[HN Gopher] NY Federal Court: There's a Right to Record Police, ...
___________________________________________________________________
NY Federal Court: There's a Right to Record Police, Also Inside
Station Lobbies
Author : grammers
Score : 182 points
Date : 2023-11-21 13:06 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.techdirt.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.techdirt.com)
| hiatus wrote:
| The guy behind this, Sean Paul Reyes, has a youtube channel where
| he audits police activity called "Long Island Audit":
| https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe1IA5kmY578O_Qo7Skr-TQ
| underseacables wrote:
| I think recording of police officers in public is absolutely
| allowed, but standing around the lobby of a precinct recording,
| that feels like a step too far. The article described the person
| doing the filming as an agitator, and I get why they are doing
| it, but the confrontational nature of the filming just seems like
| the wrong way to go.
|
| As the article discusses, I agree that a victim reporting a crime
| may feel very uncomfortable standing in the lobby of a police
| precinct while being recorded by someone.
| jawns wrote:
| It describes him as an agitator, but if you watch his videos,
| you'll see that he is not obnoxious or confrontational in his
| approach. He attempts to film in the least disruptive,
| respectful way possible. Yes, when police officers attempt to
| illegally restrict his right to record, he sometimes becomes
| indignant and calls them tyrants, but apart from that, he does
| not conduct himself in a way that would be characterized as
| provocative or goading.
| JohnFen wrote:
| I think "agitator" is a reasonably accurate and polite way of
| describing him.
|
| > he does not conduct himself in a way that would be
| characterized as provocative or goading.
|
| Recording in a police lobby where there are citizens that are
| already in a vulnerable position and don't want their private
| business recorded and probably put up on YouTube or something
| is, in itself, provocative and goading.
|
| It doesn't matter how polite the person doing the recording
| is. That person is invading others in a way that is extremely
| objectionable.
|
| This isn't about the cops. It's about the other regular
| people who are there.
| jawns wrote:
| I have sympathy for vulnerable people who might find
| themselves in a police precinct to either report a crime or
| seek other assistance.
|
| But preventing a person like Reyes from recording does
| nothing to resolve the privacy issue. Anyone who is willing
| to go through the trouble can request security camera
| footage.
|
| I think we also need to recognize that in a public place
| like a police precinct lobby, there are going to be some
| people who desire not to be recorded as a way of protecting
| their privacy, but other people who desire to record as a
| way of protecting themselves from police misconduct. Both
| have legitimate but competing interests. But the law
| explicitly protects the latter.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| There is a simple solution: allow people to report a crime in
| an area that is not open to the public.
|
| It's pretty clear that the right to record does not extend into
| the "restricted" area of the station. There is no law that says
| a report must be made in public, the NYPD could easily make any
| number of avenues available. Phone reporting, web reporting,
| sending an officer to collect a report, and offering a private
| area in the station are all options that cost them nothing.
| tareqak wrote:
| Except New York State law allows for that with no exceptions.
|
| From the article:
|
| > But there's something far more local and specific that says
| the NYPD can't do this: state law. >> The Right to Record
| Acts allow for the recording of "law enforcement activity"
| and "police activities." Defendant does not dispute that
| officers interacting with civilians in a police precinct are
| performing law enforcement or police activities. The Right to
| Record Acts do not carve out police precinct lobbies as
| places where individuals are not allowed to record and the
| Court declines to read that limitation into the Right to
| Record Acts. Citing to both Right toRecord Acts, the NYPD
| Legal Bureau Bulletin acknowledges that the right to record
| police activity "is codified in New York State and local law
| and extends to those individuals in both public places, such
| as streets, sidewalks, and parks, as well as private property
| such as a building, lobby, workplace, or an individual's own
| property." NYPD Legal Bureau Bulletin at 3 (emphasis in
| original).
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| Yes. It allows individuals to film police activity at all
| times.
|
| But there is also the restriction that he doesn't have a
| right to be in restricted areas.
|
| So the solution is still the same, and still very simple.
| Allow people to make police reports in restricted areas,
| away from people filming, if they wish.
| pc86 wrote:
| The whole point is you _can 't_ do that because then de
| facto that police activity _cannot_ be recorded in direct
| violation of state law.
|
| The solution is to clarify in state law that police
| activities _in public_ can be recorded, and to
| specifically enumerate what police activities are allowed
| to occur outside of public eye, which should probably be
| limited to victim statements at the express request of
| the victim.
| Pigalowda wrote:
| What if they put a toilet and a sink in the room? Maybe
| they can report in that room without cameras
| Zak wrote:
| The text of the law[0] is definitely a bit vague with
| regard to whether inviting the victim of a crime into a
| private interview room and denying access to others would
| qualify as "interfering" with recording. I'm inclined to
| think that a judge considering the totality of the
| circumstances would conclude that it does not.
|
| [0] http://web.archive.org/web/20231012035050/https://leg
| islatio...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _point is you can 't do that because then de facto that
| police activity cannot be recorded in direct violation of
| state law_
|
| This is an obviously absurd reading of the law. Police
| executing a search warrant doesn't mean any rando can now
| enter that home and start recording. It means the people
| with access to that area have the right to record. In
| public, that's anyone. In a restricted area that's not.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| You're making this harder than it needs to be.
