The Court Is Supposed To Protect Rights Not Erode Rights, But.……

Over the years the United States Supreme Court and var­i­ous branch­es of the Federal judi­cia­ry have seri­ous­ly erod­ed the rights of Americans in a series of nefar­i­ous and down­right uncon­sti­tu­tion­al rul­ings while giv­ing more pow­er to the state and, there­fore, to police who use their pow­ers to oppress and even com­mit murder.
From the deci­sion in Shelby County, Alabama v Holder to Citizens United to Roe V Wade and more, the court has made hor­ri­ble deci­sions that have result­ed in con­tin­ued ero­sions rather than the expan­sion of the rights of Americans.
This pat­tern of abuse by a court that enjoys unprece­dent­ed unpop­u­lar­i­ty and a wide belief that it is ille­git­i­mate can be expect­ed to con­tin­ue well into the future due to the six right-wing extrem­ists on the court.
Before this present court is done, it may very well dis­man­tle the 246-year exper­i­ment that is the United States.(mb)

Federal Court to Rule on Passengers Live Streaming Police During Traffic Stops

By Erin Marquis

Cars have always been a mine­field when it comes to pri­va­cy rights vers­es pub­lic safe­ty, and now, two impor­tant ques­tions are final­ly in front of a U.S. cir­cuit court: Is live stream­ing pro­tect­ed in the same way as record­ing, and does the pas­sen­ger in a stopped car have a First Amendment right to record or broad­cast a stop?

These ques­tions are now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit based on a law­suit brought by Dijon Sharpe. Sharpe was rid­ing in a car pulled over by Winterville, N.C., police in 2018. He began live stream­ing the traf­fic stop to Facebook Live when a Winterville Police Department offi­cer told him to stop. The offi­cer tried to grab Sharpe’s phone and threat­en­ing him with arrest if Sharpe didn’t sur­ren­der the phone to the officer.

Sharpe sued the police depart­ment, argu­ing that live stream­ing the inter­ac­tion was impor­tant in order to show that the footage was not edit­ed and to pro­tect the footage from being delet­ed should the police seize his phone. The Winterville Police Department, how­ev­er, argued that live stream­ing puts offi­cers at risk by adver­tis­ing to peo­ple asso­ci­at­ed with stopped dri­vers exact­ly where they are. Such live streams could lead to a crowd gath­er­ing or revenge from asso­ciates angry over police stops in general.

While the right to free speech is in the mix — and you def­i­nite­ly have the right to at least record a traf­fic stop — the Fourth Amendment argu­ment is impor­tant too. Just where do pas­sen­gers’ pro­tec­tion against unrea­son­able search­es and seizures end and police offi­cers’ rea­son­able need to con­trol a traf­fic stop begin? From the Washington Post:

Lenese Herbert, an expert in polic­ing and the con­sti­tu­tion at Howard University School of Law, said the Supreme Court has giv­en law enforce­ment great lee­way when the First and Fourth amend­ments intersect.

You would think com­bined they would cre­ate a super amend­ment. They have not,” she said. Instead, police can then argue that their actions were not about speech but con­trol­ling a pos­si­ble crime scene and poten­tial crim­i­nals: “Officers basi­cal­ly get to sub­vert the First Amendment by couch­ing it in Fourth Amendment terms, and allow the court to under­mine First Amendment rights.”

[…]

There are no spe­cial pro­tec­tions for pas­sen­gers” in a car, Herbert said. “The Supreme Court has made it very clear if you’re in a vehi­cle, you’ve got a Fourth Amendment right, but it’s a less­er right.”

Previous courts have upheld citizen’s right to record the police, but this is the first time the ques­tion of a passenger’s rights have been called into ques­tion. The deci­sion could have rever­ber­a­tions for everyone’s rights while behind the wheel. We will update this sto­ry once there is a ruling.