Update 3/27/13 3:17PM: Hello, and welcome to the California Highway Patrol. Thank you for visiting this article. I hope you like the publicity, because it's only just begun. To mitigate the liability of your degenerate officer's actions, your brass should re-train them properly. If they had trained their officers correctly in the first place, it would have save you a lot of grief, embarrasment and money. Too late. You have demonstrated a proven policy and practice of illegally denying people the County Seat and threatening to arrest motorists for demanding it. You had better respect the God-given civil rights of all people. Viva Cristo Rey! Traffic archives by Martin Hill
When will these cops ever learn? Even with Federal Courts, the U.S. Supreme Court and The U.S. Department of Justice repeatedly admonishing police departments for trying to stop people from filming them, the police continue on trying to coerce, intimidate, and arrest people for filming on-duty police.
Here is a recent example from Southern California. A California Highway Patrol officer L. Harris (ID No. 14858) snarled "you can turn the camera off too", as well as instructing the driver to "tell your friend to get that camera out of my face," when the camera was actually nowhere near his face. He attempted this despite the fact that numerous Federal Courts and even the U.S. Supreme Court, in additon to the U.S. Department of Justice have clearly and repeatedly affirmed that filming police is an inherent right in America. Harris then told the videographer, who never said one word to him, to "stay out of this, it's none of your business" before slamming the vehicle door in anger. When the supervisor was called at the insistence of the driver, he lost complete control and began screaming at the woman in a fury. [ That full story and complete 11 minute video can be found here Lunatic CHP cops go berzerk as female motorist successfully demands her rights under CA Vehicle code.]
"The United States addressed the central questions raised in this case - whether individuals have a First Amendment right to record police officers in the public discharge of their duties, and whether officers violate individuals' Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they seize such recordings without a warrant or due process ï - - in a Statement of Interest filed in Sharp v. Baltimore City Police Dept., et al., No. 1:11-cv-02888 (D. Md.), attached here as Exhibit A.1 Here, as there, the United States urges the Court to answer both of those questions in the affirmative.
"This case raises questions that the United States did not address directly in Sharp, the answers to which are critical to ensuring that the constitutional rights at issue in that case are upheld. First, the United States urges the Court to find that both the First and Fourth Amendments protect an individual who peacefully photographs police activity on a public street, if officers arrest the individual and seize the camera of that individual for that activity. Second, the United States is concerned that discretionary charges, such as disorderly conduct, loitering, disturbing the peace, and resisting arrest, are all too easily used to curtail expressive conduct or retaliate against individuals for exercising their First Amendment rights. The United States believes that courts should view such charges skeptically to ensure that individuals' First Amendment rights are protected. Core First Amendment conduct, such as recording a police officer performing duties on a public street, cannot be the sole basis for such charges. Third, the First Amendment right to record police officers performing public duties extends to both the public and members of the media, and the Court should not make a distinction between the public's and the media's rights to record here. The derogation of these rights erodes public confidence in our police departments, decreases the accountability of our governmental officers, and conflicts with the liberties that the Constitution was designed to uphold."
"On Friday, August 26, 2011, the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which is New England's highest federal court just below the U.S. Supreme Court, ruled that citizens are allowed to videotape law officials while they conduct official duties."
"This specific case in question was Simon Glik vs.The City of Boston (and several police officers), in which a teenage Simon Gilk was arrested after videotaping Boston Police abusing a homeless man. While Mr. Gilk was not interfering with the police, he was arrested on wiretapping charges."
Arkansas State Trooper meets videocamera: Still not Illegal To Film Police Featured on PrisonPlanet.com 1/21/10 "...For the most part, you may not have any problem with the average police encounter. It's still advised, however, to protect yourself by exerting your God given right to film public servants in public. By doing this regularly, we condition them to accepting the liberty of those they serve." Also on PropagandaMatrix.com, and Infowars.net
Martin Hill is a Catholic paleoconservative and civil rights advocate. His work has been featured in the Los Angeles Daily News, San Gabriel Valley Tribune, Contra Costa Times, Pasadena Star News, Silicon Valley Mercury News, Long Beach Press Telegram, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, L.A. Harbor Daily Breeze, Whittier Daily News, LewRockwell.com, WhatReallyHappened, Infowars, PrisonPlanet, Economic Policy Journal, FreedomsPhoenix, Veterans Today, The Wayne Madsen Report, Devvy.com, Rense, Antiwar.com, IamtheWitness.com, The Dr. Katherine Albrecht Show, Jonathan Turley blog, National Motorists Association, RomanCatholicReport.com, Republic Broadcasting Network, WorldNetDaily, Dr. Kevin Barret's Truth Jihad radio show, The Orange County Register, KNBC4 Los Angeles, Los Angeles Catholic Lay Mission Newspaper, KFI 640, The Press Enterprise, Redlands Daily Facts, BlackBoxVoting, and many others. Archives can be found at LibertyFight.com.
Catholic paleo-libertarian from California., promotes limited government and civil liberties