Fourth Circuit: Individuals Have a First Amendment Right to Livestream Their Own Traffic Stops
eff.orgSubmitted by mepper t3_11aeick in technology
Comments
cptnamr7 t1_j9s3xcu wrote
Don't worry. Our very own definitely-not-compromised Supreme Court will overturn this anyway so we'll be back to just the latter part of your list soon enough
ahfoo t1_j9x093m wrote
This was what I came here to post, the Supreme Court has just handed down a series of absurdly authoritarian rulings on free speech.
erosram t1_j9rzrco wrote
Oh dang you didn’t!
DevoidHT t1_j9s3phx wrote
Not anymore. Police brutality is colorblind
9-11GaveMe5G t1_j9s552t wrote
For some deranged cops (like say one that might etch "you're fucked" into the barrel of their rifle) I will agree they are just itching to kill anyone. But watch the bodycam of the cops that responded to the 911 call at Nancy Pelosi's house. Her husband Paul answers the door with the white intruder holding onto him with one hand and holding a hammer in the other. Cops don't draw a gun or even a taser. Guy starts hitting Paul in the head with the hammer and still they just run in and tackle. Never drew anything.
BarrySix t1_j9t7l0x wrote
I can't believe that any US cop has ever etched "you're fucked" into the barrel of their rifle. I've seen cops, and this just isn't believable. "Your fucked" maybe, if it's one of the more intelligent cops.
iscashstillking t1_j9tl45x wrote
That particular former officer was mitch brailsford of the mesa arizona police department for those who might not already know. Real piece of work that guy.
amibeingadick420 t1_j9tmqcj wrote
It was Philip Brailsford, who murdered Daniel Shaver with an M4 with “You’re Fucked” engraved on the dust covered.
Not only did he not face legal consequences, but the department hired him back for about one month, just long enough that he could claim PTSD from the act of murdering an unarmed man, and get a lifetime pension as a reward for it.
Fuck all cops.
regalrecaller t1_j9wfx14 wrote
Thought experiment: attempt to find one good cop
amibeingadick420 t1_j9xna0y wrote
Christopher Dorner.
delrioaudio t1_j9umm84 wrote
I can second this. This story hit home for me because the victim was traveling for work and staying at a hotel, like I did for a while. He was an an exterminator contracted.by home depot corporate to remove birds from their garden centers. He had a pellet gun in his room that he used to shoot pigeons. Someone in the hotel pool saw the silhouette of a gun through the blinds on his room and called Mesa police. They show up, homey is half drunk, cuz what else do you do on the road, and start playing a demented game of Simon says with the poor guy. He reached down to hike up his baggy pants and they shot him. And the rifle that had the carving in it was a shotgun, so yeah you're definitely fucked if that thing is pointed at you. Demented shit right there.
Foodcity t1_j9tx0wv wrote
Just the fact that they have possession of these long enough to have that done is horrifying mishandled. They frankly should be issued and signed for at an armory daily, not just issued out indefinitely. Hell, it would be safer for them anyway, and allow for inspection of weapons.
MerryMortician t1_j9uta64 wrote
It’s more class than race. Just the fact they were in rich people’s neighborhood made them act better
daKEEBLERelf t1_j9uh7m3 wrote
because it would be irresponsible to start shooting at someone who is attacking the victim, because they might shoot the victim in the process.
Do you want the police to stop shooting people needlessly or not? don't compare times when they act appropriately with times they don't. They were responding to a call and Pelosi said, "he's a friend" ON THE 911 CALL.
erosram t1_j9v36y9 wrote
Ya that’s a completely different scenario.
The cops saw 2 people standing beside each other and smiling. One of them just said hi, and wouldn’t say anything else.
This lasted no more than a few seconds. No need to make everything racial. Nobody would have known what to do in those few seconds.
[deleted] t1_j9sk0ku wrote
[removed]
ZombieZookeeper t1_j9tk0qh wrote
Any "civilian" is a potential victim.
v12vanquish t1_j9umxi6 wrote
If you’re going to make jokes at least post data.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/585140/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-weapon-carried-2016/
27 unarmed people were shot in 2022.
More blacks died from almost everything else.
