Videotaping of Police NOT Illegal

This buy xalatan low cheap price section answers some frequently asked questions about where to stay canada lasix after radioactive iodine treatment. People experiencing green zone symptoms are buy cheap nasonex not having any breathing problems or difficulties going about their buy remeron online daily activities. Additionally, some varieties have herbal properties, and people azor online stores use the plant in alternative medicine. White blood cells called colchicine online stores T helper lymphocytes (Th) are important for adaptive immunity, where triamterene for order the immune system learns to protect itself from foreign invaders, cheapest viagra side effects dose like bacteria. As the disease progresses, more patches can form buy amoxicillin us elsewhere, including on the face, hands, mouth, and neck. Exposure synthroid no prescription to ultraviolet (UV) light from sunbathing, tanning booths, and outdoor purchase t-ject 60 online sports increases the development of wrinkles. Although researchers have associated buy cheap remeron acetaminophen with complications during pregnancy in rare cases, experts consider order discount viagra online it the safest pain-relieving medication for pregnant people. Certain mental viagra buy online health conditions, such as anxiety and depression, can also increase the.

If you watch the YouTube video below, you’ll see evidence of a cop harassing a civilian for filming an arrest.  In several states it appears that federal wiretapping laws have been used to justify this sort of behavior by the police, effectively putting you in their crosshairs for interfering with a police investigation, illegal wiretapping, or worse. (original story courtesy of: boingboing )

In a victory for all camera-phone ninjas everywhere, young and old, a Federal circuit court in the state of MA has ruled that filiming the coppers is an unambiguously constitutionally protected right.  For most of us, that’s mere common sense, for the police department, however, the news couldn’t be worse.

YouTube Preview Image

Undeterred, in February 2010, Glik filed suit in federal court against the officers and the City of Boston under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the MassachusettsCivil Rights Act.  Glik alleged that the police officers violated his First Amendment right to record police activity in public and that  the officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights by arresting him without probable cause to believe a crime had occurred.

Naturally, the police officers moved to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity, but Judge Young was having none of that, denying the motion from the bench and ruling that "in the First Circuit . . . this First Amendment right publicly to record the activities of police officers on public business is established."  The police officers then appealed to the First Circuit, but they have now struck out on appeal as well, with the First Circuit ruling that "Glik was exercising clearly-established First Amendment rights in filiming the officers in a public space, and that his clearly-established Fourth Amendment rights were violated by his arrest without probable cause." .::Citizens Media Law

email

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Posted: September 8th, 2011
at 2:48pm by Black Ock

Tagged with , , , ,


Categories: hood status,crime,politricks,real life news,law

Comments: No comments



 

Leave a Reply