Mayor Defends Man After Cops Do This

[Music] welcome to audit the audits where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong of police interactions this episode covers filming public officials eavesdropping and excessive force and is brought to us by long island audits channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve on november 8th 2021 at approximately 1 p.m constitutional activist sean paul reyes entered city hall in berwin illinois to conduct a first amendment audit by filming in protest of signs prohibiting cameras and recording devices without prior approval within a minute of entering the building an employee informed him that it was illegal to video record in city hall but mr reyes continued to film city administration hi how are you um what office is this i'm the city administrator you're the city administrator i am hi are you recording me i am recording you i would ask that you not record me please well you're a public official obviously you're the city administrator that wouldn't matter yes it does that you're not allowed yeah i am not elected but that doesn't matter you still work for the government they work for the public on our doors we have a sign that says no recordings are allowed unless we give permission i am not giving you permission it is a state law i did see i did see that sign and then we follow state law here it's a state law it is yeah okay so can we talk outside um who are you sir i'm detective monocle the problem is statewide you can't they got to sign up and unless they give you permission to come in city hall yeah you have to well i have business i have business to conduct here as well as my business of exercising my freedom of pressure i'm working on a story on the city hall right here let's go for transparency and accountability berwyn city administrator ruth green informs mr reyes that she is not an elected official and that he must have her permission before he can record her in the 2011 case of glick vs kuniff the first circuit held that quote gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal first amendment interest in protecting and promoting the free discussion of governmental affairs though not unqualified a citizen's right to film government officials including law enforcement officers in the discharge of their duties in a public space is a basic vital and well-established liberty safeguarded by the first amendment in applying this case courts have declined to set a bright line definition of which government employees are considered government officials and which are not for example in the 2018 case of martin vs gross a federal district court in the district of massachusetts explained that quote there is a definitional issue with glick's use of the term government official glick gerica and cases cited therein teach that a police officer falls within the ambit of government official but who are these other government officials the court suggested that the first amendment public officials doctrine could provide some guidance but ultimately decided that even though the term government official included a broader scope of public official than law enforcement officer it would leave it to subsequent cases to define these terms similarly in the 2020 case of project veritas action fund versus rollins the first circuit refused to define the term government officials and did not cast judgment on project veritas's assertion that government officials referred to all civil servants quote from an elected official to a public school teacher to a city park maintenance worker even though there has been no final decision about the scope of the term government officials the language in the glick decision makes it clear that the right to film government officials is not limited to elected officials as ms greene suggested as it includes law enforcement officers as a type of official that may be filmed further by specifying that individuals have the right to film quote government officials including law enforcement officers the court indicated that the first amendment protects the right to record other government officials as well as police officers so it seems likely that a court would conclude that mr reyes's filming of ms greene was protected by the first amendment they don't want you recording upstairs so we're not going to record upstairs okay but but sir this is open to the public this this is not a restricted area can i speak to a supervisor oh okay great hi sarge how are you good how are you do you want to speak with someone yeah i want to speak to a supervisor um city hall supervisor no well right now now now that because there's police officers here i'd like to speak to you just to just so i can have a understanding apparently there's a law against exercising your freedom of press inside of a city hall so what's your purpose why are you here so my business my purpose so my purpose here i've explained it to the detective and this officer my purpose here is to um i'm working on a story freedom of press i'm exercising my freedom practice i'm into freedom of press rights i'm an independent journalist and also i'm conducting business as far as doing a freedom of information a journalist card no no i didn't make myself one hey sarge i want to show you something come on yeah can can i just get your name real quick i never got it what's your name oh i'm not going to give my name but i might just choose not to worry my name sergeant volante sergeant velante thank you well why won't you give me your name i just don't have to okay that's all i'm trying to be polite no cameras recording devices without prior approval per 720 ils how to go for it article four okay is that a um a state statute i i'll see you out to the state statue that's a state statute yeah really i've been a bunch of city halls and i've never seen that statue before well you could we're going to google it all right great thank you appreciate it the signage throughout city hall indicates that article 14 of act 5 of chapter 720 of the illinois compiled statutes grants the government the authority to ban recording inside the city hall building however this article