“Because of Obama’s policies” read the other side, inspiring his fellow north Florida man to beat the everlasting hell out of him, and try to steal the sign.
Old fashioned “Sharpie clickbait” drove another Florida man named “Larry” into a sign stealing, protester beating rage.
So, Charles Brownett was attacked for exercising his 1st Amendment free speech rights.
But he plans to return very soon.
And all of the action was caught on a cell phone video that’s going viral.
Because “Larry” clearly needed that sign, more than words can say.
And he tried to take it.
By force.
“This isn’t a premeditated thing,” ‘Larry’ told the local news, “This was just, I saw something that upset me so much, I couldn’t think straight anymore.”
Local reporter Larry Spruell asked, “A lot of people think death to America is offensive, why put that on a sign and stand outside?”
Unemployed 45-year old iron worker Charles Brownett replied, “What is offensive is President Obama signing executive orders to allow the Syrian refugees who may or may not be jihadi terrorists.”
Brownett’s attacker was also interviewed by Spruell, and given anonymity to comment, and asked “Larry”, “You’re not worried about possible arrests?”
“No sir, not one bit,” said the Florida man “Larry” who committed the assault because he was offended by the statement “Death to America” which our country’s Founding Fathers fought and died to allow Americans to freely say.
But now, television journalist Larry Spruell should be concerned, because the Supreme Court precedent set in Branzburg vs. Hayes requires journalists to testify about confidential sources in criminal grand jury investigations, at least in federal proceedings.
If this incident ever makes it that far, because clearly, a crime against free – if offensive and possibly misguided – speech has gone down in northern Florida
As PINAC News readers know “Jax suppresses the 1st Amendment” isn’t just an airplane banner, but legal doctrine by that area’s Chief Jurist Mark Mahon who just last year “shit on the constitution” just in time for the 4th of July weekend.
“I don’t deserve to be beat up,” said Brownett whose arm was in a sling as he was interviewed wearing what appears to be a hospital gown, “You can come up there and yell and scream at me, curse me out.”
“But please don’t hit me.”
Clay County Sheriffs report indicates that Brownett filed a claim of battery against his attacker, as you can see below.
Middleburg is a tiny community of 13,000 residents which is centrally located in the middle of nowhere, just 26 miles south of Jacksonville.
Amazingly, the sidewalks were bustling with activity.
One of the town’s many McDonald’s fast food restaurants is on that corner, right behind the witness who recorded the entire bizarre scene.
As the first man in his orange shirt tried to steal the protester’s precious “sharpie clickbait” sign, his female passenger ambled through the crosswalk to the pair of men rolling around on the sidewalk.
The spindly lady wearing short shorts, and a grey shirt stood near the Brownett and “Larry” for a few seconds, then burst into action kicking the man who brought the “sharpie clickbait” a couple of times as he scrapped on the ground with her friend.
The video ends when a fourth person, a Good Samaritan in a red shirt arrived and tried to separate the man with the exciting sign from “Larry” who departed in his Nissan Titan.
Earlier Tuesday, the victim holding the sign was found to be “exercising his right to free speech” and was not violating any laws. Deputies received several calls about the victim holding the sign, but he was on a public sidewalk and was not blocking traffic. Deputies also told the victim he may “have some negative reactions from passersby” and the victim said he had a cellphone in case there was an issue
North Florida is notorious for suppressing the 1st Amendment, but this might be the first time anyone was beat up for hating a President Obama.
When asked if he would do it all again, Brownett who said he’s been attacked before for holding up signs said, “I would, I would.”
“I’m not smart, and that’s the only way I know how to express myself.”
A Cincinnati judge probably handed down a cruel and unusual punishment to a teenager for taking one last photograph of a friend at a pre-trial hearing.
Eighteen-year-old man Daymar Whitehead angered Ohio Judge Robert Ruehlman when he took smart phone pictures of deputies escorting his friend down the courthouse hallway from his bond reduction hearing.
“Free Maleik!”
Whitehead gave a shout out to his friend, and then took photos of his pal Maleik in the hallway with deputies as they took him away.
Hamilton County Courthouse Deputies then arrested him.
Judge Ruehlman later sentenced Whitehead to six months in jail for the taking the photos in the hallway.
Judge Ruehlman also ordered for his phone to be destroyed.
Which seems legally excessive since there’s no victim to the crime of photography Judge Ruehlman is pursuing against Whitehead.
The Constitution’s 8th Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, and it’s certainly possible that a judge of competent jursdiction might agree in this case. Or that his rights to counsel or due process under the 6th and 14th amendments might’ve been ignored here too, since it seems like he was instantly siezed, tried and sentenced.
Ohio state law provides that the unjustly incarcerated can file a petition for writ of Habeus Corpus, and the Constitution allows.
Last month, we reported a similar case that also ended up in Judge Ruehlman’s courtoom, where a man took video of a cop who racially profiled him in the courthouse.
Chris Harwell was walking down the street and drinking a cappuccino when Cincinnati officer Baron Osterman began following him on a bike.
He recorded as the officer followed him.
Harwell narrated:
“This is what we have to go through in Cincinnati . . . harassment. You know. You can’t even be a black man and enjoy your morning, because the police are going to harass you in Cincinnati, Ohio. You can’t go buy a cappuccino downtown. You’re going to get harassed from the police. I was walking down the street, and this cop just asked me, ‘do I have a problem?’And . . . what’s your problem?”
Osterman then stopped Harwell for jay walking.
“I saw you crossing against the light.”
“But that crossing says ‘walk’.
“It says [that] now. It turned to walk right when I stopped you.”
“You were scaring me, sir. I don’t know why you are following me. You followed me all the way down the street. Just so you could get me.”
Osterman then told Harwell to put down his phone, pushed Harwell against the wall and arrested him for jaywalking, resisting arrest and possession of marijuana.
Harwell’s phone remained on for a about a minute and half before he was arrested and captured him verbally protesting, but not resisting the arrest in the video you can see below.
Harwell then posted the video of the arrest to Facebook on March 1st.
When he went to court for the pedestrian violation, he took a picture of officer Osterman in the hallway standing with two other officers.
A warrant was then issued for his arrest for posting the photos on Facebook and he was charged with contempt of court.
So it appears as if Hamilton County stopped by his page for a visit.
Hamilton County says Harwell violated a court house security policy that bans cell phones and cameras from being used in any “hearing room, jury room, judge’s chambers or ancillary area” without express written consent from the court.
But nothing is included in the administrative rules for Ohio courts about hallways, lobbies or corridors.
Hamilton County Court’s website does state bans using cellphones, pagers, cameras, or any other electronic devices, but it doesn’t state a law that binds it.
These same arcane rules were used to prosecute Daymar Whitehead.
According to Cincinnati.com, Whitehead admitted to taking the photos, but said he wasn’t wearing his glasses that day so he didn’t see the signs posted about the policy and apologized.
The judge responded, “Oh, C’mon. I’m not going to put up with this.”
Judge Ruehlman sentenced him to six months in jail; the same sentence as Harwell.
This year, there have been two contempt of court charges that stemmed from violating the courthouse policy. Both involve allegations of taking pictures of law enforcement officers.
But it appears the policy is being used to target only people photographing law enforcement officers.
Using Facebook search, many publicly shared photos have been posted, which were taken inside the Hamilton County Courthouse.
Nobody has been arrested as a result of posting those photos on Facebook.
In 2014, Cincinnati.com published an editorial about Judge Ruehlman titled Judge should keep grip on emotions indicating that the judge was prone to rash decisions.
It alleged Judge Ruehlman retaliated against the sister of a defendant, who made a hateful comment to a victim’s father.
He sentenced the woman to 30 days in jail.
The editorial criticized Ruehlman for calling the woman an “animal” and claimed the judge was insensitive and demeaning.
It also alleged, “sending someone to jail for 30 days when the jail is chronically overcrowded is injudicious.”
We argue the same for Harwell and Whitehead, but they got 180 days for victimless crime.
Judge Ruhelman’s sentencing of Harwell and Whitehead for taking photos of officers is not just injudicious, it’s a blatant abuse of power.
And it reeks of racial bias and retaliation.
PINAC requested an arrest report from Whitehead’s arrest and will update as we receive more information.
You can share concerns about this case with the Hamilton County Courthouse by calling (513) 946-6029.
Tell them, “Free Daymar Whitehead.”
Because most people want to live in a world where photography is not a crime.
“I think they targeted me,” said the critical California man who spoke out on Facebook, and whose Christmas present for criticizing his local police department was a $300 lump of coal in the form of an unlawful vehicle fine.
A California cop lost his job this week for his brazen act of censorship.
Stockton Police themselves were criticized for firing 600 shots after the pursuit ended, 10 of which from the police ended the life of a hostage, leading to a lawsuit by the surviving hostage and a 60-plus page rebuke from The Police Foundation which you can read below.
It’s called “A Heist Gone Bad.”
Stockton police justly fired the California cop, who used his ticket book to retaliate against a department critic speaking out about the high-speed chase and shooting incident.
Local resident Motecuzoma Sanchez criticized the department on Facebook over a high-profile bank robbery response, which involved shots fired by fully one out of every four members of the 132 person department.
He also holds a masters degree in public administration.
Sanchez woke up on the day after he celebrated Christmas in 2015, to find a citation for expired registration on his car.
And this week, California cop Aaron Adams was fired for retaliating against the community activist, which local news station CBS13 confirmed.
Adams probably shouldn’t have sought revenge against Motecuzoma Sanchez.
“My Christmas present was a $300 fine for exercising free speech,” said the community activist Motecuzoma Sanchez in an interview.
Legally, Sanchez was cited under a code which states that cars with expired registration can be ticketed on highways and public parking areas.
But not in a private driveway.
Sanchez’s car was parked with the stickers facing away from the street.
So, someone at the police department would have had to walk onto his property, in order to see the expired stickers on the car, while Sanchez was sleeping.
The ticket was illegal.
So Motecuzoma Sanchez proceeded to file a harassment complaint within the department.
Stockton Police subsequently placed Aaron Adams on paid administrative leave for the retaliatory citation, before he was fired this week.
Fired California cop Aaron Adams
“They looked up my address, they came to my house just to send me a message in the middle of the night. We can find you any time. No way they just stumbled across my car,” said the infuriated activist Sanchez.
