I have a question regarding filming police

[coffeeseven]

Every case I've ever seen where a defendant tried to challenge the legality of being filmed in public the answer has always been to point out the Supreme Court decision "there is no expectation of privacy in a public place".

The Princeton online dictionary says PUBLIC is =  not private; open to or concerning the people as a whole;. Using that definition then any government building is a public place.

I know there is a big push for "on the job, on the record". My question is: Would it be advisable to hand a copy (in brief) of the Supreme Court decision to any public official that objects to being filmed?

I'm sure the Patriot Act wiped the arse of the S.C. decision. I'm just askin'.

[antijingoist]

my theory is that whenever we use their laws against them, they just throw the laws out the window and beat the crap out of you.

That said, go ahead... it'll be great to have video of a politician telling you he is above the law.

[coffeeseven]

My question is do we have an effective vehicle in the Supreme Court decision? I haven't seen anyone in the videos tell the cops that in a public place there is no expectation of privacy. I've seen a few of our numbers go down for wiretapping though.

[doobie]

My question is do we have an effective vehicle in the Supreme Court decision? I haven't seen anyone in the videos tell the cops that in a public place there is no expectation of privacy. I've seen a few of our numbers go down for wiretapping though.

Ridley might have come the closest...