Then file a FOIA for those. They'll be released, with public information redacted. But it's not really about that for you. It's about getting into arguments so lens licker viewers will tune in and give to your grift. Enjoy going to jail, again.
What about the bill that the traitor Ron signed with the 25 rule in it question mark is anyone going to try to fight that unconstitutional law that the traitor Republicans passed here in Florida? This is just more proof that conservative Republicans are traitors to the USA and they hate people having constitutional rights and they hate government being held accountable
Wrong, in every state, you do not have the right to record a conversation that you are not a part of. You also are not allowed to reveal the contents to anyone that was not a part of the conversation. Like the chief stated, the issue is that they record conversations that they are not a part of. This is a wire taping violation. They then interject and harass the cops. Of course they ask for a FOIA request, because that is the excuse RUclips tellls them to use, but they need a reaction, so they bait, harass, yell at the cops. They did not come in for a FOIA, ( When was the last time a fraud reported on the results idjots FOIA)
@@richlaue you are extremely misinformed. You are allowed to record anything and everything that is taking place in public. In public, if I can see it and I can hear it, I can record it.
But when someone wants to deal with a problem there are ways to tap dance around even the constitution. - And these auditors, and you who support them, are handing out the dance classes.
@@lance3748 By "exercising" these rights, these auditors are essentially giving these bureaucrats the ability to hone their tap dancing skills. However, if they do nothing, will the rights be taken away due to nobody using them? I see it as a lose lose. The system has to collapse on its own. All we can do is lay low and adapt until ai goes rogue.
Your Ordinance doesn’t supersede the constitution. If you’re worried about their privacy have a special room to take the initial information. You don’t have a right to infringe on the rights of others because you have not done your due diligence to protect privacy.
It's a limited public forum. Just because the public is allowed in doesn't mean it's open to do whatever you want there. This has withstood court testing time and time again. But frauditor apologists still trot out the same tired old lines.
@@DefiantHeart if it’s open to the public and people can walk in with their eyes, they can walk in with a camera. People are so concerned with their privacy yet they walk in front of 1000 cameras a day and never blink an eye. But a guy walks by with a camera and they lose their mind, something is wrong upstairs.
@@joesphschramm3754Real Americans welcome to police stations to hold them accountable and to make public records request. Are you really that dumb do you really not have the critical thinking skills to understand what's going on. That's rhetorical question cuz we can see you have no critical thinking skills you have no clue what you're talking about
@@DefiantHeartwe get it you hate the government being held accountable because you're part of the problem and you like traitors to the USA because you hate the USA. But Real Americans unlike yourself want to hold government accountable because Real Americans know the government's not in charge of us we're in charge of the government but people like you don't have no clue what you're talking about believe it's the other way around making you part of the problem. That's a public Lobby time place and enter open to the public during business hours and not making a scene and the Supreme Court ruled videotaping is official business and it's the only business we need to be in that public area document what are public servants do and the course of of their duty. Go read Smith versus Cummins. You won't read it because you don't like the fact that we got the rights to document what our Public Service do because you hate the fact that we're trying to hold our government accountable for their crimes but you like criminals cuz you're a traitor just like all conservative Republicans
Right, the old "baiting" claim. Because a police officer would NEVER violate or be ignorant of someones rights unless they were tricked into losing their temper
@@JimB49 What about stop signs or speed limit ones. The state of Colorado law no smoking indoors started in 2006. The no smoking sign refers to the ban
Unfortunately, there is nothing that you do with the police department that is Private ever it can be all requested as a Public Records request on body cam
@@luistraversoteullet727 every audio and video recording in a police department, or from a body cam is available to the public through the freedom of information act.
@@straunwagner6322 @brentjeffries589 There is diferences between security cameras and frauditors cameras: 1. Security cameras are for security and if you foia them it will be redacted 2. Security cameras are on the roof, quite away from any private data, and have no sound. 3. Security cameras dont have a creep behind trying so hard to pick up a fight
@@straunwagner6322 There is diferences between security cameras and frauditors cameras: 1. Security cameras are for security and if you foia them it will be redacted (even bodycams can be redacted) 2. Security cameras are on the roof, quite away from any private data, and have no sound. 3. Security cameras dont have a creep behind trying so hard to pick up a fight
agreeed - news media must suck the boots of cops. If they do not, they will not be allowed in "news conferences". This is straight out of a dictatorship.
NO it hasn't .....""To date, there is no U.S. Supreme Court case establishing a right to film public officials engaged in carrying out their official duties or a right to film inside public buildings, cases in which U.S. Courts of Appeals have recognized a “right to record” concerns one category of public employees (police officers) engaged in one type of activity (carrying out public duties) in one type of area (traditional public forums)."" ........ UNC School of Government Nov 2022.....
Unless you film the frauditor . Then it becomes you're not allowed to record us when you're on the clock. Because only camera goblins have rights. Not people they harass.
There is no expectations of privacy in public. They must create privacy without infringing on our rights. That building is federally funded therefore it belongs to us.
@JimB49 Any government recording device's footage can be FOIA requested by any citizen. Not all government officials are honest custodians. So your naive blind trust in government is not a valid argument.
It's because cops are too lazy in general and want to get the reporting done & over with as soon as possible. They also don't want "civilians" in their "personal areas" , meaning inside their workplace which they thinks is theirs...just like "their" police cars, etc.
common sense is, don't be in a police station being a creep. Have a sense of morals. No one likes these videos. Well maybe lazy people that want to watch people actually working.
The ban has nothing to do with privacy their just trying to prevent people from filming them. If someone has issue with reporting a crime in the view of the public say that and take them to a secure interview room done
The problem is inside of govt buildings are nonpublic forums. “First Amendment auditors are focusing their filming activity on lobbies or waiting areas of local government buildings. In context of other types of First amendment activity, courts across the United States have generally treated these areas in government-owned buildings as nonpublic forums.” Source: UNC School of Govt There are numerous court rulings that validate that inside public forum the tenant agency can restrict photography. Plus there is this... “To date, there is no U.S. Supreme Court case establishing a right to film public officials engaged in carrying out their official duties or a right to film inside public buildings generally.” Source: UNC School of Govt
@Pmtd1234 Non of that is true it is well established in the Supreme court that we HAVE the unequivocal right to record public servants in the course of their duties you have some bad information
@@dedios03 That is very true, when in traditional public forums, which is the location for the various rulings. Auditors lie when they say that inside of govt buildings because govt buildings, including lobbies are nonpublic forums.
