Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Bu video yüklenirken bir sorun oluştu. Bu geçici bir ağ sorunundan kaynaklanıyor olabilir veya video kullanılamıyor olabilir.

Ana Sayfaya Dön

🚨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?show more

👮‍♂️🚒 Tales of Badge & Blaze™

71,231 subscribers

44,541 görüntüleme • 3 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

Haberler & Politika Eğitim

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

31 Yorum

Ben Davies profil fotoğrafı

Ben Davies3 gün önce

GOD the DUMBASS American cops are BAD I just didn’t know HOW BAD when they harass innocent people filming or taking pictures on a public side walk

twitch.tv/pat 💪 profil fotoğrafı

twitch.tv/pat 💪3 gün önce

Police officers always use the term suspicious as a reason they can violate your rights don’t forget that.

123 profil fotoğrafı

1233 gün önce

They’re only worried about getting caught in their corruption that they’re all doing. They’re all corrupt.

Rock profil fotoğrafı

Rock3 gün önce

Sheriff Donald Valenza is a moron. Pathetic excuse for law enforcement. You don't mske up laws moron. Your a simple servant. When will these pigs learn and follow the constitution and laws. Low IQ idiots in this PD. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse....

Kevin Jobe profil fotoğrafı

Kevin Jobe3 gün önce

Why do these Sheriff’s, deputies and other LEO’s parrot these stupid talking points.

Duran Mendez profil fotoğrafı

Duran Mendez3 gün önce

@RichardThr16683 🤔💭. Fuck your opinion you dumb motherfucker your badge doesn’t give you the right to stick your head up your ass and go with your fucking feelings. You fucking fuck face you follow the letter of the law you dumb fuck learn your fucking job you old douche bag

Fred Oliva profil fotoğrafı

Fred Oliva3 gün önce

Tyrants with badges and guns trying to intimidate the abiding man. Don't these cops go through interviews and psychological evaluations before being hired?

Aaron McKenzie profil fotoğrafı

Aaron McKenzie3 gün önce

But your opinions are no a sign of a criminal act. So kick rocks sheriff.

Max Splatter profil fotoğrafı

Max Splatter3 gün önce

They going to take a Photo, Facial Recognition…

Rock profil fotoğrafı

Rock3 gün önce

More ignorant power tripping tyrant lying pigs exposed.

Brad Baker profil fotoğrafı

Brad Baker3 gün önce

This has a blatant appearance of a of a distinct intimidation tactic I’m someone who is engaged in constitutionally protected activity

Sendem Allback 🇨🇦 profil fotoğrafı

Sendem Allback 🇨🇦3 gün önce

Is being retarded a requirement to become a cop?

Brad Baker profil fotoğrafı

Brad Baker3 gün önce

Oh yeah, let’s just stay completely irrelevant facts that has nothing to do with the situation at hand. Oh yeah. This is the type of officer a challenge all day in court I’ll put you on the fucking Brady list.

karl Von profil fotoğrafı

karl Von3 gün önce

In this day and age it's fucking unbelievable that we pay these people to be so fucking stupid. Take the ride. Let them illegally arrest you detain you illegally search you illegally incarcerate you and sue the living. Fuck out of everybody

David Smith profil fotoğrafı

David Smith3 gün önce

Why are these cops so dumb. These people make their money because of dumb cops.

Rock profil fotoğrafı

Rock3 gün önce

Yeah, he cares about violating people's rights. Doesn't care what the Supreme court said. Alabama hicks need to learn the constitution and laws. Pathetic. Where do the find these pigs....

mfg profil fotoğrafı

mfg3 gün önce

Why ask if it’s illegal? State it is a protected first amendment right from the got go and put these ignorant punks on the defensive. Have the SCOTUS case numbers printed, hand them a copy and tell them to go fuck themselves.

