6 ms·

You are legally allowed to, but doing so may result in excessive bodily harm and weeks of incarceration, with low or zero repercussions for the police that do i

You are legally allowed to, but doing so may result in excessive bodily harm and weeks of incarceration, with low or zero repercussions for the police that do it to you. Until Qualified Immunity is uprooted, these lawsuits really wont do much to move a needle. Still a good outcome from the courts.

stronglikedan 3y ago
> may result in excessive bodily harm and weeks of incarceration It won't, because that's exactly what this law prevents.
- Centigonal 3y ago
  But... who enforces that law?
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    Contempt of court against a federal district court order? A hacked off (in the case of any actual violation) federal judge with pretty broad direct power, U.S. Marshals,.and, potentially, the applicable US Attorney’s office, FBI, and the rest of thr federal criminal law enforcement apparatus for any criminal contempt or other federal crime involved.
- woodruffw 3y ago
  The law has historically not been a significant concern for the NYPD. Put another way: this is a "win" in the sense that there's judicial recognition of the problem, but attempting to test this law is still going to get you harassed and potentially arrested. The question then becomes whether 24+ hours in jail is worth ultimately being vindicated in court. Compare recent attempts to get the NYPD to stop parking illegally[1][2]. [1]: https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2023/01/23/tipster-sues-nypd-for-harassment-over-311-complaints-about-illegal-parking https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2023/01/23/tipster-sues-nypd-for... [2]: https://hellgatenyc.com/nypd-try-to-illegally-park-then-ticket-cyclist https://hellgatenyc.com/nypd-try-to-illegally-park-then-tick...
  - TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
    Also in many jurisdictions, arrest records are public and cannot be expunged… even if charges are never filed!
    - KennyBlanken 3y ago
      And many people have employers who would not tolerate a zero-notice day of absence, can't afford the fees for a criminal defense attorney (and public defenders are so backed up they're nearly useless), and so on.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > question then becomes whether 24+ hours in jail is worth ultimately being vindicated in court With a pattern of violations, a civil case for damages emerges. (With an arrest, there is particularised harm in a way parking violations do not tend to create.)
    - woodruffw 3y ago
      > With a pattern of violations, a civil case for damages emerges. Agreed, although this is predicated on being willing to put up with arrest. In effect, the cost is asymmetric: to have my civil rights enshrined here, I'd have to be willing to go to jail a handful of times, miss work, suffer physical and verbal abuse at the hands of an agency that rapes detainees[1], etc. All for a judge to potentially grant me damages. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abner_Louima https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abner_Louima
- hn_version_0023 3y ago
  [flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- contravariant 3y ago
  You mean like the constitution and two other laws prevented it?
- mangosteenjuice 3y ago
  https://signalscv.com/2023/11/lasd-statement-forthcoming-on-trio-of-employee-suicides/ https://signalscv.com/2023/11/lasd-statement-forthcoming-on-... Do you think anyone is going to be held responsible for this?
- peterpost2 3y ago
  [flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
thrdbndndn 3y ago
Just curious, how does the law distinguish "public" part of a public place, and "private" part of it like staff's rooms, evidence rooms etc?
- LegitShady 3y ago
  signs, locked doors, public ability to go into an area. Generally publicly accessible foyers, hallways, are ok.
  - KennyBlanken 3y ago
    I imagine NYPD's response to this will be to set up every precinct so there is a guard station at the front and you have to give a reason to be let in "for security."
    - DoesntMatter22 3y ago
      That is already common and they go in and film anyway. If the public can legally get there they can legally film
    - LegitShady 3y ago
      i imagine that policy too would be subject to legal challenge, and if placed immediately after this judgement would probably not draw a lot of sympathy from a judge. The issue is that filming in the public foyer/area of a public building IS legitimate business, even protected activity, so the more they do to make that difficult the worse it becomes for them.
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      From the article they have this angle covered too, though I don't know whether the judge specifically ruled on it as well: > and the NYPD instituted its policy without following the Citywide Administrative Procedure Act, which specifies the steps a City agency must take before it can put a new rule in place.
    - tehwebguy 3y ago
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
From what I've gathered watching Youtube legal videos, Qualified Immunity doesn't apply when the government officials have been explicitly told by a court that their specific behavior is a violation of a right. With this temporary injunction they have so been told.
- wefarrell 3y ago
  Qualified immunity doesn't apply when the officer clearly violates a constitutional right. Unfortunately the article says: Judge Jessica Clarke, who ordered the injunction last week, ruled that while the First Amendment claim might be a little more complicated, it seems pretty clear that the NYPD violated the state and municipal Right to Record Acts with its policy.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    Civil rights aren't just Constitutional rights, else the US wouldn't have a variety of federal and state level "civil rights" acts. State police are subordinate to the State, not just the Federal government.

stronglikedan 3y ago

> may result in excessive bodily harm and weeks of incarceration It won't, because that's exactly what this law prevents.