|
| If you are in an area not open to the public, you can be
| told to leave regardless of whether you are filming. If
| you fail to leave, then you are trespassing. The fact of
| trespassing will override other rights. For example: you
| have the right of free speech. You don't have the right
| to hold a protest inside of a Walmart. They can have the
| police remove you despite the fact that it infringes on
| your speech.
|
| They can't stop you from filming, but they can stop you
| from going to private places where they don't want you to
| film.
| tareqak wrote:
| If a restricted area is in full view from a public area,
| then which area "loses"/gets demoted?
|
| In the case of a restricted area now becoming public
| because it is adjacent to a public area with no barriers,
| the participants and activities that requires whatever
| benefit afforded by the restriction lose e.g. privacy.
|
| In the case of a public area now adjacent to a restricted
| area in turn becoming restricted, then this method now
| becomes a way to close public areas and activities
| allowed in those areas on a whim e.g. the police playing
| copyrighted music when being recorded in an effort to get
| any uploads to YouTube being struck down by a DMCA
| copyright notice.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| This is already been ruled on in regards to the first
| amendment. If you can plainly see it from public, it's
| considered public. For example if I can see into your
| living room from the public sidewalk, it is legal for me
| to look/record.
|
| There is a lot of nuance beyond that as well, but largely
| that is the way it works.
| kolanos wrote:
| Also, the claim that someone video recording in a public
| space is automatically an agitator falls apart quickly when
| you realize that police officers walk around with body worn
| cameras all the time. Are they then agitators that have no
| business in a police precinct lobby?
|
| And before you answer with "that's their job", be aware that
| the video they record on their body cams is public record in
| most U.S. states and can be requested and disseminated to the
| public by anyone for any reason.
|
| There is no expectation of privacy in public, and this holds
| true in a public lobby of a police precinct. Privacy must be
| created, as such, if someone comes in to report a crime, the
| reasonable thing to do is to have the officer on duty take
| that person to a private room to make their report.
| zie wrote:
| Unfortunately as often is the case, the important moments
| that matter somehow forget to be recorded.
|
| It's pretty rare that we see the cops being recorded
| breaking the law on their own body cameras, despite those
| body cameras supposedly being "always on", even after we
| know they broke the law some other way(like being recorded
| by third-parties, etc).
|
| It would be really interesting to know how often body cams
| are catching these things, the best I could find is via the
| LAPD:
|
| "Of 37 police shootings that have gone before the civilian
| commission over the last year, 25 cases had some type of
| body camera violation by officers who were considered to be
| substantially involved, the Times review found." -https://w
| ww.latimes.com/california/story/2023-09-21/internal...
|
| So terribly, which isn't surprising, but is very sad for
| humanity.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > allow people to report a crime in an area that is not open
| to the public.
|
| And how are people supposed to get to that area without
| passing by some jerk with a camera?
| tareqak wrote:
| Relevant quote from the article:
|
| > In other words, auditors act like cops while talking to cops.
| No wonder cops hate them. Cops would rather engage in
| harassment than be subjected to it.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| Well, yeah, of course bullies hate being bullied.
| cool_dude85 wrote:
| I don't think anyone is under the impression that filming in
| that lobby is a pleasant or nice thing to do. The fact remains
| that he does have a right to do so, and the department has a
| policy forbidding it, so the only way to challenge this policy
| is to film.
| jawns wrote:
| One of the key points this analysis fails to mention is that
| Reyes is an independent journalist, publishing content of public
| interest about government transparency, so the First Amendment
| implications extend not only to freedom of speech/expression but
| also freedom of press.
|
| Why does that matter?
|
| "That the First Amendment speaks separately of freedom of speech
| and freedom of the press is no constitutional accident, but an
| acknowledgment of the critical role played by the press in
| American society," wrote Justice Potter Stewart in Houchins v.
| KQED, Inc. (1978)
|
| In that ruling, the court noted that journalists do not enjoy
| privileged access -- that is, they don't enjoy _greater_ access
| to government-run spaces than the general public. But neither do
| they enjoy _less_ access. So if it is permitted for a member of
| the public to be in a particular location, then it is permitted
| for a member of the press to be in that location as well.
|
| All of the concerns raised about privacy implications, such as
| Reyes' potentially recording the location of security cameras in
| the lobby, are a red herring. A person with nefarious intent
| could very easily surreptitiously record that information without
| detection, or could merely jot down the details on a notepad and
| then disseminate them. But Reyes films conspicuously to highlight
| the absurdity of these supposed privacy violations. The Supreme
| Court has held that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy
| in public, and the government has a duty to _create_ privacy for
| private information, such as keeping sensitive documents outside
| of public view, or blocking the public's view of restricted
| areas, since merely viewing a restricted area from a publicly
| accessible area is legal, for as the law says, "the eye cannot
| trespass."
| voxic11 wrote:
| I always thought "the press" referred to the printing press and
| in a modern setting is taken to mean that the first amendment
| covers not only the spoken word (freedom of speech) but also
| the creation and distribution of media (freedom of the press).