If it’s bait the why would they take it and not just ignore them? If it happens that much that they’d try to get an illegal ordinance then why wouldn’t they just train the officers and staff to ignore the auditors or otherwise respect their rights? If they just respected their rights they would not need to go there anymore because the police station would pass.
How embarrassing for the police to be so uneducated on this. I agree there may be private conversations in a police station, and there should also be closed rooms for report taking interviews or interrogations.
Take the victim to an interview room or back room so they can sit & disclose information. Simple. This obviously doesn't overpower the Constitution, just a waste of time.
@@wyldvigilante Well unfortunately you seem to believe auditors. Hint...they lie, which increases their YT hits. “It is common for First Amendment auditors to claim that they have a First Amendment right to film in a government building because it is open to the public (or in some cases, simply because it is owned by the government). However, the fact that an area is held open to the public is not sufficient to establish it as a public forum for First Amendment purposes. The area must also be traditionally used for or expressly dedicated to expressive activity. The U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly stated that publicly owned or operated property “is not transformed into ‘public forum’ property merely because the public is permitted to freely enter and leave the grounds at practically all times and the public is admitted to the building during specified hours.” United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 178 (1983). Source: Coates’ Canons
@@knowtheforum I always question people who oppose American rights. I also believe that if it’s not short and sweet it’s long and bitter like your comment.
@@knowtheforum I also believe that if YOU do not like the freedoms we have in America , rather than take those freedoms away from those of us who want them you can move to a nation that has no such freedoms or internet to annoy you with . No auditors. No filming in public and no Americans. Problem solved and everyone is happy
@@luistraversoteullet727 So that’s time and manner issues, so you deal with them the same way as a huge crowd. You have the right to assemble, but you can’t block the roads, so you regulate it the same way, it’s actually not that hard. The fact that it is in a building rather than the sidewalk doesn’t make it more complex, either don’t have a public lobby, that could be a potential solution. Filming should be allowed from any public ally accessible location, whether it be the sidewalk, underground or in a building
"Press" doesn't have special privileges. "Press" can still be restricted from recording in certain places. "press" generally have ethics that they follow and don't make themselves the story. Idiots on RUclips aren't automatically"Press"
@@pical1208 but frauditor don't ID, and don't want to pass a security check, so how can security protect the building???. A lot of talk about rights but what about the rights to be safe from the people in the building???, frauditor think that being a US citizen is a guarantee of being a good safe person but that is crap. All mass shopters and domestic terrorism in the US is made by US citizens
A media organization apparently taking the position that government can restrict the First Amendment on the excuse that some people deserve privacy? Tell the cops to provide a private space for crime reports, don't use the public lobby to discuss sensitive private information. If that requires a change in police procedures, then make that change.
Incorrect. It's a limited public forum that does have expectations of privacy. And yes, even you do have an expectation of privacy in public to a certain extent. That's one of the reasons cops can't just search you on a whim. Maybe put down the frauditor talking points and look at the actual law.
@@DefiantHeartYou are very misinformed. I've been arrested over a dozen times for recording in public lobby of police stations, and then released without charges every single time 😂 If I broke a law, why haven't they ever charged me?
@@DefiantHeartNo it's not. It's OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. Maybe you can explain why the government agencies can have cameras and audio recording inside the building and the citizens cannot. 🤔
There is NO expectation of privacy in public. If someone was assaulted and needs privacy, they can ask for it, and it's the receptionists job to provide that comfort. It is not every citizens job to make other citizens feel comfortable.
And when the receptionist or others try to help make some privacy these auditors complain that it violates rights as well. - They have not protected our rights; they've taken our rights. And people like you helped it happen.
@lance3748 That's ignorant. Only a bad auditor would complain. Although I defend their right to take up any grievance they have with their government. Free speech is only free when everyone can peacefully have their say. I would never attack them for doing the right thing. Don't assume you know everything. That's called a God complex.
@@captainconstitution4238 I've seen other videos of auditors saying, "put up yellow tape if it's a crime scene." When they put it up they claim it's a violation of their rights. I saw a waiting room at a DMV with walls put up to protect privacy and an auditor put his camera above the wall. Auditing is not about protecting rights.
@@lance3748you making up stuff now. Hypotheticals must be a cop that is exactly how they speak. "The way you were driving you ALMOST killed half a dozen." Whew.
They record citizens. Citizens can record them policy will end city will pay for first fourth and fifth amendments. A law limiting people's right to record will fail
@@uonecar I'm not understanding your request? I watched the video. Are you trying to say he had more business and had to go again, which is what they're supposed to be there for as public employees? Are you complaining he went more than once for information?
@@uonecar to be clear this city ordinance or policy or even a law created is still against our constitutional rights. Idk what you're not understanding.
@@dabzprincess92 “To date, there is no U.S. Supreme Court case establishing a right to film public officials engaged in carrying out their official duties or a right to film inside public buildings generally.” Source: UNC School of Govt
The police in the lobby has to create the privacy, move these citizens into a private are for private consultation. Second, 25 feet us excessive. Most states have already ruled 14' is sufficient otherwise the police need to put up crime tape. If it's not a crime and it's in public view, again the police have to create the privacy.
""in public"" means in a TRADITIONAL PUBLIC FORUM = sidewalks, streets, public parks, plazas, alleyways etc, outdoor public areas ,,,,,THAT's where our free speech and our right to film is protected by the first amendment, NOT inside a building owned by the government/state/county/city/town = NON--PUBLIC FORUM.....CASE LAW .......""The First Amendment does not give citizens the right to exercise free speech rights on any government property at any time. “The State, no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated.”---Adderley v. State of Florida, 385 US 39, 47 (1967).....that means the owners of ""public buildings"" = the government/state/county/city/town, has EXACTLY the same rights as the owners of private property. ANYONE can be trespassed from any property by the owner/manager.....CASE LAW....“The First Amendment does not guarantee access to property simply because it is owned or controlled by the government.” ------United States Postal Service v. Greenburgh Civic Association, 453 US 114, 129 (1981). ""To date, there is no U.S. Supreme Court case establishing a right to film public officials engaged in carrying out their official duties or a right to film inside public buildings, cases in which U.S. Courts of Appeals have recognized a “right to record” concerns one category of public employees (police officers) engaged in one type of activity (carrying out public duties) in one type of area (traditional public forums)."" ........ UNC School of Government Nov 2022....... If you or anyone thinks that any of these laws are unconstitutional then what you SHOULD do is film yourself being refused entry, leave, take your video to a lawyer write up a coherrent dossier explaining why you think it is unconstitutional, file a law suit and let a judge decide ..... What you do NOT do , is refuse to leave, argue with security or police, insult security or police , THEY are doing their job and applying the law as it stands, they don't decide or write laws or statutes they are applying what the actual law states , if you don't like it go see a lawyer and stop trying to shame or humiliate hardworking american citizens who are respecting the law , contributing to society earning their money and respect and paying taxes.
