Damn right.

No we don't expect them to know every law word for word - and neither does the USSC where enforcement of laws is based on an officer's reasonable belief, probable cause, and numerous other exceptions for officers acting in good faith.

In any case, I want cops to know what laws they're enforcing - but I don't want them having their time wasted by "auditors."  I want them to act on their reasonable beliefs.

An officer attempted to ticket me for something until I pointed out the letter of the law and they changed their mind. They acted based on their belief and adjusted immediately once they were properly informed.

In any event there's nothing trolling about pointing out all the holes in your extremely poor, extremely silly, somewhat childish ACAB-based logic.  Congratulations on wasting 3x as much time posting as I have and still being wrong.

...because on top of dealing with the dregs of our society day in and day out - they have to take grief from strangers with agendas that paint with a very broad brush.

It's definitely not a job I'd have any interest in but I understand that someone needs to do it so I respect the ones that attempt to do it legally, morally, and ethically and can understand not wanting without silly click-bait Youtubers adding additional harassment to their duties.

So how do you justify this specific scenario, where the cops obviously did NOT know the law, and even went so far as to refuse to even listen to or read the law for themselves when it was directly presented to them?

They deliberately chose to remain ignorant of law, rather than possibly have their egos crushed by someone who knows the law better than they do.

You can't choose to remain ignorant and then claim "I didn't know".

But, but, they have a hard job already.  Have you no sympathy?  

Willfully ignorant people have no business being police officers.

Back in the day I used to think these "auditors" were total waste of flesh.
Then covid happened and I saw the jack booted response of police dept after police dept.
Now I watch the videos, shake my head at the cops ignorance and hope they get sued into oblivion.
I haven't quite taken the leap that qualified immunity  needs to totally be scrapped, but we need to be able
to more easily strip it whenever there is a blatant violation like we see in all too many of these "I AM THE LAW!" vids.

Well you baited me - I gave him a click.

It was rather ironic to watch that guy talk - "ladies and gentleman" bla bla bla...

Not surprisingly he has his GoFund me plastered front and center - I wonder how many here he suckered into donating

Perhaps he should look into USSC rulings on non-public forums;

“[n]othing in the Constitution requires the Government freely to grant access to all who wish to exercise their right to free speech on every type of Government property without regard to the nature of the property or to the disruption that might be caused by the speaker’s activities.” The Supreme Court has recognized that the government, “no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated.”? Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (1985).

Nonpublic Forum. A nonpublic forum is a government space that “is not by tradition or designation a forum for public communication.” Spaces in which “the government is acting as a proprietor, managing its internal operations” fall into this category. “Courts have consistently found public property to be a nonpublic forum where the evidence shows…that the property’s purpose is to conduct or facilitate government business, and not to provide a forum for public expression.” Examples of spaces courts have held to be nonpublic forums include the offices of government employees, the interior of polling places, the mailboxes of public school teachers, lobby areas of government buildings, terminals in publicly operated airports, and military bases. The Supreme Court has recognized that “the government has much more flexibility to craft rules limiting speech” in a nonpublic forum, including imposing restrictions based on content, “so long as the distinctions drawn are reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum and are viewpoint-neutral.

In any event - the USSC has already declared that the government can restrict speech in non-public forums - let alone recording.

As to whether this violates 2020 New York City laws which were undoubtedly written by a communist because that's all that serves in politics there - who knows - who cares.

The auditor: "My property is inside of this building" "My property is inside of this building" (referring to a piece of paper he dropped)  - LOL

In any event - he was trespassed out of the building and willfully came back in anyways. That makes it a rather textbook arrest. He actually wasn't arrested for recording - they simply trespassed him out of the building for that.  If he wanted to "audit" them he should have contacted his lawyer and started a case using the initial portion of the video.

Congratulations.   You posted stuff that Sean knows and follows.  I'm not sure if you're aware of this secret so I'll share it with you.

Public areas in Government buildings are PUBLIC.

Oh ya?  Wrong.  Please share with all of us your background on 1st amendment case law and it's application.  Mine is a graduate level college course but I'm not a lawyer.

"4. Nonpublic Forum. A nonpublic forum is a government space that “is not by tradition or designation a forum for public communication.” Spaces in which “the government is acting as a proprietor, managing its internal operations” fall into this category. “Courts have consistently found public property to be a nonpublic forum where the evidence shows…that the property’s purpose is to conduct or facilitate government business, and not to provide a forum for public expression.” Examples of spaces courts have held to be nonpublic forums include the offices of government employees, the interior of polling places, the mailboxes of public school teachers, lobby areas of government buildings, terminals in publicly operated airports, and military bases. The Supreme Court has recognized that “the government has much more flexibility to craft rules limiting speech” in a nonpublic forum, including imposing restrictions based on content, “so long as the distinctions drawn are reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum and are viewpoint-neutral.”

Your boy's a completely ignorant dipshit and was properly arrested for trespassing after he was told to leave.  The government can absolutely trespass people out of their spaces that don't have business there except to disrupt.  Otherwise all government lobbies would be filled with homeless because it's PUBLIC

It's funny that you're so invested in his click-bait videos that you even use his first name

NYS aka "Government" gave the ok.

