The content-vs-time density for this video is extremely high and it was a pleasure to watch all of the video. I print in PLA rather than ABS right now so the video isn't directly applicable to my life but it's nice to see somebody working on the designs. Cheers to the author!
After reading it over some more, I see that I was mistaken and the title of the post is accurate. "We conclude that First Amendment principles, controlling authority, and persuasive precedent demonstrate that a First Amendment right to record the police does exist, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions." Starts at the middle of page 9.
The part you're looking for: "We conclude that First Amendment principles, controlling authority, and persuasive precedent demonstrate that a First Amendment right to record the police does exist, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions."
New law being written right before our eyes. But the title of the post isn't actually what was found in this case...
This PDF is worth reading over a couple times for full understanding. The topic is extremely relevant to each of our lives and thus quite tangible and easy to reason about.
The person in this case had to have a federal judgement made against him (the officers were granted qualified immunity [typical]) and THEN he had to appeal the case to obtain this judgement. A lot of work! (And I'm glad he saw it through!)
"The officers’ handcuffing Turner and placing him in the patrol car, as alleged in the amended complaint, were not reasonable under the circumstances. We conclude that a reasonable person in Turner’s position would have understood the officers’ actions 'to constitute a restraint on [Turner’s] freedom of movement of the degree which the law associates with formal arrest.'" Kudos to the judges for their sound judgement.
"Grinalds and Dyess are therefore not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the litigation on Turner’s Fourth Amendment claim that the officers violated his right to be free from warrantless arrest absent probable cause." Epic.
"Even if Turner had sufficiently alleged a constitutional violation, Driver acted objectively reasonably in light of the circumstances—namely, by apprising himself of the situation and acting accordingly. Driver is therefore entitled to qualified immunity on Turner’s Fourth Amendment claims." Fair and reasonable judgement.
The dissent is interesting and worth-reading. I agree regarding the First Ammendment findings, but I disagree with the arguments against the majority's Fourth Ammendment judgement.
The law that protects citizens from oppression from officers (as in this case) is United States Code: 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights. It's a short text and you can read it here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983 (Read it a few times over again to get a good idea of what is stated)
Was definitely interested, clicked through a bunch and wanted to see pricing and sign up. Unfortunately it's a "contact us for more info" situation, which is really a non-starter as far as I'm concerned.
I used his guides when developing for the PineTime and everything worked perfectly. I would have been completely lost without his information.
Thank you Lup!