@@RichardHead23 who is the government buttercup? Government property is public property smart one 😂 The police lobby is no different that a county park 😂it is not a restricted part of government like offices and other areas deemed restricted. Libraries and police station lobbies and parking lots are perfectly legal to be filmed in per the constitution. You are wrong
"" A county park"" is a TRADITIONAL PUBLIC FORUM = sidewalks, streets, public parks, plazas, alleyways , etc outdoor public areas ,,,,, INSIDE a building is NOT a traditional public forum ,,, they are NON--PUBLIC FORUMS or LIMITED public forums.......The Seventh Circuit has held that “the interior of a police station is not a public forum.”--------First Def. Legal Aid v. City of Chi., 319 F.3d 967, 968 (7th Cir. 2003)........,,The Southern District of New York has recognized New York Police Department meeting rooms as nonpublic forums.-------Latino Officers Ass’n v. City of New York, No. 97 CIV. 1384 (KMW), 1998 WL 80150, at *4(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 1998)......,,,,Likewise, the Central District of California has held that a police station is a nonpublic forum.------Boyd v. City of Hermosa Beach, No. CV0410528AGJTLX, 2007 WL 9717625, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2007)...... ,,,In a decision affirmed by the Eighth Circuit, the Western District of Missouri held that a plaintiff had no constitutional right to videotape a police department lobby.-------Akins v. City of Columbia, No. 2:15-CV-04096-NKL, 2016 WL 4126549, at *17 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 2,2016), aff’d sub nom. Akins v. Knight, 863 F.3d 1084 (8th Cir. 2017)....... ,,,,Likewise, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld a “no-filming” restriction imposed in the lobby of a police department as a reasonable restraint on free speech.-------Commonwealth v. Bradley, 2020 PA Super 109, 232 A.3d 747, 755 (2020)........Maybe you should learn to read instead of repeating youtube lawyers ,,, who seem to keep ending up in jail.
"" A county park"" is a TRADITIONAL PUBLIC FORUM = sidewalks, streets, public parks, plazas, alleyways , etc outdoor public areas ,,,,, INSIDE a building is NOT a traditional public forum ,,, they are NON--PUBLIC FORUMS or LIMITED public forums.......The Seventh Circuit has held that “the interior of a police station is not a public forum.”........,,The Southern District of New York has recognized New York Police Department meeting rooms as nonpublic forums......,,,,Likewise, the Central District of California has held that a police station is a nonpublic forum....... ,,,In a decision affirmed by the Eighth Circuit, the Western District of Missouri held that a plaintiff had no constitutional right to videotape a police department lobby..... ,,,,Likewise, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld a “no-filming” restriction imposed in the lobby of a police department as a reasonable restraint on free speech......Maybe you should learn to read instead of repeating youtube lawyers ,,, who seem to keep ending up in jail.
@joem80003 Well, there you go .Who do you blame, the constitution? If we don't use these rights , we will lose these rights. The government is slowly trying to erode our rights. Why do you think Musk bought Twitter? Government censorship. You know what else they redact. They're crimes, and their civil rights violations. Plus, they mute the cameras when they are conspiring to take away someone's freedom because they don't like what they're doing.
They need to get a new lawyer. One that will tell them this is unconstitutional and any attempt to enforce it will be expensive and generate a lot of negative publicity. The auditors do not operate in a vacuum. This story also shows how local news licks the boots of cops and government in order to keep getting access and stories.
All the videos i seen on the internet, I have never ever seen anyones personal information posted. But I have seen police brutality and violence. Many videos of citizens rights being violated by sadistic bullies and thugs aka police officers. Also citizens tortured by police. Let’s not forget the citizens life’s ruined by abuse and incarcerated for nothing. They are the lucky ones, we have citizens murdered by overzealous ego driven police whose behavior is an exact copy of the NAZIS. Don’t forget the paralyzed and crippled with broken necks because some sadistic officer wanted to throw a handcuffed citizen to the ground. Now that cameras are bringing the truth to light the blue line gang wants to change the rights of the people and trash the constitution. You say they film with no reasonable purpose. Please see above. How much violence has been curtailed because a camera was present. No purpose? I don’t think so. Ask the citizen with the broken nose and broken neck. He’s in a wheelchair unable to take care of himself the rest of his life. WHAT HAPPENED TO INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY? STOP QUALIFIED IMMUNITY!
Bravo So true I wonder what my dead husband would think after they killed him This is a much needed very important Constitutionally protected activity Always film the police
@@eddie1257 every audit video I've seen recently was them harassing and name-calling ppl to get them emotional, they feed of violence and drama to start sht. No longer targeting pigs. There's even a video of them following some random woman until she breaks down while yelling "camera is not in your face, it's in mine" with condescending tones. Like, that could b someone's mom or wife. Disgusting behavior.
@@kmfhazardmove to North Korea they have no constitutional rights if that how you want to live. The violence that I see in the videos is all police abuse see Caroline in Fort Worth
I don't think I've heard such incompetence in my life, incompetent officers and incompetent reporting. The policy is unconstitutional of course on its face there's no argument there. DeLand is being sued. When A Private matter needs to be discussed you go up to the receptionist and you say I have a private matter that I need to discuss with an officer, then they get an officer and you're taking to a back room. No one ever would come up to a public lobby and announce I've just been raped, that's just not going to happen. When you're in a public lobby there is no expectation of privacy at all. The people that want the privacy have to create their own privacy and they cannot do so by subverting anyone else's rights.
I get a kick out of this News channel and this coverage. Today's news is like The inquire newspaper you buy in stores. I really don't know what's worse the government or the news. Both of them cause a lot of drama and chaos in this country.
Notice how the sheriff complains that the auditors are making money. Isn't this WKMG News 6 station making money off of the video they record? So what if someone makes money! The issue is the First Amendment.
Is ignorance of the laws an excuse for acts by officials that violate our constitutional rights? They are to follow the letter of the law, (as they are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights.
If you can see it from public, you can record it from public, period. It's the public servants job to create privacy for the public, while not violating the auditors civil/constitutional rights.
Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."
Which "right"? The right to violate other people's privacy? The right to the right to shame the victim of a crime that they're reporting to the police? The right to harass police when they're investigating an accident, or a crime? Come to my town and try that nonsense & see how far your "rights" get you.
It must be something big. Otherwise, why go to all that trouble creating a policy that will certainly get deemed unconstitutional. Not to mention the negative publicity and likely boycotting of businesses in Deland. It only makes sense if you've got something that you'd be ashamed of if the public found out.
Maybe a girl doesn't want to tell the receptionist ",I was raped" while some creepy stranger is standing there with a camera. Is it OK with you if we keep that secret?
@@lance3748no we can't. Write it down. Call first. Cry about it lance who gives a ff. You have whined and cried on every other comment here. Shew dude.
privacy must be created. scotus - it is the duty of the org to create the privacy. when will they learn that the constitution is The Law of the Land - article VI us constitution. this is an unconstitutional ruling.
Unconstitutional policy that will be overturned. People should be outraged that a city is trying to overturn supreme court rulings that deal with the specific topic, and a constitutional right. The supreme court has ruled that in PUBLIC, the camera is the same as the eyes.
But there are cameras in the lobby which we can request. So how does that work? Someone could put that on line. They can take them in a room if necessary.
I think they just don’t like it and it’s understandable I feel that way too it makes me feel not good if I could see someone filming me like that so I think they feel the same way. They should NOT be allowed because it could hurt the persons feelings.
@@ak_getright9905 that's the problem you're thinking instead of knowing the law and your God given rights. Freedom is scary deal with it because there's no room for ANYONE's feelings.
If it was that serious don’t have ppl tell the front desk sensitive information. Make it so all they gotta say is “can I speak to an officer in the back”
Lol that is gonna give this city a nice fat lawsuit to pay. Geniuses. Lets try to make a law that bans a constitutionally protected activity. Also i hope they plan to also remove the security cameras
Public spaces are NOT private areas. If you want privacy, you have to create privacy. There are laws in this country for a reason, and it’s NOT to protect your FEELINGS.
@@OlYables The lawsuit should happen. The fact that government is corrupt, is why it will be shot down it is. If government was actually working for us, that’s a slam dunk lawsuit.
Wow, no law or ordinance will supersede the 1st Amendment. Auditors are a branch of accountability to make sure our government workers are acting lawfully.
Those people may as well just write a huge check to whoever wants it, cut out the middle man of court since the outcome is inevitable. Plus, that way they won't subject their police employees to criminal charges by giving them unlawful orders to commit felonies.
Nothing people do with cops is private. It’s all public including their body cam.
Then file a FOIA for those. They'll be released, with public information redacted. But it's not really about that for you. It's about getting into arguments so lens licker viewers will tune in and give to your grift. Enjoy going to jail, again.
What about the bill that the traitor Ron signed with the 25 rule in it question mark is anyone going to try to fight that unconstitutional law that the traitor Republicans passed here in Florida? This is just more proof that conservative Republicans are traitors to the USA and they hate people having constitutional rights and they hate government being held accountable
Exactly.
Wrong, in every state, you do not have the right to record a conversation that you are not a part of. You also are not allowed to reveal the contents to anyone that was not a part of the conversation.
Like the chief stated, the issue is that they record conversations that they are not a part of. This is a wire taping violation.
They then interject and harass the cops. Of course they ask for a FOIA request, because that is the excuse RUclips tellls them to use, but they need a reaction, so they bait, harass, yell at the cops.
They did not come in for a FOIA, ( When was the last time a fraud reported on the results idjots FOIA)
@@richlaue you are extremely misinformed. You are allowed to record anything and everything that is taking place in public. In public, if I can see it and I can hear it, I can record it.
Policy doesn’t trump the constitution
Constitutional law trumps ALL
But when someone wants to deal with a problem there are ways to tap dance around even the constitution. - And these auditors, and you who support them, are handing out the dance classes.
Watch and learn. Lol
@indude1655 What is your favorite flavor of boot?
@@lance3748 By "exercising" these rights, these auditors are essentially giving these bureaucrats the ability to hone their tap dancing skills. However, if they do nothing, will the rights be taken away due to nobody using them? I see it as a lose lose. The system has to collapse on its own. All we can do is lay low and adapt until ai goes rogue.
They are saying we don't care about Constitutional rights.
The news LITERALLY covering news about news being limited 🤣
🎯✌️
so meta!
Lmao, none these idiots that film frauditors as they are, have anything to do with news. They are just antagonists
Your Ordinance doesn’t supersede the constitution. If you’re worried about their privacy have a special room to take the initial information. You don’t have a right to infringe on the rights of others because you have not done your due diligence to protect privacy.
They have special areas for this. Who walks into a police station without making a call first?
It's a limited public forum. Just because the public is allowed in doesn't mean it's open to do whatever you want there. This has withstood court testing time and time again. But frauditor apologists still trot out the same tired old lines.
@@DefiantHeart if it’s open to the public and people can walk in with their eyes, they can walk in with a camera. People are so concerned with their privacy yet they walk in front of 1000 cameras a day and never blink an eye. But a guy walks by with a camera and they lose their mind, something is wrong upstairs.
@@joesphschramm3754Real Americans welcome to police stations to hold them accountable and to make public records request. Are you really that dumb do you really not have the critical thinking skills to understand what's going on. That's rhetorical question cuz we can see you have no critical thinking skills you have no clue what you're talking about
@@DefiantHeartwe get it you hate the government being held accountable because you're part of the problem and you like traitors to the USA because you hate the USA. But Real Americans unlike yourself want to hold government accountable because Real Americans know the government's not in charge of us we're in charge of the government but people like you don't have no clue what you're talking about believe it's the other way around making you part of the problem. That's a public Lobby time place and enter open to the public during business hours and not making a scene and the Supreme Court ruled videotaping is official business and it's the only business we need to be in that public area document what are public servants do and the course of of their duty. Go read Smith versus Cummins. You won't read it because you don't like the fact that we got the rights to document what our Public Service do because you hate the fact that we're trying to hold our government accountable for their crimes but you like criminals cuz you're a traitor just like all conservative Republicans
Your policy doesn't trump their right to record in public
Yup makes it UNCONSTITUTIONAL
LoL god I love watching you sovtards lose in court.
@@JustalilJaded Limited public forum, a police department is no place to protest
@@luistraversoteullet727recording isn't protesting.
