Pixiq

1 year ago

If it was a lawful order, I'm sure the prosecution can point to which law permits that order, right? Just like the woman cannot point to any law that might grant her the right to photography...right? =)

1 year ago

I think you are coming at this from the wrong direction, what law restricts her FROM photographing? Absent reasonable expectations of privacy you really have no legal control over being photographed in public. And I would bet money this would be considered public. For it to be a lawful order it can't be in violation of either the constitution or another law.. I guess we'll see.

Bob

1 year ago

Even if it is a public meeting, you can be asked to leave if you are causing a disturbance. Lets pretend it wasn't the President of the Council that asked her to stop filming. Lets pretend instead it was just the person standing next to her. If the two get into an argument and it disrupts the meeting, I can see grounds for getting kicked out even though "they started it!" Also, if a public meeting is being held on private property, you are still subject to the restrictions placed upon you by the land owners.

When you are at the point when police are asking you to leave, it is best to do so and file a complaint later. Holding your ground will require a lawyer if you get charged as this woman was. I would like to see that video. It seems like in this case, it wasn't the police infringing on her right to film but the organizers of the meeting.

1 year ago

I have to take issue with some of that. As a private citizen on private property I CAN deprive you of Constitutional rights without regard to your rights at all, the Constitution controls what the GOVERNMENT is allowed to do, not private citizens.. Case in point, you go to a mall, you can be asked to leave for almost any reason. No due process required.. But my ability to exercise the same level of control in a public space is VERY limited, even if I am renting the space from the city. And since this seemed to be a governmental type meeting their hand is even more restricted.

Now, you state the police weren't the infringers, I disagree, they were enforcing what was almost certainly an unlawful instruction based entirely on this notion of needing a permit. And since it seems that both are "state actors" there is really no legal distinction between them..

Non-commercial photography/videography has been given GREAT latitude by the supreme court to the point that absent some valid security reasons and reasonable expectation of privacy, pictures can be taken on or from publicly owned property and permit requirements are deemed invalid on their face. And I'm sorry but 9/11 didn't change that.. Inside some buildings you might be restricted, but meeting rooms or rooms designed for publc meetings, don't even try.

In your example of the person next to you, the easiest and probably hardest means is to ignore them, so that the only person being disruptive is them, and when they get hauled away, you can wave "bye, bye".

If you are sitting quietly then if you are asked to leave the answer is NO, ALWAYS.

1 year ago

Here we go again. If management asks someone to leave, the police have to enforce that. The photography doesn't matter at this point. The police are enforcing trespassing laws once a representative tells someone to leave.

1 year ago

Then you can answer this.. Public meeting.. Under what LEGAL circumstances can a person be required to leave.

1 year ago

When the organizers want them to. Simple stuff really.

1 year ago

For a public meeting on public property that sounds pretty sketchy and not supported by law..

Wow, sounds like lawsuits waiting to happen. Under what authority does a public servant have the right to order you out in a public meeting?

I'm having trouble with a quiet person being forced to leave, unless someone can point out some offense OTHER than refusing to stop recording. That sounds like viewpoint descrimination to me.. Also what would prevent that same servant from ordering out all the people who didn't support him or didn't agree?

As far as private events on private property I wholly agree..

Freedom_Fighter

1 year ago

Considering we are their employers, we will decide what authority they have over us and what authority they don't have over us. Plain and simple. And in most states, Public meetings are covered under the Open Meetings Act, which generally specifically allow for citizens to record what their government is doing. Perhaps someone knows about New York's Open Meeting Laws in perticular?

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/news/Homeland-Security-To-943.shtml

1 year ago

NYC's laws are covered further down in the comments..

Peter K Burian

1 year ago

Well sometimes there is a bit of good news about freedom ....

Homeland Security To Allow Photography Outside Federal Buildings ..... October 19, 2010

A copy of the settlement can be found here.
http://www.scribd.com/full/39623305?access_key=key-21nlcq8q54dwdoa8ofbr

fluid ambient

1 year ago

When city hall meetings and other similar meetings are not recorded for public record it makes me really suspicious. If they don't allow people to film then I would assume the worst is going on there and that they are trying to do something illegal.

