4 ms·

If the first amendment even applies. Many/most auditors are not in public spaces. They are on private property that the wrongly believe to be public spaces.

If the first amendment even applies. Many/most auditors are not in public spaces. They are on private property that the wrongly believe to be public spaces. I've even seen more a few on military property in some crazy belief that all such places are open to public inspection.

ceejayoz 3y ago
I can't fight a strawman. If you trespass in restricted spaces (like a military base, or an NYPD evidence locker) you'll get arrested, yes. The crime is trespass, whether or not you have a camera filming. Most of the "auditors" I've seen (and many are certainly insufferable) film from public sidewalks, public lobbies (as is the case in this particular court case, which the auditor won), Border Patrol checkpoint / police traffic stops within their own vehicles, etc. It's very common for them to encounter police resistance in these situations, despite a clear First Amendment right to film. Police violating Constitutional rights isn't some wildly uncommon theoretical; I'm not sure why you seem to be portraying it as such.
kolanos 3y ago
Care to share any videos of auditors going to private property?
- autoexec 3y ago
  I've seen a few where they've removed auditors using the private property excuse because the city/state was leasing privately owned property and using it to operate public services out of. I think that's something courts may ultimately have to rule on, because it seems like an easy way for the government to shield themselves from accountability and violate people's freedoms.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    > operate public services Therein lies the rub. I'd be tempted to challenge the hell out of that.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  It's kind of a different context because these people are both based in the UK but there are many videos on the channels of DJ Audits[0] and PJ Audits[1] focusing on industrial estates. They go "to" private property but not "on"; they also launch drones from public space and fly them over the property for aerial footage. I guess there's some "SIA" licensing that contracted security usually has (I'm not familiar because I'm not a UK citizen), which is a common point of contention for the auditors, but they're mostly just interested in highlighting some bit of industry. 0: https://www.youtube.com/@DJAUDITS https://www.youtube.com/@DJAUDITS 1: https://www.youtube.com/@PJAudits https://www.youtube.com/@PJAudits
  - kolanos 3y ago
    I am less familiar with UK law, but I assume what you mean by "go to, but not on" is that they remain on a public sidewalk or some easement of some kind? If so, that is still public property, not private property. This is kind of the whole point.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
      Yes, that is what I meant. They remain on public property and lawfully refuse to leave if/when asked. I called it out as different because they’re lawfully filming a private area which is visible from a public area (and also from above) rather than simply filming public areas. Apologies if I was unclear.
ihattendorf 3y ago
If they're breaking a law, arrest them. If they aren't, what do you expect anyone to do?
- sandworm101 3y ago
  Whether or not someone is breaking the law is a very difficult question. A cop must figure out what a person is doing and who they are. Is the person in the middle of a mental health crisis? Are they subject to special rules such as having been previously trespassed from a location, or are they in violation of a court order? Is this person stalking someone? When first amendment-protected "speech" become non-protected shouting in breach of the peace depends largely on context. What type of property are they sanding on? Are there special rules at play, such as publicly-accessible private spaces? (bathrooms, some areas of hospitals etc.) Even then the cop must decide if an arrest will actually prevent further issues, or whether some sort of non-arrest option might be better.
  - conductr 3y ago
    If they're standing on a public sidewalk, not trespassing, and all they're doing is holding some video equipment... then what is the basis of the cops confrontation in the first place? Is there some probable cause to believe the cop needs to do any of those things you mentioned? Why is the cop getting involved? The root of the whole issue is that cops are over-policing. They need to know when to just leave people alone because they're not doing anything illegal or really even suspicious in most cases. The cops just want to be bully's and control every situation even if unconstitutionally. There's dozens (hundreds?) of unenforced laws on the books. I'm sure it varies by jurisdiction (where I live, using your turn signal is optional and cops would never pull you over for failure to signal- it's effectively unheard of.) Point being, cops can decided when to police and when not to police. Recording them at work seems to be a line they do not like people to cross and they don't really care if it's constitutionally protected or not.
rlewkov 3y ago
"I've even seen more a few on military property in some crazy belief that all such places are open to public inspection." All the auditor vids that I've seen that involve military property have been where the person doing the videoing stands on the public sidewalk or roadway easement outside the military or government building and films, which of course makes for the desired confrontation. There may be some where they're on the actual military property which can result in them being trespassed.
yardie 3y ago
> Many/most auditors are not in public spaces. So there should be plenty of self-incriminating video of them trespassing? You don't need to carry water for the police. The Supreme Court has that job already.
Clubber 3y ago
>Many/most auditors are not in public spaces. Can you link 5 or so videos of this?

