Forum Post: ARRESTED BY COP for not Complying with Unlawful orders
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 6, 2011, 12:31 a.m. EST by theaveng
(602)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
John Bush And Matthew Medina were arrested in Texas for videotaping a police officer. Stupid. Back in August the 1st U.S. Circuit Court ruled - "The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles of protected First Amendment activity."
"Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting the free discussion of governmental affairs." - The Court added that the Massachusetts police officers should have understood this all along, and that videotaping public officials is not limited to the press.
It also appears the cops physically assaulted the citizen. I hate cops.
VIDEO OF MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE - http://youtu.be/YzL-admemJA
He was not arrested for videotaping. In fact, if videotaping was the issue - don't you think that he would have stopped them at some point. In fact, if you watched the whole video you would hear at one point the officer says "you can record, you just have to do it from the other side of the bike rack." The officer is well aware that people can record them in public.
They were arrested because they did not follow his order to move back. We can debate the merit of this law, if you like, but the issue is that the officer was engaged in police action and he needs space to operate. If people stand close to the action, it detracts from the officers ability to focus on what he's doing. That officer doesn't know if this young intoxicated man was the person's brother or boyfriend or what - so now they have to watch him as well while trying to take care of business. Granted - the line behind the police was kind of arbitrary, but had the kid moved back - or better yet moved on - it wouldn't have been a problem.
seriously, where do you get they were arrested for videotaping?
it's your Own link and you can't hear or see it?
and it's not "Unlawful" just because the kid harassing the officer says it is.
typical liberal Twist the facts bullshit.
I'm not a liberal.
I'm a Constitutionalist (apparently you're not).
.....And even if you're correct (videotaping had nothing to do with the arrest), the young man still did NOTHING to warrant being arrested by the cop. Is it not illegal to stand-around on a public street. Last I checked we live in Free America not Communist East Germany.
.
well, ok
to the point of it then, You and I authorize our law enforcement to do certain things, besides making arrests and giving tickets when an officer has to secure an area for a crime scene or a bomb threat or whatever, he/she is authorized to give Lawful Orders to do so. In this particular case securing a safe distance between the officers and someone in their custody from the public was warranted. I myuself would have given only ONE warning seeing as how the guy followed the cops and IF the guy had been drinking like he says he was I'd have even more cause to be concerned with my fellow officers AND my civilian in custodys protection.
try putting yourself in the Cops shoes and watch it. if you can do that.
I'm sorry for thinking you are a Liberal, the lack of ability see things from the perspective or being able to put ones self in his shoes didn't necessarily mean a lack of intelligence apparent in most liberals as it could have just been unable to imagine that difficult situation without actually living it.
hey you never know, once you get rid of all the Bad cops we will need good ones to take their place, maybe you can give it a try.
but there isn't a judge or jury in the country who will sympathize with a drunk agitator of a peace officer. Especially after seeing THAT video, you KNOW he wouldn't dare bring it to court, lol
The problem is that to refuse arrest, even a false arrest, constitutes resisting arrest and is punishable by law. In essence you may be found not guilty of the other charges but will still likely be found guilty of resisting. The entire system is designed to allow for officer mistakes (they do not want everyone arguing over their being arrested as it is then considered in the hands of the courts), and, in doing so, it provided them overreaching powers.
I would never resist arrest. I would show the U.S. Court Order to the cop, and tell him he has no authority to stop me from videotaping (or standing on a public street), but I wouldn't fight him if he decided to put handcuffs on me.
BTW you're wrong that a "resisting arrest" charge would stick. The Court ruled that the Massachusetts cop violated the 1st amendment right to videotape, therefore there was NO REASON to arrest the citizen, and the cop was guilty of violating the 4th amendment too (arrest without a warrant or probable cause). The cop's charge against the citizen was dropped. And the cop has a black mark on his record.
