Legal Stuff

PPD Policies:

Right to Know

Filming

From the PA Constitution:

§ 7.  Freedom of press and speech; libels.

The printing press shall be free to every person who may undertake to examine the proceedings of the Legislature or any branch of government, and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being respaaonsible for the abuse of that liberty. No conviction shall be had in any prosecution for the publication of papers relating to the official conduct of officers or men in public capacity, or to any other matter proper for public investigation or information, where the fact that such publication was not maliciously or negligently made shall be established to the satisfaction of the jury; and in all indictments for libels the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.

 

Federal Laws

The Bane Act: Civil Code Section 52.1
The Bane Act provides protection from threats, intimidation, or coercion and for attempts to interfere with someone’s state or federal statutory or constitutional rights.

The rights include the right to association, assembly, due process, education, employment, equal protection, expression, formation, and enforcement of contracts, holding of public office, housing, privacy, speech, travel, use of public facilities, voting, worship, and protection from bodily restraint or harm, from personal insult, from defamation, and from injury to personal relations

 

SUPREME COURT CASE LAWS

People v. Chase C. – verbal conduct in telling the others not to cooperate was protected political speech, which did not result in any physical interference with the officer’s investigation. Chase was merely exercising his right to verbally protest and challenge law enforcement’s decision to detain his friend. No physical interference resulted.  Therefore, this conduct does not rise to the level of a section 148 violation. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1721102.html

Long v. Valentino (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1287, 1296 – Speech is generally protected by the First Amendment, even if it is intended to interfere with the performance of an officer’s duty, provided no physical interference results.” https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1761404.html

People v. Quiroga (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 961 – The court in Quiroga held that an individual who protested repeatedly before complying with an officer’s orders could not be prosecuted under section 148 because verbal challenges to police action are protected by the First Amendment. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1760790.html

Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 369 (1983) – probable cause, and nothing less, represents the point at which the interests of law enforcement justify subjecting an individual to any significant intrusion beyond that sanctioned in Terry. See also Kolender, 461 U.S. at 366-67 noting that states “cannot abridge this constitutional rule by making it a crime to refuse to answer police questions during a Terry encounter.” https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/461/352.html

Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) – was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with freedom of speech. The Court overturned a man’s conviction for the crime of disturbing the peace for wearing a jacket in the public corridors of a courthouse that displayed the phrase, “Fuck the Draft”. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/403/15.html

City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987) – First Amendment protects the rights of individuals ”verbally to oppose or challenge police action” as long as their conduct does not amount to ”physical obstruction.” https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/482/451.html

Duran v. City of Douglas, 904 F.2d 1372, 378 (9th Cir.’90), – police may not exercise ‘the awesome power at their disposal to punish individuals for conduct that is not merely lawful, but protected by the First Amendment.’ It held in Duran that a police officer did not have probable cause to stop an individual for the obscene gestures and words he directed from his car towards the police officer and that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity. ‘[C]riticism of the police is not a crime.’ Id. at 1377 https://openjurist.org/904/f2d/1372/duran-v-city-of-douglas-arizona

TREZEVANT v. CITY OF TAMPA,741 F2d 336 (11th Cir. 1984) – Motorist illegally held for 23 minutes on a traffic charge was awarded $25,000 in damages. (Sets foundation for $75,OOO/hr., l,600,OOO/day) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14121961359716279378&q=TREZEVANT+v.+CITY+OF+TAMPA&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1

JAMES v. KENTUCKY, 466 US 341, 80 LED 2d 346, 104 S Ct. 1830 (1984) – The supreme court held that State statutes did not take precedent over Constitutional law. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/466/341.html

MOYA v. US, 761 F2d 322 (7th Cir. 1985) – People are entitled to refuse to provide information to police. Moya went to the supreme court and back. (held to be valid) https://openjurist.org/761/f2d/322/moya-v-united-states

Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) – to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Accordingly, appellant may not be punished for refusing to identify himself, and the conviction is Reversed.” https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/443/47.html

Turner v. Driver, No. 16-10312 (5th Cir. 2017) – Amendment right to record activities of law enforcement because it ensures cops “are not abusing their power.” https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1791881.html

Miranda v. Arizona :: 384 U.S. 436 (1966) – “Where rights as secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them.” https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/

Lefkowitz v. Turley 414 U.S. 70 (1973) –  the Fifth Amendment “not only protects the individual against being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution, but also privileges him not to answer official https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/414/70.html

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)  – In the 1968 case of Terry v. Ohio, the Court held that police could “stop and frisk” a suspect on “reasonable suspicion” that he had already committed, or was about to commit, a crime. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1

The right of privacy may not be intruded upon by the government absent probable cause, see Dunnaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 208 (1979); indeed, it is the probable cause requirement that “safeguard[s] citizens from rash and unreasonable interferences with [their] privacy.” Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 176 (1949). https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/442/200.html

Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500 (1983) – “The person approached, however, need not answer any questions put to him; indeed, he may decline to listen to the questions at all and may go on his way” Id. at 497-98. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/460/491.html

Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 125 (2000) – “If they do not learn facts rising to the level of probable cause, an individual must be allowed to go on his way.” https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/528/119/

Brinegar v. United States – 338 U.S. 160 (1949) – “The citizen who has given no good cause for believing he is engaged in [criminal] activity is entitled to proceed on his way without interference” (Page 338 U. S. 177) questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/338/160/

Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) – decision of the Supreme Court of the State of California. The decision held that “speech and petitioning, reasonably exercised” is constitutionally protected in shopping centers under the California Constitution “even when the centers are privately owned.” The California Supreme Court decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, where the decision was upheld in June 1980 in a unanimous decision written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist

In the wake of the Pruneyard decision, it is often said that the California Constitution has a broader interpretation of free speech than does the U.S. Constitution. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/447/74