Centigonal 3y ago
But... who enforces that law?
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  Contempt of court against a federal district court order? A hacked off (in the case of any actual violation) federal judge with pretty broad direct power, U.S. Marshals,.and, potentially, the applicable US Attorney’s office, FBI, and the rest of thr federal criminal law enforcement apparatus for any criminal contempt or other federal crime involved.
woodruffw 3y ago
The law has historically not been a significant concern for the NYPD. Put another way: this is a "win" in the sense that there's judicial recognition of the problem, but attempting to test this law is still going to get you harassed and potentially arrested. The question then becomes whether 24+ hours in jail is worth ultimately being vindicated in court. Compare recent attempts to get the NYPD to stop parking illegally[1][2]. [1]: https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2023/01/23/tipster-sues-nypd-for-harassment-over-311-complaints-about-illegal-parking https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2023/01/23/tipster-sues-nypd-for... [2]: https://hellgatenyc.com/nypd-try-to-illegally-park-then-ticket-cyclist https://hellgatenyc.com/nypd-try-to-illegally-park-then-tick...
- TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
  Also in many jurisdictions, arrest records are public and cannot be expunged… even if charges are never filed!
  - KennyBlanken 3y ago
    And many people have employers who would not tolerate a zero-notice day of absence, can't afford the fees for a criminal defense attorney (and public defenders are so backed up they're nearly useless), and so on.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > question then becomes whether 24+ hours in jail is worth ultimately being vindicated in court With a pattern of violations, a civil case for damages emerges. (With an arrest, there is particularised harm in a way parking violations do not tend to create.)
  - woodruffw 3y ago
    > With a pattern of violations, a civil case for damages emerges. Agreed, although this is predicated on being willing to put up with arrest. In effect, the cost is asymmetric: to have my civil rights enshrined here, I'd have to be willing to go to jail a handful of times, miss work, suffer physical and verbal abuse at the hands of an agency that rapes detainees[1], etc. All for a judge to potentially grant me damages. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abner_Louima https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abner_Louima
hn_version_0023 3y ago
[flagged]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
contravariant 3y ago
You mean like the constitution and two other laws prevented it?
mangosteenjuice 3y ago
https://signalscv.com/2023/11/lasd-statement-forthcoming-on-trio-of-employee-suicides/ https://signalscv.com/2023/11/lasd-statement-forthcoming-on-... Do you think anyone is going to be held responsible for this?
peterpost2 3y ago
[flagged]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

thrdbndndn 3y ago

Just curious, how does the law distinguish "public" part of a public place, and "private" part of it like staff's rooms, evidence rooms etc?

LegitShady 3y ago
signs, locked doors, public ability to go into an area. Generally publicly accessible foyers, hallways, are ok.
- KennyBlanken 3y ago
  I imagine NYPD's response to this will be to set up every precinct so there is a guard station at the front and you have to give a reason to be let in "for security."
  - DoesntMatter22 3y ago
    That is already common and they go in and film anyway. If the public can legally get there they can legally film
  - LegitShady 3y ago
    i imagine that policy too would be subject to legal challenge, and if placed immediately after this judgement would probably not draw a lot of sympathy from a judge. The issue is that filming in the public foyer/area of a public building IS legitimate business, even protected activity, so the more they do to make that difficult the worse it becomes for them.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    From the article they have this angle covered too, though I don't know whether the judge specifically ruled on it as well: > and the NYPD instituted its policy without following the Citywide Administrative Procedure Act, which specifies the steps a City agency must take before it can put a new rule in place.
  - tehwebguy 3y ago

anonymouskimmer 3y ago

From what I've gathered watching Youtube legal videos, Qualified Immunity doesn't apply when the government officials have been explicitly told by a court that their specific behavior is a violation of a right. With this temporary injunction they have so been told.

wefarrell 3y ago
Qualified immunity doesn't apply when the officer clearly violates a constitutional right. Unfortunately the article says: Judge Jessica Clarke, who ordered the injunction last week, ruled that while the First Amendment claim might be a little more complicated, it seems pretty clear that the NYPD violated the state and municipal Right to Record Acts with its policy.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  Civil rights aren't just Constitutional rights, else the US wouldn't have a variety of federal and state level "civil rights" acts. State police are subordinate to the State, not just the Federal government.