7 ms·
Eighth Circuit: Citizens do not have a right to film public officials in public
- thinkfurther 9y agoCamcorder Truth Jihad vs. Cricket Chirping Competition. Sad.
- thinkfurther 9y agoThis story had 3 points after 2 hours and no comments, which I didn't expect to change. I wanted to leave more than an upvote for the submitter, but didn't have anything worthwhile to say, not being an American and knowing little about the related laws. I know that's not a substantive comment, or too meta and too rash, but still, "heh".
- provost 9y ago> Akins also alleged that the defendants violated his rights by removing videos he had posted on the CPD Facebook page, by ordering him to stop filming the filing of a citizen complaint in the CPD lobby, and by posting in the police department a flyer with information about him. While I support the right to film public officials in public (which Akins did sometimes), it seems he takes his actions too far, to the annoyance of officers. Perhaps the judge focused on these specific instances behavior, rather than a typical event of filming an arrest?
- bjourne 9y agoIt is not about Matthew Akins, but about the ruling of the court and the argumentation it used to arrive at that ruling. US law is based on precedents, so in future similar cases, the court must take into account the argumentation used and apply it to them. Therefore each verdict could potentially mean that new law is created. In this case, that could mean that a new law has been created that prevents citizens from filming the police. Unless the case reaches the Supreme Court and they make a contradictory ruling that is. But IANAL and I'm happy to be corrected.
- joatmon-snoo 9y ago> Therefore each verdict could potentially mean that new law is created. Not potentially - each new verdict is law. All lower courts are bound by law to follow the precedent established by higher courts; in other words, this now applies to all public-camera-bla-bla-bla cases in the 8th circuit. There is clear and established precedent for how courts can issue rulings that affect only a single case. Evidently that's not the case here. Disclaimer, IANAL.
- bjourne 9y agoInteresting. That appears to be a difference between common law and civil law. For example, here there is a legal uncertainty what the law says regarding snow-covered speed signs. Some people have been ticketed for not following speed limits they reasonably could not have seen without stopping the car and wiping the speed sign clean. Others have been acquitted in almost identical situations. Each court makes a new and independent reading of the law and isn't as affected by what other courts have found. The upside is that new laws aren't created by courts, the downside that legal uncertainties can remain forever.
- appleflaxen 9y agothis thought process is why our freedoms are being eroded. if you have a freedom that can be exercised only to the point of government convenience, then it's not a freedom.
- visarga 9y agoEverything is subject to government convenience sooner or later.
- bjpbakker 9y ago> Judge Nanette Laughrey ruled that [..] any citizen or the press, has no right to record the activities of public officials on public property Weird how governments do watch their citizens in public all the time, waving any privacy concerns with arguments of "public safety" or "national security". While at the same time they prosecute whoever is filming them at work.
- crusso 9y agoWhen individual liberty isn't your prime directive, slippery slope collective behaviors that trample over the rights of individuals are inevitable.
- Gupie 9y agoThe common good is a better prime directive IMO, and this is not a slippery slope to some fascist totalitarian dystopia. A simple example are traffic regulations. Speed limits are a restriction on individual liberty, but necessary for the common good.
- colordrops 9y agoWhat common good does banning filming of police serve?
- vidarh 9y agoI believe that is his point. It does no common good, but on a pure "individual rights" basis you could argue it infringes on the rights of the officers. At the same time, though, I believe that any adjudication based on individual rights would need to consider the totality. E.g. police officers from the outset are given substantial rights that infringe on our personal liberty ostensibly out of the belief that doing so will protect us against grater infringements of our personal liberty. Being allowed to film them, then, while it may on a low level infringe on an officers individual rights, can also be seen as protecting the individual rights of others by providing oversight on the special rights police has been granted. The officers have an easy out: They can surrender their special rights to infringe on others liberty, and we'll surrender any special rights to infringe on theirs. For my part I think that whether you look at this from a common good or individual rights perspective, as long as you look at the totality, you can arrive at pretty much the same outcome. Where you get a different outcome is in how you weight different rights up against each other, and how you determine the totality of infringement caused by different actions. E.g. you could (and to be clear, I strongly disagree with what I'm about to describe) argue that the officers have a right to privacy or to avoid harassment or similar that outweigh the public concern over monitoring their use of their expanded powers if you see their potential to infringe on others rights as leading to less infringements on liberty than the infringements of officers rights by allowing them to be filmed.