@@JacksonStreetPollock Nope, is not, is harassing cops for youtubemoney
The News channel not taking a one sided stance on their own rights is insane.
Right, the old "baiting" claim. Because a police officer would NEVER violate or be ignorant of someones rights unless they were tricked into losing their temper
Policy ain’t law😂
Policy ain't law if it doesn't benefit you. LOL
No smoke signs policy or law
@@JimB49 What about stop signs or speed limit ones.
The state of Colorado law no smoking indoors started in 2006. The no smoking sign refers to the ban
People can tell the police they need to speak to them in private. They dont have to say anything private in the public lobby.
Unfortunately, there is nothing that you do with the police department that is Private ever it can be all requested as a Public Records request on body cam
@@JamesMadisonAudits so if a witness say something to the cops, everyone should know????
@@luistraversoteullet727 every audio and video recording in a police department, or from a body cam is available to the public through the freedom of information act.
@@straunwagner6322 @brentjeffries589
There is diferences between security cameras and frauditors cameras:
1. Security cameras are for security and if you foia them it will be redacted
2. Security cameras are on the roof, quite away from any private data, and have no sound.
3. Security cameras dont have a creep behind trying so hard to pick up a fight
@@straunwagner6322 There is diferences between security cameras and frauditors cameras:
1. Security cameras are for security and if you foia them it will be redacted (even bodycams can be redacted)
2. Security cameras are on the roof, quite away from any private data, and have no sound.
3. Security cameras dont have a creep behind trying so hard to pick up a fight
Lawsuits inbound
Nope
The supreme court has already ruled on this numerous times and thus is a very slanted view by this news team
agreeed - news media must suck the boots of cops. If they do not, they will not be allowed in "news conferences". This is straight out of a dictatorship.
NO it hasn't .....""To date, there is no U.S. Supreme Court case establishing a right to film public officials engaged in carrying out their official duties or a right to film inside public buildings, cases in which U.S. Courts of Appeals have recognized a “right to record” concerns one category of public employees (police officers) engaged in one type of activity (carrying out public duties) in one type of area (traditional public forums).""
........ UNC School of Government Nov 2022.....
@@RichardHead23 Smith v Cummings turner v driver
@@jamesdavisjr6937 ,,,,, cases concerning filming police officers on the streets.....NOT about filming office workers in their building, office.
Sorry sovtard frauditor, you're wrong.
There's no privacy in public.
Unless you film the frauditor . Then it becomes you're not allowed to record us when you're on the clock. Because only camera goblins have rights. Not people they harass.
So they don't have any video cameras in their police department? Or are they hypocrites?
Just remember, they have no problem recording you, but have a problem with you recording them... 😂
💯
There is no expectations of privacy in public. They must create privacy without infringing on our rights. That building is federally funded therefore it belongs to us.
@@americanaudit360true
Those security cameras are not put on the internet for money
@JimB49
Any government recording device's footage can be FOIA requested by any citizen.
Not all government officials are honest custodians.
So your naive blind trust in government is not a valid argument.
Policy do not trump the constitution
Check out the 10th Amendment
Frauditors seem to ignore
Common sense says IF someone were recording & I reported a senstive crime, take them to a secure room. How hard is that.
It's because cops are too lazy in general and want to get the reporting done & over with as soon as possible. They also don't want "civilians" in their "personal areas" , meaning inside their workplace which they thinks is theirs...just like "their" police cars, etc.
@@jibbityjab2469But yet the cops PUT people in their cop cars so that in itself is contradictory
common sense is, don't be in a police station being a creep. Have a sense of morals. No one likes these videos. Well maybe lazy people that want to watch people actually working.
@@jibbityjab2469 lazy? People recording trying to get a lawsuit n not working are lazy!
@@DonLewis9274 people crying on the internet???? instead of getting a law degree and changing the system.
The ban has nothing to do with privacy their just trying to prevent people from filming them. If someone has issue with reporting a crime in the view of the public say that and take them to a secure interview room done
No expectations of privacy in public.
The problem is inside of govt buildings are nonpublic forums.
“First Amendment auditors are focusing their filming activity on lobbies or waiting areas of local government buildings. In context of other types of First amendment activity, courts across the United States have generally treated these areas in government-owned buildings as nonpublic forums.” Source: UNC School of Govt
There are numerous court rulings that validate that inside public forum the tenant agency can restrict photography.
Plus there is this... “To date, there is no U.S. Supreme Court case establishing a right to film public officials engaged in carrying out their official duties or a right to film inside public buildings generally.” Source: UNC School of Govt
@Pmtd1234
Non of that is true it is well established in the Supreme court that we HAVE the unequivocal right to record public servants in the course of their duties you have some bad information
@@dedios03 That is very true, when in traditional public forums, which is the location for the various rulings. Auditors lie when they say that inside of govt buildings because govt buildings, including lobbies are nonpublic forums.
thank you.
Wrong. There is no *reasonable* expectation of privacy in public. The standards for privacy in public are very high.
Bait? 🤔 so doing a constitutionally protected activity it baiting? Dumb!!
If it’s bait the why would they take it and not just ignore them? If it happens that much that they’d try to get an illegal ordinance then why wouldn’t they just train the officers and staff to ignore the auditors or otherwise respect their rights? If they just respected their rights they would not need to go there anymore because the police station would pass.
Exactly! Police use bait tactics all the time. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
FTP
@@tk2fly3dFHRITP
Many places can control firearm access that does not inhibit the Second Amendment the right to bear arms.
How embarrassing for the police to be so uneducated on this. I agree there may be private conversations in a police station, and there should also be closed rooms for report taking interviews or interrogations.
Great job government setting new laws to stop these hateful, corrupt and harassing RUclipsrs.
Take the victim to an interview room or back room so they can sit & disclose information. Simple. This obviously doesn't overpower the Constitution, just a waste of time.
You know one of these morons is gonna come knocking on the door and then throw a fit about it when they aren’t allowed in to record.
Good luck getting that law to stick
It's a policy, which is not law.
@PancakeBandit88 auditors are already fools. Sorry...clowns.
Zero expectation of privacy in public. Freedom is scary deal with it.
But this is inside a govt building which is a nonpublic forum.
@@knowtheforumYou are not understanding the concept of “open to the public” means
@@wyldvigilante Well unfortunately you seem to believe auditors. Hint...they lie, which increases their YT hits.