And petitioning the government or criticizing government is a strongly protected act of free speech under the 1st Amendment.
“I look at the process of if they targeted me, which possibilities could or couldn’t be true,” Sanchez told PINAC News, explaining that he investigated the circumstances of his unusual ticket carefully before drawing a the conclusion leading to his formal compaint, “Based on the facts, I was left only with the conclusion that I was targeted.”
And that is an act of state censorship.
“They weren’t ticketing other cars on my street.”
And Sanchez was wise to point out that no other cars on his block were ticketed, because selective enforcement of the law is a clear violation of the Constitution’s 14th amendment’s equal protection clause, which specifically applies to the states and their conduct towards citizens, stating:
Stockton resident and local activist Motecuzoma Sanchez
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
In December, Motecuzoma Sanchez criticized the leadership at the Stockton Police Department over the violent crime rate that’s been rising, funding “cheesy government programs” and a bank robbery where Stockton police killed not only the robber, but also a hostage.
“They shot 600 rounds into a vehicle with a known hostage inside the vehicle and killed the hostage,” the activist told PINAC News about Stockton PD’s response to a bank robbery which became a high speed, shoot-em-up chase resulting in a dead hostage, “That’s basically a quarter of the police department, 32 officers, shooting at this one vehicle.”
“You can’t pin it on one cop, because they all did it.”
Sanchez’s masters degree is from University of Southern California, and his education is all about governance and how it affects the public, so he decided to do his own assessment of the shooting, and took some criticism from local police supporters.
“I do my research based on what I know from college. I don’t just throw it out there and hope it sticks,” he said.
After The Police Foundation did their review of the bank robbery hostage shooting, Sanchez said that it mirrored his assessment almost word-for-word.
The review found that officers actions were “excessive” and “unnecessary” as the LA times reported in 2015:
The report called the Stockton robbery a “sentinel” event that will change law enforcement forever, similar to the 1997 North Hollywood shooting, in which Los Angeles police officers found themselves initially outgunned by two bank robbers in body armor, and the 2013 Christopher Dorner manhunt, in which a former LAPD officer hunted local police before he died in a Big Bear gun battle. Both tested the nation’s public safety system and exposed its holes.
“They tried to rush the issue. Police are trained not to confront any bank robber inside of the building,”said Sanchez, “That’s police and bank protocol.”
When Sanchez brought up the hostage shooting, the officers began trolling him over Facebook.
That’s when he discovered at least three of them were cops because they were on his page sporting thin blue-line profile pictures.
The other thing that clued-in Sanchez that they were cops, is that once he brought up the bank robbery, hostage shooting, they resorted to name calling, leading Sanchez to remark it was then, “I started thinking these guys were cops.”
Sanchez told Fox40 that he’s pursuing the matter over more than just the $300 ticket, it’s about what he sees as a misuse of power and police intimidation.
“The way they’re handling this investigation,” he said, “that shows me that this is something they take very serious.”
But even though Adams has been fired, Sanchez said it’s not over.
Stockton Police Officer Pancho Freer who was named a lawsuit by a hostage after the “Heist Gone Bad” chase, where he fired some of the 600 bullets by police at robbers.
He responded to the news Adams had been fired over Facebook said,
“This is by no means finished. I never met Aaron Adams or had any interaction with him. This guy who’s on SPD was the original instigator, Pancho Freer (seen inset), plus another guy I’m giving a pass to. It was this guy who began attacking me for my position about SPD and city leadership with rising crime rates amidst millions in additional spending by tax payers. This “spat” in which he proceeded to call me expletives was most likely the result of the fact that he’s one of the cops being sued for firing some of the 600 bullets which killed innocent hostage Misty Holt Singh.”
Officer Freer, who Sanchez mentioned, became upset over Sanchez’s comments because was named in a lawsuit filed by the family of the slain hostage who became a victim of police when 32 officers fired 600 rounds into a Stockton bank robber’s car, which killed the innocent hostage.
Sanchez said Adams did not act alone and insinuated that the department still has to do some more house-cleaning before he’s satisfied.
He also expressed concern that this could happen again in the future.
“Now, thanks to law enforcement resources,” Sanchez lamented, “they know where I live.”
Complaint censorship is a rising tide on YouTube, threatening to scrub the internet clean of video recorded in public, which people want to take back years later.
A New Hampshire citizen journalist recorded a public conversation on a sidewalk and posted it to YouTube (see below) where it went viral, getting over 1,000,000 views, but now someone is using complaint censorship to claim a privacy right, on a public sidewalk.
Complaint censorship uses illegitimate claims to bog down news and public interest videos on YouTube.
“I’ve just received an e-mail [which can be seen below the video], apparently from YouTube, which claims that someone has complained to them asking the video be taken down,” said Free State Project activist Dave Ridley frustrated with the flagrantly frivolous administrative challenge to a legitimate news video recorded in public.
“I have declined to do so.”
In particular, it is complaint censorship when the false report comes from a state actor like a police officer like these Texas cops.
And we’ve also seen security guards wish to have more privacy than the law actually allows, and to try and cover up a video which caused them to be convicted of a crime.
But now, one of the citizens featured in the viral video below entitled, “Cop corrects liberal snitch who reported her political opponents (Concord, NH)” wants to be scrubbed from the internet, even though the whole video was recorded by Dave Ridley in public.
Based on the complaint identifying the offending time as 0:27-0:44 it’s highly likely that the woman in our cover image filed the complaint.
If not, we’d like to interview the person from the video claiming privacy to find out why they think such a right exists.
But numerous cops are also featured, so truly it could be anyone you see in the viral video below.
Ridley posted the nearly eight minute clip back in June 2013.
For a small state like New Hampshire, the video has a big following and has been widely viewed in the last three years as part of the political discourse in a state known for its retail politics.
“Presumably [YouTube] administrators will make the final decision whether to suppress it.”
On a public sidewalk, nobody has the expectation of privacy.
The frustrated citizen journalist Ridley has over 27,000 subscribers on his RidleyReport YouTube channel.
“What is probably one of New Hampshire’s top five most popular YouTube videos faces attempted suppression,” Ridley told PINAC News, “My million-hit clip shows a pro-Medicare-expansion activist on a public Concord sidewalk, reporting her political opponents to police because they “have signs here” and “aren’t with us.”
Regardless of one’s political beliefs about healthcare, liberal or conservative, it’s undeniable that we can all believe in the law, and the 1st Amendment of the constitution and wise rulings of our Supreme Court to guide our society reasonably.
Federal courts have held that to have a reasonable expectation of privacy requires a two prong test.
The first prong one must have an actual, subjective expectation of privacy, and the second is, it must be an expectation of privacy that society as a whole would except as reasonable, as the Supreme Court decided in Katz v US.
Nobody should expect privacy standing on a public sidewalk in the middle of town.
And now another hyperlocal news outlet faces the censor’s axe.
A Cincinnati judge who sentenced a teen to six months in jail, released him ten days later after PINAC News brought the story to national attention.
But the Ohio judge is still holding the teen’s phone.
And the judge conveniently left that out of the Facebook announcement for his 2016 re-election campaign Facebook page.
He did, however, post on that page two Cincinnati.com stories about his unjust imprisonment of Daymar Whitehead.
But surprisingly the jurist politician doesn’t have any of PINAC’s widely read prior reports on this particular abuse of judicial power happening (again and again) in Ohio.
Ed. Note: If you’d like to help Daymar Whitehead get his phone back, please dial Judge Robert P. Reuhlman in chambers (513) 946-6029, operators are standing by to hear your case on his behalf.
Daymar Whitehead was in court for a drivers license violation when he recognized his friend, Maleik.
Whitehead took pictures from his smart phone, as Maleik was led by deputies down the hallway
Coincidentally, Maleik was there for a bond reduction hearing heard by Judge Ruehlman.
When sharply after, a single photo landed him in jail.
Even though photography is not a crime.
Judges love to make arcane courthouse rules.
But without any national standards most people aren’t aware that judges can’t even legally restrict photography inside of a courthouse.
That doesn’t explain for a second why Judge Robert Ruehlman originally ordered Whitehead’s phone to be destroyed.
Nor why it hasn’t yet been returned.
Judges have no authority to overrule the Constitution’s prohibition on taking property by the state without due process.
Five minutes of contempt hearings, in front of an angry and impulsive jurist, hardly qualifies as due process.
We reported about Daymar Whitehead’s original excessive sentence of six months behind bars last week when Judge Robert Ruehlman imposed the cruel and unusual sentence upon the eighteen-year-old.
Ruehlman found that when Whitehead took photos of deputies in the hallway, he was in contempt of court.
Apparently, after the judge received some negative media attention over it, he changed his mind about the lengthy sentence.
Click Here to visit: Keep Judge Ruehlman 2016 on Facebook
So now, the Judge appears to be in full-on public relations mode, not ruling from the bench today, but conducting damage control on his Facebook page instead.
Judge Ruehlman was careful how he worded his Facebook post, completely in the third-person, explaining why Daymar Whitehead had been set free.
And said he’d do it all again.
Ruehlman is also the same judge we reported about last month, who also sentenced Charles Harwell to six months in jail for taking photos of deputies in the courthouse hallway.
Judge Ruehlman has been widely criticized in the past for making emotion-based sentences as a judge.
Citizens have widely panned the elected judge for his very un-judge-like pronouncements from the bench, leading most Ohio citizens to believe he is a biased jurist.
According to his Facebook page, Ruehlman attended the Cincinnati Citizens Police Association dinner last night with a few of his pals, Judge Norbert Nadel and Candidate for Judge Thomas Heekin.
So he’s obviously a police supporter, which explains why he criminalizes taking photos of deputies who don’t want to be photographed.
A 2014 editorial titled Judge should keep a grip on emotions criticized his rash decision making after he retaliated against a defendant’s sister who made an ugly comment to a victim’s father.
Judge Ruelman referred to the woman as an ‘animal’:
Ruehlman’s sentence may have been hasty and given out in anger. That’s unfortunate. But courtroom decorum has been on the decline, and Ruehlman is rightly concerned about maintaining order both in the court and outside of it.
Still, a judge should keep a better grip on his own emotions. Further, sending someone to jail for 30 days, when the jail is chronically overcrowded, is injudicious.
