It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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?
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”.
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.
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.