ceejayoz 3y ago

I can't fight a strawman. If you trespass in restricted spaces (like a military base, or an NYPD evidence locker) you'll get arrested, yes. The crime is trespass, whether or not you have a camera filming. Most of the "auditors" I've seen (and many are certainly insufferable) film from public sidewalks, public lobbies (as is the case in this particular court case, which the auditor won), Border Patrol checkpoint / police traffic stops within their own vehicles, etc. It's very common for them to encounter police resistance in these situations, despite a clear First Amendment right to film. Police violating Constitutional rights isn't some wildly uncommon theoretical; I'm not sure why you seem to be portraying it as such.

kolanos 3y ago

Care to share any videos of auditors going to private property?

autoexec 3y ago
I've seen a few where they've removed auditors using the private property excuse because the city/state was leasing privately owned property and using it to operate public services out of. I think that's something courts may ultimately have to rule on, because it seems like an easy way for the government to shield themselves from accountability and violate people's freedoms.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  > operate public services Therein lies the rub. I'd be tempted to challenge the hell out of that.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
It's kind of a different context because these people are both based in the UK but there are many videos on the channels of DJ Audits[0] and PJ Audits[1] focusing on industrial estates. They go "to" private property but not "on"; they also launch drones from public space and fly them over the property for aerial footage. I guess there's some "SIA" licensing that contracted security usually has (I'm not familiar because I'm not a UK citizen), which is a common point of contention for the auditors, but they're mostly just interested in highlighting some bit of industry. 0: https://www.youtube.com/@DJAUDITS https://www.youtube.com/@DJAUDITS 1: https://www.youtube.com/@PJAudits https://www.youtube.com/@PJAudits
- kolanos 3y ago
  I am less familiar with UK law, but I assume what you mean by "go to, but not on" is that they remain on a public sidewalk or some easement of some kind? If so, that is still public property, not private property. This is kind of the whole point.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    Yes, that is what I meant. They remain on public property and lawfully refuse to leave if/when asked. I called it out as different because they’re lawfully filming a private area which is visible from a public area (and also from above) rather than simply filming public areas. Apologies if I was unclear.

ihattendorf 3y ago

If they're breaking a law, arrest them. If they aren't, what do you expect anyone to do?

sandworm101 3y ago
Whether or not someone is breaking the law is a very difficult question. A cop must figure out what a person is doing and who they are. Is the person in the middle of a mental health crisis? Are they subject to special rules such as having been previously trespassed from a location, or are they in violation of a court order? Is this person stalking someone? When first amendment-protected "speech" become non-protected shouting in breach of the peace depends largely on context. What type of property are they sanding on? Are there special rules at play, such as publicly-accessible private spaces? (bathrooms, some areas of hospitals etc.) Even then the cop must decide if an arrest will actually prevent further issues, or whether some sort of non-arrest option might be better.
- conductr 3y ago
  If they're standing on a public sidewalk, not trespassing, and all they're doing is holding some video equipment... then what is the basis of the cops confrontation in the first place? Is there some probable cause to believe the cop needs to do any of those things you mentioned? Why is the cop getting involved? The root of the whole issue is that cops are over-policing. They need to know when to just leave people alone because they're not doing anything illegal or really even suspicious in most cases. The cops just want to be bully's and control every situation even if unconstitutionally. There's dozens (hundreds?) of unenforced laws on the books. I'm sure it varies by jurisdiction (where I live, using your turn signal is optional and cops would never pull you over for failure to signal- it's effectively unheard of.) Point being, cops can decided when to police and when not to police. Recording them at work seems to be a line they do not like people to cross and they don't really care if it's constitutionally protected or not.

rlewkov 3y ago

"I've even seen more a few on military property in some crazy belief that all such places are open to public inspection." All the auditor vids that I've seen that involve military property have been where the person doing the videoing stands on the public sidewalk or roadway easement outside the military or government building and films, which of course makes for the desired confrontation. There may be some where they're on the actual military property which can result in them being trespassed.

yardie 3y ago

> Many/most auditors are not in public spaces. So there should be plenty of self-incriminating video of them trespassing? You don't need to carry water for the police. The Supreme Court has that job already.

Clubber 3y ago

>Many/most auditors are not in public spaces. Can you link 5 or so videos of this?