It’s pretty clear how Judge Robert Ruehlman views the people he serves.
Or rules over.
It seems Ruehlman also has a few too many . . . rules.
Man.
In this case, we would like to know under what rule the Judge is holding Whitehead’s phone?
Because he still hasn’t given Whitehead’s smartphone back.
If you’d like to ask Judge Ruehlman what gives him the right to ignore Daymar Whitehead’s 5th Amendment rights, please give the jurist a call at (513) 946-6029.
Update: Judge Ruehlman has been busy banning people expressing their thoughts on his Facebook page. Apparently, Judge Ruehlman lacks any respect for the First Amendment and doesn’t care to hear the voice of voters.
A government official stifling the free speech privileges of citizens discussing matters important to society would be just one more civil rights violation carried out by this Constitution-hating, and likely bigoted, “judge”.
Even if it is on his personal re-election page, Judge Ruehlman obviously doesn’t want hear the voices of some of his constituents.
For someone who holds that much power over people’s lives, that’s a shame.
An Illinois man was arrested on felony eavesdropping charges after informing police he was recording them in his own home over the weekend.
New Lenox police claim Daniel Murphy made this announcement while “surreptitiously recording” them, which is legal jargon for secretly recording
Nevertheless, the arrest of the 25-year-old man raises legal questions about the state’s new and improved eavesdropping law, which replaced the previous Draconian law that was ruled unconstitutional in 2014 after numerous citizens were arrested for recording police in the line of duty.
Not much different than how Murphy was arrested.
The questions are:
Do police have an expectation of privacy in the home of a person they are investigating?
Can a person be surreptitiously recording while publicly announcing he is recording?
Did Illinois legislators surreptitiously amend the new eavesdropping law to provide more protections to citizens recording police in the line of duty?
According to local news reports, police had responded to Murphy’s New Lenox home to investigate a “domestic disturbance.”
“While handling the domestic, Murphy informed the officers that he was surreptitiously recording the officers,” police told Patch.
Neither the Patch article or the WJOL News goes into much detail about the incident and no other media has reported on the arrest yet.
All we know is that he was also charged with simple assault and felony eavesdropping on Sunday.
And on Monday, he was charged with felony aggravated battery to a peace officer and misdemeanor false report to a public safety agency, according to WJOL, which said it does not know if the latter charges are related to the former charges.
We have reached out to Murphy on Facebook for comment but he has not yet responded, so perhaps he is still in jail.
Now let’s take a look at the new eavesdropping law, which went into effect in January 2015 under much controversy and confusion.
We tried to clear up some of the confusion here, even though we acknowledged it was vaguely written, considering (or maybe because) how much taxpayers paid to defend the old law.
The new law did not even specify that citizens were now legally allowed to record cops, which was the whole point of ACLU vs. Alvarez, the lawsuit where Cook County State Attorney Anita Alvarez fought tooth and nail to keep it illegal to record cops.
She not only lost that costly battle but ended up losing the election last March.
The vagueness of the bill was done on purpose, according to the Chicago Reader.
In the era of Ferguson and “I can’t breathe,” can Illinois citizens now record police officers in action? The ACLU says yes: the new law “respects” an appellate court ruling that cops on duty have “no reasonable expectation of privacy in their conversations in public places.” You won’t find that language in the law itself, however.
State representative Elaine Nekritz, who sponsored the bill in the house, says that’s no accident. We made a decision “not to specifically state that citizens can record cops,” Nekritz says. “I thought if we tried to describe every instance in which you either were or were not committing eavesdropping, we would run into more trouble than we’ve created by having this more general standard. We just can’t write every circumstance in which someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy.” Like the definition of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, she says, “we know it when we see it.”
Fortunately, an Illinois legislator named Elgie R. Sims, Jr. added a paragraph to the law, which went into effect in June 2015, stating the following:
Nothing in this Article shall prohibit any individual, not a law enforcement officer, from recording a law enforcement officer in the performance of his or her duties in a public place or in circumstances in which the officer has no reasonable expectation of privacy. However, an officer may take reasonable action to maintain safety and control, secure crime scenes and accident sites, protect the integrity and confidentiality of investigations, and protect the public safety and order.
Sims slipped the passage into a larger police reform bill addressing police body cameras that he and a state senator named Kwame Y. Raoul sponsored, which also states:
No officer may hinder or prohibit any person, not a law enforcement officer, from recording a law enforcement officer in the performance of his or her duties in a public place or when the officer has no reasonable expectation of privacy. The law enforcement agency’s written policy shall indicate the potential criminal penalties, as well as any departmental discipline, which may result from unlawful confiscation or destruction of the recording medium of a person who is not a law enforcement officer. However, an officer may take reasonable action to maintain safety and control, secure crime scenes and accident sites, protect the integrity and confidentiality of investigations, and protect the public safety and order.
So let’s get back to the questions.
Do police have an expectation of privacy in the home of a person they are investigating?
Although a person’s home is not public, police have no expectation of privacy from the residents of that home when they are on duty and investigating a potential crime, unless one of them decides to use the restroom and shuts the door behind them to take care of personal business.
Can a person be surreptitiously recording while publicly announcing he is recording?
Like the Massachusetts wiretapping law, the Illinois eavesdropping law makes it clear that citizens are not allowed to surreptitiously record others, even if they have no expectation of privacy, which is not the case in other all-party consent states, which only make it a crime if you secretly record somebody who has an expectation of privacy.
And this provision also applies to police officers wearing body cameras, who are required to inform citizens who have an expectation of privacy that they are being recorded.
However, the law states that officers must record proof of this warning, which means the cameras need to be turned on before they inform citizens that they are being recorded.
The officer must provide notice of recording to any person if the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and proof of notice must be evident in the recording. If exigent circumstances exist which prevent the officer from providing notice, notice must be provided as soon as practicable.
Police will no doubt argue that Murphy was interfering with the “integrity and confidentiality” of an investigation.
But considering he is the one being accused of creating a domestic disturbance, he should have a Constitutional right to record police in his own home if that could be the determining factor whether he is innocent or guilty.
Did Illinois legislators surreptitiously amend the new eavesdropping law to provide more protections to citizens recording police in the line of duty?
The amendment that citizens can record police was overshadowed by the police reform bill, which mostly addressed body cameras.
Lawmakers on Saturday overwhelmingly approved a package of rules for police body cameras that also requires independent investigations of officer-involved citizen deaths, creates a process for appointing special prosecutors and bulks up data-collection efforts on police stops and misconduct.
Senate Bill 1304, which the Senate approved on a 45-5 vote, was a direct response to national controversies over use-of-force policies after officer-involved deaths of unarmed black citizens in New York City; Ferguson, Mo., and other places.
The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Kwame Y. Raoul and Rep. Elgie R. Sims Jr. — both Chicago Democrats — was approved by the House on a 107-3 vote earlier last week amid contentious budget talks that have forced legislators to schedule session days beyond their normally scheduled May 31 adjournment.
The law wouldn’t force departments to use body cameras. Instead, it would rely on a $5 hike to all traffic tickets issued in Illinois to create a grant program that subsidizes the cost for departments to opt in to the program.
Raoul said part of the reason the bill doesn’t require camera use was that, even with some added revenue from ticket fees, it would have been too costly for the state to mandate them for every department.
“One thing I think is that it’s going to, in short time, be so widely used voluntarily that at that point we can cross that road,” he said today. “But, at this point, this state is obviously dealing with a resource challenge.”
The bill also bans police chokeholds — the tactic that caused an outcry when police used it in a confrontation that killed an unarmed New York City man last year.
And, in light of confusion over a state eavesdropping law that went into effect in December, the bill clarifies that citizens can record police when officers have no “reasonable expectation” of privacy.
And that final sentence was pretty much all the media coverage the amendment to the eavesdropping law received at the time, which goes to show just how short attention spans tend to be in the media.
So back to Daniel Murphy, who is facing two felonies from what started out as a misdemeanor domestic disturbance call and who may still be sitting in jail.
We have very little details to go on at the moment, but it is unlikely the eavesdropping charge will stick considering the circumstances.
And it’s rare that police would tack on a felony assaulting an officer charge a day after the initial arrest.
Of course, anything can happen once they order you to stop recording.
A Florida sheriff took the law into her own hands, using unlawful excuses to expand a crime scene to exclude journalists from a crime scene.
The Palm Beach Sheriff’s deputy was caught on camera in two videos you can see below demanding that photographers cease taking images or video in without any lawful authority.
Detective Amanda Pfeifle of south Florida’s Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office yelled at a local journalist, ordering him not to take pictures of a crime scene, directly violating the First Amendment.
She then used “expanding the crime scene” as an excuse to force the journalist to move.
That journalist was me, Warren Redlich, an attorney who supports and writes in PINAC News as well as my hyper local news website the West Boca News.
I also run West Boca News, a local news website in my home community.
After sharing my experience with PINAC, they asked me to write an article.
I was notified by a reader that a body had been found and crime scene tape had been set up in the north end of South County Regional Park in West Boca Raton.
I went to the scene to take pictures and get the story for our readers. The location is on the map image below:
Ocean Mist Drive just south of Yamato Road; image and map data by Google
I stood in the shade at the building across the street from where the activity was going on, roughly 30-40 yards away.
Several staff members from the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office were on scene and they had blocked off the road. That is of public importance in my community as it affects many drivers who might try to drive through.
And, of course, it is very close to several neighborhoods, ball fields, and to a local elementary school.
I took a few pictures and then Detective Pfeifle yelled out at me and started walking toward me. That’s when I turned on my phone camera and this conversation ensued:
In the course of the conversation Detective Pfeifle decided to extend the crime scene tape in an attempt to force me much farther away from the scene, again to interfere with my ability to photograph the crime scene.
Deputies then extended the crime scene tape all the way to the building.
The photo below shows how far that was from the actual scene of the incident.
The body and scene are shown by the red arrow, and the extended crime scene tape is marked by the blue arrow.
While I was on the scene, there was no effort by investigators to examine anything on the side of the road away from the body.
This was obviously done only to harass a journalist.
Later at the scene, Detective Brian Allison approached and somewhat more politely asked that photos not be published for 24 hours to allow next of kin to be notified.
