Posted on Jun 1, 2019
The Supreme Court Just Made It Easier for Police to Arrest You for Filming Them
982
78
36
7
7
0
This is a dangerous infringement and erosion of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court Just Made It Easier for Police to Arrest You for Filming Them
Posted from slate.com
Constitution
Supreme Court
Rights
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 8
5
5
0
Long article short, if there is probable cause for arrest you will be arrested. Even if you beat the charge or the charge is dropped you will still take a ride to jail. If there is probable cause for arrest you can not sue for false arrest. Don’t piss off police and you probably won’t get arrested. It’s not a game, actions have consequences.
(5)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
MSgt C Madd I agree we can disagree. As much as I'm an optimist by nature, I still see too many instances where the police are held to a lower standard in terms of use of force and ROE than the general public (or even Soldiers in a combat zone). That's troubling to me because they are the first line of protection for the general populace, but also the first line of oppression of the general populace.
(3)
(0)
MSgt C Madd
MAJ Bryan Zeski Agreed to a point. As SunTzu has said,”Every battle is won before it’s ever fought.” Use of Force guidelines and the SCOTUS have made sure police never fight fair. Because of the job they do, usually outnumbered on initial contact, and what police stand for. The Law. An attack on law enforcement shows so little disregard for the rule of law. If an individual is determined to act violently towards law enforcement, how would that individual act towards a civilian?Violent contact with police should never be a fair fight. Again, abuse of power or authority is something entirely different and should be dealt with accordingly.
(3)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
MSgt C Madd Agreed. I just find it off-putting that while in Iraq and Afghanistan, I had a more strict ROE than most police do. Positive ID of target and threat? That's not something police need. They just need the potential of a threat and to be in fear of their safety. That's backwards to me.
(5)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
MAJ Bryan Zeski - Jaywalking while protesting may or may not be a Constitutional violation. In some localities a protest may be required to have a permit. In those localities then a protest without a permit is usually considered a breach of the peace which in most places is also a crime, in those types of cases if there is a 'law' on the books for jaywalking then it would not be a Constitutional violation as you are trying to state.
(3)
(0)
4
4
0
While the title of this article may be correct that is not what the case was about.
This case probably should never have reached the Supreme Court. It seems to me that there were some poor judicial decisions that caused this to get this far. And it appears that the poor judicial decisions started with the 9th Circus (Ninth Circuit).
Read the facts and SCOTUS opinion for yourself.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1174_m5o1.pdf
This case probably should never have reached the Supreme Court. It seems to me that there were some poor judicial decisions that caused this to get this far. And it appears that the poor judicial decisions started with the 9th Circus (Ninth Circuit).
Read the facts and SCOTUS opinion for yourself.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1174_m5o1.pdf
,+Bºý Ö Ia"bCJøòGUK.\ª|IåËõKÄZ-9§Ìæ"Fi"|ûmÇjçå;«]`ae8gõbÁÑ8HÚ)z¡áÊ$@P_Ê=xjNå6oãvIí"h!òK¡}ÉçøÚ3^.[ÈÉZ?@lï¶ÆÊEÒçСÂQãl}v6L`s,#WpDÝ&8I9ª/# 'YnÛ:%pÛM3(ýBbÎëÃ13ÜHÑ'zà:TÑ¿ag {?õü|Kga7U§Æf\MBÆeìO,3ÊìdpYY3«W¿14XTËÖ$ãxEÔ¡/ë$ Â.0µ¶}r8Yjõ¿ßÔgÕMÍ"f&~]N;+ÞÊ'·!)bÛVíôhNEá »Óvx?{]·qÜiWÂ2(yYG=XÖo1üEÇòê¿sÕh;Wñï«vh;t!Ha9ñ$h~ø¶ödm§ØÑÚÛèÄü` 6ôn endstream endobj 449 0 obj stream H\Íjã0~-ÛEqâJ¶`iÒBóÃdæû&54QEÞ~t|JÆ`ëÒ«rÛîb?ògÚMîØÇ.ÙeÖÜÁN},ëúvúìÍßöÜEÃûÛeó.]ù+^...
(4)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
And I'm tracking that the case wasn't about this, specifically, but would likely be used as support in cases like these. Still an erosion of rights.
(5)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
I actually have to agree with MAJ Bryan Zeski! These types of rulings usually have unintended consequences which is why the unelected supreme court shouldn't be making law with rulings. The congress has sole legislative authority, not the SC. If a rogue cop violates someones Constitutional rights, they need to be held accountable.
(4)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
Cpl (Join to see) I know it hurts to agree with me. We can fight again on something else later! :)
(3)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
MAJ Bryan Zeski I don't hate people who lean left, I just can't fathom how they trust their political leaders to be "representative" or trustworthy for that matter. I realize the left feels the same way about the right, but we do share some common beliefs; term limits is one of them.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
One recurring "probable cause" for arrest of people video recording the police is the lawful act of video recording is suspicious, which falls short of reasonable articulable suspicion, much less probable cause, so they arrest the person for disorderly conduct or failure to ID (even when IDing isnt lawfully required).
However, if you're going to video record police, you should ensure you remain above probable cause, and this shouldn't stop one from suing for violations of the 1A.
However, if you're going to video record police, you should ensure you remain above probable cause, and this shouldn't stop one from suing for violations of the 1A.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google