You are a terrorist now if you even take pictures of a police dept.

They can have surveillance on you all day long, buy tanks and military weapons for the police, but you take one picture of a police dept, you are going down. Or at least you will unless you put up the kind of arguments this guy does to get away.



Hah, what a bunch of powermongering, coward ass pigs. I swear. The police won't rest until they get tactical nukes in their arsenals.

:shk:

I'd be interested to see how that will play for reasoning when someone finally runs it all the way up into the Super Court.

When I had an ugly running dispute with a neighbor a couple years ago, I solved it by putting his house and yard under 24/hr cameras in a way so obvious even people driving by knew it. It drove him mad until he finally called the cops on me to have them removed. At that time the cops explained to him, in front of me, that "The Eye Cannot Trespass" and that does apply to cameras, in this state. That was the explanation and theory. We worked it out and the cameras stayed until I chose to take them down.

So, if I'm standing on public property and filming something open to public view (The Police, for example).... Well... The eye can't trespass. How do they keep claiming this crap then? I just don't see how they get away with it unless it's just a question of no one running it high enough up the Court chain yet?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Would you mind linking that phrase to a source: The Eye Cannot Trespass

I would like to see where else it is stated, as in, just State Law or Federal. I like that phrase!

ETA: I see a link in AZ, NM. Just those two, plus some links to "space law"?

Google Search

It's so stupid.

Town planning documents and blueprints are all public record.

So if I snap a front of building pic I could be threatened or assaulted but if I go pull planning documents and building blue prints of every department along with the schematic for the towns power grid I'll be ignored.

It's not the mindless tyranny that bothers me nearly as much as the inconsistent hence pointless enforcement of said mindless tyranny.

This wasn't about suspicion of terrorism at all. These two officers simply thought they could initially bully, and easily win a debate, with someone looking like this.



Whether he was baiting them into the debate or not (hard to tell exactly what happened before the video started) the cops proved to be the weaker opponent. Perhaps their dept. will use this as a training video and put a higher emphasis on understanding laws and rights, rather than intimidation tactics.

There are going to be more and more people filming like this, so they should either get used to it and be prepared to deal with it, or better yet, ignore it.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I'd be interested to see how that will play for reasoning when someone finally runs it all the way up into the Super Court.

When I had an ugly running dispute with a neighbor a couple years ago, I solved it by putting his house and yard under 24/hr cameras in a way so obvious even people driving by knew it. It drove him mad until he finally called the cops on me to have them removed. At that time the cops explained to him, in front of me, that "The Eye Cannot Trespass" and that does apply to cameras, in this state. That was the explanation and theory. We worked it out and the cameras stayed until I chose to take them down.

So, if I'm standing on public property and filming something open to public view (The Police, for example).... Well... The eye can't trespass. How do they keep claiming this crap then? I just don't see how they get away with it unless it's just a question of no one running it high enough up the Court chain yet?

I believe that when it came down to your situation, as long as those cameras were in your property, they could stay up. The minute you place them on the other persons property that is trespassing and thus wouldnt be legal for them to remain up.

As for video taping a police dept, cops would have every right to stop you if they have reasonable suspicion to believe that you are monitering and analyzing their building for any malicious purposes. Perhaps you are noting down the exits, the entrances, who comes in or out, etc.

Explanation: S&F!

LMAO ... seriously .... LMAO!

Haven't these keystone cops heard of Google Earth App and Street View?

Personal Disclosure: Don't make me link screengrabs ... :shk:

reply to post by Skada

Well, to make a long story (and quite a research side project it became) short, this is where is comes from:

As Lord Chief Justice Camden evocatively stated in Entick v Carrington (1765) 19 State Trials 1030, “the eye cannot by the laws of England be guilty of a trespass”.

It was not just the human eye that could avoid legal liability for intruding upon a person’s privacy. There is a consistent line of authority, culminating with Raciti v Hughes (1995) 7 BPR 14,837, to the effect that “as a general rule what one can see one can photograph without it being actionable”.

Source

and a book reference more directly to that case:

(Google Books 9th Circuit Case from 1887

Funny how round about things get. lol... Anyway there are some general references in school papers published and legal articles linking the logic. Don't ask me how that came to be what I heard as I can't find the phrase directly anywhere myself about 'The eye can't trespass'. Funny thing is, I did hear it growing up around cops and that incident I had where the cop said it. Oh well..

To Topic, I did find a couple nice cases to share. These are both Circuit Court of Appeals Cases, both very recent and both ABSOLUTELY CLEAR about the right to film cops in public. No if's ands or buts about it...as they state in their opinions anyway. The sole exception would seem to be if the act of filming is directly interfering with the perfomance of what they're doing. I.E....Someone figures they can get up within feet of an ongoing arrest or something. bad idea.. Anyway, here are the good ones:

1st Circuit Court of Appeals - Gilk Vs. Mass, August 2011

In summary, though not unqualified, a citizen's right to film government officials, including law enforcement officers, in the discharge of their duties in a public space is a basic, vital, and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment.

Source

11th Circuit Court of Appeals - Smith vs. City of Cumming, May 2000

As to the First Amendment claim under Section 1983, we agree with the Smiths that they had a First Amendment right, subject to reasonable time, manner and place restrictions, to photograph or videotape police conduct.   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.

 Source

Looks like at least a couple cases to have on the back of a card or something in your wallet if someone expects they may end up in that situation by filming.

Of course, where those courts cover is important...It'll be nice when the Super Court gets one. The Appeals courts seem pretty close to universal on this... Just a matter of time and the right case I suppose. Miranda rights were something that really didn't exist either until the right case finally got there. We can hope.