Originally posted by The Old American
Originally posted by Ryanp5555
There certainly is no First Amendment violation. The camera was still rolling after the cop arrested her. He wasn't restraining her speech. He may
have reacted because of her, but that is not the reason she was arrested, nor did he prohibit the filming from continuing. He even tells her to film
from inside.
At 0:47 she states what she is doing, which was "recording what is happening" and states that "it's my right", which it is, from her yard, or the
street, or the roof...wherever. At 0:52 the LEO says, "Actually, not from the sidewalk." As a duly appointed officer of the law he just broke his oath
to defend, as part of the Constitution, by abridging her right to free speech. Recordings have been covered under free speech since we've had the
ability to record voices.
Okay, lets try this again. So, your contention is honestly that he violated her first amendment right by telling her she couldn't film from the side
walk? He did
NOT arrest her for filming from the sidewalk. She did
NOT have to listen to that order. She chose to listen to that order.
She could have very well continued to film from the sidewalk. If he had put a restraint on that speech by
ARRESTING her for filming from the
sidewalk then maybe you'd have an argument. BUT HE DID NOT! And even if he did arrest for filming on the sidewalk, the only way it becomes an issue
is if she was far enough away that there was no officer safety justification.
The Fifth Amendments is absolutely not infringed here. The Due Process clause means that you are to be granted a hearing before you are
actually sentenced to jail. I.e. in her case she would be entitled to a hearing to determine whether or not her being subject to further restrictions
on liberty would be justified. She was not denied this, thus there was no denial of due process.
I did include a qualifier, that it "could possibly" apply, but it is well within reason. In unlawfully detaining her he deprived her of "liberty". It
would depend on the court's ruling that the 5th applies. If they ruled that the 5th didn't apply, that doesn't mean he didn't deprive her of liberty,
it just means that other unlawful acts are sufficient to rule on guilt, and the 5th Amendment issue is not necessary.
No, there is now way this issue would reach the court. As I stated, the Fifth Amendment would only apply here if she didn't get
due process of
law. You cannot take away someone's life, liberty, or property without
due process of law. What does this mean? She would be entitled to a
hearing before she could be sent to jail. It's that simple. So, it
could not apply in this situation.
The Fourth Amendment is a restriction against unreasonable searches and seizures. This is really the only thing at issue.
She was unreasonably seized. This part of the 4th Amendment outlines that:
"and the persons or things to be seized."
He had no reasonable cause to detain her.
Actually he did. He felt threatened, thus he had the right to ask her to back up. She refused to comply with those orders. By failing to comply with a
lawful police order she was in
VIOLATION of the law. So, the Officer had more than the probable cause required to effectuate an Arrest. It
doesn't matter that it was possible for him to ask nicer. The Fourth Amendment does
NOT require an officer to act in the best possible way,
just a
REASONABLE way.
As has been stated, you cannot just blindly throw out the Amendments without understanding how the law has been developed.
I'm not blindly throwing out anything. I have laid the case out, quite frankly, much better than you have, and without any personal bias or assuming
that someone has no idea of how law works.
/TOA
You are blindly throwing out Amendments yelling violation. Your First Amendment violation is based on absolutely no governmental restriction of Free
Speech. Your
possible Fifth Amendment violation is not based on any failure to give her
due process of law. And your Fourth Amendment
reading is what you see on its face. You may think you've laid out the case better than me, but that's because you lack a clear understanding of the
law. I too am arguing without any bias. Again, I am
NOT a COP!
You seem so adamant that the officers cannot do this. So, lets delve a bit deeper into officer safety. Here are some places where your freedoms are
allowed to be violated by the Officers in the name of officer safety:
1) A cop can have you in a custodial interrogation situation where Miranda is required before asking questions and ask questions if they pretain to
the officers safety AND get those statements admitted against you in Court.
2) A cop has to knock and announce his presence before executing a valid search warrant on someone's house unless doing so would be dangerous for the
officer.
3) And officer can commence a terry stop and frisk if they have reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. Meaning, they can
stop to ask them questions and pat them down to look for weapons for the purposes of officer safety.
4) An officer can make a traffic stop and if they have reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity they can ask the person to get out of the
car pat them down for weapons and then search the car for weapons, and this includes opening containers and the trunk, or anywhere else a weapon may
be reasonably located, again for officer safety.
5) An officer, while executing a valid arrest warrant in someone's house can search the persons entire person AND the reasonable grabbing area
surrounding the person, even if it includes opening up drawers and moving around stuff in those drawers. Again, officer safety.
6) An officer, while executing a valid search warrant, can place everyone that is in the house in handcuffs, even if they are naked and not the people
suspected of a crime, while they search the house pursuant to officer safety. For instance, in one case, the officers got a warrant for the address,
where they believed a black suspect lived, and entered the house, where they found two white people having sex. They had no reason to suspect them of
the crime. However, the officers than placed them in handcuffs, completely naked, and moved them. The United States Supreme Court said that this was
ALLOWED. Why? Because the officers had enough probable cause to support a warrant, and thus in executing the warrant they acted
REASONABLY in
detaining these people for OFFICER SAFETY!
So, if we look at number 6, and say well if Officers can do that merely because they fear for officer safety (and being forced into handcuffs naked
despite not having probable cause to arrest these individuals is a HUGE infringement on an individuals rights) don't you think its reasonable that an
officer be allowed to arrest someone who is standing behind the officers, refusing to comply with an order, despite the officer essentially pleading
with her to move back?
edit on 4-7-2011 by Ryanp5555 because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-7-2011 by Ryanp5555 because: (no
reason given)
edit on 4-7-2011 by Ryanp5555 because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-7-2011 by Ryanp5555 because: (no
reason given)