Aquiles Baeza Cabeza profil fotoğrafı

Aquiles Baeza Cabeza3 gün önce

Hahahaha! Fucking idiots! That's just a stupid building that everybody in the world can see with the internet. Uneducated, untrained, no common sense! Hicks!

steve profil fotoğrafı

steve3 gün önce

Asking for ID is not an investigation

Curtis Acton profil fotoğrafı

Curtis Acton3 gün önce

End this crap from these domestic terrorist gang members. End Qualified Immunity please read

Save the Union profil fotoğrafı

Save the Union3 gün önce

The ignorance is astounding

Rick Barnhart profil fotoğrafı

Rick Barnhart3 gün önce

Another idiot with a camera

Joey Romaine 🇺🇸 |=★=| profil fotoğrafı

Joey Romaine 🇺🇸 |=★=|3 gün önce

Crime = something coming up #treasonous

Brad Baker profil fotoğrafı

Brad Baker3 gün önce

First of all someone’s opinion, instead seated fact, are completely two different things. This officer literally is erroneous which literally translates to idiotic.

D.A. profil fotoğrafı

D.A.3 gün önce

The sheriff has a great voice for Radio

NatiOG profil fotoğrafı

NatiOG3 gün önce

One of the most boring videos I’ve ever seen…ur a total felcher of dudes for posting this

BigVinnie profil fotoğrafı

BigVinnie3 gün önce

Look at all those assholes

Tommy Ca$h profil fotoğrafı

Tommy Ca$h3 gün önce

Ha ha ha Fuck those tyrant pigs!!

John Webb profil fotoğrafı

John Webb3 gün önce

Should've just said fckn off and walked off.

David Smith profil fotoğrafı

David Smith3 gün önce

@grok is every person with a camera media?

leaton crawford profil fotoğrafı

leaton crawford3 gün önce

Come back over here.. These motherfuckers don't even know how to listen, all he hear is is investigation he didn't even hear the part about of a crime yes this is investigation. Yes this is my investigation yes this is an investigation, but is it of a crime.

Benzer Videolar

🎥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?

🎥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.

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

🚨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?

🚨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

🚔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 of the job. The cold-case guy with no visible police ID. And the first move is the oldest line in these videos: 🤨I need to see your ID. The auditor doesn’t bite. Filming a public car on a public street isn’t a crime. Iowa doesn’t have a blanket stop-and-identify law for a consensual encounter. You can ask. They can walk. Policy is not statute. Denlinger wants a name. The camera wants a badge number. That’s the whole dance. No cuffs. No ticket. No Gazette headline. Just a detective claiming a camera is reasonable suspicion. Here’s the rule they keep teaching the hard way: the First Amendment doesn’t care how weird it looks to stand on a sidewalk and film a government car. Suspicious is not the same as illegal. A request is not a command. And “because I said so” is not probable cause. Watch the clip. Count how many times the officer asks for ID. Then count the crimes. ❓What would you have told Denlinger? ❓Is filming a police car reasonable suspicion of a crime?

🚔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 of the job. The cold-case guy with no visible police ID. And the first move is the oldest line in these videos: 🤨I need to see your ID. The auditor doesn’t bite. Filming a public car on a public street isn’t a crime. Iowa doesn’t have a blanket stop-and-identify law for a consensual encounter. You can ask. They can walk. Policy is not statute. Denlinger wants a name. The camera wants a badge number. That’s the whole dance. No cuffs. No ticket. No Gazette headline. Just a detective claiming a camera is reasonable suspicion. Here’s the rule they keep teaching the hard way: the First Amendment doesn’t care how weird it looks to stand on a sidewalk and film a government car. Suspicious is not the same as illegal. A request is not a command. And “because I said so” is not probable cause. Watch the clip. Count how many times the officer asks for ID. Then count the crimes. ❓What would you have told Denlinger? ❓Is filming a police car reasonable suspicion of a crime?

👮‍♂️🚒 Tales of Badge & Blaze™

49,730 görüntüleme • 21 gün 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?

📹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?

👮‍♂️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

🚨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.👇

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

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.

