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."
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).
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
Every single person with a job “cannot out opt out of it“ like you’re saying. Everyone who’s ever worked retail has dealt with awful customers (for a lot less money and mostly zero union protection).
I see this inappropriate defense of police all the time but the truth is police who can’t handle someone being unkind (but not physical or unlawful) without violating their rights are not fit to have a gun, badge and special powers.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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")
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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
"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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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)
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, that is what I meant. They remain on public property and lawfully refuse to leave if/when asked.
I called it out as different because they’re lawfully filming a private area which is visible from a public area (and also from above) rather than simply filming public areas. Apologies if I was unclear.
> 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
It should absolutely be auditors that deal with this. They are willingly subjecting themselves to a negative experience for the benefit of us all. Some may be unreasonable but they must not be blamed for the cracks they expose in our system.
Some random person going about their life should not be the one who has to push this to the supreme court if necessary. Every decision like this represents countless past and future plea deals that normal, working people take (at great personal expense often) in order to just move on with their lives.
Freedom not only allows jerks and kooks, but it requires them. We need sovcits and police auditors, because they define the boundary and remind the police and prosecutors, whom are apt to forget, where that boundary is.
Everyone demands victims be kind and normal, but that is rarely the case. Kind and normal people stay far away from the boundaries by nature, but the boundaries always shrink when there is no push-back. We need the kooks out there getting tazed so we don't have to.
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.
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
> * 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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-09-21/internal...
So terribly, which isn't surprising, but is very sad for humanity.
They can’t in any possible way, unless they can do it without traveling in public.
The right to film in public is a first amendment thing. This law just codifies it and specifies that public areas of public buildings are areas where filming is allowed.
Hence why I suggested sending an officer, or allowing reporting remotely via phone and web. Which, of course, are all ways that the NYPD accepts reports.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> But preventing a person like Reyes from recording does nothing to resolve the privacy issue.
I'm not arguing that he should be prevented from recording, really. The problem here is that there are opposing needs and rights, and some sort of balance needs to be had (and it would be better if that balance leaned more toward vulnerable people than those who are making some sort of political point.)
I'm arguing that Reyes, and other "auditors", are unmitigated assholes for engaging this sort of activity.
That said, preventing the recording may not resolve the privacy issue, but it would at least avoid making it worse.
> 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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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."