Court Of Appeals Ruling

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by cathead77, Aug 11, 2017.

  1. rick_reno

    rick_reno

    Dec 3, 2012
    N Idaho
    Going to have to read the ruling. Every Circuit Court of Appeals to address this issue (First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh) has held that there is a First Amendment right to record police activity in public. See Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017); Gericke v. Begin, 753 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2014); Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ill. v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012); Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2000); Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995). Simply put, the First Amendment protects the act of photographing, filming, or otherwise recording police officers conducting their official duties in public.
    To rule filming is not protected there must have been something specific about the case, I'd like to know what it was.
     
  2. 480sparky

    480sparky

    May 27, 2013
    Cornpatch
    The ruling was concerning reclusion, not the 1A right to film police.
     
  3. 73Z1

    73Z1

    Sep 15, 2008
    Sacramento
    Another classic case of Internet exaggeration and hype.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. For those of us who don't understand the "legal bits", can you give us the "Cliff Notes" version of the truth here, vs. the "alternate facts"? I tried to look up Reclusion as it relates to this and things legal and got thoroughly confused.
     
  5. I can't even find where to read the ruling. Thanks for the replies.
     
  6. 480sparky

    480sparky

    May 27, 2013
    Cornpatch
  7. Hi Alan, great to hear from you!
     
  8. Howdy, Nick! Good to see you here as well.
     
  9. OK, so to be sure I understand, Mike and Ken, this is really all about the contention of unlawful incarceration, not 1st Amendment, hence the "reclusion" reference. Thanks for the education and the pointer to the actual ruling.

    I think I will simply label this "fake news" and shame on LEO Affairs.

    I love it when I learn something new.
     
  10. Bill, at our age exposure is not the same as learning, I fear.

    Actually, come to think of it, it never worked for my students either, regardless of how young they were!
     
  11. I thank you all for the comments and what I learned as well.
     
  12. So, keep filming. The "Law" is not above the law.
     
  13. 480sparky

    480sparky

    May 27, 2013
    Cornpatch
    Yet, someday it will be.

    Given that 99.999% of the sheeple don't know what the law says, The Law will continue to enforce laws that don't exist. And someday, a false charge will stick enough to make it through the courts.

    Then The Law will be above the law.
     
  14. The recusal is not an issue for us to be concerned about. That said, the motions to dismiss and summary judgement, which the Court of Appeal offers no identification of the the issues or the analysis of the District Court might be since he is alleging retaliation for what should be first amendment protected activity. I'll have a look and report back.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  15. 73Z1

    73Z1

    Sep 15, 2008
    Sacramento
    Yes, the LEO page is absolutely taking things out of context and creating false hype, and so is the TV Station 13KRCG. Shame on both of them.

    If one reads the entire District Court ruling at the link that RecalcitrantRon posted, they will find out that the alleged videographer Mr. Adkins had been stopped and arrested for several different issues including DWI involving marajuana, 2 weapons offenses, (a concealed loaded pistol without a permit, and "switchblade type" knife), as well as other traffic offenses like driving without a license, illegal u-turn which he admitted to, expired plates, no proof of insurance. As part of his plea, he was trying to show that he had been specifically targeted by the police and denied his 1st and 4th amendment rights as part of their harassment of him.

    As a member of a group known as Citizens for Justice, he had at times been filming the police as they worked, but contrary to the Internet headlines, the local Police Chief Burton himself agreed that 1A was in Adkins favor and had told Adkins so. From the District Court document we see 3 specific instances where the police actually made an effort to ensure that Adkins 1A rights were respected.

    - At some point after Akins began filming police officers, Chief Burton or Jill Schlude advised the Police Department that Akins had the right to film. Doc. 82-29.
    - Akins also met with Chief Burton in December 2011. Burton told Akins it was his right to film officers. Burton also said it was his “goal to put them out of business, in the context that I hoped there would be no negative actions of officers to film.” Doc. 91-11, Pl. Exh. 13
    - Sometime in 2011, Akins was filming a person who was wearing a KuKlux Klan hood and was in the [police public] lobby to pick up a complaint form. A Community Service Aide (CSA), [not a police force member] who is not a defendant in this case, told Akins he could not film in the lobby and to turn off the camera, which Akins did. Akins later followed up with a Police Department Public Information Officer, Jill Schlude. Schlude told Akins the CSA had been wrong when he said filming in the lobby was not allowed and told Akins to stop filming. Schlude also said the Police Department had had to follow up with the CSA so he would know what he told Akins was wrong.

    The LEO page and the TV station web page with their false headlines do not mention any of the above. What they are using as an excuse to make their false claim is the following from the District Court doc.

    Further, he has no constitutional right to videotape any public proceedings he wishes to. See Rice v. Kempker, 374 F.3d 675, 678 (8th Cir. 2004) (“[N]either the public nor the media has a First Amendment right to videotape, photograph, or make audio recordings of government proceedings that are by law open to the public.”), and Wis. Interscholastic Ath. ***'n v. Gannett Co., 658 F.3d 614, 627-628 (7th Cir. 2011) (same).

    The above statement as the full document describes, relates to the unfettered ability to record ANY government proceeding such as a court case where the public is allowed but media restricted, or as was involved in this case, an open-to-the-public but by invitation-only or limited seating type event put on by a government entity. NOTHING to do with recording police in public.
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
Drone pilots don’t have to register under FAA’s controversial rule, court rules General Discussion May 20, 2017
Photographer wins in court General Discussion Nov 26, 2013
Cable News or Court News Network? General Discussion Jul 31, 2013
O/T Had a Fun Day @ Court... General Discussion Apr 20, 2009
A general appeal General Discussion Oct 31, 2006