• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. District Court - No First Amendment Right to Video Police

Caine said:
This is a good point.

I have often wondered, if it may be the goal of a District court judge to made a bad ruling on a case intentionally, in order for that case to be heard at a "court of record", which actually sets precedent...... as district court rulings do NOT typically set precedent for other cases.

Then again, I could just be crazy with that theory.
Click to expand...
Then your crazy got company!

DP
 
I wonder if they sanction judges for stupid rulings.
 
Beaudreaux said:
So... How do you all think this will turn out when it gets to the SCOUTS? Or will it be overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (which I believe is the court that has jurisdiction in this case, or is it the Third Circuit) by ruling like they did in Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011)?]
Click to expand...

Overturned... I am actually surprised that a Judge would make such a stupid Decision, but then again having been in Court a few times and listening/reading Judge's Decision I am not surprised at how stupid an apparently intelligent Judge can be.
 
NonoBadDog said:
I wonder if they sanction judges for stupid rulings.
Click to expand...

I have always thought that every single Judge's Decision should be reviewed by a panel. If found poor then depending on the Decision or the amount of bad ones the Judge should be retrained or fired.
 
Beaudreaux said:
So... How do you all think this will turn out when it gets to the SCOUTS? Or will it be overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (which I believe is the court that has jurisdiction in this case, or is it the Third Circuit) by ruling like they did in Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011)?



Read the rest of the article here: http://www.phillyvoice.com/philly-court-without-criticism-no-first-amendment-right-photograph-police/

There are numerous cases where the precedent has been set that the First and Fourth Amendment protect a person while video taping the police. WHy do you think this particular federal judge in this particular case ruled differently?

Here's a link to the PDF of the actual US District Court Ruling.
Click to expand...

wow I can't believe this court just ignored previously set precedence.

I don't understand why the SCOTUS or the appeals courts have to hear cases that have already been decided time and time again.
as long as you are not interfering or in the way of a police action you are free to record the police at any time any where in a public location.

Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that a private citizen has the right to record video and audio of public officials in a public place, and that the arrest of the citizen for a wiretapping violation violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights.

this case has already been decided. where the hell does a circuit court get the authority to over turn it?
 
ludin said:
wow I can't believe this court just ignored previously set precedence.

I don't understand why the SCOTUS or the appeals courts have to hear cases that have already been decided time and time again.
as long as you are not interfering or in the way of a police action you are free to record the police at any time any where in a public location.

Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that a private citizen has the right to record video and audio of public officials in a public place, and that the arrest of the citizen for a wiretapping violation violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights.

this case has already been decided. where the hell does a circuit court get the authority to over turn it?
Click to expand...

This judge is under the 3rd Circuit and they can rule differently than the 1st Circuit, which is why I'm pretty sure this will end up at the SCOTUS for a final ruling.
 
Beaudreaux said:
This judge is under the 3rd Circuit and they can rule differently than the 1st Circuit, which is why I'm pretty sure this will end up at the SCOTUS for a final ruling.
Click to expand...

why should a case that has already been ruled on by the SCOTUS be sent back for the same thing.
If I was the SCOTUS I would hammer these guys for being stupid.
 
ludin said:
why should a case that has already been ruled on by the SCOTUS be sent back for the same thing.
If I was the SCOTUS I would hammer these guys for being stupid.
Click to expand...

I'm not an attorney, but the underlying issue that rises this to the level of a question of whether a right has or has not been infringed, is what the judge in case defined as "a specific, critical reason" which did (or could be argued to exist) in the Glik v. Cunniffe case, and other similar cases, because the person was recording the officers to document a complaint to be argued later.

I know, I know... legal BS and parsing of words, but that's what the court and lawyers get paid to do.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I'm not an attorney, but the underlying issue that rises this to the level of a question of whether a right has or has not been infringed, is what the judge in case defined as "a specific, critical reason" which did (or could be argued to exist) in the Glik v. Cunniffe case, and other similar cases, because the person was recording the officers to document a complaint to be argued later.

I know, I know... legal BS and parsing of words, but that's what the court and lawyers get paid to do.
Click to expand...

You're no attorney but you know that legal decisions are "legal BS and parsing of words"? Uhuh. I realize that personal injury attorneys with scummy ads are unfairly used to give the profession a bad rep, but that's just absurd.

The law is very complex. And words matter.

The courts have to weigh how reasoning applied to one set of facts apply to different sets of facts in different cases. That usually requires reading hundreds of past decisions and "parsing" words carefully to make sure that the ruling is consisted with all the other relevant rulings on the point. It's tough, complicated work. (If anything, law schools should fail a lot more students than they do now).

Unlike many people here on this board (not aiming an accusation at you), courts do not answer legal by ignoring the vast amount of precedent and simply saying that the result is going to be whatever they like. (This disease is most prominent when questions of constitutional interpretation come up. ie, the people who think all they need to do to determine what a constitutional provision means is read the text and make up their own interpretation). Well, sometimes they do something like that....and hopefully get overturned.

As for this case...I'm not really in the mood to read the various Supreme Court and circuit court decisions in play to figure what exactly is going on. Though again, it sounds like the lower court judge is almost certainly wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom