Re: FCPD running SSNs over the air
Posted by:
Go figure...
()
Date: July 20, 2014 12:58AM
ejjnE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Martha Washington Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > FJPTh Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > There is no "trying to bring" the
> Constitution
> > > into the issue because it IS a constitutional
> > > issue.
> > >
> > > And the Constitution is the Supreme Law of
> the
> > > Land, even higher than the cops. Go figure.
> > >
> > > (You should have paid more attention in 8th
> > > grade...just saying.)
> >
> >
> > I looked up un-encrypted radio scanners in the
> > constitution and could not find it anywhere.
> >
> > Can you cite a reference?
>
> Although I've only spoken about monitoring police
> activities and said nothing of encryption, it's a
> cute strawman.
>
> Regardless, the following is some reading material
> for folks who wonder whether Joe or Jane Citizen
> has the right to monitor police activities in
> public or not. Both the US courts and individual
> state courts are upholding the right of the
> citizenry to record/monitor (audio and video)
> police activities. Interesting stuff from the US
> courts, and from some state courts. I hope you
> enjoy the reading (note how it's a simple
> application of the First amendment...that's part
> of the US Constitution, in case you were
> wondering). ;)
>
> Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 85 (1st Cir. 2011)
>
> Iacobucci v. Boulter, 193 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 1999)
>
> ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 595 (7th Cir. 2012)
>
> Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 438 (9th
> Cir. 1995)
> Adkins v. Limtiaco, _ Fed. App'x _, No. 11-17543,
> 2013 WL 4046720 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2013)
> Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333
> (11th Cir. 2000)
> Ramos v. Flowers, Docket No. A-4910-10T3 (N.J.
> App. Div. Sept. 21, 2012)
>
>
> Also, the DoJ has openly stated its position that
> the First Amendment protects all U.S. citizens who
> record the activities of the police in public, and
> has intervened in at least one civil rights
> lawsuit against police officers to support that
> First Amendment right. Sharp v. Baltimore City
> Police Dep't, No. 1:11-cv-02888-BEL.
>
> Thank you for the opportunity to put rest any
> question about the right of the public to monitor
> police activities in public.
>
> (If anyone is wondering if the airwaves are
> public, I'll be happy to to provide citations to
> support that the airwaves are public.)
Wow...so since the courts have upheld the constitution and the DoJ has upheld the Constitution then we can put those as asinine "police state" discussions to bed?