State government approval

More government approval

Edit:

These are the people who make the laws. Police can only enforce what these guys say.
@destaccado

They've gone beyond licking to full on deepthroating

Eta: like this gem 2 posts up

Fuck this guy. He came to my job and tried to antagonize us by filming our cars and harassing the desk sgt. Everybody ignored him and he never posted the video. Funny how that works.

Here ya go.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonacquiescence

Thanks for your interpretation - just kidding since you didn't actually give one .  Your own link says:  

"(b) "Law enforcement activity" means any activity by an officer acting
under the color of law; and

2. Right to record law enforcement related activities. A person not
under arrest or in the custody of a law enforcement official has the
right to record law enforcement activity and to maintain custody and
control of that recording and of any property or instruments used by
that person to record law enforcement activities


First off, you're linking New York state law.  I thought you pro mouth-breathing-auditor types told me he was protecting all of our rights?  I guess you're moving the goalposts to now only include NY state.  I guess he wasn't defending my rights at all!


Second, are law enforcement officers working in an administrative precinct setting operating under the color of law? Is that what he was attempting to record - a law enforcement action? Debatable.  In fact, I can almost guarantee that none of his charges have anything to do with recording.

My interpretation of this law would be that you have the legal right to record law enforcement actions like the law states - not harass and stick your camera in the face of cops performing administration / non-law-enforcement action.

In any case, he was arrested for trespassing and refusing to leave - not for recording. What's abundantly clear is that he has no more of a constitutional 1st amendment right to occupy the lobby of the precinct than a homeless bum per the USSC.

Your own post above allowed government to set the rules and conditions. State government did just that. So perfectly in line with the USSC ruling. That is what this thread is about. NYS.

Hopefully, it will spread to your state next or mine. Then the guy did work in our interests. Kinda like the concealed carry we all enjoy now.

No they didn't. They appear to have given the approval to record law enforcement activity which per the exact definition given in the law "means any activity by an officer acting under the color of law"" The color of law typically means actions with claimed law enforcement authority.

Note it does NOT say - "any activity by an officer" but specifically adds context.   e.g. you probably can't videotape them taking a shit in a bathroom.  ...and it's questionable if you can harass them in their precinct for your clickbait Youtube videos.

...but hey - go ahead and fund his GoFund me if you think the right to record means the right to harass and trespass in a non-public forum.

There's no interest in mine in having people harassing police at their precincts and recording potential crime victims who want to remain anonymous.  Allowing open recording of their law enforcement actions? Absolutely.

Reasonable belief of what?

lol dude that was great

He's not wasting their time. They are.

With that, your whole argument falls apart.

I also chuckle when people conflate harassment with freedom. But them same old characters love them some 1A "auditors"

If you walk out your front door into a public place some asshole should be able to follow you around and shove his iphone 3 inches from your face and follow you around with his 1A force field around him?

But I do think you should be able to record in the public areas of government buildings that the public, while conducting official business, would otherwise be free to occupy.

More than a few people making the camera shoved in their face claim either have depth perception or honesty issues.

Have seen various legacy media outlets do that and apparently their employment connections make that ok.

Just in case you haven't actually watched any of the LIA videos, he never sticks his camera in someone's face.

What really happens is that someone gets offended and confronts him, getting right into his face and often trying to block or grab his camera. He's not the one creating a disturbance (as they often claim), it's others who are choosing to disturb him.

I have no sympathy for people stupid enough to charge directly in front of a camera and then complain about not wanting to be recorded.

Oh? He wasn't moving toward and attempting to push past the officers to retrieve "muh property" (laminated sheet of paper)? We must not have watched the same video then.

Good use of bold letters - that really takes your argument beyond "I know you are but what am I" into the realm of the Greek philosophers.

That is a fair counter point. I don't like that either.

Not really a legal issue, more of a civilized culture issue. People should get punched in the face more, might make people more polite. Papparazzi are scum.

Plenty of posters in this thread would gladly load people in boxcars because their government told them to do so.

Yes - the people that think cops should be free to perform administrative work free from unnecessary harassment are literally Hitler.

No doubt you would have single-handedly stopped the Holocaust.  Too bad you weren't born in a different era.

Was that before or after they approached him?

I did watch the video, and he absolutely got in the officers faces and tried to instigate and escalate the situation. He wanted to get arrested. He already said he expected to. Gotta give the youtube subscribers what they want and make a living doing it.

Godwin's Law almost achieved.

So are you saying paparazzi are scum and should be punched in the face more?  

Are you also saying people that run up and shove their face in the camera, then lie about who approached who, are scum as well and should be punched in the face?

Big difference between private citizens and government officials. We are talking about on duty public officials in public areas of government buildings.

Is there a difference? Why do you hate the 1A? I can walk up to your kids at the beach and video record them on my camera from 1 ft away since I am in a public place and SCOTUS said so. If you don't like it then you hate freedom.

Dishonesty is not a good look for you.

He was still in the foyer when they came out the door and approached him at 7:05.