which contains statutes that define the crime of eavesdropping does not apply to mr reyes's actions in any way section 2 of article 14 states in part that quote a person commits eavesdropping when he or she knowingly and intentionally uses an eavesdropping device in a surreptitious manner for the purpose of overhearing transmitting or recording all or any part of any private conversation to which he or she is not a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all of the parties to the private conversation and section one provides some important definitions that help explain the meaning of the eavesdropping law although mr reyes's camera would be considered an eavesdropping device he was not recording in a surreptitious manner which section one defines his quote obtained or made by stealth or deception or executed through secrecy or concealment and he did not record a private conversation which is defined as quote any oral communication between two or more persons when one or more of the parties intended the communication to be of a private nature under circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation because mr reyes was openly recording in a public place where individuals did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy he did not violate the eavesdropping statute and it is unclear why the berwin government used this article as a justification for a recording ban that prohibited much more first amendment activity than just eavesdropping however it's important to note that the fact that illinois eavesdropping laws do not support a ban on recording without consent does not necessarily mean that a court would find this policy to be unconstitutional especially given the fact that a city hall is generally considered to be a limited public forum for example in the 2019 case of sheetz versus city of punta gorda the middle district of florida determined that a similar restriction did not violate the first amendment reasoning that quote the purpose of city hall is to conduct a legitimate public business the ordinance restricts recording within city hall without the consent of those being recorded if someone violates the ordinance and refuses to stop recording the city considers that person a disruption of city business considering this evidence the court concluded that the restriction on unconsented recording was reasonable quote considering city hall's purpose and these circumstances therefore depending on the intent of berwin's city hall's recording ban it is possible that a court could conclude it was a reasonable time place and manner restriction on protected first amendment speech never saw that statute before that's interesting yeah i would love i would thank you for looking it up for me because that's in direct violation of the united states constitution you don't want me recording you yeah i mean it's it's my right just like you're saying you know don't touch me don't touch me i don't want you don't touch me what are you doing recording what's wrong with you don't touch me i'm not touching you am i yeah you did you just grabbed my arm and grabbed my camera stop you from recording to stop me from recording you yeah you have no right to do that please back away detective monaco grabs mr reyes's arm and camera in an attempt to stop him from recording and he tells mr reyes that he has a right to not be recorded however this is not an accurate statement of illinois law now that the interaction has moved onto a public sidewalk there is almost no doubt that mr reyes was within his rights to film detective monaco first in the 2012 case of aclu of illinois versus alvarez the 7th circuit agreed with several other circuits who had determined that the right to film an officer performing their duties in public was constitutionally protected activity stating that quote the act of making an audio or audio visual recording is necessarily included within the first amendment's guarantee of speech and press rights as a corollary of the right to disseminate the resulting recording and that quote the gathering and dissemination of information about government officials performing their duties in public were protected first amendment activities additionally section two of the illinois eavesdropping law explicitly states that quote nothing in this article shall prohibit any individual from recording a law enforcement officer in the performance of his or her duties in a public place or in circumstances in which the officer has no reasonable expectation of privacy under illinois law this could be considered a battery which section 12-3 of act 5 of chapter 720 of the illinois compiled statutes defines as quote knowingly causing bodily harm to an individual or making physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual without legal justification to do so similarly a court could also conclude that this was an unreasonable use of force that violated the fourth amendment under the test for excessive force that the supreme court established in the 1989 case of graham versus conor in this case the court held that when determining whether an officer's use of force was excessive quote determining whether the force used to affect a particular seizure is reasonable under the fourth amendment requires a careful balancing of the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's fourth amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake because the only interest that detective monaco's use of force seemed to be advancing was his own desire not to be filmed when mr reyes was legally permitted to do so it's difficult to imagine that a court would find this use of force to be reasonable please back away from me you're being really hostile i've been nothing but cordial you need to step back on that hassle with you you need to step back can i hassle with you yeah you are by grabbing me by grabbing my arm and by grabbing my hand and my camera and trying to rip it out of my head now your respects going out the window once you started touching me you just committed a crime that's a crime yes it is and that's and that's the thing look and that's what people are going