Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Donut Shop
Surprising ruling on video recording police
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="LogiWorld123" data-source="post: 15696787" data-attributes="member: 17"><p><a href="http://wyselaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Akins-8th-Cir.-Opinion.pdf" target="_blank">http://wyselaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Akins-8th-Cir.-Opinion.pdf</a></p><p></p><p>That's the 8th circuit's ruling. </p><p></p><p><a href="http://wyselaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/117-District-Court-Akins-SJ-Order.pdf" target="_blank">http://wyselaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/117-District-Court-Akins-SJ-Order.pdf</a></p><p></p><p>That's the trial court order. The Judge cited Rice v. Kempker, 374 F.3d 675, 678 (8th Cir. 2004) which was about videotaping an execution, and that decision cited a whole bunch of things you historically can't video as it is - none of which include public actions by police officers in plain/public view on the streets. </p><p></p><p>(holding that public has no right to videotape Planning Commission meetings that were required to be public); </p><p>(holding that the public has no right to videotape trial even when the defendant wishes it to be videotaped); </p><p>(“There is a long leap, however, between a public right under the First Amendment to attend trials and a public right under the First Amendment to see a given trial televised.”), </p><p>(holding that the press had no right to videotape criminal trials)</p><p>(holding that no First Amendment right existed to publish or copy exhibits displayed in court)</p><p>(holding that First Amendment right of access does not extend to videotaped deposition testimony of then-President Clinton).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="LogiWorld123, post: 15696787, member: 17"] [URL]http://wyselaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Akins-8th-Cir.-Opinion.pdf[/URL] That's the 8th circuit's ruling. [URL]http://wyselaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/117-District-Court-Akins-SJ-Order.pdf[/URL] That's the trial court order. The Judge cited Rice v. Kempker, 374 F.3d 675, 678 (8th Cir. 2004) which was about videotaping an execution, and that decision cited a whole bunch of things you historically can't video as it is - none of which include public actions by police officers in plain/public view on the streets. (holding that public has no right to videotape Planning Commission meetings that were required to be public); (holding that the public has no right to videotape trial even when the defendant wishes it to be videotaped); (“There is a long leap, however, between a public right under the First Amendment to attend trials and a public right under the First Amendment to see a given trial televised.”), (holding that the press had no right to videotape criminal trials) (holding that no First Amendment right existed to publish or copy exhibits displayed in court) (holding that First Amendment right of access does not extend to videotaped deposition testimony of then-President Clinton). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Donut Shop
Surprising ruling on video recording police
Top