We are both talking about Glik correct? Had the officer, for example, informed the individual he was being detained or otherwise arrested and that individual ran away, fought, or otherwise RESISTED, he would be convicted even if the other charges were later dropped or overturned. Glik never resisted in any way and his charges were not related as such. I agree with the courts interpretation of the law in relation to the constitutional issue in the instant case; however, again, this case has nothing to do with resisting arrest. While one could defeat the other charges if they are without merit or unconstitutional, resisting in and of itself will hold up at trial if one engages in such behavior.
In Mass a few options exists to argue against a resisting charge even if one runs; however, it is not advisable. The first being an assertion that you as an individual were simply running away from the police in general (i.e., you see a cop and simply run). (See: Commonwealth v. Quintos). Another relates to an argument that a substantial risk was not created by resisting as it relates to flight. (See: Commonwealth v. Montoya).
In essence, your "no reason" assertion implies that after being wrongfully arrested, he would not be convicted for subsequent actions that are legal infractions? This would not follow as just because one might be falsely arrested will not excuse the violation of law after. One cannot, for example, kick the windows out of the police vehicle because they are falsely arrested and have the charges that follow dismissed because the officer arrested them on a charge later overturned. While the charges relating to the initial arrest will be overturned, anything relating to the window incident will stick. The same follows for resisting. Further, concepts surrounding entrapment and fruit of the poisonous tree would not apply.
Your asserted actions are the correct manner in which to handle any such situation.
First off, the individual never resisted. Second, please cite a case where a person was convicted of the sole charge of "resisting arrest" when all the other charges had been declared unconstitutional by the justices? I don't think you'll find any.
.
Unless you are misunderstanding my meaning, you manipulated what I said by only quoting part of my statement. My point surrounded IF HE HAD RESISTED. Are you arguing that had he resisted by fighting back, for example, that the charge would be dropped?
Second, to make an implied claim that if something does not exist equates to support that resisting is legal should other charges be dropped after being determined unconstitutional is a logical fallacy. Claiming no evidence is evidence only proves an absence and fails to provide REASON for the absence.
The 1st Circuit held in U.S. v. Camacho, 608 F. Supp. 2d, 178, decided November 23, 2011, that although the initial Terry stop and frisk constituted an unconstitutional search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment, thereby making the discovered gun fruit of the poisonous tree, they "agree that Camacho's actions of shoving Officer Sousa and resisting arrest provided grounds for his arrest and a search incident to that arrest." Only the guilty plea entered in which Camacho reserved the right to appeal the unconstitutional search eliminated the resisting issue.
Honestly, I encourage constitutional challenges when an individual resists unlawful arrest and am far from a supporter of conviction.
the 1st U.S. circuit court has no jurisdiction over Texas it covers the Districts of Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico and Rhode Island
you might try looking at Texas law and ruling by the 5th circuit court
true, but surely the 5th circuit would be hard pressed not to follow the 1st circuit on the issue.
That's true, but the 5th Circuit Court will hear about the precedent set by the 1st Circuit in August, and I'm 99% certain they will concur with their neighboring court that recording events, whether with a camera or pen-and-paper, is a 1st Amendment-protected activity (both free speech and freedom of the press).
Otherwise these cases will end-up being kicked up to the Supreme Court.
it is the eye of the camera held by the many now
Well, I wouldn't be surprised, though. It is illegal to take pictures in private areas without permission. Yet these private areas can take pictures of you all they want. They even video tape you, whether you want it or not.
You can't tell them you don't want your picture or video taken. But they can tell you?
A message for Occupy - let's go into a mall and simply start snapping pictures of everything.
Yeah. My reply wasn't exactly about taking picture of a cop, per se. But I doubt it is legal to videotape a cop without permission.
If people don't want their picture taken, then fine. They should tell you. It's another thing when some security guru comes around and says you can't shoot pictures because it's "private" property.
Malls are defined as "public facilities" in most states.
What the hell? Didn't you read the U.S. Circuit Court's decision? "The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place [the street in the video], including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles of protected First Amendment activity."