Informed Supervisor Saves Citizen From Uninformed Workers

[Music] welcome to audit the audit where we sort out the who and what in the right and wrong of police interactions this episode covers private property public forums and the right to film and is brought to us by pepperoni audits channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve in a video posted on his youtube channel on july 20th 2021 first amendment auditor mr pepperoni began to film from a sidewalk located just outside the entrance to the suomen incorporation in bethune south carolina after filming the swollen in property for a few minutes mr pepperoni was approached by a uniform security guard i would suggest you put that camera away and you need to move on down because i got people complaining sir i need you to move off the premises or i'm going to have to call somebody i need you cannot be on the premise sir i need for you to leave off the property now because you cannot be recording out here moving on down the road you got to cut that camera off now you're on private property you got to cut that camera off and you have to leave first of all this is a sidewalk this is not private property that's not the sidewalk this plant owns all the way to where those trucks are parked how come there's houses that are down there because that's other private property cut the camera off i'm not gonna cut it off here in my face do not touch me dude i'm not touching you do not touch me i'm putting back down right in front of that back off you are trespassing let me ask you something where are the trespassing signs we don't need them where are the truth because you need to back off you do not have to have a trespass and so i have a civil conversation but you tell this maniac to back off well first of all we're not going to do name calling okay he doesn't he does not need to be get up he's not a maniac he's not a man but but you cannot record here because this is private property police are on the way can you please show me where the truck is we don't have to show you north one of the workers claims that private property signs do not have to be posted in south carolina which aligns with the state's trespassing laws section 16-11-620 of the south carolina code of law states the quote any person who having entered into the dwelling house place of business or on the premises of another person without having been warned fails and refuses without good cause or good excuse to leave immediately upon being ordered or requested to do so by the person in possession or his agent or representative shall on conviction be fined not more than 200 or be imprisoned for not more than 30 days under this statute an individual can be charged for trespassing on private property regardless of whether a no trespassing sign is posted while the geographic information system or gis survey for kershaw county shows that the sidewalk from which mr pepperoni was filming was outside the swellman and property line the sidewalk was located on an adjacent parcel of private property that a worker later indicated was rented by the corporation despite this it is possible that a court could conclude that mr pepperoni was entitled to film from the sidewalk if it determined that it functioned as a public forum while sidewalks are generally considered to be a traditional public forum for first amendment purposes not all sidewalks are created equally when it comes to freedom of speech for example in the 1990 case of united states versus coquinda the supreme court held that a postal service sidewalk separated from the main highway sidewalk was not a public forum and in the 1976 case of greer versus spock the court reached the same conclusion about sidewalks on a military base held open to the public as the sixth circuit court of appeals explained in the 2004 case of united church of christ vs gateway economic development corp of greater cleveland quote whether a given sidewalk is considered a public forum hinges on a case-by-case inquiry in which no single factor is dispositive in that case the court went on to determine the privately owned sidewalk in question was a public forum quote because it is fully integrated into the downtown and indistinguishable from its adjoining publicly owned sidewalk both physically and in its intended use in this situation there does not appear to be any nearby publicly owned sidewalks so it is quite possible the court could conclude this privately owned sidewalk is not a public forum however the analysis would have to take all of the facts under consideration such as how the sidewalk is typically used and if it is held open to the public so what what is your reasoning for recording i'm out in public right now i'm at doing a documentary on your facility what authorization i don't need authorization yes you do it's called the first amendment yes sir no it's not yes it is it's called the first amendment of my property freedom of press have you ever heard of that who do you work for i don't answer those type of questions well you haven't either then you gotta leave first off you get what you're doing if you get authorization from planning i don't need authorization you need to be quiet i don't need no other first amendment right says i have a right to my opinion and to voice my opinion and i have the right to voice my opinion and stand on a public sidewalk and record whatever i can see in public can we go over this sign real quick yeah right here buddy you don't own this right there so i'm not that's proof right there you guys are dismissed mr pepperoni claims that because a city sign is posted along the roadway then it must be owned by the government and therefore publicly accessible while it appears that this is true in this situation there are many situations where the government does not actually own the title to public rights of way according to the south carolina department of transportation department of right of way acquisition manual right-of-ways can be acquired through various methods including securing title to the real estate itself and obtaining an easement when the government acquires title to real property to secure a right-of-way the landowner sells part of their property to the government it appears the government used this acquisition method to secure access to the road involved in this situation as the gis survey shows the parcel of land that includes the street to be owned by the state still in many situations the right to use streets is secured by simply obtaining an easement which is a property interest that allows the use of another's property without conveying ownership of the property in other words the property owner will maintain title to the land where the street is located while granting the public the right to use the road the government can also obtain what is called a utility easement to place signs or run utility services on private property this means that contrary to mr pepperoni's assertion the fact that a government sign was placed on the property does not necessarily mean it is owned by the government or held open to the public however as with sidewalks public streets are almost always considered to be public forums for the expression of speech and courts have long held that streets do not lose their status as traditional public forums simply because they are privately owned for example in the 1939 case of hague vs committee for industrial organization the supreme court held that quote wherever the title of streets and parks may rest they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and have been used for purposes of assembly communicating thoughts between citizens and discussing public questions such use of the streets and public places has from ancient times been a part of the privileges immunities rights and liberties of citizens similarly in the 1988 case of frisbee versus schultz the court stated that quote we have repeatedly referred to public streets as the archetype of a traditional public forum no particularized inquiry into the precise nature of a specific street is necessary all public streets are held in the public trust and are properly considered traditional public fora applying this case law as well as other supreme court precedents the sixth circuit court of appeals explained in the 2019 case of brindley vs city of memphis that quote a street does not lose its status as a traditional public forum simply because it is privately owned if the street looks and functions like a public street then it is a traditional public forum regardless of who holds title to the street applying this case law it is clear that not only would mr pepperoni be entitled to film from the street and the surrounding property that is owned by the state but he would also likely be permitted to do so if the street was privately owned how are you doing i like to know why i've been threatened with trespass when i'm on public property you shouldn't have been i apologize can i show you something sure thank you i was trying to explain to these guys uh first of all let me point out that short guy with the blue pants and the gray shirt he threatened me multiple times and got on my face it's okay this guy's being reasonable