Arrested for filming from the front yard?

[strickj]

Yup, you're right. Google does provethat. That same google also proves that all gun owners are either dangerous thugs or crazy gov conspiracy wackos

[Daniel]

Here is the article I was talking about earlier.

Rochester IMC: Police Illegally Trespass and Arrest Woman in Her Front Lawn for Recording Traffic Stop: An Eyewitness Report

[Guest 6.8 AR]

On her own private property, she has the right to pull out a camera and record

anything she wishes to. She didn't obstruct anything, unless the cop was scared

he would be caught in the act of doing something wrong, which is what he did

when he came on her private property without a warrant and falsely arrested her.

Like Judge Napolitano said tonight on his show, "With all the cameras the government

has trained on us citizens, are we not allowed to record what they do?", something to

that effect.

The officer's actions were wrong, whatever his misplaced reasons

[Dolomite_supafly]

I will concede I was wrong in my previous post. I still believe that there is more that went on prior to the video that put the officers on edge. Was it enough to warrant her arrest I seriously doubt it but I do believe her intent was to disrupt what the officers were trying to do. I would be willing to bet her demeanor prior to starting to record was a lot worse than what we saw on the video. Officers are afraid of the video camera. Not because they are doing anything wrong but because everyone can Monday morning quarter back them and point out the flaws of their split second decision. I know I worried about it, not because I would do anything wrong but because in most cases the people who decide whether I was right or wrong in my actions have never worked in LE. With that being said I am for everyone tape or recording their encounters with any LE or government employee. Eventually the good officers will see it is something good and embrace it. The bad officers will be exposed and hopefully removed from LE. But generally it doesn't happen, they are allowed to resign and move on to another jurisdiction to continue their crooked ways. Dolomite

[bajabuc]

YEA!!!

[Guest mikedwood]

I want to know what she said before what was shown. Didn't look to me like the officers were brutalizing the suspect she was filming and the way the officer said "I don't feel SAFE (Wow he played the safe card well) with you standing behind me"

This wasn't the normal cops being rough someone filming video. She said something, ticked him off and he was just messing with her. I bet he doesn't even care if it wins, loses or draws in court.

I think the missing lesson here is before you start videoing a police stop don't yell something like "Hey you stupid pigs, I'm gonna video you going all nazi on my friend and there is nothing you can do about it cause I'm on my property" I'm not saying that's what she said but I'm guessing it wasn't far off in the officers mind.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The other part of this. Stopped the car, cuffed the

occupant, searched his car, got involved in camera

incident, arrested female on her own property for

obstruction of whatever, released original alleged

perp. Did I get anything wrong? If I didn't, something

still stinks.

I'm thinking someone had a reason to be scared

of the camera. Whatever the reason, she still

should have been left alone.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest Zombie-Hunter]

I am finally going to weigh in. I remember a time when officers were thought of as pillars of the community that you could go to for advice and directions, now people avoid them.

Edited June 25, 2011 by Zombie-Hunter
nonya

[Guest GunTroll]

"We filed a motion to dismiss charges on grounds of what she did was not a crime...." attorney Stare (my mistake not district attorney of anything) "...she didn't do anything wrong"

Activist Emily Good stunned by fallout from video | Democrat and Chronicle | democratandchronicle.com

Looks like the judge will have the final say very soon, but I'd say its darn near settled. Damn did she look crazy. Drunk too! Perhaps a lib but not everyone can be perfect .

Edited June 26, 2011 by GunTroll

[DaveTN]

"We filed a motion to dismiss charges on grounds of what she did was not a crime...." assistant district attorney Stare "...she didn't do anything wrong"

Looks like the judge will have the final say very soon, but I'd say its darn near settled. Damn did she look crazy. Drunk too! Perhaps a lib but not everyone can be perfect .

It would be over if it was in fact “assistant district attorney Stareâ€. But Stare is her attorney.

[Guest mcgyver210]

He was facing her from what I could tell from the video. He had two other officers on scene too (3 total if I counted right) and he felt unsafe? Says something to me.

Seems the officer on the passenger side of the vehicle was the only officer who had his backside exposed.

The real truth is the LEO in this case most likely was in fear he could be caught in the wrong & couldn't control the camera or vantage point it is shot from. As I said before as citizens we can use their own words against them that LEOs use frequently. Shouldn't matter if they have nothing to hide & as for arm chair quarterbacking by many I would say it is more fair than an over zealous LEO deciding he is above the true meaning of the LAWs in the field because he knows in most cases worst case is afterwards he may get the department sued, a paid vacation while other officers investigate him internally or nothing at all if it is just his/her word against the lowly civilian. This is sad but this is the way it goes down everyday across America.