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 First Amendment auditor was filming at the Lee County Jail in Florida when a female corrections deputy approached him. She told him he was in an unauthorized area, and directed him leave go to the adjacent parking lot. He refused, saying the area wasn’t gated, he’d recorded there before, and it was county property. She asked him to leave. He noted she was asking, not ordering. She called for backup. The clip is a classic public-access vs. facility-control standoff. ❓Is an ungated jail lot a public forum for recording, or can staff restrict it on a whim? ❓What do you think of the actions of the male deputy who arrived on scene and communicated with the auditor.

🎥A First Amendment auditor was filming at the Lee County Jail in Florida when a female corrections deputy approached him. She told him he was in an unauthorized area, and directed him leave go to the adjacent parking lot. He refused, saying the area wasn’t gated, he’d recorded there before, and it was county property. She asked him to leave. He noted she was asking, not ordering. She called for backup. The clip is a classic public-access vs. facility-control standoff. ❓Is an ungated jail lot a public forum for recording, or can staff restrict it on a whim? ❓What do you think of the actions of the male deputy who arrived on scene and communicated with the auditor.

👮‍♂️🚒 Tales of Badge & Blaze™

20,504 görüntüleme • 20 gün önce

🚨BREAKING: (CHICAGO SUBURBS) ICE agents pulled a GUN, and a TASER, on unarmed U.S. citizens for recording them from a public sidewalk… while threatening, “you aren’t going to like the outcome.” In the video, legal observers are standing on a public sidewalk recording ICE agents. The agents stop, get out of their cars, and approach THEM. One agent has his GUN drawn, another has his TASER drawn. The agents tell the legal observers to stop following them. A U.S. citizen responds: “We aren’t doing anything illegal. It’s totally legal to follow you.” He is correct. The First Amendment protects the right to record law enforcement, and federal agents, carrying out their duties in public. And federal regulations specifically recognize that people can record publicly accessible federal activity from public sidewalks, and streets, when they aren’t impeding or disrupting operations. Then, the agent says: “Stop following us, you aren’t going to like the outcome.” That is a serious First Amendment retaliation issue. And then it gets even more dangerous. The same armed federal agents, who just threatened these people with weapons and retaliation… surround the citizens’ car and claim THEY are blocking traffic. But look at the video. The only people blocking traffic are the ICE agents… who have now boxed in the citizens’ car. Agents cannot detain someone because they don’t like being watched. A vehicle stop requires reasonable suspicion of an actual legal violation. And recording and observing ICE agents, from a public place, is not obstruction. It is not illegal. Government agents are supposed to be accountable to the people… not the other way around. The First Amendment protects your right to watch and record your government. The Fourth Amendment limits the government’s power to stop and detain you. And neither one comes with an ICE exception.

🚨BREAKING: (CHICAGO SUBURBS) ICE agents pulled a GUN, and a TASER, on unarmed U.S. citizens for recording them from a public sidewalk… while threatening, “you aren’t going to like the outcome.” In the video, legal observers are standing on a public sidewalk recording ICE agents. The agents stop, get out of their cars, and approach THEM. One agent has his GUN drawn, another has his TASER drawn. The agents tell the legal observers to stop following them. A U.S. citizen responds: “We aren’t doing anything illegal. It’s totally legal to follow you.” He is correct. The First Amendment protects the right to record law enforcement, and federal agents, carrying out their duties in public. And federal regulations specifically recognize that people can record publicly accessible federal activity from public sidewalks, and streets, when they aren’t impeding or disrupting operations. Then, the agent says: “Stop following us, you aren’t going to like the outcome.” That is a serious First Amendment retaliation issue. And then it gets even more dangerous. The same armed federal agents, who just threatened these people with weapons and retaliation… surround the citizens’ car and claim THEY are blocking traffic. But look at the video. The only people blocking traffic are the ICE agents… who have now boxed in the citizens’ car. Agents cannot detain someone because they don’t like being watched. A vehicle stop requires reasonable suspicion of an actual legal violation. And recording and observing ICE agents, from a public place, is not obstruction. It is not illegal. Government agents are supposed to be accountable to the people… not the other way around. The First Amendment protects your right to watch and record your government. The Fourth Amendment limits the government’s power to stop and detain you. And neither one comes with an ICE exception.