I reached out to PBSO Media Relations for comment on Detective Pfeifle’s conduct.
The Ohio ACLU has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a diverse group of plaintiffs seeking free speech and some sense of normalcy for residents nearby the upcoming Republican National Convention next month, which you can read below.
Political speech is protected by the First Amendment, as is the right to free assembly, but Cleveland officials signaled that they’ll only issue 18 permits of 50 minute duration each to march on one single parade route near a national party’s convention.
Cleveland also declared a 3.3 square mile area off limits for free speech during the Republican National Convention set for next July in Quicken Loans Arena.
“The restrictions on speech put in place by the city of Cleveland are arbitrary, unnecessary, and unjustifiable,” said Christine Link, executive director for the ACLU of Ohio. “The current rules for demonstrations at the RNC are actively blocking groups from all sides of the political spectrum from participating in their government. City officials have refused to make proper accommodations to protect free speech, so we are asking the courts to step in now.”
Some are comparing it to the size of the “green zone” in Iraq’s capital of Baghdad, anticipating a massive law enforcement presence akin to that of a military camp, which will swallow most of the downtown Cleveland area.
Citizens for Trump, the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Organize Ohio all joined forces to act as plaintiffs seeking relief. Some plaintiffs are concerned that their protest permit applications have been stalled without being approved or denied.
Homeless advocates are concerned about the criminalizing of up to 100 residents in possession of normal household items like canned goods and glass bottles, as Cleveland.com reports:
Within the streets and sidewalks of the event zone, the city has banned a variety of legal weapons, such as BB guns, nunchucks, swords, as well as ordinary items including umbrellas with metal tips, squirt guns, ropes, glass bottles, large backpacks and bags, coolers, tents, sleeping bags and canned goods. [Which can be seen in full below]
The ACLU has assisted with lawsuits against cities hosting political conventions in the past over protest rules. In 2008, the ACLU of Minnesota and the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War sued St. Paul, Minnesota, the host of that year’s GOP convention, challenging the city’s guidelines for protests after being denied a requested protest route.
“The size of the event zone and absurdly broad list of contraband items infringe on the movement and privacy of everyone living or working in downtown Cleveland,” Link said. “These rules criminalize everyone from people who are homeless to grocery shoppers for carrying everyday items. They also provide opportunities for public speech that are completely inadequate for the size and importance of this event.”
Cleveland officials did not try to institute a “no-protest” zone specifically outside of the Quicken Loans Arena’s security perimeter for the Republican National Convention.
But it’s doubtless that their heavy handed attempt at wholesale repression of the First Amendment and an unconstitutionally broad dictate restricting the possession of household items which local residents certainly own, seems doomed to fail in the light of the ACLU’s legal resistance.
The Massachusetts wiretapping law makes it a felony to surreptitiously audio record anyone — even police officers and other government employees, and even when in a public place.
But a lawsuit filed Thursday by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts argues that the law is “unconstitutional as applied to the secret recording of police officers performing their duties in public.”
The ACLU lawsuit is the second suit this year to challenge the wiretapping law, which — along with the eavesdropping law in Illinois — is the strictest law on recording conversations in the country.
Other states with all-party consent laws, which require consent from everyone in a conversation before it can be recorded, have reasonable expectation of privacy provisions, meaning the laws do not apply in non-private situations.
In March, the conservative group Project Veritas Action Fund filed a similar suit to overturn the Massachusetts law.
The wiretapping law has a sordid history of being used to prosecute people for recording police officers.
In 1998, a 28-year-old musician named Michael Hyde used a hidden tape recorder during a traffic stop in Abington. After Hyde brought his recording to the police station to file a complaint about how he was treated, he was charged, tried, and convicted of wiretapping and sentenced to probation.
Hyde appealed his conviction all the way up to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the state’s highest court, on the basis that public officials have no right to privacy when carrying out their officials duties. However, the court rejected Hyde’s argument and upheld his conviction in a 2001 ruling.
In 2010, the ACLU sued the Boston Police Department on behalf of Simon Glik, a lawyer who was arrested on a wiretapping charge for recording three police officers on Boston Common. His suit led to a 2011 ruling by the federal First Circuit Appeals Court, which found that recording police officers and other government employees is protected by the First Amendment. Glik later received a $170,000 settlement from the city.
However, because Glik openly recorded the three officers who arrested him, the ruling has left it ambiguous whether the First Amendment protects secret recording.
The ACLU’s recent lawsuit argues that the Glik ruling does indeed apply to secret recording of police officers:
The First Circuit has not limited this holding to open recording. Thus, this constitutional protection extends to both openly and secretly recording police officers performing their duties in public.
In fact, secret recording is a key component of the First Amendment right to record police officers performing their duties in public. It is the only way that individuals who are too afraid to openly record police officers can exercise their constitutionally protected rights, and it is a critical tool to gather accurate information about official government activity.
The ACLU suit was filed on behalf of two Boston activists, Eric Martin and René Pérez.
“When I am alone, I do not feel safe openly recording police officers doing their jobs in public,” said Martin, according to a press release. “In that situation, I would like to secretly record, but I have not and will not do so because I am afraid that I will get arrested or prosecuted for violating the wiretap law.”
“Police officers have screamed at me and grabbed my phone when I have openly recorded,” said Pérez. “As a result, there are times when I would want to record the police doing their jobs in public but would only feel safe doing so secretly. Because I am afraid of getting arrested or prosecuted for violating the wiretap law, however, I simply don’t record in those situations.”
According to the suit, both plaintiffs have been attacked by Boston police officers for using cameras openly:
In December 2011, Mr. Martin was participating in and photographing the Occupy Boston political demonstrations. A BPD police officer shoved him to the ground, yelled at him to stop taking pictures and instructed Mr. Martin that he was under arrest for taking his picture. It was only after a supervisor ultimately intervened that Mr. Martin was told he was free to go.
…
Mr. Pérez was openly recording a protest against the Syrian invasion on the street outside of Secretary of State John Kerry’s house several years ago. The demonstration had ended, and Mr. Pérez continued to openly record a police officer’s interactions with the remaining protesters.
A BPD police officer became incensed when he noticed that Mr. Pérez was recording. He got in Mr. Pérez’s face, screamed at him and grabbed his recording device. This terrified Mr. Pérez.
The lawsuit names Boston Police Commissioner William Evans and Suffolk District Attorney Daniel Conley as defendants, and seeks injunctions that would prevent them from arresting and prosecuting people who record police. As the suit notes, the police department and district attorney have a history of bringing charges against people for recording the police, and Boston police even created a training video explaining when police can charge people with wiretapping.
Jake Wark, the spokesman for Daniel Conley, did not respond to a request for comment. However, Wark told Boston.com: “With this lawsuit, the ACLU is suggesting that we strip some people of the law’s protection based on their employment … This is a dangerous and un-American line of thought.”
He added: “Through the wiretap statute, Massachusetts’ elected representatives and its courts have called secret recording a crime … We take our direction from them, not this lawsuit.”
The lawsuit filed by Project Veritas earlier this year seeks a broader ruling than the ACLU suit. Project Veritas argues that the wiretapping law is “unconstitutionally overbroad” because it’s not limited to situations where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
According to the lawsuit, the wiretapping law has prevented Project Veritas from “engag[ing] in undercover investigative journalism projects in Massachusetts” about topics like “reported instances of landlords taking advantage of housing shortages in Boston where students may live in unsafe and dilapidated conditions” and “the trustworthiness and accountability of government officials, including police officers.”
“While most states allow you to record where no reasonable expectation of privacy exists (think hotel lobbies or in public gatherings), Massachusetts simply banned all surreptitious recording. Because secretive recording allows investigative reporters to uncover fraud and abuse, it needs to be protected under the First Amendment, which is why we brought our suit in the first place. It’s hard to discover fraud and abuse with bright lights and large cameras,” said Benjamin Barr, Project Veritas’s lead counsel for constitutional litigation.
He added: “I think it safe to say, whether you’re a committed lefty or a diehard conservative, Massachusetts’ recording law violates the First Amendment and silences productive, healthy discussion in the state. Most Americans would agree that uncovering government waste and abuse through secretive recordings is a welcome event.”
Like the ACLU lawsuit, the Project Veritas suit names Daniel Conley as a defendant and seeks an injunction against him.
Barr said he expects oral arguments for the Project Veritas suit to be held in late summer.
The Massachusetts attorney general’s office, which is representing Conley in the Project Veritas suit, did not respond to a request for comment.
North Carolina’s Governor Pat McCrory just signed into law an act making police body camera video an official state secret. Naturally, following the events of last week, civil rights and transparency advocates are in an uproar.
North Carolina’s Attorney General Roy Cooper, disagreed with keeping the public in the dark and that the new “law goes way too far” in restricting access to police videos for citizens, who are after all the taxpayers and pay for not only the salaries of police but to create these videos in the first place, telling ABC:
Gubernatorial candidate and NC Attorney General Roy Cooper told ABC11 the law is “too restrictive and goes too far in preventing access by the public. The law should be improved to provide for more openness when the legislature comes back into session.”
“They’re setting it up so the police have all the advantages. It’s not going to do anything to create any type of transparency or accountability, and it definitely won’t open up lines of communication or trust between the police and the community,” said Akiba Byrd, member of PACT Raleigh.
Just for an example, last year a leaked dash camera video from Fayetteville, North Carolina contradicted written reports in a fatal shooting of a citizen by police, seen in the cover photo of this story.
Republican State Senate candidate and criminal defense lawyer T. Greg Doucette blames members of both parties and says that the move is likely to make police oversight non-extant, and for it to be more difficult to get civil relief for police abuse in federal court under 42 USC 1983.
and publicly recorded video showing readily apparent rights violations by the Government in states across the country.
In the wake of this police state secrets law, North Carolina police and lawmakers will have to contend with more disenfranchised, angry citizens, who’ve been abused by police and will now be unable to obtain the public records their own tax money paid to create.
When police – who taxpayers fund to enforce laws- deprive victims or their loved ones of their civil rights or even their lives, instead of videos leading to civil litigation, this can only lead to more desperate street protests and less legitimacy for all officers across the Tar Heel state.