“It is common for First Amendment auditors to claim that they have a First Amendment right to film in a government building because it is open to the public (or in some cases, simply because it is owned by the government). However, the fact that an area is held open to the public is not sufficient to establish it as a public forum for First Amendment purposes. The area must also be traditionally used for or expressly dedicated to expressive activity. The U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly stated that publicly owned or operated property “is not transformed into ‘public forum’ property merely because the public is permitted to freely enter and leave the grounds at practically all times and the public is admitted to the building during specified hours.” United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 178 (1983). Source: Coates’ Canons
@@knowtheforum I always question people who oppose American rights.
I also believe that if it’s not short and sweet it’s long and bitter like your comment.
@@knowtheforum I also believe that if YOU do not like the freedoms we have in America , rather than take those freedoms away from those of us who want them you can move to a nation that has no such freedoms or internet to annoy you with . No auditors. No filming in public and no Americans. Problem solved and everyone is happy
If the public is allowed in then the press is allowed to be there
Everyone is the press, anyone can be a journalist
@@pical1208 so if everyone is press,and everyone must be allowed, how the security can protect the building???
@@luistraversoteullet727 So that’s time and manner issues, so you deal with them the same way as a huge crowd. You have the right to assemble, but you can’t block the roads, so you regulate it the same way, it’s actually not that hard. The fact that it is in a building rather than the sidewalk doesn’t make it more complex, either don’t have a public lobby, that could be a potential solution. Filming should be allowed from any public ally accessible location, whether it be the sidewalk, underground or in a building
"Press" doesn't have special privileges. "Press" can still be restricted from recording in certain places. "press" generally have ethics that they follow and don't make themselves the story.
Idiots on RUclips aren't automatically"Press"
@@pical1208 but frauditor don't ID, and don't want to pass a security check, so how can security protect the building???. A lot of talk about rights but what about the rights to be safe from the people in the building???, frauditor think that being a US citizen is a guarantee of being a good safe person but that is crap. All mass shopters and domestic terrorism in the US is made by US citizens
A media organization apparently taking the position that government can restrict the First Amendment on the excuse that some people deserve privacy? Tell the cops to provide a private space for crime reports, don't use the public lobby to discuss sensitive private information. If that requires a change in police procedures, then make that change.
Take them into a private area if they want to share information, the lobby is not an area to share private information
Public space has no privacy.
Incorrect. It's a limited public forum that does have expectations of privacy. And yes, even you do have an expectation of privacy in public to a certain extent. That's one of the reasons cops can't just search you on a whim. Maybe put down the frauditor talking points and look at the actual law.
@@DefiantHeartYou are very misinformed. I've been arrested over a dozen times for recording in public lobby of police stations, and then released without charges every single time 😂 If I broke a law, why haven't they ever charged me?
@@DefiantHeartNo it's not. It's OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. Maybe you can explain why the government agencies can have cameras and audio recording inside the building and the citizens cannot. 🤔
Record in public court, especially a federal public court, see how that goes.
Derp,derp,dederp
There is NO expectation of privacy in public. If someone was assaulted and needs privacy, they can ask for it, and it's the receptionists job to provide that comfort. It is not every citizens job to make other citizens feel comfortable.
And when the receptionist or others try to help make some privacy these auditors complain that it violates rights as well. - They have not protected our rights; they've taken our rights. And people like you helped it happen.
@lance3748 That's ignorant. Only a bad auditor would complain. Although I defend their right to take up any grievance they have with their government. Free speech is only free when everyone can peacefully have their say. I would never attack them for doing the right thing. Don't assume you know everything. That's called a God complex.
@@captainconstitution4238 I've seen other videos of auditors saying, "put up yellow tape if it's a crime scene." When they put it up they claim it's a violation of their rights.
I saw a waiting room at a DMV with walls put up to protect privacy and an auditor put his camera above the wall.
Auditing is not about protecting rights.
@@lance3748you making up stuff now.
Hypotheticals must be a cop that is exactly how they speak.
"The way you were driving you ALMOST killed half a dozen."
Whew.
Will "Policy" replace "The Constitutoin " ?
Sue them out of existence.
Baiting criminals to commit crimes?? Who would ever do such a thing?? 😱
They record citizens. Citizens can record them policy will end city will pay for first fourth and fifth amendments. A law limiting people's right to record will fail
An ordinance DOESN'T TRUMP LAW THIS IS AN UTTER RIGHTS VIOLATION
maybe you should watch the video of the auditor and you can see what really happened that guy already been to the window
@@uonecar I'm not understanding your request? I watched the video. Are you trying to say he had more business and had to go again, which is what they're supposed to be there for as public employees? Are you complaining he went more than once for information?
@@uonecar to be clear this city ordinance or policy or even a law created is still against our constitutional rights. Idk what you're not understanding.
@@dabzprincess92
“To date, there is no U.S. Supreme Court case establishing a right to film public officials engaged in carrying out their official duties or a right to film inside public buildings generally.” Source: UNC School of Govt
@@uonecar
And I bet that you often complain about how our government is stepping on our Constitutional rights? Smh!
So all security cameras need to be removed from county buildings…
The laws will be struck down as unconstitutional.
It's a policy, which is not law.
@@rotagbhd you are correct
Policy is not LAW.
Sad that they are afraid of being recorded, im guessed the cops are doing something wrong or shady
If there are victims maybe they shouldn’t talk to them in the lobby
The 1st Amendment is more important than the violent offenders feelings
"Policy" is not a law
They can create a policy but it doesn’t override the constitution!
aww they tried the same thing in New York.. It didn't work. Supreme court stopped it.
1A auditor: exists
Cops: I'm feeling baited!
Their goal is to prove to citizens and police officers what our constitution says
The police in the lobby has to create the privacy, move these citizens into a private are for private consultation.
Second, 25 feet us excessive. Most states have already ruled 14' is sufficient otherwise the police need to put up crime tape. If it's not a crime and it's in public view, again the police have to create the privacy.
Policy does not trump law, its the first thing the auditors say. Makes no sense. The auditing will never continue and now get worse.
There is zero right to privacy in public. The end!
""in public"" means in a TRADITIONAL PUBLIC FORUM = sidewalks, streets, public parks, plazas, alleyways etc, outdoor public areas ,,,,,THAT's where our free speech and our right to film is protected by the first amendment, NOT inside a building owned by the government/state/county/city/town = NON--PUBLIC FORUM.....CASE LAW .......""The First Amendment does not give citizens the right to exercise free speech rights on any government property at any time. “The State, no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated.”---Adderley v. State of Florida, 385 US 39, 47 (1967).....that means the owners of ""public buildings"" = the government/state/county/city/town, has EXACTLY the same rights as the owners of private property. ANYONE can be trespassed from any property by the owner/manager.....CASE LAW....“The First Amendment does not guarantee access to property simply because it is owned or controlled by the government.” ------United States Postal Service v. Greenburgh Civic Association, 453 US 114, 129 (1981).