Bart Keppel

1 year ago

Good, she should have been arrested. Public meeting at a public school doesn't give you the right to do as you please.

I suppose it's ok for anybody that wants to hang out at the local public elementary school to do so. If I was homeless I would just go to a public school to stay warm.

1 year ago

You're right, it doesn't give you the right to do as you please.

Problem is, the state law of New York (in which state the public school district meeting in question took place) has a law that specifically gives anyone in attendance of a public government meeting the right to record both audio and video of the proceedings. The law states that such recording cannot by itself be deemed disruptive of the meeting, and since the only thing the woman did that led to her arrest was record, her arrest is false arrest.

Guy Fawkes

1 year ago

@Bart,

I think you are way off base. First of all, if it is a PUBLIC meeting, yes, even a bum has a right to be there. You don't stop being a member of the public just by being homeless. I think in most states you DO have the right to film public events which are held in public places. Just because it was a school and not outside or in the town hall shouldn't make any difference. This was not the same as the politician who had rented a school and threw someone out, by renting the school from the town he was holding a private event.

1 year ago

@Bart, are you really that ignorant? You seem to think that people must OBEY law enforcement/authority figures even when they are acting illegally. People CAN do what they want, within the law, DEAL WITH IT. And cops aren't the law, they are the tool of enforcement but many are not bright enough to have any grasp of the fact that just because they are cops doesn't mean I have to do what they say. It does't matter what they *allow* it isn't for them to decide. And quite frankly with the number of times video has "gone missing" having more than one recording available is not a bad thing. Also your tangent about the homeless fella is just silly. For the duration that the meeting area was open, both before and after the meeting you would be welcome. Also at the school for the public event as well, if you want it to be considered a private event you can't really argue that everybody is welcome EXCEPT the guy who asks tough questions, no discernable guest list, no tickets, public building, sounds like a public event to me. This has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.

Lets see, public meeting OF OUR GOVERNMENT, that means a lot.. It *seems* that the only person being disruptive is the president. I saw nothing about this person being disruptive, quietly sitting there recording is NOT disruptive.

Does anybody have any evidence showing she was disruptive?

The leave order is very likely NOT a lawful order & asking her to stop taping was almost certainly illegal.

What is sounds like is we have an unlawful demand from the president who didn't like being ignored so he called in the cops to reinforce his demand, cops who were not knowledgeable enough about the law to make a mistake like this..

I see $$$ in the future for this woman, coming in, not going out..

The only valid questions are whether she had a right to be there, undisputably YES, and whether she had a right to film, very likely yes. If both are yes then the entire event is the presidents fault for acting illegally in the first place.

1 year ago

The leave order was indeed lawful. Do you honestly think that school administrators can't ask people to leave the premises? Was their reasons for asking good? I don't know but they certainly have the right.

1 year ago

Actually I do question that right, arbitrary actions by public servants are always questionable. School administrators are getting ding'd right and left for acting like they are above the law.

Also having read the article I question whether these people had the authority to make the demand in the first place.

So who on school grounds can make such a determination?
Does the school board have such control? Who?

If you are ordered out of a city council meeting under what legal authority can they do so.

Public meetings are just that public, open to all. Provided I was sitting there quietly and JUST recording I would argue that legally I am untouchable.

I recently read about a city council that tried to adopt rules that would stifle dissent and could not be managed in any way near a neutral way in their public meetings, they got a nice legal threat and folded like paper.

1 year ago

Having read the state law governing such meetings, I have to tell you, the leave order was completely illegal. A citizen has no obligation to obey an illegal order from anyone, no matter who they are. Failure to obey an illegal order is not cause (probable or otherwise) for an arrest. Arresting someone for not obeying an illegal order is false arrest.

Guy Fawkes

1 year ago

@Johnny Law,

This was not a classroom session, it was a public meeting. If someone is being disruptive they can be asked to leave, but I don't think the president can just point at random people and say "get out". If there is a legal right to take pictures then no, he can't just point to photographers and demand they shut off the video camera or leave.