Jesus Freakin Congress

141,820 görüntüleme • 1 ay 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?

👮‍♀️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

$Sheriff conducts illegal stop and has little understanding of the rights of the citizens he swore to protect. Haskell County Sheriff David Haliburton pulled over this family’s white van for one reason: he claimed he was looking for a "white van" reported to be traveling the wrong way (northbound in the southbound lanes) near a roadside park. Because this vehicle happened to be a white van, Haliburton initiated the stop to "make sure it wasn't them." Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, law enforcement must have reasonable, articulable suspicion that a specific vehicle or its occupants are involved in criminal activity or a traffic infraction before initiating a stop. The driver was operating their vehicle completely lawfully, staying in the correct lane, and obeying all traffic laws when the sheriff saw them upto and including when he was stopping them. Simply driving a vehicle of a common color and type does not automatically strip a citizen of their constitutional protections. "Making sure it wasn't them" is not a legal standard; it is a fishing expedition. As the elected Sheriff, David Haliburton wasn't just a novice deputy on his first week—he was the chief law enforcement officer of the county. He is expected to possess a deep, thorough understanding of constitutional boundaries. For a sheriff to confidently execute a detention based on nothing more than a vehicle color—ignoring the fact that the vehicle was driving perfectly legally—is a massive failure of training and leadership. The driver handled the situation perfectly. By remaining calm, articulating the law, and explicitly pointing out that the sheriff was risking his qualified immunity by conducting an unlawful detention, the driver shifted the leverage. Recognizing that he had zero legal basis to prolong the stop, the sheriff ultimately backed down, returned the identification, and let the family go. Know your rights. If you don't use them, you lose them.$

Sheriff conducts illegal stop and has little understanding of the rights of the citizens he swore to protect. Haskell County Sheriff David Haliburton pulled over this family’s white van for one reason: he claimed he was looking for a "white van" reported to be traveling the wrong way (northbound in the southbound lanes) near a roadside park. Because this vehicle happened to be a white van, Haliburton initiated the stop to "make sure it wasn't them." Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, law enforcement must have reasonable, articulable suspicion that a specific vehicle or its occupants are involved in criminal activity or a traffic infraction before initiating a stop. The driver was operating their vehicle completely lawfully, staying in the correct lane, and obeying all traffic laws when the sheriff saw them upto and including when he was stopping them. Simply driving a vehicle of a common color and type does not automatically strip a citizen of their constitutional protections. "Making sure it wasn't them" is not a legal standard; it is a fishing expedition. As the elected Sheriff, David Haliburton wasn't just a novice deputy on his first week—he was the chief law enforcement officer of the county. He is expected to possess a deep, thorough understanding of constitutional boundaries. For a sheriff to confidently execute a detention based on nothing more than a vehicle color—ignoring the fact that the vehicle was driving perfectly legally—is a massive failure of training and leadership. The driver handled the situation perfectly. By remaining calm, articulating the law, and explicitly pointing out that the sheriff was risking his qualified immunity by conducting an unlawful detention, the driver shifted the leverage. Recognizing that he had zero legal basis to prolong the stop, the sheriff ultimately backed down, returned the identification, and let the family go. Know your rights. If you don't use them, you lose them.

