First Amendment Audits. Thoughts from the policemen here?

[bombadillo]

I'm curious about some of the "First Amendment Audits" that I have seen on Youtube. I understand the reason WHY they do them, and some of them seem to be more than reasonable, and yet bring out the tyrant in some of the officers, and some of them seem to be douchebags that just want to provoke nothing else.

Have any of you guys ever personally encountered any of them, and how have you dealt with them? Do you believe you treat them fairly, or just as a nuisance?

I really believe some of them are true patriots and love this country (as much as any of the blue line folks are, and as I believe I am) and just want to highlight our first amendment rights, and they feel this is one way to do so.

I'd be open to hearing any of your guys thoughts about this mindset and method. Thanks in advance.

[explosivewhale]

They can record all they want. If you're in a public place, you can record all you want. Last thing for me to do is get caught up arguing with these guys. If you're on private property with an expectation of privacy and the owner wants you gone, that's different.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[whitewater1914]

Pro- I like the job the auditors are going and raising awareness and educating.

Con- The auditors do not have to be mean about it, bait the officers, call names, insults, middle finger, etc. Why push the agenda to get to piss off the officers?

The audits can be done with professionalism, understanding and mutual respect.

[bombadillo]

Originally Posted by whitewater1914

Pro- I like the job the auditors are going and raising awareness and educating.

Con- The auditors do not have to be mean about it, bait the officers, call names, insults, middle finger, etc. Why push the agenda to get to piss off the officers?

The audits can be done with professionalism, understanding and mutual respect.

I think some of the punks that do this try to get things escalated to the point where they get hands on with the officer. If they can push an officer to the point where he/she goes hands-on, and they get the officer to do something stupid or unconstitutional, they can get a lawyer and a fat payday in court. Some of them are LOOKING for a lawsuit, others simply want awareness and to be told that they are right. One guy I watched got physically assaulted by the CHIEF and the auditor told the guy "Look, I just want you to say sorry and I'll drop it." To which the chief basically told him to pound sand. The guy escalated it, sued and the chief got fired and I think he got something like 70,000 dollars from the city. The taxpayers pay for this, and all it would have taken is ONE single swallow of the pride. He was a bad officer.

[whitewater1914]

High Desert Community Watch is one of the originals. This is his most intense scene, fast forward to video mark 8:30... (video language is NSFW)

[bombadillo]

Originally Posted by whitewater1914

High Desert Community Watch is one of the originals. This is his most intense scene, fast forward to video mark 8:30... (video language is NSFW)

These have been done since 2009 or so, if not earlier, this is NOT a new one. If you think this is new, go back and look at the old stuff.... This is NOT a new thought by any means.

[bombadillo]

Originally Posted by whitewater1914

High Desert Community Watch is one of the originals. This is his most intense scene, fast forward to video mark 8:30... (video language is NSFW)

FWIW, there are a LOT of new ones even in the last year. I've watched a LOT of new 2020 new videos. This one is one of the recent classics though. A lot of recent videos from folks like Bay Area Transparency on youtube, is fantastic. They don't LIKE these videos, but they are great for the rights of others. I agree so many times with the Blue Line folks, but even though they deal with a lot of crap, they don't trump the rights of others. Thanks for the link.

[Hateca]

Never even engaged these folks. If they were where they were allowed to be I had nothing to say to them except have a nice day. Sometimes cops are their own worst enemy and just don’t know when to shut up.

One time these type of folks were filming at some police protest in our city, we went and got our own video cameras to film them. Should have seen them come unglued claiming we were violating their civil rights. Got a kick out of that. This was the days before cell cameras.

[whitewater1914]

This guy is flat out mean to the cops and provokes them. Seems like this is how he makes his living, by filming locations almost every day and posting them.

https://www.youtube.com/c/SGVNEWSFIRST/videos

[whitewater1914]

Just to be clear, it is NOT cool to provoke and harass the cops. Sure, educate them and have a dialog, but just flat out harassing and insulting them is wrong. And Im not boot licking here either, I just rather see a fair game played in the streets.