The only real exceptions have been when there is a dependable witness they can't discredit for whatever reason or even better a Video or at least audio recording. Since they themselves use both against civilians without their approval in the name of safety & justice I have no problem with doing the same to them. Also because of the brotherhood protecting their own for everyone caught on the wrong side ask your self How many got away with abuse of the laws they are supposed to enforce before being caught? Yes you can ask the same for civilians activities but civilians don't have all the protections & immunities enjoyed by Law enforcement agencies.

Fair & equal treatment is fair while Unfair & unequal treatment is Un-Fair no matter how you spin it. Our good LEO officers would regain the respect they truly deserve for the good job they do everyday if citizens saw the bad ones being treated at least the same as them when they cross the line. Although my personal opinion is & always has been when anyone (Judges included) in law enforcement that abuses or crosses the line should be held to a higher standard due to their status, special considerations & immunities afforded them.

Anyone in Law enforcement that has a camera in their cruiser or a recorder on their belt that doesn't like being recorded is a Hypocrite or hiding something period.

P.S.

If anyone has any doubts as to who is really in the wrong in this case just look at the retaliation videos showing LEOs Harassing the people supporting Emily Good. If there was a shred of believability for this abuse it was stomped out with the LEOs intimidation tactics WOW!! Also in the videos it looks as if the LEOs are actually breaking the same law they are ticketing others for.

Edited June 26, 2011 by mcgyver210

[Guest GunTroll]

.

Edited June 26, 2011 by GunTroll

[Guest GunTroll]

It would be over if it was in fact “assistant district attorney Stare”. But Stare is her attorney.

My bad. Good observation and my mistake.

[Guest GunTroll]

Here is the outcome. Ongoing investigation within department but charges dropped against Emily Good. Looks like the excessive ticketing of Good's supporters is getting looked into as well.

Good case dismissed, chief says internal reviews are ongoing - News Articles - Rochester City Newspaper

Hope I didn't flub this one up like I did the other. Thanks again for pointing that out DaveTN.

[Guest mcgyver210]

Here is the outcome. Ongoing investigation within department but charges dropped against Emily Good. Looks like the excessive ticketing of Good's supporters is getting looked into as well.

Good case dismissed, chief says internal reviews are ongoing - News Articles - Rochester City Newspaper

Hope I didn't flub this one up like I did the other. Thanks again for pointing that out DaveTN.

Thanks for the UpDate.

Now if something actually happen to the Officers involved especially the LEOs that engaged in a blatant abuse of power & retaliatory attack on her supporters. But of course nothing will happen & the media attention will die off.

[Guest WyattEarp]

Charges dropped and rightfully so. Cops were WAY out of line on this one.

Open Channel - Woman who recorded police is off the hook

[Guest 6.8 AR]

"An officer who takes his or her attention away from the task at hand to worry about a person running video is going to suffer from split-attention deficit," Sgt. Ed Flosi of the San Jose, Calif., Police Department told PoliceOne, a journal for law enforcement professionals. "When a person is forced to focus on more than one item, the amount of focus on either item suffers. In other words, they may miss something that the primary suspect(s) is doing that could get them hurt or killed."

That's the dumbest statement, doesn't matter who it comes from. Maybe that police chief

thinks cameras are life threatening, but I don't. His priorities are backwards.

[Guest WyattEarp]

"An officer who takes his or her attention away from the task at hand to worry about a person running video is going to suffer from split-attention deficit," Sgt. Ed Flosi of the San Jose, Calif., Police Department told PoliceOne, a journal for law enforcement professionals. "When a person is forced to focus on more than one item, the amount of focus on either item suffers. In other words, they may miss something that the primary suspect(s) is doing that could get them hurt or killed."

That's the dumbest statement, doesn't matter who it comes from. Maybe that police chief

thinks cameras are life threatening, but I don't. His priorities are backwards.

I thought the same thing too! maybe the cop should just focus on the task at hand and worry about the bad guy and not the person standing there with a video recorder who is obviously no threat at all.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Notice the police chief was from San Jose. They cherry picked an anti gunner

probably, for the story.

[Guest WyattEarp]

I didn't see anything in the article that said she was arrested for filming. She would have been arrested whether she was filming or not.

In my mass media law class I took at MTSU, anyone in possession of a camera, audio recording device or video recording device is deemed "the press" and therefore a member of the media and protected by the Constitution, due to the fact that anyone can post their video or picture online, on a news site (such as iReporter for CNN, etc) and so on and so forth.

Either you misheard or he was wrong. By that definition, anyone with a cell phone is the press and that is just not so.

Anything captured on a device, such as video or audio, is protected by the first amendment when used by, or in the press. That means that the government cannot stop or

impede the publishing of such.

That does not make anyone holding a video recorder or a phone "the press". It also doesn't make anyone holding such device, press or not, above the law.

