Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

🚔Cedar Rapids. Public street. A parked squad car. A camera. A First Amendment auditor is filming a police vehicle from the sidewalk — public property, public view, no touching, no blocking, no crime. Then Investigator Matt Denlinger, badge 830, steps into the frame. Not the marked-unit traffic stop version...

ScottEnlow's profile picture

👮‍♂️🚒 Tales of Badge & Blaze™

71,149 subscribers

49,730 görüntüleme • 20 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

33 Yorum

US Army SFC profil fotoğrafı
US Army SFC20 gün önce

@CR_Police why are we expected to tolerate such ignorance and arrogance from public servants? Dismissive of constitutional rights and not identifying himself. Fix your garbage. @CivilRights

kay charles profil fotoğrafı
kay charles20 gün önce

This stupid motherfucker needs to lose his badge

Cro Aglo profil fotoğrafı
Cro Aglo20 gün önce

"What crime do you suspect me of?" Repeat until they leave.

The Prairie Observer profil fotoğrafı
The Prairie Observer20 gün önce

Cops get one tiny little pebble of an idea in their empty skulls & let it rattle around like a dog with a bone. They just keep chewing & chewing & chewing. Not a single thought enters their brain. No law required. No clue how stupid they sound. Just repeat it 29 times.

ryryryryry profil fotoğrafı
ryryryryry20 gün önce

How does an ID make you unsuspicious?

Ben Davies profil fotoğrafı
Ben Davies20 gün önce

What crime has the guy with the camera committed @USApolice you dips#%€£ recording on video a police car from a side walk IN PUBLIC is protected under the 1st Amendment unless the constitution of the United States has been completely changed in the last 100 years

Spacial profil fotoğrafı
Spacial20 gün önce

ID to a cop is like meth to a meth head

Indy Hawk profil fotoğrafı
Indy Hawk20 gün önce

Just tell the cop you have a flock camera and he will be ok with it.

PATRIOT HIK profil fotoğrafı
PATRIOT HIK20 gün önce

Denlingers yet another pissed off person placed in a position of authority. He’s pissed because he’s a baldy is my guess …….

Pat Beaudry profil fotoğrafı
Pat Beaudry20 gün önce

This cop is beat, he just will not admit it

The Other profil fotoğrafı
The Other20 gün önce

Intelligence gathering. Our laws being used against us. 1st amendment auditors are not Robin Hood.

crlstafdam profil fotoğrafı
crlstafdam20 gün önce

Honest question, why do they want your name so much? Like nothing changes

Terry Peoples profil fotoğrafı
Terry Peoples20 gün önce

Retard investigator needs fired credentials revoked permanently nationwide

Roland Deschain profil fotoğrafı
Roland Deschain19 gün önce

All cops suck. All cops are useless. All cops are corrupt.

BMB profil fotoğrafı
BMB20 gün önce

No ID, No Badge, if he flashes a gun or tries to touch you your 2A rights come into play. Is it!!!

MJT profil fotoğrafı
MJT17 gün önce

False statement 1st thing. "I have the right to stop you and demand ID if I see you doing something suspicious" False. It has to be suspect you of committing a crime. I can stand around and look "suspicious" all I want. As long as it doesn't look like criminal activity

Harry Ryan profil fotoğrafı
Harry Ryan20 gün önce

If you are an investigator, than you should be investigating who left the laptop open! Fucking dumbass 😂

MJT profil fotoğrafı
MJT17 gün önce

They get stuck on wanting ID. Doesn't matter if they just talk to you, think you look funny, or what, they always NEED that ID. They gotta train them to ask something different. It's pretty crazy how they just get stuck on that shit even when it's not rightfully theirs to ask for

MuchoUno profil fotoğrafı
MuchoUno18 gün önce

“It’s not public information.” You made it public when you displayed it…in public.

leaton crawford profil fotoğrafı
leaton crawford14 gün önce

This robot is broken.. I need to see your ID I need to see your ID I need to see your ID I need to see your ID I need to see your ID I need to see your ID I need to see your ID I need to see your ID I need to see your ID

ubercat profil fotoğrafı
ubercat19 gün önce

If you don't want anything visible like a laptop screen shown reason why they're called laptops because they have a lid and you can close the lid and no one can read what it says I think it's the cops fault for doing leaving it open and if it's in plain view is perfectly fine

RIP_SunsetDreamsWV profil fotoğrafı
RIP_SunsetDreamsWV8 gün önce

@johnbryanesq @DrJudgeMedia @HighImpactFlix @LongIslandAudit @Police_Clips @PoliceThePolic1 @PoliceIncident @Police1gva @CopsOnCamg59 @VnMn22019093 @copsusablue @AngryCops @1AmendmentMike @CountryVibes01 @FACoalition @iamfreeauditing @AuditTheAudit @audit

Duran Mendez profil fotoğrafı
Duran Mendez16 gün önce

🤔💭. don’t gaslight him you stupid stupid little👮🏻‍♂️💩. It’s your job to protect that information on your laptop. You fucking moron. You’re not providing privacy because you have a fucking badge. Everybody needs to create their own privacy in public 💀💀

ron capoferri profil fotoğrafı
ron capoferri20 gün önce

I wish I had Superman powers some times.