Can you point out any moment before that where he "got in the officers' faces"?

No, only after they escorted him out and he continued to try to get past them back into "his" building that "he" owns because he pays taxes.



ETA: I will give you this, it could have been handled better/differently

You mean the public lobby they were forcefully keeping him out of even though he has every right to be there? You can't really block someone's passage and then be upset that they approached and got too close. It's a tactic the cops in these videos use a lot and it's pretty annoying.

So your class makes you an expert?  I guess it also makes you smarter than the civil rights lawyers who disagree with you and continually win cases.

Oh, and i guess it makes the USSC smarter than you too.
.
I also suspect it makes the drug dealer selling crack on the corner smarter than you but he might just be very learned.

Applicable NYC code

https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/newyorkcity/latest/NYCadmin/0-0-0-124260

§ 14-189 Right to record police activities.
  a.   Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
     Officer. The term “officer” means any peace officer or police officer as defined in the criminal procedure law who is employed by the city of New York, or any special patrolman appointed by the police commissioner pursuant to section 14-106.
     Police activities. The term “police activities” means any activity of an officer acting under the color of law.
     Record. The term “record” means to capture or attempt to capture any moving or still image, sound, or impression through the use of any recording device, camera, or any other device capable of capturing audio, moving or still images, or by way of written notes or observations.
  b.   Right to record police activities. A person may record police activities and maintain custody and control of any such recording and of any property or instruments used in such recording. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to permit a person to engage in actions that physically interfere with an official and lawful police function, or to prevent the seizure of any property or instruments used in a recording of police activities where the seizure is otherwise authorized by law, or to prohibit any officer from enforcing any other provision of law.
  c.   Private right of action.
     1.   A claim of unlawful interference with recording police activities is established under this section when an individual demonstrates that he or she recorded or attempted to record police activities in accordance with subdivision b and an officer interfered with such person’s recording of police activities. Such interference includes but is not limited to the following actions:
        (a)   preventing or attempting to prevent the recording of police activities;
        (b)   threatening or making any effort to intimidate a person recording police activities;
        (c)   stopping, seizing, searching, issuing any summons, or arresting any individual because such individual recorded police activities; or
        (d)   seizing property or instruments used by any individual to record police activities.
     2.   It shall be an affirmative defense that (i) a reasonable officer in the position of such officer would have had probable cause to believe that the person recording police activities physically interfered with an official and lawful police function, or that such officer’s actions were otherwise authorized by law or (ii) such officer did not know, and a reasonable officer in the position of such officer would not know, that such person was recording or attempting to record police activities.
     3.   A person subject to unlawful interference with recording police activities as described in subdivision b of this section may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction for any damages, including punitive damages, and for declaratory and injunctive relief and such other remedies as may be appropriate.
     4.   In any action or proceeding to enforce this section, the court shall allow a prevailing plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees as part of the costs, and may include expert fees as part of the attorney's fees.
     5.   Any action or proceeding to enforce this section shall be commenced no later than one year and 90 days after the date on which the violation of this section is committed.

Exactly! The officers create a disturbance and then try to turn it, because someone has a camera in a public building festooned with cameras.

And you don't see a problem with that standard when it isn't extend to those having the law enforced on them?

We're talking about government misconduct, not kids on the beach.
I have no A protections from kids on the beach. I do have protections from government thugs.

Except he was trespassed for recording. So the root of the arrest was his recording.

He wasn't communicating. He wasn't protesting. He was present in a place that the public is authorized to be. And the court has ruled that if you are allowed to be somewhere, you are allowed to record.

So you want James O'Keefe to be arrested?

Considering the things O'Keefe exposed that has to be a given for authoritarians.

You forget that he was filming them while they acted under color of law. The NY state government just made their signs illegal or highly suspect.

color of law
Primary tabs
Color of law refers to the appearance of legal authority or an apparently legal right that may not exist. The term is often used to describe the abuse of power under the guise of state authority, and is therefore illegal. The term was used in the Civil Rights Act of 1871, where the color of law was synonymous with state action and referred to an official whose conduct was so closely associated with a state that the conduct was deemed to be the action of that state. The Act grants citizens the right to sue government officials and their agents for using their power to violate civil rights. An example is the history of redlining, which can be seen in this map from Syracuse, New York.

Use a dog on him?

I've watched a few of his cases, the only time I have ever seen him be an asshole about anything, is after the police were a direct asshole to him, he has always maintained a polite, easy to talk with demeanor while voicing his constitutional rights, he presents himself how I would expect cops to present themselves, very courteous, very professional, very respectful....too bad most police can't present themselves that way...Maybe you might try watching a few videos and see for yourself..

You should shut you are digging the hole deep..He always ask for their supervisor, sometimes the supervisors are smart enough to know he is right and has to order his officers to release him and cease and desist..Hell they have tried to arrest him at a post office where they have zero power at and had to get straightened out by federal mail cops, who explained to them he was 100% legal doing what he was doing..A cop has a computer right at his finger tips which allow him to check any law, odd they rarely use it..F***, any cop that abuses a persons rights in any form..it should never happen...