he's willing to listen to me uh this right here yeah uh is sc dot which means it's down by the city i'm not trying to go on your property i got you i don't plan on i lose you as long as you stay out here yeah yeah they will stay in there okay i appreciate it man that's that's your that's your right can i get your name robert brown i'm joshua i'm the safety manager you're probably the best guy out here well you're awesome man uh thank you for calming that situation down it got really wild when they called me i knew this was gonna blow up so yeah all right guy thanks man just uh disrespect our privacy yeah our property and we'll respect yours they called so i'm just gonna wait um i'll let the cops know i talked to i'll hang out with you okay cool man yeah as long as you're over here and yeah and i'll keep them over there they i mean on people just they have no idea what our rights are and are not yeah anymore so i mean i think everyone needs to take a minute and and and read the laws read your rights read your constitution because there's a whole lot of stuff in there that people don't know there's a whole lot of people stuff that people think's in there that's not exactly i mean that's why we have leadership and that's why we're here hey you can clearly tell body that was over here is in leadership here yeah and no worries on that man that and so you know if i'm going to be safety if i'm going to be security then i've got to know what i'm doing that's a hundred percent anybody need any justice so can i ask a question yeah ask you a question yeah um i saw it too but a lot of the folks were saying that you're recording folks inside their vehicles and their tag plates too so uh that's kind of against the laws so here's here's wait a minute here's let me clarify this when he's filming everyone he's filming it from public property when he's filming them they're on public property once they cross that line that's a different story okay so that's within his constitutional right okay so when i crossed that line he and he when i was coming in right here the camera was in my car so when i crossed that line he still was familiar because i looked at my wheel yeah even with the license plates and everything yeah while mr brown and mr pepperoni wait for the police to arrive one of the workers asks whether it was lawful for mr pepperoni to film people vehicles and license plates located on private property and mr brown and mr pepperoni explain that he is within constitutional rights to film anything that can be seen from public property while the supreme court has yet to rule on whether individuals have the right to film or photograph in public it is well established that quote-unquote communicative photography is protected by the first amendment as a type of expressive conduct as the supreme court explained in the 1989 case of texas vs johnson quote the first amendment literally forbids the abridgment only of speech but we have long recognized that its protection does not end at the spoken or written word however as the 11th circuit court of appeals stated in the 2021 case of burns versus town of palm beach quote photography has expressive as well as utilitarian value and while its expressive forms such as in the works of ansel adams and alfred stieglitz are clearly deserving of protection courts have been willing to draw a line when expression is lacking to support this proposition the court pointed to the 2005 case of poor at versus lincoln towers community association where the southern district of new york held that purely private recreational non-communicative photography is not protected expression while also acknowledging that communicative photography is well protected by the first amendment the burns case also looked at the 2010 case of larsen vs fort wayne police department where the north district of indiana held that the first amendment is not implicated simply because a person uses a camera in addition to the first amendment protections given to communicative photography the right to film in public is bolstered by a long line of supreme court cases concluding that individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public in the infamous 1971 case of cohen versus california the supreme court decided that an individual could not be criminally prosecuted for wearing a jacket that displayed a profanity in a public courtroom in reaching this conclusion the court held that quote while this court has recognized that government may properly act in many situations prohibit intrusion into the privacy of the home of unwelcome views and ideas which cannot be totally banned from the public dialogue we have at the same time consistently stressed that we are often captives outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech the ability of government to shut off discourse solely to protect others is dependent upon a showing that substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner applying this standard to mr pepperoni's expressive filming for a documentary the court would likely conclude that he could legally film anything in plain view of a public vantage point including the license plates of vehicles on private property the public public property anything you can see in public hey man hey what's going on uh i came out here i got a phone call a while ago this gentleman was out here filming okay somebody's come out and was confronted and asked what was going on me being familiar with these types of situations i came out and de-escalated the situation basically he's not on our property he's on public property after waiting around for a moment to film the responding officer leaving the scene mr pepperoni's camera battery died mr pepperoni told me that he had a positive interaction with a citizen who was passing by in a pickup truck but he wasn't able to record it overall the swoman incorporation workers get an f because although their interpretation of south carolina's trespassing law was accurate the workers maintained a hostile and confrontational attitude and displayed a fundamental misunderstanding of the first amendment and the distinction between private and public property it would be unreasonable to demand that every employee have a deep understanding of their company's property lines and the legal implications associated with the citizen filming said property however these employees took it upon themselves to represent the interests of their company without consulting a member of management this interaction could have easily spiraled into an altercation that resulted in a costly lawsuit for the swollen incorporation and it's difficult to understand why these employees were so adamant about confronting mr pepperoni without speaking to a member of leadership first this interaction highlights the notion that a basic level understanding of constitutional rights can be just as beneficial to large corporations as it can be to individual citizens mr brown gets an a plus for approaching the situation calmly and objectively immediately apologizing for the conduct of his employees and actively working to de-escalate the situation and for displaying a thorough understanding of free speech protections given the fact that mr brown stood by mr pepperoni's right to film in public he seemed to possess some degree of legal knowledge and it is likely that he was well aware of the possibility of being sued in some way however mr brown seemed to display a genuine concern for mr pepperoni's constitutional rights and openly admitted that his employees were wrong while being recorded mr brown managed to restore peace while preserving mr pepperoni's constitutional rights within minutes of arriving on the scene and i commend him for respecting mr pepperoni's right to film and ensuring that it was respected by others as well mr pepperoni gets an a minus because although he may or may not have been in a public forum at the time of this interaction he remained calm and collected throughout the encounter challenged the solemn incorporation workers without becoming violent or vulgar and engaged in a cordial and productive conversation with mr brown the legality of mr pepperoni's audit hinges on whether or not the sidewalk he was initially standing on constitutes a traditional public forum and only a court could draw an accurate conclusion in that regard as mentioned earlier in the episode it is important to note that the existence of a street sign or utility pole is not necessarily indicative of a public right-of-way and many locations where public signage and utilities exist are still under the full control of the property owner this is a common misconception that has been widely shared within the auditing community and having a deep understanding of the public forum doctrine is a vital element of conducting a lawful audit ultimately mr pepperoni was able to find common ground with mr brown and diffuse the interaction without the need for law enforcement intervention i commend mr pepperoni for exercising his rights peacefully and engaging in a civil dialogue with mr brown be sure to give pepperoni audits his channel your support 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: 642,491

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: QP3vl-539Rs

Length: 17min 39sec (1059 seconds)

Published: Thu Aug 26 2021

Reddit Comments

[u/Lindseyfan042]

They look like the epitome of evolution /s

[u/odb281]

Mr Brown & Mr. Pepperoni sound like fake names from a Tarrantino movie

[u/DefendCharterRights]

At 7:10, ATA: "And courts have long held that streets do not lose their status as traditional public forums simply because they are privately owned."

That statement is technically correct but quite misleading. It's possible for certain privately owned streets to be deemed traditional public forums, but they are unusual.

ATA gravely misinterpreted the first court opinion he used to bolster his argument, Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization:

Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens. [Emphasis added.]

The "title" the court referred to has nothing to do with public vs. private ownership. The issue of private ownership didn't arise in this case. All references to streets and parks in Hague are implicit references to public streets and public parks. That should have been obvious, since few private streets "have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public..."

In the quoted passage, the Hague court was refuting part of an earlier SCOTUS case that had upheld a ban of public speaking on the Boston Common because the Common "was absolutely under the control of the legislature" and therefore could be controlled in the same way private property owners controlled their holdings. Hague said regardless of which public entity owns the public streets and public parks (i.e., "wherever the title of streets and parks may rest"), free speech in what we today call traditional public forums "must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order; but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied."

I also note Hague was decided in 1939. While this opinion laid the groundwork for SCOTUS's public forum doctrine regarding free speech, that doctrine has evolved greatly since then.

ATA probably misconstrued this passage because he read John Brindley v. City of Memphis, where the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals similarly misapplied that passage.

The second case ATA cited to support his position, Frisby v. Schultz, also made no reference to private streets.

The third case ATA cited, the Sixth Circuit's Brindley, does support his position in an unusual instance.

At 11:20, ATA: "While the Supreme Court has yet to rule on whether individuals have the right to film or photograph in public..."

I wish more auditors watched and absorbed much of the good legal wisdom ATA dishes out on a regular basis. Then, perhaps, we'd hear less about this mysterious SCOTUS opinion auditors so often quote but never cite.

[u/Makememak]

The whole mindset of these people just pisses me off. Who the fuck do they think they are???

[u/Rivershots]

I love audit the audit. they do a very good job. and they don't present it in an anti cop way. which doesn't turn away pro cop people. and allows them to have the opportunity for objective thought.