[esy]

As long as they're not interfering with how I do my job, I don't really care.

People call me names all day long, it doesn't matter to me. They can say whatever they want. That's why it's a free country and I support Americans' God given rights.

[The War Wagon]

What the FREEP is a, "1st Amendment audit?!"

I've YET to hear anyone explain it yet!

[GizmoSD]

I’ve dealt with them multiple times, as a beat deputy and supervisor. I’ve never made it to YouTube, unfortunately.

I answer their questions, chat about whatever, ask them if I can help with anything, and usually offer a water or coffee or something. They’re easy to identify, and I find if I’m polite, even over-the-top nice, they quickly leave. I’ve even had a few tell me they were immediately going to neighboring jurisdictions to try their luck there. Once they realize I’m not going to give them the reaction they’re looking for, they leave.

I’ve yet to meet one that wasn’t provocative, prodding, and rude. It typically starts with office staff or the front desk clerk calling in a panic. When I arrive, the “auditor” is 100 mph and very confrontational. They all had agendas, and I’m my opinion, none of them were patriotic or legitimate. They were looking for views/notoriety/lawsuit foundation.

[ivane068]

Bored dudes trying to bait uneducated cops into bad situations for cheap lawsuits. I don’t engage them, just let them film as is their right and move on. Like some above stated sometimes we are our own worse enemies. Know the law and don’t get baited.

[bombadillo]

Originally Posted by GizmoSD

I’ve dealt with them multiple times, as a beat deputy and supervisor. I’ve never made it to YouTube, unfortunately.

I answer their questions, chat about whatever, ask them if I can help with anything, and usually offer a water or coffee or something. They’re easy to identify, and I find if I’m polite, even over-the-top nice, they quickly leave. I’ve even had a few tell me they were immediately going to neighboring jurisdictions to try their luck there. Once they realize I’m not going to give them the reaction they’re looking for, they leave.

I’ve yet to meet one that wasn’t provocative, prodding, and rude. It typically starts with office staff or the front desk clerk calling in a panic. When I arrive, the “auditor” is 100 mph and very confrontational. They all had agendas, and I’m my opinion, none of them were patriotic or legitimate. They were looking for views/notoriety/lawsuit foundation.

I can definitely see that point of view. I feel bad for some of the guys that have to deal with it. It's a tough one because I can see the people who have had bad dealings with police officers in the past and want to put them in check in terms of being a public servant and wanting them to do their job and not be some horrible guy who's out just to have power over people. At least a few of the ones I was watching seemed to have that Outlook anyway. I can see the ones who are definitely trying to bait policemen into lawsuit territory and those guys probably need to have some of their rights taken away.

[ptmn]

Don't get emotional, be polite and respectful, and keep referring them to the PIO.

In places like Berkeley, this has going on prior to cell cameras. Back then they used cam corder's.

[effbeeeye]

I support them as long as they are neutral rather than actively trying to instigate every LEO. If the officer is an a-hole first, then so be it; the auditor(s) should freely express their displeasure.

The good 1A auditors also show their positive interactions with law enforcement.

[bombadillo]

Originally Posted by ptmn

Don't get emotional, be polite and respectful, and keep referring them to the PIO.

In places like Berkeley, this has going on prior to cell cameras. Back then they used cam corder's.

What is PIO? Unfamiliar with the term. Person In ???

[GizmoSD]

Public information officer.

[caliprep]

Originally Posted by explosivewhale

They can record all they want. If you're in a public place, you can record all you want. Last thing for me to do is get caught up arguing with these guys. If you're on private property with an expectation of privacy and the owner wants you gone, that's different.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Agreed, once they refuse to leave another person's property/curtilage, expect to get taken down, recording and all.

For the most part, these first amendment auditors know what they "should," be doing....for the most part anyways..