Les Grossman profil fotoğrafı
Les Grossman19 gün önce

ALL COPS SUCK.

John profil fotoğrafı
John15 gün önce

Random stop and ID thought they did away with that you look suspicious. Give me your ID.

Don profil fotoğrafı
Don20 gün önce

Wtf 😳 come on man

Nishad Joshi profil fotoğrafı
Nishad Joshi20 gün önce

Every few years, breaks into my family house at night, drugs/rapes me, films a video of it, steals trophies to go with these bizarre videos from random stalkers, wages terror threats vs college/tech/media campuses for hosting me, theaters, ballet classes, events, sororities, etc.

C. Vigilante profil fotoğrafı
C. Vigilante9 gün önce

Look ma, another petty tyrant asshole. Everybody in law enforcement envisions themselves as super secret special agent on a mission from the higher powers and can do whatever the fuck they want because they shave their head and put a piece of brass in their pocket.

Terry Peoples profil fotoğrafı
Terry Peoples20 gün önce

Investigator needs fired cred

HughJanus101 profil fotoğrafı
HughJanus10120 gün önce

Bald clown should do his civic duty and go lie in traffic

Mason Ballowe profil fotoğrafı
Mason Ballowe20 gün önce

#acab

GuyNormas profil fotoğrafı
GuyNormas8 gün önce

Sack him

Benzer Videolar

👮‍♂️From asking 'Are You Ok" to demanding ID 🎥Sidewalk in Johns Creek, GA. Auditor filming a business from public property. People get uncomfortable. That’s the call. Officer Siberski arrives locked in on one goal: get his ID. He refuses. No crime. No RAS. Just a camera on a sidewalk. Then senior officer Parker shows up, actually looks at the situation, gives the auditor the CAD number he asked for, and tells him he’s free to go. Siberski is not pleased. This is the difference between “I don’t like this” and “is this illegal.” ❓What happens when a cop wants your ID more than she wants the facts? ❓What happens when one officer wants your ID and the other tells you you’re free to go? Watch the whole thing.
19:28

👮‍♂️From asking 'Are You Ok" to demanding ID 🎥Sidewalk in Johns Creek, GA. Auditor filming a business from public property. People get uncomfortable. That’s the call. Officer Siberski arrives locked in on one goal: get his ID. He refuses. No crime. No RAS. Just a camera on a sidewalk. Then senior officer Parker shows up, actually looks at the situation, gives the auditor the CAD number he asked for, and tells him he’s free to go. Siberski is not pleased. This is the difference between “I don’t like this” and “is this illegal.” ❓What happens when a cop wants your ID more than she wants the facts? ❓What happens when one officer wants your ID and the other tells you you’re free to go? Watch the whole thing.

👮‍♂️🚒 Tales of Badge & Blaze™

31,623 görüntüleme • 18 gün önce

🚨When the police chief meets his match. James Freeman walked into the public lobby of the Logan Police Department in Utah and filmed what was plainly visible — memorials, the space itself, officers coming and going. No restricted area. No disruption. Just a camera. Logan Police Chief Gary Jensen comes out and spots him, demands ID, and treats the filming as inherently suspicious. “If you’re gonna come into my lobby and videotape in today’s day and age, I have the right to ask you to identify yourself.” The recorder points out that photography is not a crime, that the lobby is public, and that Utah’s stop-and-ID law still requires reasonable suspicion of a crime. Jensen calls for backup, tells him he is detained, then later asks him to leave the public lobby. This is the clip. ❓What was more suspicious — the camera, or the reaction to it? ❓If press credentials aren’t required by law, why demand them? ❓Do you think police nowadays learning anything from watching older audit videos like this one from 2018? Why not?
5:52

🚨When the police chief meets his match. James Freeman walked into the public lobby of the Logan Police Department in Utah and filmed what was plainly visible — memorials, the space itself, officers coming and going. No restricted area. No disruption. Just a camera. Logan Police Chief Gary Jensen comes out and spots him, demands ID, and treats the filming as inherently suspicious. “If you’re gonna come into my lobby and videotape in today’s day and age, I have the right to ask you to identify yourself.” The recorder points out that photography is not a crime, that the lobby is public, and that Utah’s stop-and-ID law still requires reasonable suspicion of a crime. Jensen calls for backup, tells him he is detained, then later asks him to leave the public lobby. This is the clip. ❓What was more suspicious — the camera, or the reaction to it? ❓If press credentials aren’t required by law, why demand them? ❓Do you think police nowadays learning anything from watching older audit videos like this one from 2018? Why not?