| jagged-chisel wrote:
| That's correct. But it's not at odds with considering "the
| press" as "journalists and their publishers."
| rtkwe wrote:
| Even if we read it as the literal printing press at the time
| that was the way news and information was distributed in
| large quantities. The press as a term for new media in
| general seems to be a late 1800s invention but the coverage
| is pretty clear from the First Amendment still.
| salawat wrote:
| Funny how this courtesy is never extended to Amendments 2,
| 4, or 10.
| Kye wrote:
| Not only is there existing case law and an entire concept
| addressing limitations, it frequently comes up in First
| Amendment cases.
|
| https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/compelling-state-
| int...
| dragonwriter wrote:
| That's exactly the issue: if the public is entitled to
| something, it can be published, and those intending to
| publish it can not therefore be barred from it or from the
| means to do so.
|
| Well, except for open public courts, for reasons. (The
| judiciary's concern for the the freedom of the press has
| limits where it comes to the judiciary itself, rather than
| other government institutions.)
| cryptonector wrote:
| The literal printing press has freedom? What? No, it's "the
| press" that has freedom, and in 1791 that was understood to
| be "people and organizations that operate printing presses".
| That a printing press was involved is just an accident of the
| stage of technological development at which the First
| Amendment was written. The courts have rightly extended that
| freedom to other technologies than the printing press.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > The literal printing press has freedom? What? No, it's
| "the press" that has freedom.
|
| No, the people have freedom to use the press, just like the
| same Amendment protects the freedom to use speech.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| And the lobby security camera recording is public and can be
| requested.
| robbywashere_ wrote:
| Sure, but whats stopping the police from saying, "If you don't
| stop filming me i'm going to shoot you"
| cool_dude85 wrote:
| Theoretically, the same thing that stops you from saying it:
| you'll be charged with assault. Practically, the same thing
| that stops the police from shooting him: nothing.
| noodlesUK wrote:
| Hopefully the same thing that stops them from saying "if you
| don't pay me a bribe I'm going to shoot you" or any other
| illegal order.
|
| The rule of law is important and whilst some of these auditors
| do unlikeable or distasteful things, if they are trying to stay
| within the law, they do provide a useful function of
| highlighting inconsistency between the rules as written and how
| they tend to operate in practice.
| tokai wrote:
| You know they keep shooting people and getting away with it
| right?
| zmgsabst wrote:
| No, not really:
|
| Of 10,000,000+ arrests per year, only around 1,000 end in
| death of which 20-50 had unarmed deceased.
|
| You're more likely to die of a traffic accident this year (1
| in 10,000) than die from police while being arrested unarmed
| (under 1 in 100,000).
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/polic.
| ..
| tokai wrote:
| Oh yeah? And 99% of terminal cancer patients die too. So
| traffic deaths are irrelevant following your logic.
|
| A frequency argument is useless here. It happens that
| people get shot by police when it is uncalled for, with no
| consequences for the murder other than some paid vacation
| time. It is documented. This is not a discussion of what is
| most deadly or if it is common.
| Sirizarry wrote:
| An traffic accident and a conscious decision to kill by an
| officer of the law is NOT equivalent. You can't allay
| peoples legitimate fears of authority with a statistic are
| you mad?
| stonogo wrote:
| And how many of them were punished for shooting someone?
| You've come up with evidence unrelated to the accusation.
| The accusation was that cops keep shooting people and
| getting away with it. The proper counterargument is to
| demonstrate that cops either don't shoot people or don't
| get away with it, not that they only kill a thousand people
| a year.
|
| Plus, I don't like this implication that anyone armed
| deserves to die. Being armed is a constitutional right, not
| a murder justification.
| codedokode wrote:
| You can avoid cars, do not jaywalk, be extra careful and
| look around when crossing the street to reduce this
| probability though.
| alex_lav wrote:
| It's funny to suggest that an 20-50 people dead while
| unarmed by people employed very literally to Protect and
| Serve is somehow not a problem.
| empath-nirvana wrote:
| the getting away with it part is the relevant bit.
| tremon wrote:
| The law?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| lol
|
| https://www.propublica.org/article/new-jersey-law-says-
| crimi...
|
| https://www.propublica.org/article/what-police-impunity-
| look...
|
| https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/fired-cops-
| routinel...
|
| Examples abound of police escaping punishment and
| accountability despite clear violations of the law.
| julienreszka wrote:
| What is the second amendment
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > * Despite a pretty much affirmed right to record officers
| (under the First Amendment), policy directives reminding officers
| of this fact, and -- much more importantly -- a state law
| codifying this right, the NYPD still pretends it can control when
| and where it can be recorded.*
|
| Reasons include: Reprimand chances reduced by unions and internal
| culture, post-violation support by the same, ability to greatly
| intimidate most citizens without much consequence, lawsuit
| payouts get covered by taxpayers and more lenience from judges
| and prosecutors. If discipline leads to exiting a force, officers
| find uneven or no tracking of bad LEO behavior and plenty of
| other departments willing to pick them up.
|
| All of this is mitigated by the quality of a police chief and
| tons of random stuff out of the officer's control.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| While I support freedom of speech, I cannot bring myself to
| support these auditors. They all act like entitled jerks bent on
| provoking confrontation to generate clicks. I'm ashamed that
| these jerks are at the forefront of anything. In the past it was
| Hustler magazine fighting against a religious-political system
| styming freedom of speech. Today it is losers with cellphones
| fighting over their right to shout at people in libraries.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Larry Flynt was definitely a jerk bent on provoking
| confrontation.
|
| Cops who can't handle a jerk without committing a clear
| violation of the Constitution _shouldn 't be cops_.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Flynt confronted those in power, politicians and religious
| leaders. First amendment auditors provoke the meek, publicly-
| facing employees lacking any power beyond their ability to
| telephone police.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| "Meek, lacking any power" does not describe the NYPD.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| I think it does. Street-level cops have no power over
| policy or politics. They can certainly seem very powerful
| on a person-to-person level, but in terms of government
| policy or national culture they are very small. Flynt
| instigated fights with far bigger things than local cops.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Street-level cops have no power over policy or
| politics.
|
| Sure they do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrolmen%27s
| _Benevolent_Assoc...
|
| San Francisco's cops _bombed the mayor 's house_ in 1975.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Police_Depart
| men...
|
| These are big incidents, but their political power is
| quite clear on a regular basis. NY's police union head
| even spoke at the RNC in the last presidential election.
| https://nypost.com/2020/08/27/rnc-2020-nypd-union-head-
| says-...
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/06/us/police-unions-
| minneapo...
|
| > They aggressively protect the rights of members accused
| of misconduct, often in arbitration hearings that they
| have battled to keep behind closed doors. And they have
| also been remarkably effective at fending off broader
| change, using their political clout and influence to
| derail efforts to increase accountability.
|
| > When liberal politicians do try to advance reform
| proposals, union officials have resorted to highly
| provocative rhetoric and hard-boiled campaign tactics to
| lash out at them. This past week, the head of the
| sergeants' union in New York posted a police report on
| Twitter revealing personal information about the daughter
| of Mr. de Blasio, who had been arrested during a protest.
| Clubber wrote:
| >They can certainly seem very powerful on a person-to-
| person level, but in terms of government policy or
| national culture they are very small.
|
| That is incredibly naive. I would argue the police unions
| are the most powerful unions in the country by quite a
| large margin.
| olliej wrote:
| In any real sense the police "unions" are unique in that
| they're the only union that actively opposed and attacks
| other unions.
|
| Every union other than the police unions is attacked
| because they "hurt the economy" (they don't, and they're
| the reason for most improvements to compensation and
| working hours normal people experience). Every other
| union will refuse to cross picket lines, whereas police
| unions actively assault picket lines, and have repeatedly
| murdered strikers, and also covered up murders of
| strikers.
|
| Police, and their union, are sufficiently anti-union that
| it's absurd that they're still a "police union" rather
| than a gang. After all the police union is the only one
| permitted to use force, and is the only one allowed to
| break the law, and the only one that gets to kill others.
| nyc_data_geek1 wrote:
| exactly which meek, publicly facing employees are working
| in police stations in NYC? How does that boot taste?
| olliej wrote:
| Have you worked in customer service?
|
| The kind of BS that these "auditors" do that results in
| them being arrested doesn't come close to the BS I
| personally experienced on a daily basis working in retail,
| and somehow I was able to not assault them.
|
| The problem is police believe that using force is
| acceptable, and so they use force by default, typically
| after escalating an interaction rather than doing their job
| which is to de-escalate. The reason for that is that police
| unions keep trying to train cops to be thugs (the myriad
| "training" courses that are geared to "every day could be
| your last, be ready to shoot" instead of "your goal is to
| arrest criminals, not execute them, so learn to calm down
| situations instead of making them worse")
| conductr wrote:
| Flynt was a promoter, he got headlines and sold magazines.
| Being a proponent of the constitution was a secondary concern
| that just happened to work in his favor
|
| Most of the cops seem to just not want their actions being
| recorded as what seems like a clear result of them also
| feeling above the law, more power to the people working to
| change that culture and protect our rights along the way
| petee wrote:
| I watched one where the guy went in afterhours, yelled at a
| clerk, then at the custodian for _vacuuming_ the floor, even
| yanked the plug out of the wall accusing them of trying to
| silence them. These psychos don 't even see _they_ are the
| reason we have to have so many laws and regulations
| ceejayoz wrote:
| The camera doesn't change anything in that scenario; it'd be
| something like disorderly conduct with or without it.
|
| The filming isn't the illegal part of what you describe.
| kolanos wrote:
| Care to share a link?
| alex_lav wrote:
| > don't even see they are the reason we have to have so many
| laws and regulations
|
| Cops murder with impunity but yanking a vacuum cable out of a
| wall calls for full legal reform.
| thedaly wrote:
| I see these kind of videos all the time and typically the
| auditor is being respectful, and doesn't do anything outside of
| recording to attract the attention of the authorities. Long
| Island Audit is one account that comes to mind.
