Archive for the ‘filming police’ tag

Videotaping of Police NOT Illegal

A buy robaxin loading dose is designed to get effective levels of medication triamterene for sale into your body quickly so it can start working right buy cheap bentyl away. Eating grapefruit or drinking grapefruit juice while taking Viagra viagra buy could raise the level of Viagra in your body. This cephalexin in us is because every person's body is different, and medical devices discount augmentin may not work the same or have the same side acomplia side effects effects for everyone. Lithium and valproate are mood stabilizers that get tetracycline alternatives store doctors prescribe as maintenance (long-term) treatments for bipolar I disorder. asacol prescription To find out how often side effects occurred in clinical buy tizanidine online trials, see the prescribing information for Tymlos. There's no evidence glyburide for order of harmful effects on a fetus or pregnancy if Yaz is.

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