👮‍♂️🚒 Tales of Badge & Blaze™

480,064 görüntüleme • 3 gün önce

🚨If this happened to you on a Texas sidewalk, would you still call it “just doing their job”? 🎥This video shows a Harris County Precinct 6 deputy constable and a partner confronting an unknown First Amendment auditor filming a chemical plant from a public sidewalk in Texas. Constables arrived on a call, called it a Homeland Security issue, demanded ID, then handcuffed the auditor and put him in a patrol car for absolutely no reason. Filming from a public sidewalk is legal whether you are filming a chemical plant or a flock of seagulls. This is a common pattern at Harris County chemical plants: security calls, officers treat it as suspicious, and detain the person who won’t identify. This deputy constable detained, forcefully identified, then released the auditor. ❓How many more people have to get handcuffed on a public sidewalk before Harris County admits this is illegal?
4:49

🚨If this happened to you on a Texas sidewalk, would you still call it “just doing their job”? 🎥This video shows a Harris County Precinct 6 deputy constable and a partner confronting an unknown First Amendment auditor filming a chemical plant from a public sidewalk in Texas. Constables arrived on a call, called it a Homeland Security issue, demanded ID, then handcuffed the auditor and put him in a patrol car for absolutely no reason. Filming from a public sidewalk is legal whether you are filming a chemical plant or a flock of seagulls. This is a common pattern at Harris County chemical plants: security calls, officers treat it as suspicious, and detain the person who won’t identify. This deputy constable detained, forcefully identified, then released the auditor. ❓How many more people have to get handcuffed on a public sidewalk before Harris County admits this is illegal?

👮‍♂️🚒 Tales of Badge & Blaze™

116,198 görüntüleme • 20 gün önce

Two Omaha officers get schooled on our rights. "Suspicion" isn't a crime, and filming in a public lobby isn't "suspicious" behavior—it's a protected right. ​ In this interaction at the Omaha Treasurer's Office, the officers attempt to use "public concern" as a reason to demand identification. However, the law is clear: without reasonable articulable suspicion of a specific crime, a citizen is under no obligation to identify. ​ Is filming the government a crime, or is the government just uncomfortable being filmed?
2:42

Two Omaha officers get schooled on our rights. "Suspicion" isn't a crime, and filming in a public lobby isn't "suspicious" behavior—it's a protected right. ​ In this interaction at the Omaha Treasurer's Office, the officers attempt to use "public concern" as a reason to demand identification. However, the law is clear: without reasonable articulable suspicion of a specific crime, a citizen is under no obligation to identify. ​ Is filming the government a crime, or is the government just uncomfortable being filmed?

Chuckling Charlie

29,249 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

🎥Detained in Dothan for recording ambulances running a stop sign. Jeff Gray was on a public sidewalk in Dothan, AL filming ambulances running a stop sign near Southeast Health. Hospital employees called police when they saw him. Officer Kevin Fischer (#1146) showed up, and with no questions asked detained him as a “suspicious person". He gave him a stern taking down to, called him a "First Amendment predator" and demanded ID because he was “creating a disturbance.” Gray was filming public activity from a public sidewalk. No crime. No arrest. Just a report and an ID check under protest. Photography is not a crime. ❓Did Officer Fisher actually have reasonable suspicion—or just an attitude? ❓Why did Officer Fisher say Gray was “creating a disturbance” inside the building when he was only standing outside on the sidewalk? ❓Did it seem to you like Officer Fisher had his mind made up about Jeff Gray before he even exited his vehicle?
10:04

🎥Detained in Dothan for recording ambulances running a stop sign. Jeff Gray was on a public sidewalk in Dothan, AL filming ambulances running a stop sign near Southeast Health. Hospital employees called police when they saw him. Officer Kevin Fischer (#1146) showed up, and with no questions asked detained him as a “suspicious person". He gave him a stern taking down to, called him a "First Amendment predator" and demanded ID because he was “creating a disturbance.” Gray was filming public activity from a public sidewalk. No crime. No arrest. Just a report and an ID check under protest. Photography is not a crime. ❓Did Officer Fisher actually have reasonable suspicion—or just an attitude? ❓Why did Officer Fisher say Gray was “creating a disturbance” inside the building when he was only standing outside on the sidewalk? ❓Did it seem to you like Officer Fisher had his mind made up about Jeff Gray before he even exited his vehicle?

👮‍♂️🚒 Tales of Badge & Blaze™

28,546 görüntüleme • 5 gün önce

Sergeant arrested man for recording national guard armory. This incident occurred near the Hibbing National Guard Armory. The "story" behind this case is centered on a legal dispute over first amendment rights, refusing to ID, and the definition of Obstruction. Sgt. Everett detained the camera man for filming the armory, citing "suspicious activity." When he refused to provide identification—arguing that filming from a public sidewalk is not a crime—the situation escalated into a physical arrest. The man was charged with Obstruction of Legal Process. However, a Minnesota court eventually dismissed the charges. The court found that Everett did not have "reasonable, articulable suspicion" that a crime was being committed. Merely filming a government building from a public space was deemed a protected First Amendment activity, and refusing to ID during an unlawful detention does not constitute obstruction in Minnesota. Upon release the camera man sued the Hibbing police department and won costing the citizens of that city 36,000 in their tax dollars. The sad part is the Hibbing PD has done nothing from a disciplinary standpoint to Sergeant Everett.
3:21

Sergeant arrested man for recording national guard armory. This incident occurred near the Hibbing National Guard Armory. The "story" behind this case is centered on a legal dispute over first amendment rights, refusing to ID, and the definition of Obstruction. Sgt. Everett detained the camera man for filming the armory, citing "suspicious activity." When he refused to provide identification—arguing that filming from a public sidewalk is not a crime—the situation escalated into a physical arrest. The man was charged with Obstruction of Legal Process. However, a Minnesota court eventually dismissed the charges. The court found that Everett did not have "reasonable, articulable suspicion" that a crime was being committed. Merely filming a government building from a public space was deemed a protected First Amendment activity, and refusing to ID during an unlawful detention does not constitute obstruction in Minnesota. Upon release the camera man sued the Hibbing police department and won costing the citizens of that city 36,000 in their tax dollars. The sad part is the Hibbing PD has done nothing from a disciplinary standpoint to Sergeant Everett.