Giggling Ganon

59,992 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Officer and Sergeant tag team violating this guy's rights until the Sergeant realizes they were both wrong. Let’s talk about reasonable suspicion, constitutional literacy, and blatant unlawful detainment. Christopher Biederstedt (IDC Chris) was standing on a traditional public sidewalk filming the exterior of the Mendota Lutheran Home in Mendota, IL. He was on the public sidewalk only. He trespassed on no property. He was merely exercising a right protected by decades of established Supreme Court precedent and granted to us by the constitution. Yet, what followed was a textbook display of officer incompetence and disregard for the Fourth Amendment. Officer Holland arrived on scene and immediately ordered Chris to stop walking and recording, escalating a consensual encounter straight into a non-consensual Terry stop. Her stated justification? That people inside were "upset" and that she was investigating "disorderly conduct" under Illinois law. Here is the fundamental legal reality: Public photography from a public sidewalk is not a crime, and citizen discomfort does not create reasonable, articulable suspicion. Instead of investigating whether an actual crime had occurred, Officer Holland slapped handcuffs on Biederstedt, depriving him of his liberty, and actively went to solicit a criminal complaint from a staff member after the fact. Placing someone in cuffs first and fishing for a charge later is the definition of an unlawful seizure. Then comes Sergeant Stewart. While some praise the sergeant for ultimately shutting down the arrest, the reality is that the sergeant contributed directly to an ongoing Fourth Amendment violation. Rather than immediately establishing whether lawful grounds existed to keep a citizen in handcuffs, the sergeant stood there interrogating Biederstedt, demanding explanations, and attempting to lecture him on cooperation while he remained unlawfully restrained. Supervisors are supposed to prevent constitutional violations in real time—not participate in an illegal detention before finally realizing their subordinate manufactured a baseless disorderly conduct charge. Only after Officer Holland returned ready to transport Biederstedt to jail did Sergeant Stewart finally state the obvious: walking on a sidewalk and filming a building from the outside is completely legal, no matter who is bothered by it. Biederstedt was unhandcuffed and released without charges. There are no public records or filings indicating that a formal federal civil rights lawsuit (42 U.S.C. § 1983) was pursued following the incident, but cases like this serve as a glaring reminder: if officers don't know the basic threshold of a lawful Terry stop, your rights are only as safe as the incompetence in uniform on scene. Know your rights. You are allowed to film in public from public spaces. Hold authority accountable to your rights, it is your right to exercise those God given rights.

Officer and Sergeant tag team violating this guy's rights until the Sergeant realizes they were both wrong. Let’s talk about reasonable suspicion, constitutional literacy, and blatant unlawful detainment. Christopher Biederstedt (IDC Chris) was standing on a traditional public sidewalk filming the exterior of the Mendota Lutheran Home in Mendota, IL. He was on the public sidewalk only. He trespassed on no property. He was merely exercising a right protected by decades of established Supreme Court precedent and granted to us by the constitution. Yet, what followed was a textbook display of officer incompetence and disregard for the Fourth Amendment. Officer Holland arrived on scene and immediately ordered Chris to stop walking and recording, escalating a consensual encounter straight into a non-consensual Terry stop. Her stated justification? That people inside were "upset" and that she was investigating "disorderly conduct" under Illinois law. Here is the fundamental legal reality: Public photography from a public sidewalk is not a crime, and citizen discomfort does not create reasonable, articulable suspicion. Instead of investigating whether an actual crime had occurred, Officer Holland slapped handcuffs on Biederstedt, depriving him of his liberty, and actively went to solicit a criminal complaint from a staff member after the fact. Placing someone in cuffs first and fishing for a charge later is the definition of an unlawful seizure. Then comes Sergeant Stewart. While some praise the sergeant for ultimately shutting down the arrest, the reality is that the sergeant contributed directly to an ongoing Fourth Amendment violation. Rather than immediately establishing whether lawful grounds existed to keep a citizen in handcuffs, the sergeant stood there interrogating Biederstedt, demanding explanations, and attempting to lecture him on cooperation while he remained unlawfully restrained. Supervisors are supposed to prevent constitutional violations in real time—not participate in an illegal detention before finally realizing their subordinate manufactured a baseless disorderly conduct charge. Only after Officer Holland returned ready to transport Biederstedt to jail did Sergeant Stewart finally state the obvious: walking on a sidewalk and filming a building from the outside is completely legal, no matter who is bothered by it. Biederstedt was unhandcuffed and released without charges. There are no public records or filings indicating that a formal federal civil rights lawsuit (42 U.S.C. § 1983) was pursued following the incident, but cases like this serve as a glaring reminder: if officers don't know the basic threshold of a lawful Terry stop, your rights are only as safe as the incompetence in uniform on scene. Know your rights. You are allowed to film in public from public spaces. Hold authority accountable to your rights, it is your right to exercise those God given rights.

