible

Now; however, such arrests will hopefully become a thing of the past following a just-announced U.S. Supreme Court ruling which upholds a citizen's right to video police.

Justices decided not to hear a case involving the state of Illinois' authoritarian "eavesdropping" law that has been regularly abused by authorities to prevent citizens from taping cops in action.

The Chicago Tribune reported that in deciding to pass on the issue, justices left standing a ruling by a lower federal appeals court which found that the law violates free-speech rights when it is applied to persons who tape police.


http://www.naturalnews.com/038123_fi...e_Cour t.html

I wouldn't want someone filming me at my job!

This is why you aren't a cop. Right?

This is being mis-reported all over the internet. SCOTUS did not declare anything, they simply refused to hear the case and the precedent that the circuit court set with its decision only affects Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin as that is the jurisdiction of that court.

By declining to hear the case SCOTUS avoided creating a precedent that would have a nationwide affect.

Its still a good thing, much better than if they had agreed to hear it and made the wrong decision, its just not as good as everybody thinks.

fuck the police

pretty much this ^

Your boss is allowed to film you at your job. If you work for the taxpayers, then the taxpayers are your boss. Also, anyone that is allowed to legally use force against others MUST have accountability, or else all kinds of nasty things can, and do, go on.


.:2 cents:

Id go to jail for the right to film police doing their jobs in public. Taxes pay their salary, they are supposed to be held to a high standard. If they are doing their job the way they should be doing their job they should have no issues with a citizen filming they as they do it.

+1 well said

I never had any desire to be a police officer. Lots of Marines come out of service and become cops; I had already had enough of working for the government.

Besides, cops are so underpaid it's not funny. Although the highway patrol officer who lives next to me just bought a shiny new BMW.

Not saying it's right or wrong, but when you mess with the police... They will fuck you hard.

If you have nothing to hide, what do you have to worry about?

are you a public employee?

Cops pay depends on what city they are working for. I'm friends with some here in South Florida who make VERY good money and the benefits and retirement programs are just crazy....



.:2 cents:

And this is why we need to hold them accountable for their actions. What you just said, should never be said about a force that is being paid by our money to protect us. We should never have to worry about that.

That is the damn truth! For the last week they have had motorcycle cops sitting in my neighborhood busting soccer moms in mini vans for speeding. And they do it right around the end of the month like clockwork.

I drive past them and give them a good glare everytime. That'll teach 'em. lol

Yeah, the city traffic cops spend 99% of their time collecting money for the city and the auto insurance agencies by handing out ridiculous traffic tickets on roads that are set up with LOW speed limits (25 mph on a lot of them).

By the way, the road I'm talking about here in Vegas by my house is Tenaya. It is 2 oversized lanes on each side with a huge oversized space in the middle. All the homes on each side of the road are in gated communities...so there are no kids going to run out of their yards or anything.
In the summer it's 120 degrees, in the winter it's freezing. So there is literally no pedestrian traffic at all.

This road is bigger than most highways. It should be 45 to 50 mph speed limit. But it's 35 instead.
And I have to tell you, on a big empty road like that...you can find yourself doing 40 to 45 without even thinking about it.

And if it's near the end of the month...they will have two or three motorcycle cops hiding in the gated communities entrances giving out tickets like candy. :(

The do the same thing on Buffalo where it drops to 35mph between Charleston and Sahara. The hide in the entrances to the housing communites where you cant see them because of the walls around the houses. They were out there yesterday, 2 cops on motorcycles. I've seen them there often.

In my opinion, the only reason anyone would WANT to be a police officer is if they had some desire to beat some ass and flaunt their authority, or perhaps to become a detective and beat some ass figuratively. But just with the little pay they get and all the shit they have to put up with and lack of respect for them (sometimes warranted based on shitty cops) and the seriousness of their jobs, it's almost like being a teacher. Basically, because of how shitty of a job it is, a lot of shitty people end up doing it IMO.

Corruption in the police isn't that surprising when you consider that - a combination of the shitty people and the circumstance where they can make their job less shitty by means of stealing, bribing etc.

And yet you spend hours on chaterbate, lol.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

what planet are you from?

Good step in the right direction. Would love the 9th circuit to follow suit.

Respectfully, I don't think you understand law very well and in particular have a misunderstanding of the word "precedent".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent

In refusing to hear the case, they upheld the lower courts ruling which does have an effect. It is incorrect that you said it does not set a precedent nationwide. It does in fact set a precedent nationwide, not just in the aforementioned states.

However, I would agree that them not hearing the case does leave open room for interpretation in future cases in other states. It would have been better to have resolved the matter once and for all and had them actually make a ruling themselves which would have been "binding", but just because they did not, does not mean that it only affects these named states. Cases are always cited from other jurisdictions and it does bear weight. Not as much as if the SC had made a ruling, but in many cases it is "persuasive".

I don't mean to be nitpicky with you, but the law itself is extremely nitpicky, so in discussing it, one must be equally so. I would not want anyone to read your erroneous statement and therefore conclude that if he lives in California that this would not be considered if he should find himself in a similar situation because this applied to Illinois, when in fact the ruling, or lack thereof in this case can, and would be considered in any court nationwide.

btw, just one more note about what john said before this thread dies out since apparently no one cares... there is no law anywhere in the United States that says you can't film police. The particular law in question with regard to this ruling is an ancient wiretapping law that Illinois prosecutors were mis-applying in an affect to coerce people from filming. So whether this ruling (or upholding of a lower courts ruling) is applicable directly to states outside of Illinois is completely irrelevant as most other states are not even trying to make this false association anyway.

Bottom line; if you are in public and the subject in question can have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" you can film anyone, including police.

Anywhere in the United States.

Period.

It's funny how something is illegal because it could make cops try to do a better job.

I think it's kinda fucked up how anything other than stealing (in all it's forms) rape (in all it's forms), and murder are illegal.

That should be about it. But they keep making new laws every damn day. :1orglaugh

Most of us are "criminals" in one way or another before our lunch break every day.