Giggling Ganon

16,588 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

🚨Mississippi - It's Like a Whole Other Country Senatobia, MS — March 2026 Two First Amendment auditors, Mr. Moses of Kansas City Accountability and a companion from Central Tyrant Investigations, film a bank from the public sidewalk. Officer Lowry and Lt. Hal detain them after a call claims they went inside and recorded license plates in the parking lot. Bodycam and their footage show they stayed on the sidewalk the entire time. Mississippi has no stop-and-identify statute. Officers never named a specific crime. ❓Did the officers violate the Fourth Amendment when they forced ID under threat of arrest and ran the names? (They found nothing, and released them.) ❓“Reasonable suspicion.” Suspicion of what? (They never named a crime.) ❓Lieutenant Hal, Is "we got a call" the same as "Reasonable Suspicion" in Senatobia, Mississippi?
11:37

🚨Mississippi - It's Like a Whole Other Country Senatobia, MS — March 2026 Two First Amendment auditors, Mr. Moses of Kansas City Accountability and a companion from Central Tyrant Investigations, film a bank from the public sidewalk. Officer Lowry and Lt. Hal detain them after a call claims they went inside and recorded license plates in the parking lot. Bodycam and their footage show they stayed on the sidewalk the entire time. Mississippi has no stop-and-identify statute. Officers never named a specific crime. ❓Did the officers violate the Fourth Amendment when they forced ID under threat of arrest and ran the names? (They found nothing, and released them.) ❓“Reasonable suspicion.” Suspicion of what? (They never named a crime.) ❓Lieutenant Hal, Is "we got a call" the same as "Reasonable Suspicion" in Senatobia, Mississippi?

👮‍♂️🚒 Tales of Badge & Blaze™

97,749 görüntüleme • 23 gün önce

👮‍♀️She Wanted ID and Wasn't Taking No for an Answer 🎥1A auditor Angel “Bartholomew” Moses (Kansas City Accountability) was filming from the public sidewalk outside a bank on Ward Parkway in Kansas City, MO when employees called the police. Officer Sarah Holland #5826 cuffed him after he refused ID and interfered with his camera. He asked for a sergeant. The sergeant arrived, checked the facts, and told Holland she could force ID only if there was a crime. There wasn’t. The bank declined trespassing charges because he never left the sidewalk. He was released. Filming from a public sidewalk is not a crime. ❓Did the sergeant save Officer Holland from making an even bigger mistake? ❓Do you think Officer Holland actually believed she could force ID with no crime—or was she just going with her feelings?
9:15

👮‍♀️She Wanted ID and Wasn't Taking No for an Answer 🎥1A auditor Angel “Bartholomew” Moses (Kansas City Accountability) was filming from the public sidewalk outside a bank on Ward Parkway in Kansas City, MO when employees called the police. Officer Sarah Holland #5826 cuffed him after he refused ID and interfered with his camera. He asked for a sergeant. The sergeant arrived, checked the facts, and told Holland she could force ID only if there was a crime. There wasn’t. The bank declined trespassing charges because he never left the sidewalk. He was released. Filming from a public sidewalk is not a crime. ❓Did the sergeant save Officer Holland from making an even bigger mistake? ❓Do you think Officer Holland actually believed she could force ID with no crime—or was she just going with her feelings?

👮‍♂️🚒 Tales of Badge & Blaze™

50,454 görüntüleme • 10 gün önce

Claremore, Oklahoma. U.S. Post Office sidewalk. January 2018. A man is recording and taking pictures in public on the north side of the post office. Claremore PD Officer Cassie Grettner detains him over complaints that someone was looking into vehicles. He asks her name and badge number. She refuses.“You give me your name, I’ll give you mine.” He tells her he’s not a public official. She is. She still won’t say her name or badge number. He asks again. She still won’t. He asks what crime she suspects him of committing. She cites a “disturbance.” He’s on a public sidewalk filming. That’s not a crime. Sgt. Book arrives. Same standoff. She still hasn’t identified herself to the man she’s detaining. No arrest. The encounter was filmed. Recording police in public is legal. A cop who detains someone and then refuses to identify herself is the part that doesn’t add up. ❓Why would Officer Cassie Grettner detain you and then refuse to tell you her name? ❓If a police officer won’t identify herself, is she even acting as a police officer?
9:51

Claremore, Oklahoma. U.S. Post Office sidewalk. January 2018. A man is recording and taking pictures in public on the north side of the post office. Claremore PD Officer Cassie Grettner detains him over complaints that someone was looking into vehicles. He asks her name and badge number. She refuses.“You give me your name, I’ll give you mine.” He tells her he’s not a public official. She is. She still won’t say her name or badge number. He asks again. She still won’t. He asks what crime she suspects him of committing. She cites a “disturbance.” He’s on a public sidewalk filming. That’s not a crime. Sgt. Book arrives. Same standoff. She still hasn’t identified herself to the man she’s detaining. No arrest. The encounter was filmed. Recording police in public is legal. A cop who detains someone and then refuses to identify herself is the part that doesn’t add up. ❓Why would Officer Cassie Grettner detain you and then refuse to tell you her name? ❓If a police officer won’t identify herself, is she even acting as a police officer?