Edit: said 27 unarmed black when it was just people.
crazy28 t1_j9uqs1c wrote
These numbers are reported by the police and we all know how much they lie. They will say a shooting victim was armed until there is video evidence that they weren't then shift the blame to incomplete information provided by someone else.
v12vanquish t1_j9us5v7 wrote
So you’re making a claim with no sort of official statistic or third party accounting?
That sounds like statement of faith.
crazy28 t1_j9uvenu wrote
Here is one example that happened last month with the initial police statement and video of the incident can be found on YouTube. I could find more for you if you want.
v12vanquish t1_j9v0779 wrote
One example does not prove the statement that cops are out murdering black people and lying about it.
“More rigorous research into the question of whether police killings reflect racial bias is in its infancy, and it has been subject to intense debates over the appropriate methods. But existing studies are divided on the bias question. Many papers fail to find bias in lethal force, though one of the most careful studies in the literature—of an unnamed city with a high murder rate—does find that white cops discharge their guns several times as often as black cops when sent to 911 calls in heavily black neighborhoods.
Clearly, the most extreme narratives, in which police kill nonthreatening, unarmed black men with high frequency, are false. But research continues as to whether there is some detectable, smaller level of bias in the nationwide data and whether problems manifest themselves differently in different places.”
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/verbruggen-fatal-police-shootings
[deleted] t1_j9vzybb wrote
[removed]
v12vanquish t1_j9wdsz7 wrote
https://i.imgur.com/54vevVf.jpg
I am sorry that you deleted your comment, I restored it for you.
[deleted] t1_j9uu81d wrote
[removed]
caguru t1_j9vjeui wrote
Data kills narratives though.
[deleted] t1_j9t6p59 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9srvmq wrote
[deleted]
Atticus_Fatticus t1_j9s1gky wrote
I'm confused... so is there an official city policy banning livestreaming or no? The article makes it seem like that's some wild mystery when it should be extremely easy to tell whether or not that's true. It should either be a city statute or there's an internal policy which is subject to Freedom of Information Act requests or legal subpoena.
If it's not true, then where the fuck is the recourse? He can't sue the city unless there's an actual city policy banning livestreaming, and he can't sue the cop because of qualified immunity? So did the 4th circuit just rule that cops can pretty much just do whatever the fuck they want and citizens have no recourse unless there's a specific city policy banning their poor behavior? That's insane.
Jaedos t1_j9sk3kp wrote
About 10 years ago or so, a motorcyclist got pulled over and immediately had a gun drawn on him without cause.
He posted the video online.
The fucking cops charges him with FUCKING WIRE TAPPING because he included the audio.
Cops will find a way to fuck you.
DBDude t1_j9tmwya wrote
Two party consent state.
Jaedos t1_j9tn7rn wrote
As far as I know, it had nothing to do with consent. Regardless, it was on the side of a street in public so there's no expectation of privacy in the first place.
DBDude t1_j9tp7uj wrote
The laws are written so that if you make any audio recording without consent of one of the parties, it's illegal. The cop was one of the parties. It's against wiretapping, but it's written so broadly as to cover this.
Jaedos t1_j9tpx1r wrote
I found the judge's statement. I knew you can't have an expectation of privacy in a public setting.
"As to the wiretapping charges (contained in Counts one and two, which alleged the interception and dissemination of a “private conversation”), Judge Plitt found that police have no expectation of privacy in their public, on-the-job communications, and thus held Graber’s conduct could not be a crime: “The encounter in this case took place on a public highway in full view of the public. Under such circumstances, I cannot, by any stretch, conclude that the Troopers has any reasonable expectation of privacy in the conversation with the Defendant which society would be prepared to recognize as reasonable.”"
DBDude t1_j9tw6zi wrote
Right, but any target of such recording likes to leverage such laws to strike back. I’m glad this was overturned.
Jaedos t1_j9txi1m wrote
No, you know good and well that if you or I tried to get WT charges pressed against someone, the cops would laugh right in your face. This was done solely in retaliation for evidencing the cops bad behavior.
rshorning t1_j9wiylb wrote
You are correct that if you called a cop to have an ordinary person prosecuted for filming you in a park or at the side of a road that they would laugh at you and tell you to ignore it and move on.
The issue is if a pissed off cop doing something stupid would get his corrupt buddies to prosecute in this manner? Sure, rules for me but not for thee. It is seriously unbalanced and a form of corruption. Why a judge would accept that argument and convict for this reason is also something to condemn? Because they are a cop you recorded and nothing else.