to see here that this officer just saw you just saw him trying to take my phone from me you just witnessed it and be guessing from recording me that's against the law this is a constitutionally protected activity am i being detained sir right now until we get this sorted out yes we're we're talking state statute reads you can't video record private conversations or conversation without private without prior notice conversations yeah you can't record people yeah that would be audio recording that's what it refers to it refers to your video taping an audio yeah that that doesn't matter so you're going to have to come with us they want to sign complaints they want to sign complaints yeah for videotaping people i want to sign a complaint he tried to grab my camera yes he did it's on my body camera and my camera you can't record conversations i wasn't recording conversations you know that i was not i could how do i know you won't talk i conducted business i was in there conducting business i told you i'm a journalist and then are you leaving now i'm not going back out there i'm done with my business yes i am i conducted my business and that's all i need to do you guys can do whatever you'd like but this is a public place the courts aren't going to see it that way i've been very cordial you could keep the phone mr reyes was arrested for felony eavesdropping however at the station the charge was changed to the misdemeanor offense of disorderly conduct and mr reyes was released on bond after being held for five hours as of the writing of this episode the charge against mr reyes is still pending two days after his arrest mr reyes held a live-streamed protest where berwin mayor robert lavero ripped down the signs at the city hall entrance prohibiting recording and publicly questioned their constitutionality mr reyes also filed a formal complaint and he has made it clear that he will be pursuing a federal lawsuit overall detective monaco and the other berwin public officials get an f for attempting to justify a blanket ban on recording through the use of an irrelevant state statute displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of both the first and fourth amendments and for escalating a peaceful exercise of rights into an unnecessary arrest much of the conflict surrounding this interaction was derived from the no recording signage that incorrectly referenced illinois's eavesdropping statute at one point the berwin officers attempted to look up the statute to show mr reyes how it applied to recording in the city hall and after looking for some time the officers eventually misinterpreted the code to justify mr reyes's arrest before arresting mr reyes sergeant velanti spent several minutes consulting with someone on the phone presumably a senior member of the department or a city representative and it appears as though he was authorized by someone to make the arrest considering that both sergeant velanti and detective monaco consulted with a superior officer before arresting mr reyes and the fact that mr reyes was arrested based on a sign that bore no legal merit there's an argument to be made that the city of berwin suffers from poor leadership within its police department and legal team all that said mayor lavero deserves recognition for taking the time to address mr reyes's concerns publicly and for taking down the signs as a gesture of good faith until the city can further clarify its position it's not often that public officials publicly admit that they may have been wrong and i commend mayor lavero for taking responsibility for his city's mistake mr reyes gets an a-minus because although he could have exercised his right to silence more effectively he remained calm and collected throughout the encounter maintained a respectful and professional demeanor and followed up this interaction with the proper legal action although the city of berwin failed to properly articulate their ban on recording in the city hall there is a strong argument to be made that banning some forms of video recording inside of certain public buildings is constitutional and courts have routinely accepted the notion that expressive speech is not protected when it disrupts the intended use of public facilities all that said it appears as though mr reyes's entire purpose for entering the berwin city hall was to protest that very concept and advocate for judicial reform regarding first amendment protections inside of public buildings so it's difficult to fault him for intentionally challenging the legitimacy of these rulings mr reyes is well known for following up his interactions with formal complaints and federal lawsuits and this arrest could potentially offer him the opportunity to carry his activism over into the courtroom this interaction is a testament to the notion that first amendment audits can effectuate immediate change within a community and i commend mr reyes for conducting a courteous and professional audit and following it up with the proper legal action be sure to give long island audit your support and let them know that ata sent you you can find a link in the description below let us know if there is an interaction or legal topic you would like us to discuss in the comments below thank you for watching and don't forget to check out my second channel for even more police interaction content [Music] you

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 1,115,604

Keywords: amagansett press, first amendment audit, 1st amendment audit, auditing america, news now california, sgv news first, high desert community watch, anselmo morales, photography is not a crime, san joaquin valley transparency, first amendment audit fail, walk of shame, news now houston, police fail, 1st amendment audit fail, public photography, auditor arrested, police brutality, highdesert community watch, pinac news, cops triggered, news now patrick, east hampton

Id: rcRHSXNvPlM

Length: 16min 45sec (1005 seconds)

Published: Mon Dec 06 2021

Reddit Comments

[u/-purged]

Original video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pasl5M7w8dw&t=0s

[u/Magjee]

Substantial over reach of an eavesdropping rule