👮‍♂️🚒 Tales of Badge & Blaze™

55,015 görüntüleme • 20 gün önce

🚨August 2021 — Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. State-run liquor store. Amagansett Press (Jason Gutterman) and his son Jason is standing ~20 feet from the door on the public walkway/parking area, filming. He never enters the store. Staff come out, claim he’s “bothering customers,” tell him to get off “their property,” and call police when he refuses. Officer Kaiafa arrives, asks staff if they want him trespassed, then tells Gutterman she needs his ID to formally trespass him and enter it in the system. He points out it’s a state-owned liquor store, he’s on public property, committed no crime, and there is no lawful basis to trespass him from a public sidewalk. He asks for the property line and a supervisor. She continues demanding ID. He produces it under threat of arrest/detainment. She runs it, hands it back, and leaves. No arrest. No citation. Filming in public from public property is legal. A government liquor store’s sidewalk is not private property. Staff dislike of cameras does not create a crime or a valid trespass. ❓Why are police always enforcing employees feelings instead of the law? ❓Is “they want him trespassed” actually probable cause to force a person to ID themselves with name and DOB? ❓Why do police always take the employee’s side over the Constitution?
6:50

🚨August 2021 — Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. State-run liquor store. Amagansett Press (Jason Gutterman) and his son Jason is standing ~20 feet from the door on the public walkway/parking area, filming. He never enters the store. Staff come out, claim he’s “bothering customers,” tell him to get off “their property,” and call police when he refuses. Officer Kaiafa arrives, asks staff if they want him trespassed, then tells Gutterman she needs his ID to formally trespass him and enter it in the system. He points out it’s a state-owned liquor store, he’s on public property, committed no crime, and there is no lawful basis to trespass him from a public sidewalk. He asks for the property line and a supervisor. She continues demanding ID. He produces it under threat of arrest/detainment. She runs it, hands it back, and leaves. No arrest. No citation. Filming in public from public property is legal. A government liquor store’s sidewalk is not private property. Staff dislike of cameras does not create a crime or a valid trespass. ❓Why are police always enforcing employees feelings instead of the law? ❓Is “they want him trespassed” actually probable cause to force a person to ID themselves with name and DOB? ❓Why do police always take the employee’s side over the Constitution?

👮‍♂️🚒 Tales of Badge & Blaze™

81,514 görüntüleme • 6 gün önce

🚨Officer claims she’s investigating a “potential crime” after an anonymous caller reported an unknown man walking a public sidewalk taking pictures of houses. She thinks that’s enough to demand his ID. Photography from a public sidewalk is not a crime. ❓Should an anonymous call alone give police the right to demand your ID? ❓When did walking on a sidewalk with a camera become suspicious activity? ❓Would you hand over your ID in this situation?
2:51

🚨Officer claims she’s investigating a “potential crime” after an anonymous caller reported an unknown man walking a public sidewalk taking pictures of houses. She thinks that’s enough to demand his ID. Photography from a public sidewalk is not a crime. ❓Should an anonymous call alone give police the right to demand your ID? ❓When did walking on a sidewalk with a camera become suspicious activity? ❓Would you hand over your ID in this situation?

👮‍♂️🚒 Tales of Badge & Blaze™

247,559 görüntüleme • 15 gün önce

ICYMI: Your right to film in public does not give you the right to stand a foot off an ICE bumper and pin the car in. This is Minnesota. ICE is trying to move. A Rabid Responder plants himself in front of the vehicle with the camera up, less than a foot from the hood, and blocks them. Then he gets knocked on his butt and Karen screams WTF. Filming on a public street is legal. Stepping in front of a federal vehicle so it cannot leave is impeding officers. That is a crime. It is not journalism, and it is not a sidewalk law degree. If you do that and eat pavement, do not cry about it. This is not rocket science for anyone but Rabid Responders.
0:25

ICYMI: Your right to film in public does not give you the right to stand a foot off an ICE bumper and pin the car in. This is Minnesota. ICE is trying to move. A Rabid Responder plants himself in front of the vehicle with the camera up, less than a foot from the hood, and blocks them. Then he gets knocked on his butt and Karen screams WTF. Filming on a public street is legal. Stepping in front of a federal vehicle so it cannot leave is impeding officers. That is a crime. It is not journalism, and it is not a sidewalk law degree. If you do that and eat pavement, do not cry about it. This is not rocket science for anyone but Rabid Responders.