It absolutely is in retaliation and because the judicial system gives different rules for police behavior than for us peons.
DBDude t1_j9u1eeo wrote
It can be done, especially by the targets of undercover journalists. It really depends on whether the prosecutor doesn't like the message.
And yes, it was retaliation. But the laws are written so broadly that it was easy to do. Had to go way up to get this crap stopped.
choicesintime t1_j9uqp03 wrote
Are you a cop? You are literally defending retaliation
CosmicBoat t1_j9us9au wrote
Leather is in his diet
DBDude t1_j9uujp8 wrote
No, I'm complaining the law is written so broadly that it invites such retaliation.
[deleted] t1_j9w5fpf wrote
[removed]
rshorning t1_j9wh3sv wrote
You missed his argument. The law as written is unjust and violates the first amendment, but still can be interpreted to apply in this situation if a prosecutor wants to press charges.
If a judge buys that the law should be enforced and you agree that you indeed record the cop without their permission, that law applies.
Yes, stupid logic but that is how absurd the law can get if written too broadly.
International_Day686 t1_j9v6lkz wrote
Found the cop.
DBDude t1_j9vcwt3 wrote
Why would a cop be glad the court went against cops?
jlm994 t1_j9tq3cm wrote
Do you have a legal source on this? Because I am pretty sure you are just incorrect.
To my knowledge, police on duty have no reasonable right to privacy performing their and can be recorded at any time and without consent.
The police deciding to charge a motorcyclist with “wiretapping” sounds like a clear abuse of power and corruption. Not sure why you feel the need to defend them seemingly?
It’s not “semantics” when cops purposefully misinterpret laws to benefit their power. For whatever reason as a society we have his huge leeway for cops to be wrong about how laws work- it straight up isn’t “wiretapping” by any definition to record a cop.
[deleted] t1_j9u2hj6 wrote
[deleted]
HaElfParagon t1_j9u4wds wrote
Only as long as you are recording form public property. You can't go onto their lawn to record, with some weird exceptions
okcdnb t1_j9u234s wrote
If it was me recording, I am one party.
Plus you have no reasonable expectation to privacy in public.
DBDude t1_j9u2ui9 wrote
Again, the laws are so broad that they enable such charges, and let the prosecutors prosecute. You have to hope it ends on appeal. There is no downside for them. You can't successfully sue a prosecutor for abusing these laws.
berntout t1_j9uanro wrote
You have zero idea what you're talking about and are completely wrong. Please stop spreading false information.
DBDude t1_j9ubc70 wrote
No, I'm correct because the police can use this law to arrest you, and the prosecutors can use it to prosecute you. That doesn't make it right, but you will end up spending a lot of money to defend yourself until some higher court throws it out, as in this case.
berntout t1_j9vgnv9 wrote
There’s a very good reason you’ve been severely downvoted. Take the hint and shut up
rshorning t1_j9whpkn wrote
He is explaining reality and the mindset of police and their buddies in a prosecutor's office. Those downvoting are just thinking he is defending instead of explaining. That is further from the truth.
Sure, a stupid law that can be abused. Why shoot the messenger?
DBDude t1_j9vjroo wrote
I've been downvoted because people can't read. I've already had two responses thinking I'm on the side of the police.
rigeld2 t1_j9wecwq wrote
Police and prosecutors can find something to charge you with - the fact that this law was written broadly doesn’t matter (and it wasn’t, hence the reason the court threw it out).
The underlying issue is that there’s no penalty for abuse of power.
RunninADorito t1_j9u92gf wrote
In a public space?? No.
[deleted] t1_j9v7v6d wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j9vtmdj wrote
[removed]
Badfickle t1_j9y7lco wrote
There is no consent required in a public place with public officials where there is no expectation of privacy.
fardough t1_j9swu8w wrote
Cops need to be held accountable to knowing the law. It is completely sickening a defense for police officers is “I didn’t know”.
blbd t1_j9sz4d1 wrote
Impossible due to the SCROTUS rulings on qualified immunity which doesn't even exist in the underlying legislation. You can't get busted as a cop for screwing over a citizen unless there's case law in that court circuit specifically declaring what the cops did before is not allowed. But you can't get that ruling made until another ruling is made before saying the same thing already. So you can never get a ruling at all.
amibeingadick420 t1_j9tn795 wrote
If anyone wants to know more about how the courts completely invented qualified immunity out of thin air to allow them to violate your constitutional rights without any recourse, the “Drunk Law School” podcast did a great three parter on it.
fardough t1_j9vn4hs wrote
Radiolab did an amazing episode on “What is the purpose of the Police?”
