Shields of Shame | Cops violate man over filming them and get caught lying on camera Lakeland Police Department Florida @Shieldsofshame | Uploaded September 2024 | Updated October 2024, 1 hour ago.
Full breakdown - shieldsofshame.com/lakeland-police-department-florida
$madvideos
Mayor & City Commission 863.834.6005
Lakeland Police Department 863 834 6900
facebook.com/LakelandPD
Lakeland Police department Facebook
facebook.com/LakelandGov
Lakeland Police Department Florida - Polk County
Lakeland, Florida, is part of the 10th Judicial Circuit of Florida. The 10th Judicial Circuit includes Polk, Highlands, and Hardee counties. Lakeland is located in Polk County.
jud10.flcourts.org/about-10th-circuit
H. William "Bill" Mutz
citycommission@lakelandgov.net
lakelandgov.net/government/mayor-city-commission/mayor-bill-mutz
Scenario —where a man is filming police from his yard and the police retaliate against him for his speech (telling his son to stop talking or warning him about potential police abuse) and filming—closely aligns with a few key legal principles, including First Amendment protections for free speech and the right to record police. Several case laws are relevant:
1. Fordyce v. City of Seattle (1995) – Ninth Circuit
* Key Issue: This case established the right to film police officers in public spaces as long as the person filming does not interfere with police duties. In this scenario, the man filming from his yard has a First Amendment right to record police actions without interference or retaliation.
* Relevance: Even though the filming is occurring in the man’s yard, courts have recognized that the right to record extends to any location where a person has a legal right to be, including their own property.
2. Houston v. Hill (1987) – U.S. Supreme Court
* Key Issue: This case dealt with a citizen who verbally confronted police officers while they were questioning another individual. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protects individuals' right to verbally challenge or criticize police officers without facing retaliation.
* City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987)
supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/482/451/#:~:text=This%20case%20presents%20the%20question,lifelong%20resident%20of%20Houston%2C%20Texas.
* Relevance: The man’s statement telling his son to stop talking (or warning of potential police abuse) would be considered protected speech under this case. The police retaliating against him for this speech would likely violate the First Amendment as interpreted in Houston v. Hill.
3. Glik v. Cunniffe (2011) – First Circuit
* Key Issue: This case reaffirmed the right to record police officers performing their duties in public. In Glik, the court ruled that recording police officers is a clearly established First Amendment right, as long as it doesn’t interfere with police work.
* Relevance: Filming from the man's yard does not constitute interference, and any retaliation for recording could violate this clearly established right.
4. City of Cumming v. Smith (2000) – Eleventh Circuit
* Key Issue: This case upheld the right to videotape police officers as part of an individual’s First Amendment rights. The Eleventh Circuit, which includes Georgia, recognized that citizens can record police activity without interference, provided they are not disrupting law enforcement functions.
* Relevance: The man recording from his yard, similar to this case, is protected under the First Amendment, and retaliatory action by police would violate his constitutional rights.
Conclusion:
In this scenario, both the man’s speech (warning his son about potential police abuse) and his right to record are protected under the First Amendment. Cases like Houston v. Hill, Fordyce v. City of Seattle, Glik v. Cunniffe, and City of Cumming v. Smith establish that citizens can film police and engage in speech without retaliation, as long as they do not interfere with police work. The officers retaliating for either the man’s speech or filming could be in violation of these established legal precedents.
Cops violate man over filming them and get caught lying on camera Lakeland Police Department Florida
Reference videos
youtu.be/_pYnxGR1W74?si=NHOyFjXorQ_MDnui
wfla.com/news/polk-county/protesters-rally-over-police-brutality-allegations-lakeland-pd-rejects-claims/amp
youtu.be/WmwyP0bqNmw?si=uPHSzdXOK1bf36kB
Send your story to madvideos@gmail.com
Please consider contributing to the Open Records Fund
gofund.me/8b866727
Cashapp $madvideos
Venmo @madvideos
PayPal madvideos@gmail.com
Thank you very much
If you have a story to submit please email me at madvideos@gmail.com I cover any kind of official injustice by any public servant.
#CivilRightsViolation #PoliceMisconduct #FreeSpeech #FirstAmendment #FourthAmendment #UnlawfulDetention #PoliceAccountability #BodyCamFootage #OpenRecordsRequest #TransparencyMatters #Retaliation #PublicRecords #PoliceAbuse #ConstitutionalRights #BakerActAbuse #FreedomOfPress #ExcessiveForce #LakelandPolice #JusticeForAll #DOJComplaint
Full breakdown - shieldsofshame.com/lakeland-police-department-florida
$madvideos
Mayor & City Commission 863.834.6005
Lakeland Police Department 863 834 6900
facebook.com/LakelandPD
Lakeland Police department Facebook
facebook.com/LakelandGov
Lakeland Police Department Florida - Polk County
Lakeland, Florida, is part of the 10th Judicial Circuit of Florida. The 10th Judicial Circuit includes Polk, Highlands, and Hardee counties. Lakeland is located in Polk County.
jud10.flcourts.org/about-10th-circuit
H. William "Bill" Mutz
citycommission@lakelandgov.net
lakelandgov.net/government/mayor-city-commission/mayor-bill-mutz
Scenario —where a man is filming police from his yard and the police retaliate against him for his speech (telling his son to stop talking or warning him about potential police abuse) and filming—closely aligns with a few key legal principles, including First Amendment protections for free speech and the right to record police. Several case laws are relevant:
1. Fordyce v. City of Seattle (1995) – Ninth Circuit
* Key Issue: This case established the right to film police officers in public spaces as long as the person filming does not interfere with police duties. In this scenario, the man filming from his yard has a First Amendment right to record police actions without interference or retaliation.
* Relevance: Even though the filming is occurring in the man’s yard, courts have recognized that the right to record extends to any location where a person has a legal right to be, including their own property.
2. Houston v. Hill (1987) – U.S. Supreme Court
* Key Issue: This case dealt with a citizen who verbally confronted police officers while they were questioning another individual. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protects individuals' right to verbally challenge or criticize police officers without facing retaliation.
* City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987)
supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/482/451/#:~:text=This%20case%20presents%20the%20question,lifelong%20resident%20of%20Houston%2C%20Texas.
* Relevance: The man’s statement telling his son to stop talking (or warning of potential police abuse) would be considered protected speech under this case. The police retaliating against him for this speech would likely violate the First Amendment as interpreted in Houston v. Hill.
3. Glik v. Cunniffe (2011) – First Circuit
* Key Issue: This case reaffirmed the right to record police officers performing their duties in public. In Glik, the court ruled that recording police officers is a clearly established First Amendment right, as long as it doesn’t interfere with police work.
* Relevance: Filming from the man's yard does not constitute interference, and any retaliation for recording could violate this clearly established right.
4. City of Cumming v. Smith (2000) – Eleventh Circuit
* Key Issue: This case upheld the right to videotape police officers as part of an individual’s First Amendment rights. The Eleventh Circuit, which includes Georgia, recognized that citizens can record police activity without interference, provided they are not disrupting law enforcement functions.
* Relevance: The man recording from his yard, similar to this case, is protected under the First Amendment, and retaliatory action by police would violate his constitutional rights.
Conclusion:
In this scenario, both the man’s speech (warning his son about potential police abuse) and his right to record are protected under the First Amendment. Cases like Houston v. Hill, Fordyce v. City of Seattle, Glik v. Cunniffe, and City of Cumming v. Smith establish that citizens can film police and engage in speech without retaliation, as long as they do not interfere with police work. The officers retaliating for either the man’s speech or filming could be in violation of these established legal precedents.
Cops violate man over filming them and get caught lying on camera Lakeland Police Department Florida
Reference videos
youtu.be/_pYnxGR1W74?si=NHOyFjXorQ_MDnui
wfla.com/news/polk-county/protesters-rally-over-police-brutality-allegations-lakeland-pd-rejects-claims/amp
youtu.be/WmwyP0bqNmw?si=uPHSzdXOK1bf36kB
Send your story to madvideos@gmail.com
Please consider contributing to the Open Records Fund
gofund.me/8b866727
Cashapp $madvideos
Venmo @madvideos
PayPal madvideos@gmail.com
Thank you very much
If you have a story to submit please email me at madvideos@gmail.com I cover any kind of official injustice by any public servant.
#CivilRightsViolation #PoliceMisconduct #FreeSpeech #FirstAmendment #FourthAmendment #UnlawfulDetention #PoliceAccountability #BodyCamFootage #OpenRecordsRequest #TransparencyMatters #Retaliation #PublicRecords #PoliceAbuse #ConstitutionalRights #BakerActAbuse #FreedomOfPress #ExcessiveForce #LakelandPolice #JusticeForAll #DOJComplaint