[Samuelx]

Is everyone here who responded a sworn LEO?

[GizmoSD]

I highly doubt it.

[eviioiive]

Enjoy the lobby- c ya

[skyscraper]

The ones in my area are only interested in conflict on screen. When you ignore them or offer them a tour of the station they leave quickly.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[flyer898]

I watched the video. I have defended against hundreds of motions to suppress evidence. I have filed more than a few, some successful, when I clerked for the public defender during law school.
I am bothered by the sergeant’s failure to understand the limits of the officers’ authority. The authority to detain a person does not include the authority to conduct a pat search; there must also be facts that show the person detained is armed and dangerous. This is an old and mature Constitutional Standard stemming from the 1960s when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Terry v. Ohio. That particular type of search is called a “Terry Pat” or “Terry search”.
The officers in the video may have had other justifications for the search of the car and the two men in the car. In my mind the most likely justification would be that one or both of the men being on parole or probation with a search clause.
The narrator was wrong about the extent of police authority over the passenger. During a lawful vehicle stop, all of the passengers are detained along with the driver. Officers’ have authority to have the passengers exit the vehicle and show identification. If the length of the stop provides enough time, officers can run the driver and passengers for wants and warrants. The officers may not prolong the stop beyond the time necessary to address the reason for the stop in order to do this.
I note that after a search of their persons and a search of the car they let both men go. It appears to me that neither man was cited for violating any law.
I do not know the reason for the initial stop. I doubt that it was “driving while black” because the officers would not have been aware of that fact until contacting the car’s occupants.
I do not know whether police violated either of the mens’ constitutional rights. If they did, because there was no arrest, it tends to be a violation that will not be subjected to judicial review.
I did not see anything that shows the police did anything wrong. The number of uninvolved cars on the scene suggest it might have been a slow night.
One thing that bothers me is the supervisor’s stated belief the officer had more authority to search than the constitution allows.
I am also bothered by the narrator’s agenda and beliefs about the law - he knows not, and knows not that he knows not.

[Samuelx]

For the LEOs here - Anthony Bandiero ESQ at Blue to Gold training doing a webinar on this right now - sorry for late notice...

[bombadillo]

Originally Posted by flyer898

I watched the video. I have defended against hundreds of motions to suppress evidence. I have filed more than a few, some successful, when I clerked for the public defender during law school.
I am bothered by the sergeant’s failure to understand the limits of the officers’ authority. The authority to detain a person does not include the authority to conduct a pat search; there must also be facts that show the person detained is armed and dangerous. This is an old and mature Constitutional Standard stemming from the 1960s when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Terry v. Ohio. That particular type of search is called a “Terry Pat” or “Terry search”.
The officers in the video may have had other justifications for the search of the car and the two men in the car. In my mind the most likely justification would be that one or both of the men being on parole or probation with a search clause.
The narrator was wrong about the extent of police authority over the passenger. During a lawful vehicle stop, all of the passengers are detained along with the driver. Officers’ have authority to have the passengers exit the vehicle and show identification. If the length of the stop provides enough time, officers can run the driver and passengers for wants and warrants. The officers may not prolong the stop beyond the time necessary to address the reason for the stop in order to do this.
I note that after a search of their persons and a search of the car they let both men go. It appears to me that neither man was cited for violating any law.
I do not know the reason for the initial stop. I doubt that it was “driving while black” because the officers would not have been aware of that fact until contacting the car’s occupants.
I do not know whether police violated either of the mens’ constitutional rights. If they did, because there was no arrest, it tends to be a violation that will not be subjected to judicial review.
I did not see anything that shows the police did anything wrong. The number of uninvolved cars on the scene suggest it might have been a slow night.
One thing that bothers me is the supervisor’s stated belief the officer had more authority to search than the constitution allows.
I am also bothered by the narrator’s agenda and beliefs about the law - he knows not, and knows not that he knows not.

Whoa, which stop WAS this one.....?????