The had two really gut wrenching stories that will make you hate the police. The TLDR is the police could have protected them, but did nothing.
Turns out there was a Supreme Court case where the police fought it was NOT their obligation to protect. For it to be an obligation, it has to meet like 10 standards from went to the police to the police engage then failed to act. It made me incredulous. Protect and Serve my ass.
The other bit that was fascinating is in most states, no one chartered the police into existence. The police wrote their own charter, it was not given to them. Kind of crazy, the police just popped up and got funded. No clear ask in writing, almost as if the original purpose was to be the mayor’s goon squad and/or slave catchers.
So we have a government body that writes their own charter, are not here to protect us, are not required to know what they are enforcing, in fact not held to the same standard of law as everyone else, expect us to recognize their authority which the people actually never gave them, they investigate themselves, are rewarded for seizing peoples assets even without a conviction which allows them to militarize themselves, have max IQ requirements because they want them dumb enough to obey, and at a flinch are allowed to shoot people.
Then you have the bad cops.
ARobertNotABob t1_j9tj7ks wrote
I started watching The Rookie this week. OK, yes, I know it's a TV show, but cops knowledge of Laws and Procedures is shown as a literal bedrock, foundation, "where's your Rook Book?" being a repeated line.
Equally though, I'm also aware that cops are put on your streets with mere weeks of training; when was the last time you started a job where you just knew all the rules?
The whole thing seems like a bumblebee ... it shouldn't fly, and yet, somehow ...
amibeingadick420 t1_j9topf7 wrote
Heien v. North Carolina established that police don’t have to ow the laws, and if they pull you over for something that isn’t illegal because of their ignorance, then that is still a valid stop.
But, just to be clear, for the rest of us citizens, ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
If government enforcers can make up laws, it is clear that laws, including the Bill of Rights which supposedly protects our rights, mean nothing. America is fucked. Likewise, fuck America.
WillBottomForBanana t1_j9ucuti wrote
Bonus bizarre point. Any other fed/state/local employee that I know of has to know the laws regarding their job and ignorance is literally not an excuse.
ericmm76 t1_j9udl4o wrote
Whats worse is that when you are being mistreated wrongly you need to be PERFECT. Any expression of frustration anger or god forbid correction is dangerous for you.
Especially if you're not white.
fardough t1_j9vozgx wrote
I see your point to a degree. No one is perfect and everyone makes mistakes.
The problem is these are enforcers of the law who can kill with impunity. The expectation should be as high as the risk. If you have the power of life and death, then you are expected to never get it wrong. If you can put an innocent person into prison, then it better be accurate. I agree here there is likely a line, mistaking similar statutes versus making up a law
On your first day at a new engineering job, they don’t give you root access to the main application and let you go at it. No, you have to show competence to gain that privilege, and every engineer knows if they delete main, then that is more than likely their job.
eftresq t1_j9y7t7i wrote
Sounds like my 9 year old.
[deleted] t1_j9tomzw wrote
[deleted]
HaElfParagon t1_j9u4lnw wrote
Not quite. If a cop is found to violate your civil rights a judge can choose to waive qualified immunity.
reddit-MT t1_j9utzxw wrote
It's usually more of a question of breaking some other law, not livestreaming specific. Like interfering with a police officer, resisting arrest or wiretap statues. So the "mystery" isn't about the existence of a livestreaming specific statue, but if other statues apply.
Qualified immunity may be invoked if it was not "clearly established" that livestreaming was legal at the time of the incident and the police should reasonably have known about it. Going forward, it's now established in the 4th circuit that livestreaming is legal, so long as the suspect doesn't violate another law in the course of livestreaming, like interfering with a police officer.
Other jurisdictions have laws that say, to paraphrase, that it's legal to record the police making an arrest but you have to maintain a certain distance and not interfere.
axionic t1_j9u5tx7 wrote
Someone should sell cameras that point at the side windows and automatically start livestreaming during traffic stops. And that cannot be turned off for at least one hour once switched on.
