6 ms·

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
    Their response will just be to ignore the order, they don’t care what judges say. NYPD has been revolting against any oversight for years.
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
Statutory law rarely spells that out, leaving it to judges and case law. My guess is that judges would be pragmatic in such matters, and in those parts of the building where there is no public interest in allowing video recording, they would disallow it. Likely, those rooms are off limits to the public anyway. And, if I'm not mistaken, as dumb as the public can be, no one's actually attempted to film in those places (though, with the rise of influencers and Youtube and whatnot, maybe we should just be anticipating the coming flood?).

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
  Their response will just be to ignore the order, they don’t care what judges say. NYPD has been revolting against any oversight for years.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

Statutory law rarely spells that out, leaving it to judges and case law. My guess is that judges would be pragmatic in such matters, and in those parts of the building where there is no public interest in allowing video recording, they would disallow it. Likely, those rooms are off limits to the public anyway. And, if I'm not mistaken, as dumb as the public can be, no one's actually attempted to film in those places (though, with the rise of influencers and Youtube and whatnot, maybe we should just be anticipating the coming flood?).