{"id":6252,"date":"2013-10-21T11:56:51","date_gmt":"2013-10-21T15:56:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/?p=6252"},"modified":"2013-10-21T11:59:11","modified_gmt":"2013-10-21T15:59:11","slug":"you-gonna-take-him-too-police-illegally-arresting-journalist","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/2013\/10\/you-gonna-take-him-too-police-illegally-arresting-journalist.html","title":{"rendered":"You gonna take him, too? –police illegally arresting journalist"},"content":{"rendered":"

\r\n\r\n<\/a>\r\nIt all started with someone handing out DVDs in a Federal Reserve museum,\r\ncontinued with people being arrested on a public sidewalk for doing nothing,\r\nand ended with a judge reaffirming that yes, you can video police.\r\n

\r\nJohn [?] wrote for Next News Network a 19 October 2013,\r\n\r\nFederal Reserve Bank Settles Counterclaim with Journalist<\/a>,\r\n

\r\n

\r\nIn May of 2011 in Missouri, Bruce Baumann was peacefully passing out\r\nDVDs with his local media chapter, WeAreChange Colorado, outside the\r\nFederal Reserve Bank in Kansas City. However, when Baumann and\r\nfellow activist Ronald Lewis attempted to enter the Federal\r\nReserve’s money museum, they faced resistance from the private\r\nbank’s security, which led to both of their arrest. Although this\r\nresulted in ongoing litigation for nearly 30 months following the\r\nincident, Baumann was confident that he would not only be successful\r\nin defeating the charges, but he would also be victorious in\r\ntrampling the Federal Reserve Bank with a counterclaim.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nUnbeknownst to Lewis, his name was previously recorded on a list due\r\nto prior protests outside the bank, which prevented him from\r\nentering the museum and Lewis was removed from the vestibule\r\nsecurity area. While exiting, Ronald Lewis was harassed by private\r\nsecurity. Instead of proceeding into the building, Baumann followed\r\nLewis outside and began videotaping the incident.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nBaumann claims that an officer deceitfully pretended to be harmed by\r\nBaumann in order to expand their jurisdiction outside the Federal\r\nBank and onto city property. They were then detained and charged\r\nwith interfering, resisting, and trespassing, as well as assaulting\r\na peace officer. Even though Bruce captured the incident on his cell\r\nphone, it was subsequently confiscated by private security officers\r\nand wasn’t introduced to the case for another 8 months.\r\n<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

\r\nThe video Baumann took on his phone apparently was the evidence\r\nthat caused the prosecution to settle.\r\n

\r\n\r\nStatement from U.S. Department of Justice<\/a>\r\nsupporting\r\n\r\nthe right of individuals to record police<\/a>,\r\n

\r\n

\r\nThe United States addressed the central questions raised in this\r\ncase — whether individuals have a First Amendment right to\r\nrecord police officers in the public discharge of their duties, and\r\nwhether officers violate individuals’ Fourth and Fourteenth\r\nAmendment rights when they seize such recordings without a warrant\r\nor due process — in a Statement of Interest filed in Sharp v.\r\nBaltimore City Police Dept., et al., No. 1:11-cv-02888 (D. Md.),\r\nattached here as Exhibit A. 1 Here, as there, the United States\r\nurges the Court to answer both of those questions in the\r\naffirmative.\r\n<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

\r\n\r\nWe are the media<\/a>.\r\nRemember, you have in your pocket constitutional protection.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nHere’s\r\n\r\nthe video:<\/a>\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n