Meaning, you cannot disobey the law simply because the content in your camera, and what you do with that content, is a protected right, no more then I can disobey the law because my gun is a protected right.

while I didn't find the court case I was looking for, there was a recent court ruling that echoed what I stated that I heard in my Mass Media Class.

1st Circuit Rules Videotaping Police Is Protected Speech

Videotaping police in the course of their duties is "unambiguously" a free speech right protected under the First Amendment, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held in a recent decision.

The appeals court, in an opinion released Aug. 26, rejected the argument that police officers who arrested such videographers should be granted immunity against litigation.

The underlying case involves a Massachusetts lawyer, Simon Glik, who sued the city of Boston and three local police officers alleging violations of his First and Fourth Amendment rights after he was arrested for filming police activity with his cell phone.

Glik was walking past Boston Common in 2007 when he spotted three police officers making an arrest. The officers saw Glik filming the arrest using his cell phone and placed him under arrest, later charging him with violating the Massachusetts Wiretap Act, disturbing the peace and aiding in the escape of a prisoner. The case was eventually dropped, and Glik filed suit.

The city of Boston and the police officers moved to dismiss the case, arguing that they were subject to immunity because there was no clear First Amendment right to film police using a cell phone video camera. They also argued that they didn't violate Glik's Fourth Amendment right because they had reason to believe he had violated the state's wiretap law.

Judge William Young of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied the motion to dismiss, prompting an immediate appeal by the city of Boston and the officers. Circuit Judges Kermit Lipez, Jeffrey Howard and Juan Torruella heard oral arguments on June 8.

The appellate judges found that Glik was well within the bounds of the First Amendment by filming government officials carrying out their duties in a public space. Private individuals, like members of the press, should be given a wide berth to gather information on public officials, the judges wrote.

"Changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw," they wrote. "The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone."

On the Fourth Amendment claim, the appeals court agreed with Young's finding that the police had no reason at the time to believe Glik was secretly recording them in violation of the state's wiretap law. Police admitted that they knew Glik was using his phone to capture the arrest when they confronted him, the appellate judges noted.

The police claimed they thought Glik was only taking pictures, as opposed to a video and audio recording, but the appeals court found that "a straightforward reading of the statute and case law cannot support the suggestion that a recording made with a device known to record audio and held in plain view is 'secret.'"

Glik's attorney, David Milton of the Boston-based Law Offices of Howard Friedman, said last week that the ruling was a "resounding victory for the First Amendment."

"In strong language, the court affirmed that the right to videotape police officers and other public officials is protected by the First Amendment and is an essential tool of democracy," he said.

A representative in Boston's Office of Corporation Counsel did not immediately return a request for comment.

[DaveTN]

The case you are quoting deals with charges/accusations/rights of recording.

This case deals with interference/obstruction of Officers making an arrest on a traffic stop.

I wouldn’t care who filmed or recorded what (I would assume that is always happening). But when a person got close enough to me on a traffic stop or arrest to cause me to have to divert attention to them; they were warned to step back. If they didn’t they got arrested.

Traffic stops are a deadly place for cops; they need to stay focused and razor sharp on what they are doing. Nothing in the law or Constitution keeps them from making the area safe.

[Guest GunTroll]

This again!

Private property. Seeing how charges were dropped. She did nothing wrong. The DA thought so. The only folks who don't agree are cops/ex-cops/and people who generally have issues with asserting authority unjustly.

[Guest Zombie-Hunter]

The case you are quoting deals with charges/accusations/rights of recording.

This case deals with interference/obstruction of Officers making an arrest on a traffic stop.

I wouldn’t care who filmed or recorded what (I would assume that is always happening). But when a person got close enough to me on a traffic stop or arrest to cause me to have to divert attention to them; they were warned to step back. If they didn’t they got arrested.

Traffic stops are a deadly place for cops; they need to stay focused and razor sharp on what they are doing. Nothing in the law or Constitution keeps them from making the area safe.

Despite your grumbling throughout this thread, Justice was upheld, while the public servant acted without.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Zombie-Hunter

[hornett22]

Cop reprimanded,now that's funny,I don't care who you are. They play by a different set of rules,Theirs!

[Guest WyattEarp]

The case you are quoting deals with charges/accusations/rights of recording.

This case deals with interference/obstruction of Officers making an arrest on a traffic stop.

I wouldn’t care who filmed or recorded what (I would assume that is always happening). But when a person got close enough to me on a traffic stop or arrest to cause me to have to divert attention to them; they were warned to step back. If they didn’t they got arrested.

Traffic stops are a deadly place for cops; they need to stay focused and razor sharp on what they are doing. Nothing in the law or Constitution keeps them from making the area safe.

indeed it does, but I wasn't commenting on the case. i was commenting on another member's post.