- westmeal 9y agoDoes this mean you cannot record a police officer during a traffic stop but he can record you?
- curun1r 9y agoIt's probably going to depend on the Supreme Court now, since other circuit courts have issued opposing decisions. Here's one from the last time I remember it being discussed on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13672482 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13672482 IANAL, but one interesting consequence of this ruling might be that it will embolden police since they can point to it as evidence that the right to film police is not clearly established and, even if the Supreme Court rules it's unconstitutional for police to prevent filming, the officers are still deserving of qualified immunity when preventing that constitutional right.
- akerro 9y agoI was told not to expect privacy in public places, because CCTVs are everywhere, can CCTV record public officials?
- Paul_S 9y agoYou can film people all you want, I imagine the important thing is that it is inadmissible in court.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Dowwie 9y agoTo clarify, the 8th circuit includes: - Arkansas - Iowa - Minnesota - Missouri - Nebraska - North Dakota - South Dakota South Dakota legislators recently exercised a State of Emergency to overrule an anti-corruption bill voted in by its constituents: http://www.salon.com/2017/01/25/south-dakota-republicans-state-of-emergency-is-a-brazen-political-coup-against-anti-corruption-law/ http://www.salon.com/2017/01/25/south-dakota-republicans-sta...
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- saimiam 9y agoThese states are also among the most conservative when it comes to gun rights in defense of freedom against a tyrannical government. Upside-down world we live in.
- calafrax 9y agoapparently they have a lot of experience with tyrannical government.
- meric 9y agoIt's the people that demand the gun rights against the government whose state officials vote themselves "protection" from being filmed in public.
- rickdale 9y agoAbsolutely. Look at marijuana. Most people I meet that oppose legalization also oppose the government defining their moral values. It's backwards.
- protomyth 9y agoIt should be pointed out the judges are federal appointments and not local people.
- 9y ago
- acjohnson55 9y agoReading this gives me chills. Just one more step of many towards living in a police state. I feel like the particular sort of freedom I was raised to enjoy in the 80s and 90s is slipping away. And as a black person, it really feels like the obvious abuses of police power continue unabated. There's finally a parade of evidence showing just how egregiously the cops treat us, and that door is at risk of closing, if the SCOTUS affirms this over the other circuit's opinion.
- DarkKomunalec 9y agoAs cynical as I am, I still expect the supreme court to take up this case, and issue a 9:0 ruling in favour of filming officials. SCOTUS has a strong free-speech track record: https://www.popehat.com/2017/06/21/free-speech-triumphant-or-free-speech-in-retreat/ https://www.popehat.com/2017/06/21/free-speech-triumphant-or...
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- epmaybe 9y agoWhere did the race baiting comment go? I wanted to respond by asking why we always think it's the race that is driving these statistics. Where's any consideration of an alternative hypothesis, such as poverty and inequality? I don't actually know if we have this data, to be honest. Maybe someone can look at records and see what bail was set to for each arrest? And to you as well, I pose another question: if cops treat black people unfairly, is it because they assume any black person is just going to commit a crime? Or is it more unconscious, in that the income inequality in the black population makes police officers more likely to associate black people with low income? For the record, I think that regardless police response is racially motivated and that we can all work together to change that.
- pmorici 9y ago
- mschuster91 9y agoWelcome to the police state, USA. Here in Germany it's legal to film police officers but they sometimes arrest you, beat you, damage or search your phone for it. (Source: witnessed all four kinds of events at demonstrations)
- madez 9y agoCourts in Germany do not generally agree that you can record somebody and use that that recording in court, because of "Recht am eigenen Bild". Even if a burglar enters your house, you may photograph him, but you cannot use that photo in court. You need to have a sign at the entry telling that you are doing video recordings on your property. Source: police information event. Still, if you question authority, you need to be prepared. In this case I would recommend immediate upload of the material, so taking or damaging the phone wouldn't help them.
- thriftwy 9y agoI can see how it has a point for public places (e.g. bars). But this makes negative sense for your house. What's "at the entry" in case of burglar anyway? Door? Now they just have to claim they entered via window and did not see the sign. How is that any good? Any restrictions on how citizens protect their property in court should be gravely discouraged. This is just plain taking rights from citizens to award them to feudals (of which police is a member)
- madez 9y agoAccording to police, all normal entries would need that warning. A windows is not a normal entry point. It is even enough to have a barricade tape around your land. What is important is that there is a visible border that indicates that crossing is not wanted.
- thriftwy 9y agoLand is one thing and home is another thing. It's obvious that you should have some kind of fence before ever accusing anybody of trespassing. But burglary inside an apartment is another thing entirely isn't it?
- em3rgent0rdr 9y agocan someone provide a more serious analysis of this instead of a local news website. I like things I can share with my facebook friends.
- wfunction 9y agoI'm wondering if this is more like "citizens do not have this right" rather than like "citizens do not, and should not, have this right". There is obviously nothing in the Constitution about recording public officials, and I assume there isn't a statute against it, so that means it's relying entirely on case precedent, right? Which I understand is still law, so I'm as baffled by the ruling as anybody, but I also feel that if I were taking this case on for the first time, I would find myself ruling that citizens don't have this right -- even though I would desperately hope and agree they very much should. Does anyone feel that if there was no case precedent, they would still believe they had this right due to freedom of "speech" (or something else)? What would be your legal justification?
- c0nfused 9y agoMost of the time when you see a headline like this it's worth reading the actual judgement. They are publically available. http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/17/07/163555P.pdf http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/17/07/163555P.pdf
- mseebach 9y agoThis seems to be mostly concerned with the rules for when someone should be recused? There seems to be no discussion of the right to record anyone anywhere, presumably that was covered in the previous, appealed/upheld judgement? Do you have a link to that?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- c0nfused 9y agoThis is the judgement in question. It has no bearing on free speech and should not be presented as doing so by anyone. If you can find a different case involving Akins on July 25th you are welcome to link to it instead. http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/opnByMM.pl?theMM=07&theYY=2017&A1=Get+Opinions http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/opnByMM.pl?theMM=07&th...
- leereeves 9y agoThis is the district court ruling: http://courtweb.pamd.uscourts.gov/courtwebsearch/mowd/BNJpmRPFlI.pdf http://courtweb.pamd.uscourts.gov/courtwebsearch/mowd/BNJpmR...
- calafrax 9y agothe judgement is actually pretty useless here since it just says they affirm the lower court ruling which was being appealed and doesn't include any reasoning on why.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- madez 9y agoI wonder why you would need a right to do a certain thing. In a non-opressive country everything is allowed, unless forbidden. So one doesn't need a right, it just doesn't need to be forbidden. This little change in perspective means a lot.
- Brendinooo 9y ago> In a free speech ruling that contradicts six other federal circuit courts, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a district court ruling that says Americans do not have a first amendment right to videotape the police, or any public official, in public. Worth noting that this circuit is the outlier, if the assertion is indeed accurate. But where is the "district court ruling that says Americans do not have a first amendment right to videotape the police, or any public official, in public"? I scanned over the 8th Circuit's opinion, which mostly talks about why the recusal denial was okay in their opinion: http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/17/07/163555P.pdf http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/17/07/163555P.pdf As well as dockets relevant to the case: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/missouri/mowdce/2:2015cv04096/121651 https://dockets.justia.com/docket/missouri/mowdce/2:2015cv04... But I haven't seen anything relevant to the claim in the lede. EDIT: Looks like this has some of the language mentioned, starting on page 32. In particular, the last paragraph of page 34: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/missouri/mowdce/2:2015cv04096/121651/117 https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/missou... > Further, he has no constitutional right to videotape any public proceedings he wishes to. See Rice v. Kempker... http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1380406.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1380406.html That's Rice v. Kempker. Part that the Akins ruling quotes: > Because we hold that neither the public nor the media has a First Amendment right to videotape, photograph, or make audio recordings of government proceedings that are by law open to the public... So, I'm not a lawyer or a judge, but it seems like the specific claim that the lede latched onto is much more narrow in scope. If a proceeding is public, it doesn't guarantee that anyone is allowed to come in and videotape it. I can't go to the Supreme Court and argue that I have a First Amendment right to take video in there. Am I missing something? If I'm interpreting this correctly, this news article is outrageously inaccurate. Here's another take on the story: much more nuanced and in line with what I've been reading in the dockets. http://www.abc17news.com/news/top-stories/attorney-asks-federal-court-for-rehearing-in-columbia-police-filming-suit/602091246 http://www.abc17news.com/news/top-stories/attorney-asks-fede...
- code4tee 9y agoTroubling ruling but very unlikely this survives further appeals.
- matthewmacleod 9y agoThis headline is literally a lie. No such statement was made by the court. How does this sort of thing happen? It's insanely dangerous when media channels just fabricate news that did not happen. You can see the effects here – the number of comments that are along the lines of "isn't the fascist police-state USA awful" is surprising. The statement in the headline is not even supported by the content of the article, let alone the judgement itself.
- merpnderp 9y agoYes, after reading the article I immediately searched the 8th circuits opinions, and the only case regarding Akins is on if the district judge should have recused themselves (which they said no). And the reason I immediately searched was the 8th district is very conservative and much more likely to agree with what is obviously Constitutional and in line with over 100 years of commonly understood law, than to cowboy up and say public photography is illegal. But fake news sadly FTW.
- ptero 9y agoThis is often the case, especially with a hot-button topic. I suspect this might be the case here as well -- I have not read the judgement yet. However, to have an informative discussion, can you provide a TL; DR summary. The main question I personally have is if can I still film anything and everyone on public property or has this been curtailed in some way shape or form.
- Brendinooo 9y agoI scanned through the dockets a bit; scroll down to see my post. As far as I see it, the author of the article leads you to believe that 'public' means 'any public space' when in fact the court was ruling about filming in 'public proceedings', which is completely different.
- roninb 9y agoWait, where do you see anywhere in the ruling a decision about anything other than whether the judge should've been recused or not...?
- lowpro 9y agoDirect link to the ruling: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/16-3555/16-3555-2017-07-25.html http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/16-... They don't link to it in the article. This should be the link, it has a summary of the ruling with it.
- nppalawyer 9y agoThe 8th Circuit ruled on the case but not on the right to record police in public. On 8/2/16 the lower federal court only found that the plaintiff "has no constitutional right to videotape any public proceedings he wishes to." She also cited a 2004 8th Circuit case holding that “Neither the public nor the media has a First Amendment right to videotape, photograph, or make audio recordings of government proceedings that are by law open to the public." This is far different from the right to record outside in a traditionally public forum (street or park) and only applies to the jurisdiction of the federal trial court not the full 8th Circuit. Akins is now seeking an en banc review or motion for rehearing of the 7/25/27 8th Circuit ruling which basically dealt with affirming the lower court's decision to grant summary judgment to the defendants and also affirming the denial by the trial court judge of the motion for her to recuse herself from the case. The First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits have all ruled that the right to record police officers performing their official duties in a public palace is clearly established which will negate a claim of qualified immunity by police.