Legendary science fiction author Robert A. Heinlen best described the problems caused by government keeping too many secrets from the society who asks it to govern:
Secrecy is the keystone to all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy and censorship. When any government or church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, “This you may not read, this you must not know,” the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives.
Thanks to their elected officials North Carolina residents will be subject to what could amount to extortion by local police departments, who can keep video secret from those accused in criminal trials, keep police videos secret pending expensive litigation most citizens can’t afford, and during that time victims of police brutality can be further discouraged from pursuing their complaints, or worn down by the attrition and high cost of pursuing legal claims.
Also, police in North Carolina will now be handed control over what video is released and are allowed to suppress anything showing police in a truthful, but undesirable light.
How many poor criminal defendants will plea to crimes they didn’t commit because it’s impossible for their public defenders to gain access to police footage?
North Carolina’s heinous suppression of public records will disenfranchise the vast majority of citizens who live at subsistence level, and especially the 17.2% of North Carolina’s roughly 10 million residents who live in poverty as of 2015.
That’s 1.75 million citizens who probably have zero chance to view a police video, which in most states they’d be entitled to copy and release if it showed an officer harming them, or use to file a lawsuit.
This kind of secret policing is sure to whip up conflict between citizens and government because the entire reason for transparency in government is to quell the kind of anger that arrives from disenfranchisement.
Keeping these videos secret holds great potential to undermine trust between the police and the people who pay their salaries.
Not only that, but North Carolina’s new secret police video law also established a “Blue Alert System” for police to call the police when they feel threatened, as if being the police and having police radios or calling 911 like the rest of us isn’t enough!
The only effective public means in the United States of trying to keep our police accountable to the public, and to collect meaningful evidence of law breaking by citizens is video and audio recording devices.
America’s police carry microphones, dash cameras and body cameras to record their interactions with citizens, and in most states public records laws are interpreted in favor of releasing videos to the public with as little delay as is determined to maintain any criminal defendant’s right to a fair trial.
Some states like Florida favor immediate release, or nearly immediate distribution of these vital public record videos made by police, and all other states – excepting North Carolina now – allow for copying of the video. Ironically, North Carolina used to lead the country in transparency.
Fast forward to today: because of North Carolina's leadership years ago, other states are releasing dash- and bodycam video to the public
Under North Carolina’s new secret police video law, a video will only be shown to the person in the video, and if that viewing is denied, the only recourse is hiring a lawyer to sue in court.
It will let police departments make boiler plate denials based upon “concerns about safety, reputation or an ongoing investigation” in most cases.
North Carolina residents would not even be allowed to have a copy of the videos either, even if they’re in the video.
PINAC reporter Eric McDonough was arrested Wednesday after entering the city council meeting, then being ordered to leave. He was live streaming that part, but they arrested after he had stepped into the parking lot when he had turned his camera off. It appears they are charging him with disorderly conduct, which is a contempt-of-cop charge. He is currently in jail and should be released Thursday.
And here is another video live streamed where another man named Kim Hill who also been very critical of the city. He was allowed to speak for the allotted three minutes, but then was ordered to leave city property under threat of arrest for trespassing.
It appears that they did not take too kindly to this article. CM
The original story
They give citizens three minutes to address the Homestead City Council at the monthly meeting in South Florida, though I could speak for more than an hour with the dirt I have.
Yet a Homestead cop cut me short last month, shoving me out of council chambers mid-speech, violating the First Amendment and then some.
However, it did not stop there.
Sergeant Garland Wright chased me into the lobby with retaliatory animus, squaring off with me, aggressively pointing, blocking my egress, and threatening my rights.
He also claimed he had not disrespected me, but the video posted at the bottom proves otherwise. The video also shows him violating my First and Fourth Amendment rights while telling me that he was not violating my First Amendment rights.
On Wednesday, I will return to city hall for this month’s council meeting and make another attempt to speak. And to see if they kick me out again.
After all, I had not violated decorum policy the last time.
All I did was address a certain council member who made disparaging remarks about me to another activist a week earlier, telling him that if he had something to say to me, to say it to my face and not behind my back.
But that got me kicked out before I could ask the real question I wanted to ask.
Isolated and Corrupt
Homestead is a small municipality with population of about 64,000 people at the southern tip of Miami-Dade County,more than 40 miles south from downtown Miami.
So it often gets ignored by the State Attorney’s Office and other public corruption watchdogs, allowing city and police officials to sweep myriad crimes under the rug with little effort.
Lately, the city had been getting some news coverage about a Homestead police officer named Anthony Green who has shot six people, killing three people, over the years, including a man last year named Edward “Butch” Foster III.
Crystal Foster addresses the Homestead City Council about the lack of accountability surrounding the police shooting death of her brother, Edward “Butch” Foster III.
Although that case is still under investigation, the council have been giving his family conflicting information if he is on active duty or if he is still on administrative leave.
And because myself and a few other activists have not been shy about addressing the council about certain issues, it introduced a decorum policy last year, which gave them the authority to ban residents from speaking, a decision which was covered by The Miami Herald.
The policy states:
Any person making impertinent or slanderous remarks or who becomes boisterous while addressing the council shall be barred from further audience before the council by the Mayor unless permission to continue or again address the council be granted by the majority vote of the council members present.
No clapping applauding heckling or verbal outbursts in support or opposition to a speaker or his or her remarks shall be permitted No signs or placards which may harm or obstruct the view of others shall be allowed in the council chambers Persons exiting the council chambers shall do so quietly.
Mayor Jeff Porter has not formally told me I am not allowed to return to the council, so we’ll see what happens on Wednesday.
Since it was introduced last year, the decorum policy has been loosely enforced.
Signs are not allowed inside the Homestead City Council meeting unless they are supportive of police or the city.
For example, many activists were barred from bringing in signs, but the companion of a local politician brought in a sign, holding it up as the politician spoke.
Local activist Matthew Oakey often speaks on corruption in the city.
After he spoke last month to repeated applause and a standing ovation, Wright threatened to eject anyone else daring to applaud.
But later that same night, Wright failed to kick out the cops who applauded Mayor Jeff Porter for praising them.
Further, additional rules enacted since moving into the new city hall do not allow people to stand in the aisles, yet nearly the entire police department stood in the back aisle as an intimidating show of force.
Police had packed the room during last month’s meeting. Will they be there again on Wednesday?
But police ordered everybody else, including me, to sit down, although they did allow PINAC publisher Carlos Miller and a local reporter from the South Dade Newsleader to remain standing with their cameras.
However, it is obvious they selectively enforce their policy, promoting positive views while censoring critical ones.
Wednesday’s Meeting
If this months meeting is anything like previous meetings, expect another unmitigated Constitutional disaster, which is not all that rare.
Local activist Kim Hill called out Chief Alexander Rolle for lying at the January meeting, then speaking truth so unpalatable at the February meeting, the entire council walked out as you can see in the second video below.
The family and friends of Edward “Butch” Foster III have been demanding answers as to why he was killed during a trip to the store.
It was Hill who informed me a week before last month’s meeting that he ran into Councilman Elvis Maldonado at a restaurant, who warned him that if he continued addressing the council in a critical manner, then the council would ignore him as they do to Oakey and me.
I was shocked when hearing this because I had thought Maldonado was the one straight-shooting councilperson, even if he was ethically naive.
Apparently, I was the one who was naive.
Maldonado the only councilperson appearing to genuinely listen, his feigned empathy persuaded me not to speak or write about him, despite uncovering unethical behavior.
Among his indiscretions he developed a pattern of misusing the city’s SUV for personal business despite a monthly travel allowance from the city of almost $1,000 in which he was accused of “double dipping”, and deleting his golfing records from shotzoom.com and golfgame.com, after being questioned for a Miami Herald article.
But I still found it hypocritical when I learned he was only pretending to listen to what I had to say during city council meetings.
I stated the following to him right before I was kicked out, which you can see in the video below beginning after the 3:30 mark.
“Mr. Maldonado, you know, I’d appreciate it, if you got something to say to me, you can come say it to my face, and you don’t have to talk about me behind my back, in public to other people, and I’d really appreciate that…”
I was about to ask about him crashing the SUV when the cop cut me off and kicked me out.
One of several plainclothes cops that were in attendance during last month’s Homestead City Council meeting.
In the video, you will see my tone remains the same throughout the time I was speaking, so I did not become “boisterous,” which would have been a violation of the decorum policy. I was just being honest.
But challenging Maldonado to own up to his words prompted Wright to abandon his post as sergeant at arms to retaliate against me in front of supervisors, council members and witnesses with cameras.
Imagine how he would act if there had been no cameras around?
That classic contempt-of-cop behavior parallels my original story with Homestead cops, which is what sparked this years-long civil rights crusade.
You would think they would have learned by now that I don’t back down.
I will be live streaming from the meeting on my Facebook (James Eric McDonough), probably speaking around 6:30 pm, so make sure you tune in for the action and check back in for the update.
Pertinent city contacts where one may petition for redress:
A man who entered a Chicago police station Saturday to report that he had been robbed at gunpoint ended up pulling out his phone to start recording when officers refused to take his report.
Police then ordered him to leave, telling him he was not allowed to record inside the building, still refusing to take his report.
But at the time, they had no clue the man was Che “Rhymefest” Smith, an award-winning hip artist and songwriter who once ran for office in Chicago.
And they did not know that Rhymefest has almost 50,000 followers on Twitter, which was where he posted the video of his interaction with Chicago police.
As a result, the Chicago Police Department was quick to apologize for its unprofessionalism.
But the video, uploaded Saturday morning, has already been shared more than 1,600 times as of this writing while the apology from the police spokesman, which he retweeted almost four hours later, has been shared 117 times.
Furthermore, it’s obvious that the only reason they are apologizing is because Rhymefest has a huge following.
They would never apologize to the random Joe Blow ordered to leave the station after trying to file a report because apologizing is acknowledging they were wrong, which is something police rarely do.
Predictably, many commenters on those articles rushed to the defense of police, including one anonymous commenter claiming to be a cop who posted the following on the Chicago Tribune article.
It is this type of attitude that shows exactly why we must record every interaction with police because otherwise, they will always be given the benefit of the doubt by the general public.
In his video, Rhymefest told the cops the following:
“They put a gun to my head. They demanded that I give them my wallet. I gave them my wallet. They told me they were going to shoot me.”