Kim "Katie" USA

28,178 görüntüleme • 21 gün önce

🚨When a Sheriff Tells a Flat Out Lie on Camera. On June 4, 2020, First Amendment auditor George Metz II (Rogue Nation) and a colleague filmed government buildings in Dothan, Ala., from public sidewalks, including the exterior of a police building. Houston County Sheriff Donald Valenza approached, told Metz had broken the law by filming their building, detained him, demanded ID, and said he was conducting an investigation. Sheriff Valenza said, "You're doing something illegal right now by filming government buildings." (Bold faced lie.) Metz said there was no reasonable suspicion for the stop. In May 2022 Metz sued Valenza in federal court for Fourth Amendment illegal seizure and First Amendment retaliation. A magistrate recommended denying Valenza qualified immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage, finding Metz had plausibly alleged a clearly established rights violation based on the complaint and video. The district judge adopted that and let the case proceed. The case did not go to a public merits ruling. On Oct. 10, 2024, it was dismissed with prejudice “on the terms set out and agreed to by the parties”—a settlement dismissal. Filming public buildings from a public sidewalk is generally protected; the dispute was whether the detention and ID demand were lawful. ❓Are First Amendment auditors journalists, agitators, or both? ❓What does the video actually show Sheriff Valenza doing? ❓Should a sheriff and his gang of deputies be able to detain you on a public sidewalk just for filming a police building?
13:08

🚨When a Sheriff Tells a Flat Out Lie on Camera. On June 4, 2020, First Amendment auditor George Metz II (Rogue Nation) and a colleague filmed government buildings in Dothan, Ala., from public sidewalks, including the exterior of a police building. Houston County Sheriff Donald Valenza approached, told Metz had broken the law by filming their building, detained him, demanded ID, and said he was conducting an investigation. Sheriff Valenza said, "You're doing something illegal right now by filming government buildings." (Bold faced lie.) Metz said there was no reasonable suspicion for the stop. In May 2022 Metz sued Valenza in federal court for Fourth Amendment illegal seizure and First Amendment retaliation. A magistrate recommended denying Valenza qualified immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage, finding Metz had plausibly alleged a clearly established rights violation based on the complaint and video. The district judge adopted that and let the case proceed. The case did not go to a public merits ruling. On Oct. 10, 2024, it was dismissed with prejudice “on the terms set out and agreed to by the parties”—a settlement dismissal. Filming public buildings from a public sidewalk is generally protected; the dispute was whether the detention and ID demand were lawful. ❓Are First Amendment auditors journalists, agitators, or both? ❓What does the video actually show Sheriff Valenza doing? ❓Should a sheriff and his gang of deputies be able to detain you on a public sidewalk just for filming a police building?

👮‍♂️🚒 Tales of Badge & Blaze™

44,541 görüntüleme • 3 gün önce

🚨There needs to be a mass retraining of law enforcement in the USA. Somewhere along the way, the prevailing belief among police became: if they “get a call,” that alone is reasonable suspicion to demand ID. We see the same thing happen over and over. I think if a cop gets a call about a “suspicious person,” they should pull up and watch. See whether a crime is happening or about to happen. The officer can run plates, photograph the vehicle, and even speak with you. There is no need to escalate into a detainment and forced ID when no legitimate justification exists. That behavior is tyrannical. It should not be supported in a free society. ❓Why do so many cops treat a 'suspicious person' call as a blank check to detain you? ❓Should a vague phone call alone let police stop and ID anyone they want?
13:28

🚨There needs to be a mass retraining of law enforcement in the USA. Somewhere along the way, the prevailing belief among police became: if they “get a call,” that alone is reasonable suspicion to demand ID. We see the same thing happen over and over. I think if a cop gets a call about a “suspicious person,” they should pull up and watch. See whether a crime is happening or about to happen. The officer can run plates, photograph the vehicle, and even speak with you. There is no need to escalate into a detainment and forced ID when no legitimate justification exists. That behavior is tyrannical. It should not be supported in a free society. ❓Why do so many cops treat a 'suspicious person' call as a blank check to detain you? ❓Should a vague phone call alone let police stop and ID anyone they want?

👮‍♂️🚒 Tales of Badge & Blaze™

138,360 görüntüleme • 22 gün önce

First Amendment auditors are right. Feelings are not law. At a Chick-fil-A, auditors stood on the public sidewalk filming. The manager called police, claiming they were filming “private property,” making guests uncomfortable, and “scanning” vehicles. She wanted them stopped. Police officer did the correct thing: he explained the actual law. The sidewalk is public property, frequented by the public. It is not illegal to record from that location in Tennessee. He pointed out the clear line—if they stepped onto Chick-fil-A property, they could be asked to leave. While they stayed on the public side, they were free to film. He even noted he could walk around with a camera himself from the same spots. That is the entire ballgame. Public spaces belong to the public. What you can see with your eyes from a public sidewalk, you can generally record. This is core First Amendment territory—freedom of the press and the right to gather information in places open to everyone. Courts have repeatedly upheld this. Discomfort, customer complaints, or a business’s preference do not create a new exception. “It makes people feel followed” is not a legal standard. If it were, news crews, citizen journalists, and anyone with a phone could be shut down every time someone felt uneasy. Yes, the auditors could choose a less confrontational style. Standing there with cameras pointed at a drive-thru and parking lot will annoy people. That is obvious. But annoyance is not illegality. The point of these audits is often to test whether officers and businesses actually know the boundary between private property rights and public rights. In this case the officer did. The manager did not. When people start treating “I don’t like it” as equivalent to “you can’t do that,” the First Amendment erodes. Auditors force the conversation back to the actual rules instead of vibes. That is why they keep doing it—and why this one was clean. Public means public. Record away.
2:38