1 year ago

I think they can kick out whoever they want. "Public meeting" is not 100% accurate. The only time something is really open to anyone without restriction is when it is an place open to the public such as a public park.

I personally think they should have let her shoot video but just because it was a bad decision from a public relations point doesn't mean they don't have the right to do it.

1 year ago

The thing is, someone who otherwise has every right to be present, who is peacefully exercising a Constitutional right is effectively a member of a protected class. Would you continue to assert a government official would have every right to kick out all the african-americans? All the people with black hair?

Title 18, Chapter 13, Section 242 of the US Code criminalizes violations of Constitutional, civil and statutory rights by members of government. For purposes of the law, an official in a school district definitely qualifies as a member of government. As long as the woman was quietly recording, in a place where recording was legal (making a record of a public meeting does not require a permit, the law is applicable mostly to commercial for-profit use), exercising her Constitutional rights, then ordering her to leave is a federal CRIME. The police who enforced the unlawful order are guilty of violating 18USC241, conspiracy to commit violations of 18USC242, which is a federal FELONY!

Given how a felony conviction affects firearm possession, how even an arrest for a felony can do so in some states, and how a police officer's qualified immunity does not apply to 18USC241 & 242, you'd think more cops would be aware of what is and what is not a legal order, given how career-ending an illegal one could end up being.

1 year ago

JL,

They have a right to ask someone to leave, and I won't fault the police officers for doing their job by removing the person - despite what some seem to think, cops aren't meant to be judges - HOWEVER, the order itself may not have been lawful. The school board or administrator in question may have exposed themselves to a lawsuit. I've seen it happen in situations exactly like this.

The police did the right thing. They were called to a scene, told by a person of authority that Person X was causing trouble, and so that person was removed.

The administrators, on the other hand. That's a little more problematic. The member of the public did have a right to film that meeting. If the person was not causing a disruption, there was no legal grounds to ask for their removal.

The person filming should probably file suit. A judge will rule that filming at the meeting is permissible. The administrator won't be punished, but the issue will then be clear cut.

That was the result of at least one case I witnessed firsthand. People filming a local council meeting were told to stop. They didn't. They were arrested. They sued and won, and the council was sternly rebuked by a judge. Those meetings are still filmed to this day.

1 year ago

Bill,
I largely agree with you, however officers are expected to use judgement. Blind faith that the order is legal and valid puts their immunity in question, asking a few questions are completely valid, perhaps even asking to see the video. A simple question would have been "how was he being disruptive?" and the answer would have been "we told him to stop recording and he said no". If you heard that and still tried to escort him out I can't see why you shouldn't get sanctioned.

I would definitely argue the person demanding removal is in a legally precarius position and since not even a cursory investigation seem to have been done the officer might get a stern talking to but probably won't see any other sanction.

I have seen a few a cases like the one you talked about, and the city councils get spanked 90% of the time, the other 10%, the person is doing something else that SHOULD have gotten them removed..

1 year ago

Elliot,

"I largely agree with you, however officers are expected to use judgement"

As per the story, though, the police weren't present for the escalation. They were called when the meeting had already turned rowdy. I think at that point it's entirely reasonable to remove from the situation the person who allegedly caused it. It's up to the courts to sort out who was right and who was wrong (and the school officials were CLEARLY in the wrong, based on this story).

When a scene gets like that you're not going to sort it out. I don't think it's reasonable to think they can. It's just a big, messy he-said she-said with both sides accusing the other of causing it. At that point their job is to calm the situation.

I do think the court should dismiss the charges against her, though.

1 year ago

I agree the cops wheren't there for the escalation, however I don't think it is too much to demand that the cops actually try to find out if they are permitted to take the action demanded. Is it really to much trouble to spend 1-2 minutes and ask a few cursory questions so that they have SOME idea of what is going on? Or is it standard practice to just trust that they are legally allowed to take the action requested. Even with the possibility of he said she said are they not duty bound to at least as a couple questions?

You may not be able to sort it out but you can't just trust other people to make those decisions for you..

And I have little doubt that she will get the charges dismissed and if she was smart enough to keep the camera running throughout the exchange it will likely be the best evidence for her..