Giggling Ganon

21,548 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

👮‍♀️we got a call = your guilty! Yazoo City, MS — Jan 2025 A 1A auditor from Auditeverything filmed banks from the public sidewalk downtown. Staff called PD saying it made them “uncomfortable.” Two female officers, including Sgt. Green and Officer Allen, rolled up, claimed the sidewalk was bank property, ordered him to stop recording and leave the area, and threatened jail. He stayed on the sidewalk, refused ID, and cited his First Amendment rights. They finally left. No arrest. ❓After watching this, do you think these small-town cops actually know our First Amendment rights? ❓or even sidewalk rules?

👮‍♀️we got a call = your guilty! Yazoo City, MS — Jan 2025 A 1A auditor from Auditeverything filmed banks from the public sidewalk downtown. Staff called PD saying it made them “uncomfortable.” Two female officers, including Sgt. Green and Officer Allen, rolled up, claimed the sidewalk was bank property, ordered him to stop recording and leave the area, and threatened jail. He stayed on the sidewalk, refused ID, and cited his First Amendment rights. They finally left. No arrest. ❓After watching this, do you think these small-town cops actually know our First Amendment rights? ❓or even sidewalk rules?

👮‍♂️🚒 Tales of Badge & Blaze™

49,869 görüntüleme • 22 gün önce

🚨In Sept 2018, First Amendment auditor Anselmo Morales-Torres filmed the RI National Guard facility from a public sidewalk in Cranston. 👮‍♂️Female Officer Andrea P. Comella responded to a “suspicious person” call, demanded ID multiple times, and told him refusal would be obstruction of justice. He refused, stating he had the right to record a public building unmolested from a public sidewalk. He was grabbed in a pain compliance wrist restraint, detained, patted down, handcuffed, made to sit on the ground and then charged. All because he was recording in public. Anselmo Morales-Torres was initially charged with obstruction of justice and disorderly conduct. 😡He ultimately took a plea deal to make the nightmare go away. After he spent roughly 90 days in jail. He accepted a plea deal and was sentenced to one year of probation. ❓Which person in this video committed a crime?

🚨In Sept 2018, First Amendment auditor Anselmo Morales-Torres filmed the RI National Guard facility from a public sidewalk in Cranston. 👮‍♂️Female Officer Andrea P. Comella responded to a “suspicious person” call, demanded ID multiple times, and told him refusal would be obstruction of justice. He refused, stating he had the right to record a public building unmolested from a public sidewalk. He was grabbed in a pain compliance wrist restraint, detained, patted down, handcuffed, made to sit on the ground and then charged. All because he was recording in public. Anselmo Morales-Torres was initially charged with obstruction of justice and disorderly conduct. 😡He ultimately took a plea deal to make the nightmare go away. After he spent roughly 90 days in jail. He accepted a plea deal and was sentenced to one year of probation. ❓Which person in this video committed a crime?

