re: Ignorant BR PD Officer w/ FBI

quote:

---

Okay, please direct me to the statute prohibiting the wearing of a ski mask when not protesting

---

This is Louisiana, it may be different depending on your State

RS 14:313

A. No person shall use or wear in any public place of any character whatsoever, or in any open place in view thereof, a hood or mask, or anything in the nature of either, or any facial disguise of any kind or description, calculated to conceal or hide the identity of the person or to prevent his being readily recognized.

quote:

---

One could argue it is exactly the same considering the police massacre that occurred less than a year prior. His purpose, as reasonably perceived by the police, could have been with I’ll intent and warranting interaction.

---

One could argue a lot of things.

The federal government settled this issue already. Its not illegal or reasonably suspicious on own to film federal buildings.

It doesn't matter what you are arguing.

It absolutely matters what I’m arguing. Just because it’s lawful doesn’t mean the police can’t interact with him. You’re moving the goal post now. Initially you said open caring and filming were not the same. I’m saying they are both lawful but under certain circumstances warrant interaction.

quote:

---

Initially you said open caring and filming were not the same.

---

I'm saying open carrying, with a mask, outside a bank isn't the same as filming from a public right of way.

Please be more accurate with your words. They matter.

5th Circuit case; Turner
This case isn't on point, but it does speak to what may constitute reasonable suspicion while shooting video of law enforcement buildings.

I'll have to dog a little deeper when I have time, bc I'm shite when it comes to criminal law, but the detention analysis, at first glance, made me lift an eyebrow.

quote:

---

Detention
Turner alleges that Grinalds and Dyess's initial questioning of him violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from detention absent reasonable suspicion. "[T]he police can stop and briefly detain a person for investigative purposes if the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity `may be afoot'...."[54] The Supreme *691 Court has "said repeatedly that [when determining whether officers had reasonable suspicion, courts] must look at the `totality of the circumstances' of each case to see whether the detaining officer has a `particularized and objective basis' for suspecting legal wrongdoing."[55] Courts "consider only the `information available to the officer[s] at the time of the decision to stop a person.'"[56]

Even if we assume arguendo that Grinalds and Dyess violated Turner's Fourth Amendments rights by detaining him without reasonable suspicion, we cannot say that this detention was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.[57] An individual's right to be free from detention absent reasonable suspicion was clearly established well before the actions giving rise to this case.[58] "But this general claim — that a seizure under the Fourth Amendment must be based on reasonable suspicion — is precisely the type of `general proposition' that the Supreme Court has rejected."[59] Whether a right was clearly established at the time the defendant acted "requires an assessment of whether the official's conduct would have been objectively reasonable at the time of the incident."[60] Courts "must ask whether the law so clearly and unambiguously prohibited his conduct that `every reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates [the law].'"[61]

"The Fourth Amendment is concerned with ensuring that the scope of a given detention is reasonable under the totality of the circumstances."[62] Turner alleges that, when Grinalds and Dyess approached him, he was videotaping the police station while walking on the sidewalk across the street during midday. Nothing in the amended complaint suggests that Turner was videotaping an arrest, a traffic stop, or any other action or activity being performed by the police in the course of their duties. On the contrary, Turner's complaint states that he was filming only *692 "the routine activities at the Fort Worth Police Department building." On appeal, Grinalds and Dyess reference several attacks on police officers and police stations, including those in Dallas and Austin, and the resulting increase of security at police stations.[63] "[I]t [is] appropriate for the police to take into account the location of the suspicious conduct and the degree of the potential danger being investigated. What is not suspicious in one location may be highly suspicious in another."[64] Turner's filming in front of the police station "potentially threatened security procedures at a location where order was paramount."[65] An objectively reasonable person in Grinalds's or Dyess's position could have suspected that Turner was casing the station for an attack, stalking an officer, or otherwise preparing for criminal activity, and thus could have found Turner's filming of the "routine activities" of the station sufficiently suspicious to warrant questioning and a brief detention. The officers' detention of Turner under these circumstances was not "plainly incompetent" or a knowing violation of the law.[66]

We cannot say that, when viewed in light of the totality of the circumstances, Grinalds and Dyess's initial questioning or detention of Turner, before he was handcuffed, was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. Accordingly, Grinalds and Dyess are entitled to qualified immunity on Turner's claim that they violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from detention absent reasonable suspicion.[67]

---

And I said considering the police killings they are the both relevant, In your last post you said the court ruled that filming governmental buildings was lawful. I replied that wearing a ski mask and open carry are also both lawful. I’m not following your reasoning.

The police killings were awful but they didn’t involve a guy openingly taking video.

quote:

---

It is his thing. He travels around and "baits" officers into infringing on his rights. Then, he contacts their superiors and presents the information, with hopes that they educate their officers. However, he does seem to file 1983 suits if the infringement is pretty bad.

I agree that he is a pain in the arse. How would you suggest that we stop the problem otherwise? Do you think that broke dick Gary or Jamal can afford to file federal suits against departments and officers with qualified immunity?

---

If he really didnt want the attention and/or money from YT he wouldnt go out to instantly embarrass the police officer by posting his face to embarrass his family etc. While he hides behind the camera.

If he really cared he would send the video to the correct authorities, and work with them to truly help with training. Like a "secret shopper" program for police officers.

And I don’t disagree. When this thread imitated , the issue stated by many was that the police cannot ask you what your name is without reasonable suspicion. My response was that they can ask you your name without any cause,

quote:

---

My argument has never been about detainment but rather initial contact. Thereafter whether a person can be detained, as we can all agree, will be based on whether it is reasonable. Each case is different, the detainee’s mannerisms may warrant more questions and justify additional detainment.

---

How can you have additional detainment without initial detainment?

In regards to the mask: wearing that could potentially be a crime where you live. In LA, theres a law against knowingly obscuring your identity. If you have a gun, in front of a bank, and you're willfully obscuring your face, that's reasonable suspicion of at least the mask violation, let alone conspiracy to commit a felony act.

I'm confused what you're point is about the consensual encounter vs a detention. If an office walks up to me, asks me what I'm doing, if I ask am I being detained, and he says no, I can walk away. Walking away isn't ground for reasonable suspicion. Not answering questions isn't ground for reasonable suspicion.