My biggest problem here is that it seems that I'm hearing that the cops arrived and should have simply done as they were told.. Given the scenario painted, under what possible theory could you claim they had any knowledge that they were acting within the law? And why should they be immunized from prosecution without the simplest of questions. Even the officer doesn't know if his order is lawful..

Frank

1 year ago

Cops, by and large, don't care about legalities. That's for a judge to decide, they're just the muscle. Case in New York were a ham radio operator was given a cell phone ticket for using the radio in his car. The State Trooper didn't care that it was a radio not subject to the law, "It's all the same to me."

That kind of arrogance is intolerable in a free nation. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" has to work both ways.

1 year ago

Perhaps you are not familiar with the justice system. The police make arrests and issue citations if they have probable cause. A judge or jury then determines guilt.

We could always change it and let the police start doing the judging at the scene. Would you like that better?

1 year ago

we could change it? lol good luck with that

1 year ago

A simple review of He Said/She Said on the officer's part would have cleared up the matter. The CEC President would have told the officers that the woman was disrupting the public meeting by video recording it and refused to stop when he ordered her to (which under New York State law is an illegal order). The woman would have pointed out she was hired by one of the groups advocating for a charter school to record the school district meeting on the matter, and had done nothing but quietly record the proceedings.

A quick reading of the New York public meeting law would make it clear to anyone that the woman should not be arrested. The proper response on the part of a good cop would be to inform the CEC president he was violating the law, issue him a warning, thank the woman for being a good citizen, and leave. Unfortunately, the cops that responded to the meeting were ignorant of the law they were sworn to enforce at best, and corrupt at worst.

Under the law, the woman can file criminal charges against those cops and the CEC president who told them to arrest her. Her arrest (and any charges filed against her) will be dismissed as soon as she pleads not guilty and cites the open meeting law. The officers and president, on the other hand, are in for a rather nasty criminal case.

http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/publicforumdoctrine/

1 year ago

Actually I don't see much of a distinction between a public park and a public school in this context. If anything actions by public school officials would be under additional restrictions by federal law.

A public meeting of some governmental body in a public building is a little different than an organization holding a meeting generally open to the public in a public building. The governmental meeting is open to ALL and actions taken by its staff would be considered as action of the government and subject to greater constitutional protections. In the case of the other I would still argue the bar for removal is pretty high and last I knew the supreme supports that view..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(legal)

http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/New_York_Open_Meetings_Law

1 year ago

"The only time something is really open to anyone without restriction is when it is an place open to the public such as a public park."

When it comes to meetings of local government, this is not accurate. There are specific laws that government how and when public meetings are held, who is permitted to attend, and so on. They're generally called sunshine laws.

Here is an overview New York's sunshine laws:

Even more important, New York law SPECIFICALLY allows videotaping such meetings:

http://www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/openmeetlaw.html#s103

"Any meeting of a public body that is open to the public shall be open to being photographed, broadcast, webcast, or otherwise recorded and/or transmitted by audio or video means."

There is only one caveat of note, and it doesn't take effect until 2011. You can read the whole law at the link above.

Unless you're being disruptive, you cannot legally be removed from a public meeting. Public officials who do this are likely to be censured.

Shawn Wright

1 year ago

That makes this action especially questionable.

1 year ago

Does this meeting fall under those laws? If so, I guess you have a point. You are also correct about why the officers didn't hold court in the middle of the situation. It would have been impossible to determine the truth of a he said/she situation and in the end you would still have the management of the event asking you to remove someone.

It ended the only way it could have. Of course there is no telling what will happen in a civil suit.

1 year ago

JL,

I checked their website (http://www.cec3.org/) and yes, this appears to be a public entity governed by open public meeting laws. It's even included in their bylaws.

So unless the video shows that the videographer truly was a disturbance and wasn't merely filming, Noah Gotbaum, president of the board, was out of line. I'd say the Success Charter Network has good cause to file a complaint.

To the best of my knowledge, it wouldn't be a criminal complaint, it would be a complaint to a city or state ethics board, most likely. Stern rebuke from an ethic board of judge, *maybe* a censure, nothing more.