First Amendment auditors are right. Feelings are not law. At a Chick-fil-A, auditors stood on the public sidewalk filming. The manager called police, claiming they were filming “private property,” making guests uncomfortable, and “scanning” vehicles. She wanted them stopped. Police officer did the correct thing: he explained the actual law. The sidewalk is public property, frequented by the public. It is not illegal to record from that location in Tennessee. He pointed out the clear line—if they stepped onto Chick-fil-A property, they could be asked to leave. While they stayed on the public side, they were free to film. He even noted he could walk around with a camera himself from the same spots. That is the entire ballgame. Public spaces belong to the public. What you can see with your eyes from a public sidewalk, you can generally record. This is core First Amendment territory—freedom of the press and the right to gather information in places open to everyone. Courts have repeatedly upheld this. Discomfort, customer complaints, or a business’s preference do not create a new exception. “It makes people feel followed” is not a legal standard. If it were, news crews, citizen journalists, and anyone with a phone could be shut down every time someone felt uneasy. Yes, the auditors could choose a less confrontational style. Standing there with cameras pointed at a drive-thru and parking lot will annoy people. That is obvious. But annoyance is not illegality. The point of these audits is often to test whether officers and businesses actually know the boundary between private property rights and public rights. In this case the officer did. The manager did not. When people start treating “I don’t like it” as equivalent to “you can’t do that,” the First Amendment erodes. Auditors force the conversation back to the actual rules instead of vibes. That is why they keep doing it—and why this one was clean. Public means public. Record away.

DocumentingLibs

69,376 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

📹A man was recording from public property outside a government complex in Coventry, RI. A Rhode Island Capitol Police officer walked up and told him to stop — said filming wasn’t allowed and he was adamant about it. The man asked for a supervisor. One came out, heard both sides, and said he could keep filming as long as he stayed on public property. The Capitol officer turned and walked off down the highway, visibly angry. Filming police from a public sidewalk is legal. Policy is not the law. ❓What happens when an officer is 100% sure — and 100% wrong? ❓Why do the wrong officers always sound the most certain?
4:54

📹A man was recording from public property outside a government complex in Coventry, RI. A Rhode Island Capitol Police officer walked up and told him to stop — said filming wasn’t allowed and he was adamant about it. The man asked for a supervisor. One came out, heard both sides, and said he could keep filming as long as he stayed on public property. The Capitol officer turned and walked off down the highway, visibly angry. Filming police from a public sidewalk is legal. Policy is not the law. ❓What happens when an officer is 100% sure — and 100% wrong? ❓Why do the wrong officers always sound the most certain?

👮‍♂️🚒 Tales of Badge & Blaze™

106,581 görüntüleme • 16 gün önce

👮‍♂️St. Louis Park, MN — May 2020 First Amendment auditor “Rowdy” (Rowdy Podcast) filmed the exterior of the St. Louis Park Police Department from public sidewalks. After ~15 minutes, Officer Todd Hines (badge #200) and another officer approached, detained him, and demanded ID. Hines said recording the building and officers leaving created a “security issue,” told him he should ID himself “if you have nothing to hide,” and claimed refusal was obstructing. The auditor asked what crime he was suspected of, noted public recording is protected, and requested a supervisor. A sergeant arrived, the stop ended, and the auditor was released without providing ID. No arrest or citation. Hines, a longtime SLP officer, retired about a year later. ❓What makes police think someone recording in public is a security risk? ❓What occurs outside their station that they don't want to have recorded? ❓If the officer had gotten the auditor's name and DOB, would he have done anything other than check for warrants then un-detain him? ❓ How would that have eased his security concern?
4:54

👮‍♂️St. Louis Park, MN — May 2020 First Amendment auditor “Rowdy” (Rowdy Podcast) filmed the exterior of the St. Louis Park Police Department from public sidewalks. After ~15 minutes, Officer Todd Hines (badge #200) and another officer approached, detained him, and demanded ID. Hines said recording the building and officers leaving created a “security issue,” told him he should ID himself “if you have nothing to hide,” and claimed refusal was obstructing. The auditor asked what crime he was suspected of, noted public recording is protected, and requested a supervisor. A sergeant arrived, the stop ended, and the auditor was released without providing ID. No arrest or citation. Hines, a longtime SLP officer, retired about a year later. ❓What makes police think someone recording in public is a security risk? ❓What occurs outside their station that they don't want to have recorded? ❓If the officer had gotten the auditor's name and DOB, would he have done anything other than check for warrants then un-detain him? ❓ How would that have eased his security concern?