But rather than take his report, they were more worried about him recording, telling him to turn the camera off, which was when he responded with the following.
“I don’t feel comfortable because I feel like I’m being treated … when the camera goes off, you all start telling me to get out, I can’t make a report.”
It appears that he was eventually allowed to make a report by a cop who did not seem very enthusiastic about it.
And while it’s common for police throughout the country to claim we are not allowed to record inside the public areas of police stations, there are no laws that forbid it.
In fact, it was only a few years ago that Illinois had the strictest eavesdropping law in the country, making it a felony to record cops against their wishes, even if they did not have an expectation of privacy.
(e) Nothing in this Article shall prohibit any individual, not a law enforcement officer, from recording a law enforcement officer in the performance of his or her duties in a public place or in circumstances in which the officer has no reasonable expectation of privacy. However, an officer may take reasonable action to maintain safety and control, secure crime scenes and accident sites, protect the integrity and confidentiality of investigations, and protect the public safety and order.
Had Rhymefest been secretly recording, then uploaded the video, then that could have been potentially problematic because the new Illinois eavesdropping law, like the Massachusetts wiretapping law, makes it illegal to secretly recording others, including police, even if they do not have an expectation of privacy.
But even that provision of the Massachusetts law is being challenged in court, so it might be only a matter of time when it is ruled unconstitutional.
Ramon Coleman was the eye witness, and he said the cop who shot Gaines shot her out of frustration, and not self-defense, attorneys revealed Tuesday at a press conference.
Gaines’ family revealed this key detail after filing civil lawsuit against Baltimore County, and the killer Baltimore cop identified only as Officer Ruby.
It wasn’t his first kill either.
It turns out, Officer Ruby also fatally shot Adam Benjamin Rothstein, who was armed with a BB gun in 2007, according to the Baltimore Sun.
Coleman was an apartment away when police singled out Gaines to not only serve misdemeanor warrants on at her home, which is uncommon, but kicked in the door to her apartment after she chose not to answer it after police knocked.
Korryn Gaines had some misdemeanor traffic tickets, so police unlawfully kicked down her door and unlawfully entered her home. She protected herself with a shotgun for six hours and never pointed her gun at them.
According to wbaltv.com, a Baltimore SWAT Unit illegally commandeered Coleman’s apartment to monitor the standoff with Gaines.
Coleman was confined against his will as the SWAT team set up their systems and operation.
Baltimore cops negotiated with Gaines for about six hours before shooting and killing her.
Coleman was able to hear dialogue between Gaines and see some of the interaction between Gaines and police through the entryway since the door was at times left cracked open during so-called negotiations.
During the first hour, Coleman reported hearing Gaines, who held a shotgun, negotiating with the cops who forcefully and illegally broke into her home.
“You put yours down, I’ll put mine down,” she proposed.
They refused.
About six hours later, officer Ruby grew frustrated, lost his cool and took matters into his own hands yelling, “I’m sick of this shit, put the gun down!”
Immediately, several bullets were fired, which killed Gaines in front of her 5-year-old son.
Either Ruby is a terrible shot, or a bullet ricocheted and struck him in the cheek.
Baltimore cops denied having body cameras, but the lawyers for Gaines family have faith their witness paints a clear enough picture about what actually happened.
“He did not shoot her because he was in fear that she posed a threat to him or other officers,” explained J. Wyndal Gordon, an attorney representing the Gaines family.
“They had been with Ms. Gaines for approximately seven hours, He shot Ms. Gaines out of frustration, and that is not a legitimate basis for shooting and killing an individual,” he added.
Family, lawyers and others close to Gaines gathered at the press conference, including Gaines’ boyfriend Kareem Courtney, who left the apartment when police broke inside.
Kareem Courtney said it’s difficult to understand how someone paid to protect lives can just take a life away, and not be held accountable whatsoever.
“I can’t understand why the people who get paid to serve and protect us can take her life that way and not be held responsible for their actions,” said Courtney.
Lawyers for the Gaines family said one of the biggest reasons they filed the lawsuit is because they don’t have any faith in police investigating themselves.
“An arrest warrant is not a search warrant,” Gordon explained. “When they took that key and cracked the threshold of that doorway so they could peer inside, ladies and gentleman, that was a search. It was an unlawful search.”
The lawsuit claims it was the duty of the Defendants to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to protect Gaines right to be free from unlawful searches and excessive force resulting from an arrest for traffic violations and misdemeanor criminal offenses, which is what a Baltimore cops kicked down the door to Gaines apartment were there for.
It alleges, among many things, that Baltimore cops ‘ratcheted up’ the situation by forcing the issue and insistently and forcibly arresting Gaines rather than coming back the next day, especially since the apartment complex is across the street from the police station.
It also describes First Amendment violations when police disabled her Facebook account.
“By blocking her live streaming, the Baltimore County Police Department not only suppressed speech under the Maryland Constitution but also stopped the only independent visual video record of what was taking place before Officer Ruby killed her,” Jimmy Bell an attorney for the Gaines family said.
“Her life mattered. It matters, and everyone who was involved in this, beforehand or afterwards, if you tried to cover it up, we are coming at you civilly,” added Bell.
Gaines’ family’s lawyers also argue Ruby’s actions were intentional and foreseeable, given his history, and that using his authority created more danger for Gaines than if he hadn’t acted at all, which directly caused her death.
Why Ruby was there is an interesting question, given his past and the level of judgement he displayed when not only killed Gaines but fired at her while her 5-year-old son sat in her lap.
“[The cops] should have used better tactics to get her out of the apartment. No one should die like that,” said Coleman.
Some might even argue cops should have never been there in the first place, kicking down her door to serve a traffic ticket warrant, which almost never entails forced entry in departments across the country and seems more like Baltimore police retaliating against Gaines for opposing them, and questioning their legitimacy.
Homestead Police Department (HPD) has silenced the First Amendment with false stalking charges and restraining orders.
Their abuses leading to two of my three false arrest, and to me being served with four frivolous restraining orders.
Sadly, such abuses are not limited to Florida, and occur nationwide.
I have researched this new trick in the police playbook being used to stalk away the First Amendment.
PINAC presents this series as a case study on such stalking abuses in Florida and across the country.
Included are discussions on the federal subsidies which create disincentives to fixing the problem, and discussions on Florida stalking law related to the First Amendment and online activities.
The focus is on cops who violate the law, yet when exposed hide behind laws meant for the protection of battered and abused women.
COWARDS!
HPD’s actions inspired creation of the Coward of the Month award, with John Monaco being the first nominee.
My Transgressors Choose To Invoke God
Some may choose to skip over this section, but being a Christian I must oblige these officers withtruthas they are lacking inknowledge.
Generally, I leave the good Lord out of secular discussions, but HPD officers John Monaco (video above) and Alejandro Murguido (email) blasphemously invoke God.
They bear false witness against their neighbors,not just me, breaking laws as ancient the Decalogue.
Swearing oaths to be the keepers of the law, they do not keep it themselves, instead lording it over others.
I am just waiting for them to abuse scripture, while claiming a blessedstatus.
Like the Pharisees they lower their profession to one of sinful revenge and tax collection for their temple (City Hall), simultaneously claiming hero status and victimhood.
This fight is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities.
I pray for them, while rebuking them, praying they would repent of their sin, turning back to God.
Regardless, their intimidation will never force me into quietly walking away while they continue unrepentant in their crimes against humanity.
OK Back To Secular Earthly Damnation
This began when I asked HPD Officer Murguido to drive respectfully and obey the law on October 29, 2012, fearing his driving would kill a child, possibly my own.
Since then HPD officers, including Chief Alexander Rolle, have retaliated against me with nine false stalking abuses alone.
Some of HPD’s stalking complaints got traction, jamming me up with ex-parte injunctions and false arrest, others did not.
HPD officers claim filing complaints against them is stalking, and claim making YouTube videos about cops and/or criticizing them online is cyberstalking.
HPD officers have even retaliated against my family, making the comment below when I called them out for criminally libeling my wife on leoaffairs.com.
“Jimmy, we all have families, and we protect them and our ability to feed and care for them; is called a job. Someone that is trying to take a person’s job is also hurting that person’s family, so it seems fit to get all the family members involved in this fight; don’t you agree?”
NO, I do NOT agree.
It is NEVER acceptable to attack innocent family members, period.
We expect the Mafia to do this, not police officers.
My wife and the community, here and here, do not agree with this line of reasoning, and there is great doubt their families would either.
Rolle covered up these crimes, having the audacity to send my wife a letter stating his refusal to even look to see if his officers are involved.
Yet, with fists full’s of irony and their contrived statements, they call me the “stalker”.
9 Stalking Law Abuses Personally Suffered At The Hands Of HPD:
Abuses 1-3
The first three stalking abuses were felony aggravated stalking (1), misdemeanor simple stalking (2), and the first stalking injunction (3).
The felony was immediately no actioned, then the misdemeanor was brought in getting nolle prossed, and the injunction was dismissed when Murguido failed to show.
Dates are critical in this section, after the “initial” incident on October 29, 2012, I met with the FBI on October 30, 2012 who told me to go to IA, and was held against my will by HPD officers again on November 1, 2012.
Waiting for things to settle a bit, and in my gut greatly fearing retaliation, I waited until January 24, 2013 before first calling Internal Affairs (IA), and leaving a message with my contact information stating I wanted to make a formal complaint in person, for felony violations against me.
Then I made a return call to IA on February 13, 2013 as my call was not being returned, leaving another message with slightly more information, but still never mentioning any officer’s name nor the date, time, or place of either incident; I mentioned being held against my will more than once, and mentioned felony violations of state and federal law, and that Miami-Dade officers were included.
In response Murguido filed criminal charges on February 15, 2013.
Murguido filed his first injunction, see at bottom, on February 28, 2013, when he also unlawfully looked up my information on D.A.V.I.D., though we have had no contact that he hasn’t initiated since October 29,2012 and this was all allegedly done as a private citizen.
Murguido claims I contacted IA, and that he was advised to file against me.
Murguido even claims I have a “history of clinically diagnosed mental health problems”, though I have never been to a mental health professional. This is an obvious lie used to discredit me, that has been carried on by all other HPD officers attacking me.
Murguido alleges two incidents in his injunction, one incident (completely fabricated) occurring in June 2012 (in all other statements he says July 27, 2012 @ 8:00 pm) and the other incident occurring on December 22, 2012 (actually October 29, 2012).
I got served with the injunction on March 6, 2013, and was arrested on April 15, 2013.
IA Detective Antonio Aquino finally returned my call on March 19, 2013 and later sent me this letter as proof of date.
Why did Murguido wait four months from our last interaction to file these false criminal and civil complaints, and six months from the first alleged action where he was in great fear for his life?
The police report from the last incident says it was a simple neighbor dispute settled on scene.
Who advised Murguido to file these complaints?
How did Murguido know I had contacted IA (i.e. left two messages for Aquino) at least a month before Aquino returned my call?
Murguido later swore under oath in response to my interrogatories (See question and answer #7) that it was Aquino who told him this, confirming the suspected conspiracy of the head of IA.
Aquino wrote in his IA report that I did not try to re-initiate my complaint until after Murguido filed against me first.
Aquino conveniently omits that he stalled my complaint by not calling me back for two months, and giving Murguido ample time to file his complaints first.
This is conspiracy against rights at its finest, which Chief Rolle knows all about, and personally tried to cover-up by destroying public records.
Aquino repeatedly and falsely states that I took a plea deal. Yet, the case dispositions included in his own files show pleas of not guilty and charges dismissed, no actioned, or nolle prossed.
I recorded the meeting with Aquino and the Chief, what Aquino claims in his report is not the conversation we had, nor did he respond to the issues I busted him on in this letter.
Further, Murguido committed perjury in his statements as proven by the recording, below, of our conversation from October 29, 2012 (or December 22).
In his statements the incident he claims occurred in June (or July 27th, 2012 @ 8:00 pm) never happened, and I have an alibi and witness.
I did talk to Murguido other times in March and May of 2009 respectively, in the latter conversation he begged me not file a complaint, and to come to him as a neighbor and gentleman if I had issues with him in the future.
In email correspondence Murguido initiated with me in May 2015, and in his earlier statements he falsely states he told me to go to IA and file a complaint, but he never did.
In the criminal complaint he filed two days after my last call to IA, he claims I blocked him in his driveway with my car, putting him in great fear for his life.
Though Murguido has been a traffic officer for two decades, he could give not description of the car I was driving, how convenient.
I am currently litigating the above abuses in federal and state court.
Las Vegas police arrested a journalist Saturday who was video recording a protest against President Donald Trump, demanding that he release his tax forms.
Police say KLAS news videographer Nebyou Solomon was arrested for trespassing and obstructing because he was standing on the private property of the Fashion Show Mall, refusing to leave when ordered to do so, then refusing to identify himself.
But a short video of his arrest shows he was standing on a sidewalk outside the mall, which is generally considered public property because it is paid for and maintained by tax dollars.
However, Las Vegas has a long-standing habit of allowing businesses to privatize the sidewalks in front of their establishments.
But a court ruled almost two decades ago that just because these sidewalks are private does not mean they are not public forums to conduct First Amendment-related activities.
And that exactly is what Solomon was doing when he was standing across the street from about 250 protesters, who were standing on the sidewalk in front of the Trump International Hotel, which evidently is not owned by the president.
In 2001, the Ninth Circuit of Appeals ruled that private sidewalks in Las Vegas are considered public forums just like public sidewalks because both are indistinguishable from one another.
The sidewalk in front of the Venetian Casino Resort on the Las Vegas Strip, constructed privately by the hotel to replace a public sidewalk that existed on the site when it housed the old Sands hotel, is a public forum for First Amendment purposes, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday.
The divided panel handed a victory to local unions which have picketed the non-union hotel, local authorities who have refused to interfere with the picketing, and the ACLU of Nevada.
The Venetian argued that the sidewalk is not a public forum, citing U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding pedestrian malls and enclosed shopping centers. But Judge Procter Hug Jr., joined by Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder, said the cases were distinguishable.
“The historically public character of the Venetian’s sidewalk, the sidewalk’s continued use by the general public, the fact that the sidewalk is connected to and virtually indistinguishable from the public sidewalks to its north and south, and the dedication of the sidewalk to public use all serve to distinguish this case from the two Supreme Court cases…,” Hug wrote.
The First Amendment not only guarantees the right to assemble peacefully in demonstration, but also the right to freedom of the press, so there should be no reason why charges against Solomon should not be dropped before the case heads to trial.
Unfortunately, Las Vegas Metropolitan police are clueless about the 2001 decision because this is the statement they issued after Solomon’s arrest:
“The LVMPD is committed to transparency and creating and maintaining public trust. We work with our local media partners, including KLAS TV on a routine basis. Today, during what was otherwise a peaceful protest in front of the Trump International Hotel, Mr. Nebyou Solomon was arrested.
While Mr. Solomon was working in an official capacity as a member of the media, he was recording the event from what was determined to be private property which belongs to the Fashion Show Mall. Fashion Show Mall security officers requested that he not film from their property and when he refused, notified LVMPD officers who were already present at the event. Upon contact by officers, Mr. Solomon was uncooperative and refused to provide his personal identifying information, in violation of NRS 171.123. Mr. Solomon was told he would be issued a misdemeanor citation for Trespass to which he replied that he would not sign – a violation of NRS 171.177. Because of his refusal, Mr. Solomon was arrested and transported to the Clark County Detention Center where he was booked accordingly.”
This is what KLAS General Manager Lisa Howfield had to say about the arrest:
“Today, one of our employees, an experienced and respected photojournalist Neb Solomon, was arrested by Metro police officers, charged with trespassing and obstruction. Neb was doing his job, carrying out an assignment given to him by his news managers, covering a news event of considerable interest to the community. We support Neb and the rights of all journalists to report from the scene of newsworthy events. While some details surrounding this arrest are still being gathered, we are fully prepared to take the appropriate steps based on the facts and governing laws.”
And the ACLU has also weighed in, pointing out that it has fought this issue for several decades with the courts agreeing that private sidewalks are public forums.
Nevada’s ACLU has litigated similar public forum issues for more than two decades, according to ACLU Nevada legal director Amy Rose, including areas in question on the Fremont Street Experience and sidewalks in front of The Venetian.
“The courts have consistently found that sidewalks on Fremont and on parts of the Strip are traditionally a public forum,” Rose said.
But according to ACLU Nevada, the immediate issue following Solomon’s arrest is the obstruction of the freedom of the press.
“It is so, so disturbing that Metro decided to arrest a journalist who was doing his job by filming a political protest,” Rose said. “And the facts as we understand them, this was an assault to his constitutional rights.”
So hopefully, KLAS will pursue this matter in civil court once the criminal charges are dismissed or beaten because if the previous lawsuits have not sent the message to police that private sidewalks are public forums, then perhaps this one will.
A Pennsylvania state lawmaker just got caught on camera assaulting a photographer at a public speaking event, confiscating his camera and refusing to return it in a pair of videos which you can see below.
The photographer is an opposition researcher for the political action committee American Bridge, who walked into the back of the room and recorded about five minutes of the Senator’s comments.
Republican State Senator Scott Wagner was attending an event as part of his Quaker state gubernatorial campaign when he creepily spoke about himself in the third person to the York County Estate Planning Council at the local country club, where he’s a member.
“We’re about the see our State Senator in action.”
That’s when Wagner struck like a thief in the night, but in broad daylight, on camera and in front of a room of about 100 people.
The progressive political action committee was quick to pounce on Wagner’s childish behavior at the County Club, which went on for several minutes after the initial assault and theft. Philly.comreports:
Lizzy Price, an American Bridge communications director, had a different perspective: “Scott Wagner’s actions today show how unhinged he truly is. If he can’t handle the pressure of the campaign, what makes him think he can handle leading the state? ”
Price would not identify the tracker, who she said got his video camera and tripod back, but without the memory card. Even so, she said, the tracker was able to retrieve the footage because he had set it to record both on the camera and the memory card. She said the tracker received medical attention and is fine.
In light of the Senator’s remarks, he’s likely to face a civil rights lawsuit since he indicated that the speech was in his official capacity as a legislative public official, rather than as a political candidate, but the lawmaker boldly told his victim in local media: “bring it on.”
Wagner wrongly claims that his assault – at a club where he’s a member – was justified because of his claim that the American Bridge photographer was trespassing.
Scott Wagner should know better that the First Amendment restricts all public servants and agents of the state from impairing photographers free speech rights, and if there’s a private property right at stake – such as trespassing – well that is why America spends a fortune on police to arrive and impartially enforce those laws.
Shockingly, police haven’t pressed charges over the scuffle, yet.
But they were called.
Regardless of any ensuing legal action, local observers are already comparing this incident to the infamous 2006 video of former Virginia Senator George Allen being caught on tape saying a racial slur, which ended his previously rising political career.
Miami-Dade County’s State Attorney Katherine Fernandez-Rundle is censoring at least 100 of her critics on Twitter, including a dozen accounts either named Darren Rainey or with the deceased man’s profile image.
We have pictures to prove it.
It all started when the prosecutor sent a tweet about freedom.
This exclusive report is based upon public records requested from the Miami-Dade SAO’s office under Florida’s Sunshine Law, including their social media policy, which as it turns out does not specify that a public official in their office has any allowance to censor citizens by blocking access to their public posts.
Miami residents are in an uproar after the veteran prosecutor decided not to charge Rainey’s captors at a state prison rife with abuse.
When government actors block critics on social media, it may violate both the state of Florida and federal constitution, both of which protect the right to petition the government.
State Attorney Fernandez-Rundle is facing intense public criticism after she declined to prosecute the four Florida state prison guards who left Darren Rainey – a non-violent offender – locked in a scalding hot shower with external temperature controls for over 90 minutes until he was found dead.
Rainey’s post-mortem body temperature was estiamted at 109 degrees.
The prosecutor’s office didn’t initially wish to respond to our records request, writing, “We have no responsive records to your second request.”
But we shared an image provided by Navy Corpsman Daniel Suarez proving that Miami’s top prosecutor was censoring citizens, so they relented and delivered a dozen images, which may not even be the complete list.
“Florida public officials should always turn over these kinds of lists if they do in fact exist because they’re a matter of serious public interest,” says Faudlin Pierre, a Florida attorney who has filed suit to obtain social media records, “I commend the State Attorney for promptly releasing this critical document.”
Also, it is unclear that Florida officials are allowed to block citizens whatsoever without running afoul of the state’s Sunshine Law which requires public officials to provide information in the most expeditious and convenient format possible. Florida Statute 119.021(1)b. says that the custodians of records must store make their records “easily accessible”:
Insofar as practicable, a custodian of public records of vital, permanent, or archival records shall keep them in fireproof and waterproof safes, vaults, or rooms fitted with noncombustible materials and in such arrangement as to be easily accessible for convenient use.
Even an experienced prosecutor would have a tough time defending the block in a state court, which forces critics to request tweets manually or to find a computer where they’re not logged in to access the public official’s messages.
Not everyone agrees on the applicability of the constitution’s First Amendment when public officials block people on Twitter.
“It’s pathetic.”
That’s what attorney Marc Randazza said about the prosecutor’s lengthy Twitter block list. He’s a First Amendment attorney and thinks that social media blocking is a matter of the quality of public service people are receiving, “I don’t believe this is a First Amendment problem, I believe this is a pathetic public official problem.”
Miami-Dade’s medical examiner blamed Rainey’s mental illness and said the prison guards didn’t mean to kill their schizophrenic, 50-year old victim.
Fernandez-Rundle’s own political party is livid over the decision to forgo prosecution of the guards entrusted with Rainey’s care, and voted overwhelmingly for a second time in two months to demand the 24-year veteran prosecutor’s resignation – but for the second time failed to achieve a quorum to make that vote official meaning that a third vote will happen later this month.
“It’s really ironic that the only reason we found out that the State Attorney is censoring her critics,” says Petty Officer Suarez, whom the prosecutor silenced on Memorial Day, “is because she made a post about freedom.”
Author’s Disclosure: I am a voting At-Large member of the Miami-Dade Democratic Executive Committee.
Homestead Police Department (HPD), in South Florida, has myriad problems respecting the First Amendment. I went to HPD this week to serve some officers in a civil rights suit, the story was covered earlier. While entering I discovered that HPD still has not learned that photography is not a crime.
I covered HPD officer John Frank, last year, him initially claiming that I could not take his picture. He quickly backed down once I started recording the video below. HPD adopting a policy such as shown in the sign above makes it understandable that some of their officers would fail to realize that photography is not a crime.
However, HPD officers such as Tony Sincore realize that it is our right to record them and to record within the station. The below video was taken by another local victim of HPD abuse.
Photography Is Not A Crime, is not only our name as an organization, it’s the law. It is also part and parcel of our First Amendment right as Americans to gather information on governmental affairs. First, I will address briefly herein the legal issues of video recording with sound which is legally equivalent to audio recording. Then I will cover photography which is legally equivalent to video without sound.
The Florida wire tap statute, FSS. 934.03, makes it illegal to intercept an “oral communication”, i.e. voices, without the consent of all parties. In this way video recordings having audio and/or audio recordings could be a crime, in some cases. Yet, the definition, FSS. 934.02, of “oral communication”, excludes conversations having no expectation of privacy, see also State v. Inciarano. Additionally, what can be plainly seen or overheard in public is covered by the plain view doctrine.
Katz v. United States establishes that no person in the publicly accessible lobby of the police department would have an expectation of privacy. Further, it must be noted that Constitutional rights, such as privacy, protect citizens from government intrusion not the other way around.
What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment [privacy] protection.
The First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest.
The rights established by the First Amendment outlined in Smith above is subject only to intermediate scrutiny. This is a high burden to meet, Bacon v. McKeithen.
The state would need to show that it does not “restrict speech substantially more than necessary to further a legitimate government interest,” and it “leave[s] open adequate alternative channels of communication.”
Therefore, video recording with sound or audio recording in the publicly accessible lobby of a police station, would not be a crime if you are not otherwise breaking the law. Additionally, taking photos in public places, while lawfully present with an intention to express ideas to an audience, is protected activity and not a crime.
There is NO Florida or Federal statue which addresses such photography in public. Further, the state cannot after the fact create laws upon which to prosecute an action, as this violates ex post facto provisions of the Constitution. This means things are not illegal until made so by duly enacted laws, and such laws cannot be applied retroactively.
If anyone attempts to use the Florida wire tap law against you under similar circumstances, then you should cite them your rights and the immunity you have because you believed in good faith your actions were lawful under constitutional grounds, FSS. 934.10(2)(c).
Even the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) knows public photography is not a crime in lobbies, publishing a memo documenting such in 2010. Therefore, it makes no sense that HPD would believe otherwise in 2017. Further, Florida has its own Government in the Sunshine and Open Government provisions to its laws and Constitution. This means they can restrict your rights much less on state property, such as a police department.
We have a First Amendment right to video record, audio record and/or photograph in publicly accessible places, subject only to intermediate scrutiny. The sign shown above which HPD presents when first walking into their lobby is an affront to our liberties, demonstrates their lack of concern for following the Constitution and laws they swore an oath to uphold, and would chill the man of ordinary firmness from exercising his rights. HPD’s sign violates the Florida and US Constitutions. It further punishes speech before it happens and not after thus creating a prior restraint, Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart.
[P]rior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.
I would hope this article would shame HPD and their Chief Alexander Rolle into correcting these problems. However, Rolle has repeatedly shown himself to be shameless, which explains a lot in terms of the sign at the new police station. Rolle probably had this sign put in place because I recorded him before, and obtained evidence of him committing a few felonies.
You can follow updates, and see more of the history on Homestead’s rights violations on Facebook @ True Homestead.
Lastly, If such an affront to the First Amendment upsets you, you should consider exercising your right to petition, contacting Homestead, and telling them PHOTOGRAPHY IS NOT A CRIME!
A Florida man won the right to surreptitiously record police officers while making internal affairs complaints without the threat of prosecution when he defeated the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office (SAO) in a federal appeals court ruling.
Prosecutors tried to censor the citizen, who published his incriminating recording of a police chief.
A lower court erred by agreeing with Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle when she sent a written threat of prosecution under Florida’s wiretapping statute to Dr. Eric McDonough, for making a secret recording and publishing it on to YouTube, in a video which you can see below.
Federal judges on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals said “the government’s threatened prosecution has no basis in the law,” vindicating an important right to record for the public.
Nineteen million Floridians will benefit directly from the published ruling.
And a police chief just lost his “get out of jail free” card from the local prosecutor with whom his department works.
The Homestead Police Department’s Chief Alexander Rolle, and internal affairs Officer Antonio Acquino, were under a Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) investigation which stalled, when the SAO’s letter declared Dr. McDonough’s recording unlawful, and therefore inadmissible in court.
Now, criminal investigators will have to re-open the case against a Chief of Police desperate to cover up the crimes his department committed, by committing, even more, crimes against a citizen whose only crime, was filing a legitimate grievance over his treatment by a uniformed public official.
Even Miami’s largest police union boss thinks that the Chief belongs in jail:
“We are hoping to see some arrests out of this,” said John Rivera, president of the Dade County Police Benevolent Association, the union that represents Homestead’s rank-and-file officers. “The chief should go to jail. The captain should go to jail. And [Aquino] should go to jail.”
Since then Dr. McDonough founded the True Homestead page on Facebook where he regularly posts videos of that Florida municipality’s war against the rule of law, and contacted PINAC News and eventually began writing stories on this website.
It all started when Dr. McDonough was falsely arrested by a Homestead officer, Alejandro Murguido, and after a series of problems, his police Chief invited him into his office to make a complaint, which they promptly destroyed.
So, Dr. McDonough used Florida’s public records law – to request a copy of his own complaint, which the police claimed not to have – and later released his cell phone recording of the conversation.
Chief Rolle took the YouTube video to Miami-Dade’s State Attorney and demanded that McDonough should be prosecuted.
The letter from Assistant State Attorney Jackie Seskin tells Dr. McDonough that any future recording activities will invite prosecution, so he sued the Miami-Dade SAO in the federal southern district of Florida court seeking injunctive relief.
Dr. McDonough filed the federal civil rights lawsuit afterward.
After losing at the trial level, Dr. McDonough ran out of money to pay counsel and decided to continue the litigation pro se, ie. as his own attorney.
His detailed knowledge of the subject matter defeated Florida’s Attorney General who defended the SAO, which in Miami-Dade is itself a 300+ lawyer operation.
The three federal judges issued a split ruling on the case, two along the grounds of a limited reversal of the lower court’s Summary Judgement for the SAO, and one dissented arguing that in the light of the illegal retaliation letter’s lack of legal basis in the law, that the court should issue a First Amendment ruling, as doing otherwise stands in violation of the 11th Amendment.
The parties still have a little time left to ask for a rehearing en banc (by the 11th Circuit’s entire court) or a clarification of the ruling.
Portland Oregon where journalists are arrested for attempting to interview Portland Police Officers and District Attorney. Oregon Journalists Bob West and Eli Richey both have a colorful history as it relates to documenting the employees of Oregon Law Enforcement agencies, both have been arrested multiple times for various phony charges only to later have the charges dropped by the DA’s office sadly this is not the case this time.
As of Friday, July 21, 2017, Eli Richey is in custody with a $250,000.00 bond for six misdemeanors and Bob is free on his own recognizance with a promise to appear on Tuesday next week for a first appearance. I expect that Eli will be released early next week as well because the bail amount is purely punitive and simply a result of the staff at the county jail politicking and plotting revenge against Eli for documenting the Portland Police Bureau employees, a 100% lawful and legal act.
Video report from Mike Bluehair captures the whole event.
Portland Police are Targeting cop watchers for arrest to silence them!
These Kind of punitive arrests are having a chilling effect on our ability to continue our vital accountability work in our community. Please contact the ACLU and ask them to help us! 503-227-6928
Follow me on steemit
Support My Work by donating BitCoin!
donate umkay?
Bluehair’s Bitcoin QR code
1AbHui25TKmKbk5pm4BKLbZrriSazj26G3
Here’s a link to that Sweet Ear Candy
*DANCE WITH THE DEAD – Horizon
These Motherfuckers Kick 9 miles of Ass! You should check them out on facebook here’s that link
I spoke With Bob West on Sunday here is the audio.
