I recently wrote a blog post about misconceptions people have about public photography, most prominently displayed in so-called "First Amendment audit" videos on YouTube. These are videos where people, mostly in the United States, simply go to public places to film and photograph, and see if security guards, police officers and just people in general, respect their constitutional right to film in a public space. The most common places where some kind of interaction will happen is with big industry (such as oil refineries), corporation headquarters, post offices, federal buildings, police stations, military bases, harbours, and so on.
The most typical engagement is a security guard coming and telling these people that filming is not allowed, and when the auditors disagree (you can film whatever you can see from a public place, including any private or federal property visible from there), the security guard will typically call the police. What then happens with the police varies a lot from place to place, from district to district, and from individual officer to officer.
In the absolutely best case scenario (which sometimes happens), the police either doesn't come at all, or doesn't even speak with the auditors, simply telling the security guard (or whoever called them) that there's nothing illegal happening, and then they just leave. In some of these best scenarios the police will tell the auditors that there's nothing wrong they are doing, and will not even ask any questions (other than, perhaps, "do you need anything?" and when the auditors say "no", the police just leave.) Sometimes they have a completely amicable conversation with the auditors.
Most commonly, though (and depending on what kind of installation it is, most usually with police stations and federal installations, although sometimes with private installations as well), the police will start asking tons of questions, demanding to know who they are and exactly what they are doing and, in most cases, asking for identification. Invariably the auditors will refuse to identify themselves (these videos are most often shot in states where people do not have to identify themselves to the police, just because the police asks, unless lawfully arrested) and the amount of insistence by the police will vary a lot (in some cases the officers will just stop asking outright, in other cases they will keep insisting on it for quite a long time, sometimes even claiming that people are legally obliged to show ID when asked, even though that's not the case.)
Most commonly the situation ends with the police just leaving, without having ID'd the auditors nor gotten any specific answers (other than, sometimes, something along the lines of "I'm just photographing what I can see from a public space for personal reasons / for a news story").
Sometimes the police officer will actually detain the auditor (which is a much lighter version of arresting someone). A detained person cannot legally leave the situation without the permission of the police. However, for the police officer to be able to legally detain someone, he has to be able to clearly articulate what crime is being committed, or he suspects is about to be committed. "Suspicious activity" (by far the most commonly cited reason) is not a crime, and thus cannot be the reason to detain someone, if the officer cannot articulate what specific crime the he is suspecting the person of. A blanket "suspicious activity", without specifics, is not enough. You cannot simply be detaining people for unspecified "suspicious activity".
In a few cases, however, the police will escalate the situation well beyond what's legally reasonable. For example, in a few of these videos the police obtain ID from the auditor via physical force (in most cases this ends up with an official complaint, and in some/many cases with an official reprimand for the police officer in question.) In some cases the auditor has been handcuffed, and even taken to jail, just to be released soon after. (Again, official complaint, sometimes even going up to court.) Invariably in none of these cases the police had an actual legal reason to do so, and thus it's an illegal detainment and/or use of force. Very rarely are these police officers even able to articulate an actual crime that's being committed, while detaining or sometimes even arresting these people.
Some cases are really egregious. For example in a very recent case an auditor was filming a police station, and police officers approached him and demanded to know what he was doing and for his identification. He repeatedly refused to identify, because in that state he doesn't have to identify unless legally arrested, and the police officers couldn't even articulate any crime they suspected him of committing. The police officers proceeded to arrest him.
He was taken to the precinct, and later let go, but he was charged with... can you guess what?
Resisting arrest. That's what. And what was the specific form of "resisting arrest" that he committed? Refusing to identify prior to the arrest.
He did not physically resist the arrest in any way, shape or form, which can be clearly seen in the video. The reason given for "resisting arrest" was indeed his refusal to identify prior to the arrest. Which he wasn't legally even obliged to do.
That's right. The crime was created out of thin air. The arrest itself created its own "crime", which justified the arrest, in a twisted form of circular reasoning. He wasn't arrested for any crime, and he wasn't charged with any such crime which would have justified the arrest. The arrest itself created the "crime" of "resisting arrest". Which even itself is ridiculous, because failure to identify, even if it were illegal, is not resisting arrest. Much less so because he had no legal obligation to ID.
