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.....?????

[Mustang]

Ehh...most of these "First Amendment Auditors" audit the first amendment in the same way that the Westboro Baptist Church audits the first amendment by going to soldiers funerals and mocking the dead soldier.

[TurboChrisB]

Negative. Under normal circumstances passengers are NOT required to provide ID during a traffic stop.

Originally Posted by flyer898

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.

[Sikvenum93]

If you have enough time to follow around cops all day filming encounters you should probably find a job. That’s just my personal opinion.

I don’t mind people filming my citizen contacts. That’s their right to do so. But they should use common sense. Stay at least 20 feet away from officers/the incident.

If the person I am talking to asks you to stop filming them. Please honor their request and stop filming. That’s just being a decent human being.

I had a recent incident where I was talking with a DV victim and some guy came up and started filming her. She asked him to stop because she didn’t want to be filmed crying. He refused to stop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sawman]

Not Leo I stumbled on these 1st amendment auditors by accident on youtube in my opinion they are just waiting for a payday from a lawsuit. They are the biggest Richard Heads I have ever seen. They do nothing but try to goad leo into doing something . Would only hope they get the cop on his or her last day before retirement so the auditor can really get an earfull.

It would be real neat if someone would follow them around recording them at their house record their license plates record when there family comes and goes go to their place of employment and record them. The last one might be hard because they probely dont have a job

[middleofnowhere]

My face and name has appeared in several 1st Amendment Audit videos. I was a contract worker at a small City. The front desk is mostly manned by a couple sweet ladies and some soy boys who live in the community.

A first amendment auditor came in to the building wearing a trench coat and scared everyone to death. The ladies ran to a back room thinking they were going to have an active shooter.

Being that there were really only two non-soy men in the building, myself and another guy went out to talk to the guy. The “auditor” was rude and a bully. He was there to try to make everyone look bad. His youtube page had a bunch of like minded sycophants.

The guy came around a few more times. He posted my name on his site but never really did anything. I think some of the comments got pretty rude LOL, they made fun of my bald head Actually got a few laughs, but I try to live a low key life and didn’t like being targeted. I just don’t get paid enough for that kind of stress.

My opinion of that guy is that he suffered some mental issues.

[TOM_ONE]

I don't say anything to them and just pretend they're not there. Maybe just a hello or something, other than that I don't care.

[painkiller]

Ive for seen reason seen the bay area audit guys video and he seems trashy as hell,general disrepect to LE.And found another whom upon being pulled over for a helmet cam,refused to show id citing he did t have to because he didnt commit a crime,just an infraction.I cant stand these people

[boattail]

Had one come by the office north of me and it was a non issue as our guys did not ask him any questions and just let him yak. The same guy went into town and did it at the city and county stations and was asked for ID and other questions by the officers....it went sideways a little during those contacts. Our department just left the guy alone knowing he was there to stir the pot if they asked him for any personal info.

One of my co-workers is on the yutube getting harassed hard by one of these guys while working a stop and I am shocked that my co-worker could hold it back like he did...I would have made a few select remarks to the guy if I would have been there.

[Enzo rules]

“If the person I am talking to asks you to stop filming them. Please honor their request and stop filming. That’s just being a decent human being.”

What I have seen and experienced these so called “auditors” lack any amount of decency. They are not at a scene for anything other than provocation to obtain likes and money.

[Escalado]

I love watching these videos. The best one on YouTube is " Audit the audit". Great information for both civilians and Leo. It blows my mind the lack of understanding many Leo have in regards to the 1st and 4th ammendment. I tell all my trainees to watch the videos so that they dont end up looking like morons.