| evulhotdog wrote:
| Long Island Audit is the fella this trial was about.
| jawns wrote:
| There are many First Amendment auditors out there, and I agree
| with you that a good number of them purposefully attempt to
| provoke a reaction or get under people's skin.
|
| But I've watched dozens of Reyes' videos, and that is not his
| style. If he enters a public space, he doesn't call attention
| to himself and typically doesn't speak to anyone unless spoken
| to. Most often, he films the walls of public buildings, and if
| he points a camera at anyone in particular, it's only because
| they've approached him to ask him what he's doing. He is
| cordial in his responses and will generally politely explain to
| anyone who inquires that he's an independent journalist
| gathering content for a story.
|
| On the flip side, police and other government officials
| routinely treat him with contempt and hostility from the moment
| they see him, barking unlawful orders at him and attempting to
| suppress conduct that the law explicitly protects. He's been
| assaulted, had his camera equipment destroyed, and been
| unlawfully arrested multiple times, as he was by the NYPD. If
| he comes off a little salty as a result of that mistreatment,
| it's at least understandable.
|
| But even in the case where First Amendment auditors are not
| being respectful and are acting like jerks ... it's worth
| noting that the First Amendment is not designed to protect
| content and actions that others approve of, or that make others
| feel comfortable. It is explicitly designed to protect speech
| that others would rather we not speak, religions that others
| would rather we not practice, journalism that others would
| rather we not publish. So even if they are being jerks, as long
| as their conduct is legally protected, it at least allows us to
| determine whether the First Amendment is being respected.
| ryandrake wrote:
| I also don't like how "provoke" is sometimes used as a get-
| out-of-jail-free card for people with who can't control their
| reactions or responses. We all have had to deal with random
| assholes, that's life. But we don't deal with it by acting
| out ourselves. If I get in a bar fight with someone, it's not
| acceptable, even if the other guy "provoked" me. We should
| hold ourselves to a higher standard than the assholes, and
| surely the police should have to hold themselves to an even
| higher standard.
| jawns wrote:
| You're right. Police and government officials routinely
| describe First Amendment auditors as attempting to bait law
| enforcement and public servants, intentionally provoking
| them into violating their rights.
|
| But baiting is when you entice a person to do something
| wrong by offering them some kind of incentive. And it has
| to be something they wouldn't otherwise do unless
| incentivized. Thus, you can't "bait" a law enforcement
| officer by simply engaging in constitutionally protected
| conduct, unless the argument from police is that officers
| just can't restrain themselves from violating people's
| civil rights when those rights are exercised.
|
| In fact, in one of Reyes's encounters with the NYPD that
| led to an unlawful arrest, one of the officers told him
| afterward, "You wanted this to happen," and Reyes
| responded, incredulously, "I wanted you to violate my
| rights and take away my freedom?" No, he wanted to be able
| to go about his business without being arrested -- which he
| was later able to do after this court ruling went into
| effect.
| jstarfish wrote:
| Sounds like the solution is to come down hard on Agent
| Provocateurs.
|
| You're victim blaming big-time. They're on the receiving
| end of bullshit and _cannot opt out of it_ , but we'll
| condemn them for fucking up their response?
|
| I'm the most cool-headed person I know and I had to talk a
| neighbor down from kicking my ass on camera (and in front
| of my own _child_ ) just yesterday. It took a superhuman
| amount of restraint to not even raise my voice because the
| adrenaline factory was in overdrive on both sides, gearing
| up for a fight.
|
| The provocateur has an unfair advantage-- the element of
| uncertainty. Only _they_ know they 're not they're going to
| escalate. Defense is a losing game; it only takes one
| failure to anticipate a threat before you're dead or
| unconscious. In order to _stay_ so calm, I had to embrace
| the possibility that I might actually -die- in that
| encounter if the guy pulled out a knife. I was armed
| myself, but didn 't draw so as not to escalate. It's a
| position of vulnerability _I should never have had to put
| myself in._
|
| Once the adrenaline rush subsided, I had to go take a
| fucking nap. Cops don't get that option; they're
| immediately dispatched to deal with the next asshole.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| _Bullshit._ Police can quit anytime.
|
| If you can't keep a level head as a police officer, then
| _you are failing to uphold the oath you swore_. Full
| stop.
|
| Police have the unfair advantage: power. With power comes
| responsibility. We _must_ hold those in power accountable
| for that responsibility.
|
| Every person who interacts with a police officer has to
| deal with the element of uncertainty you are talking
| about. We give police loaded firearms. We give them
| handcuffs. We give them dogs. We give them combat
| training. We all know just how wrong it can go, and just
| how quickly. _We are not allowed to leave_!
|
| People are getting murdered in the US by police, and
| those police are _often_ not held to justice. There is an
| imbalance of both power and responsibility here that
| lives as a constant looming threat over many of us.
|
| It's time to change this story, and that change must
| begin with police.
| jstarfish wrote:
| > Police have the unfair advantage: power.
|
| Yes. That is _by design._ Doormats don 't make for a
| useful police force.
|
| > Every person who interacts with a police officer has to
| deal with the element of uncertainty you are talking
| about.
|
| No, actually. You're familiar with their capabilities and
| the rules within which they lawfully (and unlawfully)
| operate. Intelligence is clearly on your side.
|
| There is no "uncertainty" when it comes to police; you
| seem to know _exactly_ what to expect and how to
| manipulate them into any particular outcome enough to be
| able to exploit it on camera. That is the antithesis of
| uncertainty. If there were uncertainty, people would be
| too afraid to fuck with them like this. It 's certain you
| can safely do this.
|
| Cooperation tends to work pretty well for most people.
| Belligerence escalates the situation. Be the change you
| want to see.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| Tell it to Mike Brown.
|
| Tell it to George Floyd.
|
| Tell it to Breonna Taylor.
|
| Oh, that's right: you can't. The very best of police
| can't either.
|
| Belligerence is escalating the situation of someone
| recording you. Belligerence is escalating the situation
| of someone yelling at you. Belligerence is threatening to
| assault and kidnap any person who doesn't behave
| precisely as you command. I expect every police officer
| to be the change they _swore an oath to be_. No less.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > They're on the receiving end of bullshit and cannot opt
| out of it, but we'll condemn them for fucking up their
| response?
|
| Cops can absolutely opt out of it. It's not a race, it's
| a job. If you're a cop and you can't deal with annoying
| members of the public without violating their
| Constitutional rights, _you aren 't in the right job_.
| hiatus wrote:
| If the police can't gracefully handle a jerk with a cellphone,
| how do we expect them to behave in even more trying situations?
| meepmorp wrote:
| If anything, their greater authority and power over other
| people demands a higher standard of behavior than we'd expect
| from regular citizens.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| There is no way to handle these people gracefully. They don't
| respond to police requests to leave. They see gradual
| escalation as weakness. Getting someone to leave private
| property, a provocator who doesn't want to leave and doesn't
| respect anyone's authority, will inevitably require more than
| words. Manhandling someone out of an area by force cannot be
| done gracefully.
|
| Arguably, common policies on gradual escalation only
| exacerbate the problem of auditors. Cops go from polite
| requests, to direct orders, trespass notices, through non-
| lethal things like tasers and pepper spray, and only then to
| handcuffs and arrests. The cops that handle these people best
| seem to be the ones that skip the middle stuff, instead going
| straight from polite request to handcuffs, with trespass
| notices coming afterwards.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > There is no way to handle these people gracefully.
|
| The First Amendment doesn't have an "unless they're a pain
| in the ass" exemption.
|
| > Getting someone to leave private property
|
| These folks tend to be on _public_ property. That 's the
| whole schtick.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| If the first amendment even applies. Many/most auditors
| are not in public spaces. They are on private property
| that the wrongly believe to be public spaces. I've even
| seen more a few on _military_ property in some crazy
| belief that all such places are open to public
| inspection.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| I can't fight a strawman.
|
| If you trespass in restricted spaces (like a military
| base, or an NYPD evidence locker) you'll get arrested,
| yes. The crime is trespass, whether or not you have a
| camera filming.
|
| Most of the "auditors" I've seen (and many are certainly
| _insufferable_ ) film from public sidewalks, public
| lobbies (as is the case in this particular court case,
| which the auditor won), Border Patrol checkpoint / police
| traffic stops within their own vehicles, etc. It's very
| common for them to encounter police resistance in these
| situations, despite a clear First Amendment right to
| film.
|
| Police violating Constitutional rights isn't some wildly
| uncommon theoretical; I'm not sure why you seem to be
| portraying it as such.
| ihattendorf wrote:
| If they're breaking a law, arrest them. If they aren't,
| what do you expect anyone to do?
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Whether or not someone is breaking the law is a very
| difficult question. A cop must figure out what a person
| is doing and who they are. Is the person in the middle of
| a mental health crisis? Are they subject to special rules
| such as having been previously trespassed from a
| location, or are they in violation of a court order? Is
| this person stalking someone? When first amendment-
| protected "speech" become non-protected shouting in
| breach of the peace depends largely on context. What type
| of property are they sanding on? Are there special rules
| at play, such as publicly-accessible private spaces?
| (bathrooms, some areas of hospitals etc.) Even then the
| cop must decide if an arrest will actually prevent
| further issues, or whether some sort of non-arrest option
| might be better.
| conductr wrote:
| If they're standing on a public sidewalk, not
| trespassing, and all they're doing is holding some video
| equipment... then what is the basis of the cops
| confrontation in the first place? Is there some probable
| cause to believe the cop needs to do any of those things
| you mentioned? Why is the cop getting involved? The root
| of the whole issue is that cops are over-policing. They
| need to know when to just leave people alone because
| they're not doing anything illegal or really even
| suspicious in most cases. The cops just want to be
| bully's and control every situation even if
| unconstitutionally.
|
| There's dozens (hundreds?) of unenforced laws on the
| books. I'm sure it varies by jurisdiction (where I live,
| using your turn signal is optional and cops would never
| pull you over for failure to signal- it's effectively
| unheard of.) Point being, cops can decided when to police
| and when not to police. Recording them at work seems to
| be a line they do not like people to cross and they don't
| really care if it's constitutionally protected or not.
| kolanos wrote:
| Care to share any videos of auditors going to private
| property?
| autoexec wrote:
| I've seen a few where they've removed auditors using the
| private property excuse because the city/state was
| leasing privately owned property and using it to operate
| public services out of. I think that's something courts
| may ultimately have to rule on, because it seems like an
| easy way for the government to shield themselves from
| accountability and violate people's freedoms.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| > operate public services
|
| Therein lies the rub. I'd be tempted to challenge the
| hell out of that.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| It's kind of a different context because these people are
| both based in the UK but there are many videos on the
| channels of DJ Audits[0] and PJ Audits[1] focusing on
| industrial estates. They go "to" private property but not
| "on"; they also launch drones from public space and fly
| them over the property for aerial footage. I guess
| there's some "SIA" licensing that contracted security
| usually has (I'm not familiar because I'm not a UK
| citizen), which is a common point of contention for the
| auditors, but they're mostly just interested in
| highlighting some bit of industry.
|
| 0: https://www.youtube.com/@DJAUDITS
|
| 1: https://www.youtube.com/@PJAudits
| kolanos wrote:
| I am less familiar with UK law, but I assume what you
| mean by "go to, but not on" is that they remain on a
| public sidewalk or some easement of some kind? If so,
| that is still public property, not private property. This
| is kind of the whole point.
| rlewkov wrote:
| "I've even seen more a few on military property in some
| crazy belief that all such places are open to public
| inspection." All the auditor vids that I've seen that
| involve military property have been where the person
| doing the videoing stands on the public sidewalk or
| roadway easement outside the military or government
| building and films, which of course makes for the desired
| confrontation. There may be some where they're on the
| actual military property which can result in them being
| trespassed.
| yardie wrote:
| > Many/most auditors are not in public spaces.
|
| So there should be plenty of self-incriminating video of
| them trespassing?
|
| You don't need to carry water for the police. The Supreme
| Court has that job already.
| Clubber wrote:
| >Many/most auditors are not in public spaces.
|
| Can you link 5 or so videos of this?
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| There absolutely is.
|
| Of course they don't leave, _they have the constitutional
| right to stay!_ The very act of _asking them to leave_ is
| already an overstep.
|
| > The cops that handle these people best seem to be the
| ones that skip the middle stuff, instead going straight
| from polite request to handcuffs, with trespass notices
| coming afterwards.
|
| That is absolutely disgusting. Is that how you want people
| to treat you?
| jstarfish wrote:
| > The cops that handle these people best seem to be the
| ones that skip the middle stuff,
|
| Rightfully so; tasers and pepper spray were meant to
| incapacitate violent suspects. They were never supposed to
| be used to enforce compliance with orders.
|
| Pulling out tasers to deal with "auditors" is the very
| behavior they seek to document.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| Did you think people were flooding these precincts with
| resumes after 2020? With people like you screaming "ACAB" and
| "Defund the police"? There's a finite amount of officers at
| any precinct - even less after 2020 - and having officers
| have to deal with people like this just increases the
| response time for calls elsewhere.
| Clubber wrote:
| Have you considered maybe good people who want to help
| their communities don't want to be part of a corrupt
| department?
|
| Everyone has to remember, not all departments are bad, but
| all departments can have bad cops; some _WAY_ more than
| others to put it lightly. It 's the unwillingness to remove
| or even punish the bad cops, that is the issue.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| The "auditors" are jackasses, no doubt. But you need to protect
| the freedom of jackasses to be jackasses. My wife was a
| municipal employee who had to deal with one of the particularly
| noxious ones that was big during the peak MAGA hype cycle. It
| was awful and personally embarassing to be chastised in public
| for doing a job required by law to be done, but that's the
| reality of public service.
|
| My uncle was a senior official for a municipality. His home was
| picketed during a tense labor negotiation. Also noxious and
| difficult for the family, but a necessary part of the
| democratic process to allow.
|
| At the end of the day, the shocking revelations that NYPD desk
| sergeants give zero fucks isn't very compelling video. It's a
| fad, and it will fade. But the need to hold the government
| accountable remains, and allowing trolls to damage that serves
| nobody well, including the police. No different than my uncle.
| It sucks my cousins had to deal with that as kids, but it would
| equally suck if some goon squad prevented the union members
| from having their grievances addressed.
| conductr wrote:
| > His home was picketed during a tense labor negotiation.
| Also noxious and difficult for the family, but a necessary
| part of the democratic process to allow.
|
| No, that is not necessary for democracy to work. Going to a
| public official's home is never necessary. Please enlighten
| me to what I'm missing that requires this invasion of privacy
| and security.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
| religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
| abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or _the
| right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
| the Government for a redress of grievances_.
|
| A peaceful protest on a public sidewalk outside a public
| official's home falls pretty squarely within those
| protections.
| conductr wrote:
| I didn't argue it was illegal/unconstitutional. But
| voicing that it's certainly not an essential part of a
| functional democracy
| autoexec wrote:
| "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
| petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
| seems like pretty essential part of a functional
| democracy to me.
| conductr wrote:
| There are a lot of places to do this that aren't in front
| of the politician's personal residence
| autoexec wrote:
| There certainly are a lot of less effective places for
| protesting. If protesting in front of a politician's
| personal residence is what it takes to be heard that's
| where people are going to do it.
| conductr wrote:
| My kid is 4. He's learning the rules to soccer. If I
| wanted to teach him the most optimal way to steal the
| ball, I'd teach him to run up and scream in the other
| kids face until he got annoyed enough and handed the ball
| over. Efficiency and effectiveness by annoyance may be
| within the rules, but are shitty sportsmanship IMO
| ceejayoz wrote:
| The other kid in your scenario doesn't have the power to
| tax, shoot, or jail your kid.
| conductr wrote:
| But he's on the field in his position rightfully so, he's
| not even breaking any rules, he just has the ball and my
| son wants it. The whole thing with democracy is,
| sometimes things don't go your way, and the rules for how
| to change it are all right there in front of you.
|
| The high up GP comment that this discussion branched off
| of was talking about 'labor negotiations', sure it
| effects someone and obviously the labor wants the
| negotiations to go their way, but if it doesn't?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > But he's on the field in his position rightfully so,
| he's not even breaking any rules, he just has the ball
| and my son wants it.
|
| Soccer includes rules about sportsmanship; bad behavior
| gets you a yellow/red card. Politics doesn't have a
| referee nor much about sportsmanship.
|
| > The whole thing with democracy is, sometimes things
| don't go your way, and the rules for how to change it are
| all right there in front of you.
|
| Sure; one of those things allowed by said rules is public
| protest against elected officials.
| epakai wrote:
| Officials aren't in a position to recognize the impact of
| their policy choices until it affects them personally.
| That's what requires this, and it's neither an invasion of
| their privacy nor their security, but a notice that they're
| stepping on people with their own actions.
| conductr wrote:
| Then why do politician's with the means to do so, buy
| property that increases their privacy and security?
| Applying pressure and voicing discontent is a great part
| of democracy and should be protected. It's tone deaf to
| pretend these things aren't related to privacy and
| security. Despite best intentions, protesters are already
| agitated [that's why they're protesting] and it doesn't
| take much to turn to a security issue and if they can't
| check their mail or mow their lawn without being heckled,
| that's a privacy issue.
|
| I think we in America set ridiculous norms/boundaries on
| some things (things like this topic disrespecting the
| politician's personal life for something that is
| occurring in their professional/public life; also, feel
| that we care too much about their personal lives in
| general, sex/marriage/family stuff but that's another
| topic)
| autoexec wrote:
| > The "auditors" are jackasses, no doubt. But you need to
| protect the freedom of jackasses to be jackasses.
|
| Even the article couldn't help calling out auditors for being
| confrontational assholes, but for what it's worth, Reyes
| doesn't act like typical auditors. He's polite and cool
| headed. He's assertive while still attempting to deescalate
| situations. He's the least confrontational auditor I've ever
| seen. What's compelling about Reyes's work isn't the video
| showing that the police in the NYDP were acting like assholes
| and breaking the law, but that he then follows up with formal
| complaints, lawsuits, and revisits to see what's changed.
|
| I love that there are people willing to risk their safety and
| freedom and invest the kind of time and money it takes to
| follow through using the legal system. It'll either change
| things for the better or at least let us know how bad things
| really are and where more reforms are needed.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > But you need to protect the freedom of jackasses to be
| jackasses.
|
| You do, but their presence is also denying others their right
| to obtain services without being endangered. Some balance is
| needed here.
| boredumb wrote:
| A yes Larry Flynt, the beacon of non confrontation and being
| pleasant, fought to have his magazine print that a pastor (that
| was vocal against him distributing hardcore pornography) was a
| drunkard that had sex with his own mother in a fake
| biographical 'advertisement' in said magazine - much different
| than edgy people on youtube asking cops for their names and
| business.
| alex_lav wrote:
| > They all act like entitled jerks bent on provoking
| confrontation to generate clicks.
|
| Almost as big a jerk as the people they're auditing.
|
| Almost.
| PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote:
| Rights not expressed are rights that you lose.
|
| you may as well describe soldiers as murderous pieces of shit,
| and while it may be true on some level, YOUR world would be
| much worse off without them.
| JohnFen wrote:
| I agree entirely with this. These so-called "auditors" are
| harmful.
|
| It's a shame that these people are destroying the ability of
| citizens to use these facilities without risking exposure.
| xbar wrote:
| What if we removed selective police immunity for First Ammendment
| violations? How well informed about enforcing the law would they
| become?
| Clubber wrote:
| There's a movement to remove qualified immunity and it's slowly
| gaining traction. These four states have abolished it:
| Colorado, Montana, Nevada, and New Mexico.
|
| https://ij.org/issues/project-on-immunity-and-accountability...
|
| >How well informed about enforcing the law would they become?
|
| I would say it would help. The reason bad cops misbehave is
| they have no accountability for doing so. It's not unlike
| refusing to punishing a biting child. Qualified Immunity is a
| good example of legislating from the bench.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-21 23:04 UTC)