👮‍♂️🚒 Tales of Badge & Blaze™

271,825 görüntüleme • 4 gün önce

He’s filming everyone at the market, but the police say there’s nothing they can do. Whose side are you on? A male videographer (the "auditor"), who is wearing a disguise for anonymity, is filming at an outdoor market. He is confronted by a market organizer (Kaylee Dolan) regarding his filming of vendors and attendees. A law enforcement officer arrives to mediate the dispute. ​The organizer expresses concern that the videographer is making vendors and patrons uncomfortable and asks him to stop or leave. The videographer asserts his right to film in a public area, refusing to comply with her request. ​The responding officer confirms that the videographer is in a public space where he has a legal right to record. The officer acknowledges the organizer's frustration but explains that, as no crime is being committed, he cannot compel the man to stop filming or force him to leave. ​The tension arises from the intersection of constitutional rights and personal expectations of privacy. ​Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, individuals generally have a protected right to film in public spaces (such as sidewalks, public parks, and plazas). This includes the right to film government officials and police officers performing their duties, as well as things that are plainly visible from those public areas. ​In general, there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a public space. If something can be seen by the naked eye from a location where a person is legally permitted to be, it is typically legal to photograph or record it. ​While filming is a protected activity, it is not absolute. If filming crosses the line into harassment, stalking, or disorderly conduct—or if it is done to "clandestinely" capture private or intimate areas, it can become illegal. In this specific interaction, the officer determined that the videographer’s actions did not meet the legal threshold for a crime, which is why he could not intervene. ​If the market were held on private property rather than public land, the owners or organizers would have the right to set rules regarding photography or to ask people to leave. If someone refuses to leave private property after being asked, they can be cited for trespassing. The officer's inability to remove the videographer suggests that the location was either public property or that the organizer lacked the legal authority to exclude him from that specific area.
6:03

He’s filming everyone at the market, but the police say there’s nothing they can do. Whose side are you on? A male videographer (the "auditor"), who is wearing a disguise for anonymity, is filming at an outdoor market. He is confronted by a market organizer (Kaylee Dolan) regarding his filming of vendors and attendees. A law enforcement officer arrives to mediate the dispute. ​The organizer expresses concern that the videographer is making vendors and patrons uncomfortable and asks him to stop or leave. The videographer asserts his right to film in a public area, refusing to comply with her request. ​The responding officer confirms that the videographer is in a public space where he has a legal right to record. The officer acknowledges the organizer's frustration but explains that, as no crime is being committed, he cannot compel the man to stop filming or force him to leave. ​The tension arises from the intersection of constitutional rights and personal expectations of privacy. ​Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, individuals generally have a protected right to film in public spaces (such as sidewalks, public parks, and plazas). This includes the right to film government officials and police officers performing their duties, as well as things that are plainly visible from those public areas. ​In general, there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a public space. If something can be seen by the naked eye from a location where a person is legally permitted to be, it is typically legal to photograph or record it. ​While filming is a protected activity, it is not absolute. If filming crosses the line into harassment, stalking, or disorderly conduct—or if it is done to "clandestinely" capture private or intimate areas, it can become illegal. In this specific interaction, the officer determined that the videographer’s actions did not meet the legal threshold for a crime, which is why he could not intervene. ​If the market were held on private property rather than public land, the owners or organizers would have the right to set rules regarding photography or to ask people to leave. If someone refuses to leave private property after being asked, they can be cited for trespassing. The officer's inability to remove the videographer suggests that the location was either public property or that the organizer lacked the legal authority to exclude him from that specific area.

✨️Serenitee♡Sam✨️

42,895 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

🚨NSFW LANGUAGE Nov. 2021 — Grand Rapids, Kent County, MI First Amendment auditors with FRICN Media were recording from a public sidewalk near a Kent County Sheriff’s facility when Deputy Atkinson confronted them over their tone. He then snatched the camera and wouldn't give it back. Other deputies stepped in, the camera was eventually returned, and the auditor went to file a complaint. Recording police in public is protected activity. No arrest. ❓Should anyone have been arrested based on what you saw? ❓What should happen when a deputy doesn’t like your tone—and takes your camera for it? ❓Why would Deputy Atkinson have thought he could treat a citizen’s property like it was his to confiscate on a whim? Watch the video.👇
5:58

Sensitive content

🚨NSFW LANGUAGE Nov. 2021 — Grand Rapids, Kent County, MI First Amendment auditors with FRICN Media were recording from a public sidewalk near a Kent County Sheriff’s facility when Deputy Atkinson confronted them over their tone. He then snatched the camera and wouldn't give it back. Other deputies stepped in, the camera was eventually returned, and the auditor went to file a complaint. Recording police in public is protected activity. No arrest. ❓Should anyone have been arrested based on what you saw? ❓What should happen when a deputy doesn’t like your tone—and takes your camera for it? ❓Why would Deputy Atkinson have thought he could treat a citizen’s property like it was his to confiscate on a whim? Watch the video.👇

👮‍♂️🚒 Tales of Badge & Blaze™

69,364 görüntüleme • 12 gün önce