1 year ago

JL,
"It would have been impossible to determine the truth of a he said/she situation and in the end you would still have the management of the event asking you to remove someone."

"Impossible", so asking a few questions is too much to ask.. So if you arrive on scene how do you know you aren't breaking the law yourself? And so what if they are asking you to remove someone, are you such a lapdog that you can't say that doing so almost certainly violates the law, or just do what you are told because it is easier and hey you aren't gonna get in trouble anyway.

This disregard of common sense only serves to further erode trust in cops and government.. Lazyness prevails.

1 year ago

In this situation, yes, asking a few questions is too much to ask. You expect the officers to research the New York State sunshine laws for school board meetings and go back and forth between the two parties in the middle of this crowd to make sure it meets your high standards for removal? Get real. They removed the party at the request of the person responsible for the event. They met their obligations.

If the person wants to contest it, there are procedures for that. The officers acted appropriately.

1 year ago

Expecting the officers to have some clue what the law actually is in regard to public government meetings is what shouldn't be too much to ask here.

(Sunshine laws apply to all open government meetings, not just school boards, BTW. "You expect the officers to research the New York State sunshine laws for school board meetings" just comes off as an attempt to make basic knowledge of these laws seem like some kind of bewildering maze, which it is not.)

In the case of an official, open public meeting on government business, the officer's first thought shouldn't be "can this public official throw a citizen out;" it should be "does this public official have the *right* and the *grounds* to throw this citizen out?"

That someone even claiming to be an officer would worry about the former before the latter is a good indication of who they really serve.

1 year ago

Well congratulations on your encyclopedia like knowledge of New York public meeting laws. You are truly wasted in your current occupation.

I've never dealt with that kind of situation and if I got called to my city council meeting with directions to remove someone, you can damn well bet that I would remove them. Of course you would pull out your ipad, pull of the involved obscure laws and start debating the case right there because of your strong sense of justice.

Man it's a shame you aren't a cop because you would just do it perfect.

1 year ago

No need for the condescending/insulting tone. It only makes you look petty.

Trying to make the excuse that this is somehow some obscure, byzantine regulation isn't going to cut it. This is basic civics, it's a pretty similar law across the land... but that doesn't matter: if you're a cop in New York, yeah, you might want to know something about New York laws.

Especially the ones that directly affect the very basic workings of public participation in their own government.

"I've never dealt with that kind of situation and if I got called to my city council meeting with directions to remove someone, you can damn well bet that I would remove them."

Admitting ignorance of the law and that you'd go ahead and do the wrong thing if you were a cop isn't exactly disputing my point.

But half your response is personal attacks anyway, and I think that tells us more.

1 year ago

Wow. That's really hilarious coming from someone who has resorted to simple name calling and profanity on multiple occasions. Perhaps you should review some of your previous comments before you climb on that high horse?

I know you folks refuse to understand but the officers didn't have any need or requirement to hold trial in this case.

1 year ago

OK, let's review:

What you allege I've done in the past matters. What you've done doesn't.

Oh wait. It doesn't matter. Outside of an elementary school playground, shouting "he did it first!" doesn't make it OK for you to.

"I know you folks refuse to understand but the officers didn't have any need or requirement to hold trial in this case."

Mis-statement of the premise. No one wants the police to hold trials; we want them to have at least some knowledge of the laws they're supposed to be enforcing.

In this case, knowing that a public official can't throw someone out of a public meeting for photography (and can't create a disturbance demanding the photographer stop) as the law *specifically states,* precludes any need for any so-called "trial."

The police are sworn to uphold the law, not to be the personal enforcers of the whims of some public official.

1 year ago

I just find it amusing that you, of all people, are crying about a condesending attitude. That is truly hilarious. I must remember that next time you start up with the profanity.

"Mis-statement of the premise. No one wants the police to hold trials; we want them to have at least some knowledge of the laws they're supposed to be enforcing."

They typically do have that knowledge. It's the knowledge that organizers can have people removed from their events. It's pretty common legal knowledge. The article and Carlos make mention that the crowd was "wild". Hardly the place to start digging about something that can be safely ended quickly by having the person leave.

1 year ago

Common legal knowledge? Someone who has sworn an oath to uphold the law has a greater responsibility to understand that law than someone who has not. And yet, time and time again, we see stories on this site, where everyday unsworn citizens are better informed about the law than the cops are. Given how dedicated you are to that particular viewpoint you keep asserting, I have to wonder...

Why do you believe that someone who has sworn an oath should be held to a lesser standard than one who has not?

1 year ago

So you're going to side-step any actual issues being discussed in the future in order to concentrate on attacking me personally. Well, that's pretty much what I expected of you anyway. Good of you to admit what you're doing.

"It's the knowledge that organizers can have people removed from their events."

Except the law, as previously shown, contradicts this statement in the case of public meetings of government bodies. What you claim to be "common legal knowledge" is actually contradicted by the law itself. Funny how you only expect police to know the laws that support what you want them to do, or what you would like to do if you were an officer.

Whether or not the crowd was "wild" (the newspaper's term - The New York Daily News never having been known for hyperbole of course) is irrelevant. Apparently it wasn't terribly dangerous, as the meeting didn't have to be stopped/ended nor was anyone else arrested.

This especially makes no sense as the person removed wasn't the one actually causing the disturbance in the crowd - the head of the board did that by accosting that person for photography.

Still no need for these "trials" you claim. Simply realizing that the public official is required under the law to have an actual legal reason to remove a citizen from a public government meeting. That this particular official was causing a disturbance in trying to remove a citizen for exercising their rights under the law only speaks to the need to remove that official, not the citizen.

1 year ago

Mike,

How in the world is it irrelevant that the crowd was worked up? It is very relevant in this situation (or any situation where the police deal with large groups). The police are going to resolve things in the quickest and safest way possible to avoid making the situation worse. Of course they are going to take the mindset of the crowd into consideration. Standing there letting the two parties debate over what constitutes a disturbance would just cause things to escalate.

Your statement was just ridiculous and speaks volumes about how you refuse to look at these situations realistically.

1 year ago

Jl,

Last I checked, heated public debate between two people is not a crime until violence occurs, which had not happened when the police arrived. While I do agree that police do have some responsibility to keep the peace, and the easiest way to do that is to remove one of the two (or more) people involved, some investigation is required, to prevent the police from arresting the victim of a crime (and taking the victim to jail) while leaving the criminal free.

That the police did in fact arrest the victim of the person actually stirring up the crowd just proves my point.

1 year ago

If the police had been taking the crowd into consideration as you claim, they would have arrested the councilman for instigating the crowd's ire in the first place.

The fact that they merely obeyed the orders of the person they perceived to be in charge is what speaks volumes.

No one said anything about letting two parties debate. This is a fiction of your creation, if you want to speak of ridiculous statements.

What we want is police to know and enforce the law - something they are supposedly sworn to do - not to enforce the will of whoever they think is in charge despite the law.

You still haven't realized that you're still trying to apply private property laws to an open meeting. Or you're simply unwilling to admit it. It's a good thing you're not in a position that mixing that up would do anyone any harm.

1 year ago

JL,

First I have tried really hard to keep this civil but it is getting more and more difficult..

"I know you folks refuse to understand but the officers didn't have any need or requirement to hold trial in this case." We the citizenry aren't demanding a trial, what we demand is for you to determine that a disturbance DID indeed happen and that that "disturbance" was not the result of some protected behavior, ie: recording. Your reliance on the the leader of this "council" to protect you and to make a legal request is legally dubious. It is not your function to enforce their whims but the law.

In most of the cases where someone is removed from a meeting like this the council and the cops get their asses handed to them in court. Then those same councils bitch about what they had to pay out and the services that they will have to scrimp on to cover it. When if they themselves had acted within the law that they should have known about it wouldn't have been a problem to begin with..

For someone who claims to be a professional, removing this person without any questions is wholly unprofessional as well as illegal, per your oath of office you swore to uphold the laws and the constitution. How do you square breaking the law with that?