FixLegitimate2672 t1_j9ugd4n wrote
offer them for free but get a cut of any settlement money
axionic t1_j9wbh11 wrote
What a great Kickstarter idea
rsb_david t1_j9vopwt wrote
I’ve been tempted to look into existing solutions or maybe even creating my own solution for a dash camera that can also stream live to a cloud or RTP service. The main problem is internet access and bandwidth availability, especially with a multi-channel camera.
Ideally, I’d design something that plugs into a small computer that can be mounted in the trunk and writes the footage and optional metadata from a OBD-II reader or other devices (GPS, accelerometer, etc) to a local SSD pair with replication in place. There would then be a special switch that triggers a cloud transfer of the last few minutes before and a live upload of real time footage until stopped or a loss of power/connectivity. This would be in addition to a local recording being saved to a separate partition. It would act as a black box for a car too.
You could use LTE networks, but they are normally saturated in populated areas or unreliable in rural areas. Starlink is expensive and needs more hardware. Maybe something that just scans for public WiFi or home WiFi would be useful enough.
bigbangbilly t1_j9wr0j0 wrote
If the Ring doorbell merely started as a webcam with some other stuff and bought by Amazon, something similar can be done with traffic stop cams
No-Judgment-4424 t1_j9u7wjr wrote
Umm...duh?
The issue has never been whether we had the right or not. That's obvious. The ISSUE is the fucking POLICE who don't give a shit, do whatever they want anyway, and don't pay for it.
Foe117 t1_j9usiot wrote
Yes, but qualified immunity prevents anything happening to the cops when they get caught red handed.
HaElfParagon t1_j9u4ax5 wrote
No shit sherlock, this was always the case.
iheartsimracing t1_j9w3rse wrote
Know your rights! These are your rights! All three of them.
-
You have the right not to be killed. Murder is a crime. Unless it was done by a policeman or an aristocrat.
-
You have the right to food money. Providing, of course, you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation.
-
You have the right to free speech. As long as, you're not dumb enought to actually try it.
RIP Joe Strummer
[deleted] t1_j9rnyf1 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9tf2wd wrote
[removed]
therealtiddlydump t1_j9vxnz4 wrote
Yep, sounds like 1st Amendment protected activity to me
dethb0y t1_j9wf7ov wrote
I should hope so.
[deleted] t1_jaciphq wrote
[removed]
StrangeCharmVote t1_j9t8r3h wrote
Sure, they can stream it if they want...
Here's the thing however, delaying an investigation, and lack of cooperation with a law enforcement officer are offenses.
Also that footage can be used against you in a court of law.
So you'd better be sure to do everything you're meant to be, in a timely manner.
Edit: Pretty sure a bunch of people who aren't familiar with watching sovereign citizens making fools of themselves harassing police officers and escalating encounters unnecessarily are the people downvoting this comment.
ShamusTheClown t1_j9tcc62 wrote
I see no issue with admitting your own video as evidence. The truth is what's important to the legal system.
StrangeCharmVote t1_j9vn2ts wrote
> I see no issue with admitting your own video as evidence.
Neither do I. However i recommend you look up a bunch of 'sovereign citizen' video's on youtube.
Basically these chuckle-fucks all record themselves breaking the law and then post the videos, because they have a poor understanding of the law, and think they can get either be let go entire;y, or a massive payout, if they speak some magic words.
Note however, many of the repeat offenders with channels almost certainly know by now they are harassing officers, and are doing it for the donations and ad revenue.
> The truth is what's important to the legal system.
As an entirely separate statement... I am not convinced.
If this was true, explain Fox getting away with their antics till now, which they achieved via that court case claiming nobody anywhere would take their content seriously.
bent-grill t1_j9v009q wrote
Holy shit, recording an officer interaction reduces risk for both the officer and the citizen. Better for everyone to default to letting the cameras roll. Bad behavior should be seen, as should good behavior.
StrangeCharmVote t1_j9vnfqh wrote
> Holy shit, recording an officer interaction reduces risk for both the officer and the citizen.
We both agree on this.
> Better for everyone to default to letting the cameras roll. Bad behavior should be seen, as should good behavior.
Indeed it should.
[deleted] t1_j9uk5dw wrote
[deleted]
9-11GaveMe5G t1_j9rr88y wrote
Then also their subsequent assault, arrest and murder (last point subject to skin melanin measurements)