👮‍♂️🚒 Tales of Badge & Blaze™

11,644 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Illinois Cook County Sheriffs ignorance on full display in a deposition flat out admitting they have no understanding of the law. Meet Lieutenant Don Milazzo and Sergeant Jennifer Larson of the Cook County Sheriff’s Office. In this deposition, watch as they struggle to justify the indefensible: the arrest of a citizen for the "crime" of filming a public building from a public sidewalk. Amanda Bergquist was recording her own reflection and the exterior of the Bridgeview Courthouse in Illinois—a clearly established First Amendment right. Milazzo and Larson didn't see a citizen exercising her rights; they saw "suspicion" which was enough in their eyes for cuffs. Milazzo approached Bergquist and told her she is coming inside and they will ID her and record what she has done. When she refused to provide ID (rightfully asserting that Illinois is not a "stop and identify" state without reasonable suspicion of a crime), Milazzo ordered her handcuffed. Larson physically assisted in the arrest. Bergquist was held for three hours, her camera was seized, and her purse was searched—all without a warrant or probable cause. During this deposition, the officers were forced to answer for their actions under oath. The results were chilling: Milazzo was confronted with his own recorded words, asking, "Why do we always get the crazies?" simply because a citizen knew the Fourth Amendment. The officers tried to hide behind "Qualified Immunity," but the federal court saw right through it. The judge ruled that the right to film in public was so clearly established that any reasonable officer should have known better. Their claims of "suspicious behavior" were found legally insufficient to justify stripping a person of their liberty. Cook County eventually settled the lawsuit (Bergquist v. Milazzo) for thousands of dollars—taxpayer money used to pay for the officers' constitutional illiteracy. This case stands as a stark reminder that "I thought it was suspicious" is not a magic phrase that cancels the Constitution. When officers view the assertion of rights as "crazy" or "uncooperative," they cease to be protectors of the law and instead become the very thing the Bill of Rights was designed to guard against. This is mind blowing to hear their answers in this deposition blatantly showing zero cares or remorse for their conduct. The good news is both of these industries are no longer with the cook county sheriff office and no longer in law enforcement.

Illinois Cook County Sheriffs ignorance on full display in a deposition flat out admitting they have no understanding of the law. Meet Lieutenant Don Milazzo and Sergeant Jennifer Larson of the Cook County Sheriff’s Office. In this deposition, watch as they struggle to justify the indefensible: the arrest of a citizen for the "crime" of filming a public building from a public sidewalk. Amanda Bergquist was recording her own reflection and the exterior of the Bridgeview Courthouse in Illinois—a clearly established First Amendment right. Milazzo and Larson didn't see a citizen exercising her rights; they saw "suspicion" which was enough in their eyes for cuffs. Milazzo approached Bergquist and told her she is coming inside and they will ID her and record what she has done. When she refused to provide ID (rightfully asserting that Illinois is not a "stop and identify" state without reasonable suspicion of a crime), Milazzo ordered her handcuffed. Larson physically assisted in the arrest. Bergquist was held for three hours, her camera was seized, and her purse was searched—all without a warrant or probable cause. During this deposition, the officers were forced to answer for their actions under oath. The results were chilling: Milazzo was confronted with his own recorded words, asking, "Why do we always get the crazies?" simply because a citizen knew the Fourth Amendment. The officers tried to hide behind "Qualified Immunity," but the federal court saw right through it. The judge ruled that the right to film in public was so clearly established that any reasonable officer should have known better. Their claims of "suspicious behavior" were found legally insufficient to justify stripping a person of their liberty. Cook County eventually settled the lawsuit (Bergquist v. Milazzo) for thousands of dollars—taxpayer money used to pay for the officers' constitutional illiteracy. This case stands as a stark reminder that "I thought it was suspicious" is not a magic phrase that cancels the Constitution. When officers view the assertion of rights as "crazy" or "uncooperative," they cease to be protectors of the law and instead become the very thing the Bill of Rights was designed to guard against. This is mind blowing to hear their answers in this deposition blatantly showing zero cares or remorse for their conduct. The good news is both of these industries are no longer with the cook county sheriff office and no longer in law enforcement.

Giggling Ganon

69,015 görüntüleme • 3 ay 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?