As of writing this, the case hasn't gone to court yet. I hope his lawyer has a field day there, and the police officers face consequences for this clear abuse of authority.
The most typical engagement is a security guard coming and telling these people that filming is not allowed, and when the auditors disagree (you can film whatever you can see from a public place, including any private or federal property visible from there), the security guard will typically call the police. What then happens with the police varies a lot from place to place, from district to district, and from individual officer to officer.
In the absolutely best case scenario (which sometimes happens), the police either doesn't come at all, or doesn't even speak with the auditors, simply telling the security guard (or whoever called them) that there's nothing illegal happening, and then they just leave. In some of these best scenarios the police will tell the auditors that there's nothing wrong they are doing, and will not even ask any questions (other than, perhaps, "do you need anything?" and when the auditors say "no", the police just leave.) Sometimes they have a completely amicable conversation with the auditors.
Most commonly, though (and depending on what kind of installation it is, most usually with police stations and federal installations, although sometimes with private installations as well), the police will start asking tons of questions, demanding to know who they are and exactly what they are doing and, in most cases, asking for identification. Invariably the auditors will refuse to identify themselves (these videos are most often shot in states where people do not have to identify themselves to the police, just because the police asks, unless lawfully arrested) and the amount of insistence by the police will vary a lot (in some cases the officers will just stop asking outright, in other cases they will keep insisting on it for quite a long time, sometimes even claiming that people are legally obliged to show ID when asked, even though that's not the case.)
Most commonly the situation ends with the police just leaving, without having ID'd the auditors nor gotten any specific answers (other than, sometimes, something along the lines of "I'm just photographing what I can see from a public space for personal reasons / for a news story").
Sometimes the police officer will actually detain the auditor (which is a much lighter version of arresting someone). A detained person cannot legally leave the situation without the permission of the police. However, for the police officer to be able to legally detain someone, he has to be able to clearly articulate what crime is being committed, or he suspects is about to be committed. "Suspicious activity" (by far the most commonly cited reason) is not a crime, and thus cannot be the reason to detain someone, if the officer cannot articulate what specific crime the he is suspecting the person of. A blanket "suspicious activity", without specifics, is not enough. You cannot simply be detaining people for unspecified "suspicious activity".
In a few cases, however, the police will escalate the situation well beyond what's legally reasonable. For example, in a few of these videos the police obtain ID from the auditor via physical force (in most cases this ends up with an official complaint, and in some/many cases with an official reprimand for the police officer in question.) In some cases the auditor has been handcuffed, and even taken to jail, just to be released soon after. (Again, official complaint, sometimes even going up to court.) Invariably in none of these cases the police had an actual legal reason to do so, and thus it's an illegal detainment and/or use of force. Very rarely are these police officers even able to articulate an actual crime that's being committed, while detaining or sometimes even arresting these people.
Some cases are really egregious. For example in a very recent case an auditor was filming a police station, and police officers approached him and demanded to know what he was doing and for his identification. He repeatedly refused to identify, because in that state he doesn't have to identify unless legally arrested, and the police officers couldn't even articulate any crime they suspected him of committing. The police officers proceeded to arrest him.
He was taken to the precinct, and later let go, but he was charged with... can you guess what?
Resisting arrest. That's what. And what was the specific form of "resisting arrest" that he committed? Refusing to identify prior to the arrest.
He did not physically resist the arrest in any way, shape or form, which can be clearly seen in the video. The reason given for "resisting arrest" was indeed his refusal to identify prior to the arrest. Which he wasn't legally even obliged to do.
That's right. The crime was created out of thin air. The arrest itself created its own "crime", which justified the arrest, in a twisted form of circular reasoning. He wasn't arrested for any crime, and he wasn't charged with any such crime which would have justified the arrest. The arrest itself created the "crime" of "resisting arrest". Which even itself is ridiculous, because failure to identify, even if it were illegal, is not resisting arrest. Much less so because he had no legal obligation to ID.
As of writing this, the case hasn't gone to court yet. I hope his lawyer has a field day there, and the police officers face consequences for this clear abuse of authority.
Comments
Post a Comment