""To date, there is no U.S. Supreme Court case establishing a right to film public officials engaged in carrying out their official duties or a right to film inside public buildings, cases in which U.S. Courts of Appeals have recognized a “right to record” concerns one category of public employees (police officers) engaged in one type of activity (carrying out public duties) in one type of area (traditional public forums).""
........ UNC School of Government Nov 2022....... If you or anyone thinks that any of these laws are unconstitutional then what you SHOULD do is film yourself being refused entry, leave, take your video to a lawyer write up a coherrent dossier explaining why you think it is unconstitutional, file a law suit and let a judge decide ..... What you do NOT do , is refuse to leave, argue with security or police, insult security or police , THEY are doing their job and applying the law as it stands, they don't decide or write laws or statutes they are applying what the actual law states , if you don't like it go see a lawyer and stop trying to shame or humiliate hardworking american citizens who are respecting the law , contributing to society earning their money and respect and paying taxes.
They are inside.
@@RichardHead23 who is the government buttercup?
Government property is public property smart one 😂
The police lobby is no different that a county park 😂it is not a restricted part of government like offices and other areas deemed restricted.
Libraries and police station lobbies and parking lots are perfectly legal to be filmed in per the constitution.
You are wrong
"" A county park"" is a TRADITIONAL PUBLIC FORUM = sidewalks, streets, public parks, plazas, alleyways , etc outdoor public areas ,,,,, INSIDE a building is NOT a traditional public forum ,,, they are NON--PUBLIC FORUMS or LIMITED public forums.......The Seventh Circuit has held that “the interior of a police station is not a public forum.”--------First Def. Legal Aid v. City of Chi., 319 F.3d 967, 968 (7th Cir. 2003)........,,The Southern District of New York has recognized New York Police Department meeting rooms as nonpublic forums.-------Latino Officers Ass’n v. City of New York, No. 97 CIV. 1384 (KMW), 1998 WL 80150, at *4(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 1998)......,,,,Likewise, the Central District of California has held that a police station is a nonpublic forum.------Boyd v. City of Hermosa Beach, No. CV0410528AGJTLX, 2007 WL 9717625, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2007)...... ,,,In a decision affirmed by the Eighth Circuit, the Western District of Missouri held that a plaintiff had no constitutional right to videotape a police department lobby.-------Akins v. City of Columbia, No. 2:15-CV-04096-NKL, 2016 WL 4126549, at *17 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 2,2016), aff’d sub nom. Akins v. Knight, 863 F.3d 1084 (8th Cir. 2017)....... ,,,,Likewise, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld a “no-filming” restriction imposed in the lobby of a police department as a reasonable restraint on free speech.-------Commonwealth v. Bradley, 2020 PA Super 109, 232 A.3d 747, 755 (2020)........Maybe you should learn to read instead of repeating youtube lawyers ,,, who seem to keep ending up in jail.
"" A county park"" is a TRADITIONAL PUBLIC FORUM = sidewalks, streets, public parks, plazas, alleyways , etc outdoor public areas ,,,,, INSIDE a building is NOT a traditional public forum ,,, they are NON--PUBLIC FORUMS or LIMITED public forums.......The Seventh Circuit has held that “the interior of a police station is not a public forum.”........,,The Southern District of New York has recognized New York Police Department meeting rooms as nonpublic forums......,,,,Likewise, the Central District of California has held that a police station is a nonpublic forum....... ,,,In a decision affirmed by the Eighth Circuit, the Western District of Missouri held that a plaintiff had no constitutional right to videotape a police department lobby..... ,,,,Likewise, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld a “no-filming” restriction imposed in the lobby of a police department as a reasonable restraint on free speech......Maybe you should learn to read instead of repeating youtube lawyers ,,, who seem to keep ending up in jail.
No expectation of privacy in public.
It is clear that sheriff Shitwood doesn't see straight...
Policy does not trump the 1st Amendment
This policy is pure hypocritical. They can video us all they want anywhere they want but we can't video them. So much for accountability.
You realize they don't post it on youtube and they redact parts for privacy
@joem80003 Well, there you go .Who do you blame, the constitution? If we don't use these rights , we will lose these rights. The government is slowly trying to erode our rights. Why do you think Musk bought Twitter? Government censorship. You know what else they redact. They're crimes, and their civil rights violations. Plus, they mute the cameras when they are conspiring to take away someone's freedom because they don't like what they're doing.
@@joem80003 all police video is easily foia'd dumb cop d-licker.
They need to get a new lawyer. One that will tell them this is unconstitutional and any attempt to enforce it will be expensive and generate a lot of negative publicity. The auditors do not operate in a vacuum. This story also shows how local news licks the boots of cops and government in order to keep getting access and stories.
All the videos i seen on the internet, I have never ever seen anyones personal information posted. But I have seen police brutality and violence. Many videos of citizens rights being violated by sadistic bullies and thugs aka police officers. Also citizens tortured by police. Let’s not forget the citizens life’s ruined by abuse and incarcerated for nothing. They are the lucky ones, we have citizens murdered by overzealous ego driven police whose behavior is an exact copy of the NAZIS. Don’t forget the paralyzed and crippled with broken necks because some sadistic officer wanted to throw a handcuffed citizen to the ground. Now that cameras are bringing the truth to light the blue line gang wants to change the rights of the people and trash the constitution. You say they film with no reasonable purpose. Please see above. How much violence has been curtailed because a camera was present. No purpose? I don’t think so. Ask the citizen with the broken nose and broken neck. He’s in a wheelchair unable to take care of himself the rest of his life. WHAT HAPPENED TO INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY? STOP QUALIFIED IMMUNITY!
Bravo So true I wonder what my dead husband would think after they killed him This is a much needed very important Constitutionally protected activity Always film the police
And if it's not allowed..... DISOBEY!!
Yes my brother in law was killed by police and his family was destroyed because of their abuse
@@eddie1257 every audit video I've seen recently was them harassing and name-calling ppl to get them emotional, they feed of violence and drama to start sht. No longer targeting pigs. There's even a video of them following some random woman until she breaks down while yelling "camera is not in your face, it's in mine" with condescending tones. Like, that could b someone's mom or wife. Disgusting behavior.
@@kmfhazardmove to North Korea they have no constitutional rights if that how you want to live. The violence that I see in the videos is all police abuse see Caroline in Fort Worth
I don't think I've heard such incompetence in my life, incompetent officers and incompetent reporting.
The policy is unconstitutional of course on its face there's no argument there.
DeLand is being sued.
When A Private matter needs to be discussed you go up to the receptionist and you say I have a private matter that I need to discuss with an officer, then they get an officer and you're taking to a back room.
No one ever would come up to a public lobby and announce I've just been raped, that's just not going to happen.
When you're in a public lobby there is no expectation of privacy at all.
The people that want the privacy have to create their own privacy and they cannot do so by subverting anyone else's rights.
There is now way THE PEOPLE WE PAY HAVE RIGHT TO KEEP AMERICANS DOWN.
Politicians can't legislate 1st Amendment rights away, but they sure waste taxpayer money on trying. Shameful.
It’s Florida nobody cares. Conservatives are a joke.
The onus of “privacy” is on the government ….set up a separate room for the initial contact….stupid has no limits….
Policy means NOTHING.
Policy = police
Hmmmmm
That polisy isn't worth the file it is stored in on a hard drive.
Do as we say, not as we do.
There is no expectations of privacy in public.
What a useless policy, first person to get arrested wins $15,000 in our tax dollars
No court has ever ruled filming can’t be restricted inside government buildings; nobody is winning any $$.
@@RustySshackleford wrong...
I get a kick out of this News channel and this coverage. Today's news is like The inquire newspaper you buy in stores. I really don't know what's worse the government or the news. Both of them cause a lot of drama and chaos in this country.
Their goal is to hold public servants accountable
lol..
Their goal is to get social media views.
Notice how the sheriff complains that the auditors are making money. Isn't this WKMG News 6 station making money off of the video they record? So what if someone makes money! The issue is the First Amendment.
policy is not law
Is ignorance of the laws an excuse for acts by officials that violate our constitutional rights? They are to follow the letter of the law, (as they are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation.
For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights.
Its crazy how they know what these auditors are trying to do, but yet they all still fall for it lol they literally can't help themselves....
If you can see it from public, you can record it from public, period. It's the public servants job to create privacy for the public, while not violating the auditors civil/constitutional rights.
Policy doesn't trump law
how do these people seriously not know the FIRST rule in the constitution 🤦🏽♂️ genuinely pathetic
Bring them to a private room, not in a open lobby where the public waits? BABIES! DO YOUR JOB AND STOP VIOLATING OUR RIGHTS
They obviously have something to hide
Complete violation of the First Amendment.
Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason?
The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."
Its unconstitutional and if they fight the arrest. They will win" then file a law suit against the police and city!!
Unconstitutional
They can write all of the policies they want… but policies do not override our rights!
Which "right"? The right to violate other people's privacy? The right to the right to shame the victim of a crime that they're reporting to the police? The right to harass police when they're investigating an accident, or a crime? Come to my town and try that nonsense & see how far your "rights" get you.
@@MomolosZtips bootlicker opinions are worthless.
What are they hiding?
It must be something big. Otherwise, why go to all that trouble creating a policy that will certainly get deemed unconstitutional. Not to mention the negative publicity and likely boycotting of businesses in Deland. It only makes sense if you've got something that you'd be ashamed of if the public found out.
Maybe a girl doesn't want to tell the receptionist ",I was raped" while some creepy stranger is standing there with a camera.
Is it OK with you if we keep that secret?
@@lance3748no we can't.
Write it down.
Call first.
Cry about it lance who gives a ff.
You have whined and cried on every other comment here.
Shew dude.
no policy will go before the bill of rights.
That ordinance will be challenged.
And will be declared unconstitutional.
Policy doesnt Trump constitution. These idiots just invited many more audits with this policy
It just opens up the Court for law suits
Nothing trumps the consitution. The fact that they think they can make a law that bans your consititution right is angering and baffling
privacy must be created. scotus - it is the duty of the org to create the privacy.
when will they learn that the constitution is The Law of the Land - article VI us constitution.
this is an unconstitutional ruling.
Unconstitutional policy that will be overturned. People should be outraged that a city is trying to overturn supreme court rulings that deal with the specific topic, and a constitutional right. The supreme court has ruled that in PUBLIC, the camera is the same as the eyes.
But there are cameras in the lobby which we can request. So how does that work? Someone could put that on line. They can take them in a room if necessary.
I think they just don’t like it and it’s understandable I feel that way too it makes me feel not good if I could see someone filming me like that so I think they feel the same way. They should NOT be allowed because it could hurt the persons feelings.
Freedom is scary. Obviously some aren't up for the responsibilities.
@@ak_getright9905 that's the problem you're thinking instead of knowing the law and your God given rights. Freedom is scary deal with it because there's no room for ANYONE's feelings.
@@dabzprincess92exactly
@@dabzprincess92 😂 y’all are clowns. I’m old enough to remember when people like you couldn’t use the internet. Those were the days.
If it was that serious don’t have ppl tell the front desk sensitive information. Make it so all they gotta say is “can I speak to an officer in the back”
This new policy needs to be challenged in court
It will. I hope.
Lol that is gonna give this city a nice fat lawsuit to pay. Geniuses. Lets try to make a law that bans a constitutionally protected activity.
Also i hope they plan to also remove the security cameras
This will cost the tax payer's. Policy is not law.
Public spaces are NOT private areas. If you want privacy, you have to create privacy. There are laws in this country for a reason, and it’s NOT to protect your FEELINGS.
Illegal policy. Policy can’t trump our rights. Nice try. Good luck. Welcome lawsuits.
That won’t happen.
@@OlYables
The lawsuit should happen. The fact that government is corrupt, is why it will be shot down it is. If government was actually working for us, that’s a slam dunk lawsuit.
Policies do not trump constitutions .
Wow, no law or ordinance will supersede the 1st Amendment. Auditors are a branch of accountability to make sure our government workers are acting lawfully.
Weak reporting. Didn’t press the 1st amendment issue with city officials.
A persons rights end where the next persons rights begin. Right to privacy in a non public forum trumps a douchebags right to video.
Douchbags are allowed to make douchbag comments because of the same amendment as filming.
Get over yourself
Those people may as well just write a huge check to whoever wants it, cut out the middle man of court since the outcome is inevitable. Plus, that way they won't subject their police employees to criminal charges by giving them unlawful orders to commit felonies.