🚨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

🚨Must See Video - This is CRAZY!💪First Amendment Protection Agency 💪 💪John Medaglia III (First Amendment Protection Agency) was unjustly arrested in Tupelo, MS in January 2026 while standing on a public sidewalk filming the exterior of Dabbs Cannabis Dispensary. 👮‍♂️Tupelo police officer Douglas Dean arrested him as he stood on public property, charged him with criminal loitering (not even a law) and disorderly conduct — under a loitering bill that never even passed. 💪Prosecutors have now dropped all charges. 💪The video below with the good news just dropped. 💪Congratulations to Johnny — justice prevailed. 💪The right to record in public is not a crime. ❓Who should Medaglia sue? 1) The City of Tupelo 2) The officer personally 3) Dabb's Cannabis Dispensary ❓Is this police enforcing the law — or just acting as a business’s private muscle after a complaint? Video credit: FAPA Find FAPA on Rumble, Patreon and Locals.

🚨Must See Video - This is CRAZY!💪First Amendment Protection Agency 💪 💪John Medaglia III (First Amendment Protection Agency) was unjustly arrested in Tupelo, MS in January 2026 while standing on a public sidewalk filming the exterior of Dabbs Cannabis Dispensary. 👮‍♂️Tupelo police officer Douglas Dean arrested him as he stood on public property, charged him with criminal loitering (not even a law) and disorderly conduct — under a loitering bill that never even passed. 💪Prosecutors have now dropped all charges. 💪The video below with the good news just dropped. 💪Congratulations to Johnny — justice prevailed. 💪The right to record in public is not a crime. ❓Who should Medaglia sue? 1) The City of Tupelo 2) The officer personally 3) Dabb's Cannabis Dispensary ❓Is this police enforcing the law — or just acting as a business’s private muscle after a complaint? Video credit: FAPA Find FAPA on Rumble, Patreon and Locals.

👮‍♂️🚒 Tales of Badge & Blaze™

20,957 görüntüleme • 12 gün önce

👮‍♀️A female police officer in Marshall, Texas aggressively approaches a man wearing a mask and filming on the sidewalk in a 'business area', grabbing his camera and demanding ID. ❓Do you think she was just doing what she was trained to do — come in aggressive and take control of the situation immediately? ❓Would you like to be a fly on the wall in the office when she sits down with the sergeant?

👮‍♀️A female police officer in Marshall, Texas aggressively approaches a man wearing a mask and filming on the sidewalk in a 'business area', grabbing his camera and demanding ID. ❓Do you think she was just doing what she was trained to do — come in aggressive and take control of the situation immediately? ❓Would you like to be a fly on the wall in the office when she sits down with the sergeant?

👮‍♂️🚒 Tales of Badge & Blaze™

14,672 görüntüleme • 17 gün önce

Administrative assistant for the city believe her feelings trump the rights of the citizens. In this tense encounter, an independent journalist enters city offices to exercise a basic legal right: inspecting the public records index. Under Washington state law (RCW 42.56.070), this document is required to be available for public inspection. It’s not a favor; it’s the law. Enter Sabrina Costik, an administrative assistant who claims to be "brand new" but is already attempting to rewrite the Constitution based on her personal feelings. The exchange highlights a growing and dangerous trend in public service—the idea that personal "traumas and triggers" override the civil rights of the public. Throughout the video, Sabrina argues that: Her "comfort level" should dictate where a citizen stands. Her "liberties" are being violated by a camera in a government building. Recording her is "incredibly rude," effectively prioritizing social etiquette over the First Amendment. The situation required the intervention of Deputy Chief Matt McKnight of the Chehalis Police Department. In a masterclass of de-escalation and legal clarity, McKnight had to explain the hard truth to his own staff: when you are a public servant in a public building, you do not have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" while performing your duties. McKnight—who is currently campaigning for Lewis County Sheriff—remained professional, but the core issue remains: Why are public employees being put behind counters without a fundamental understanding of the Bill of Rights? As far as McKnight, he is running for sheriff in 2026 and his understanding and respect for the rights of the citizens is everything you would want in county sheriff. That said, as far as Sabrina, when "I’m uncomfortable" becomes a tool to suppress transparency, the public loses.

Giggling Gannon

951,919 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce