You got you got ID in here? Yeah. No. Yeah, we need ID. We need ID. Why would I have to give you my ID for performing illegal activity? How do you know you're not planning on blowing up the building? Shooting. I mean, I have no ill will if that's what you're asking. Not allowed to videotape the police station. You most certainly can. Why would I have to give you my ID for performing illegal activity? How do we know it's legal? Welcome back to the Lackluster channel. Today I have an update on a case that I first covered in 2021, but the actual incident occurred in 2018 when professional photographer Northeast Auditor videotaped the exterior of the Waterbury Police Department from the sidewalk. After filming for only 6 minutes, two sergeants, Matthew Benoy and Frank Leyon, approached. What are you um what are you taping footage? Oh, like just open the building or Yeah. Any specific reason? Just getting content for a story. What kind of story? Well, it's not published yet, so I'm not going to divulge what it is. What's your name and badge number? Sergeant Franklin. Thank you. What's your uh badge number? 738. Thank you. You got You got ID on you? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We need ID. We need ID for a First Amendment protected activity. Well, it's actually a security issue. Security issue. Yeah. You're videotaping the police station. I'm getting I'm a journalist getting content for a story, which is fine. You'd have no problem in giving us Why would I have to give you my ID for performing illegal activity? How do we know it's legal? I'm on a I'm on a public sidewalk. How do we know you're not planning on blowing up the building? I mean, I have no ill will if that's what you're asking. Okay. We don't know that. Well, that's that's the beauty of the Constitution. You don't need to know that, right? I'm filming on a public Okay. We're legally asking if I And that's is that that's a lawful order? That is lawful. Are you sure? Yeah, I'm positive. Okay. Well, I'm not going to provide my ID. Okay. There's no reason I haven't performed any illegal act. I'm on a public sidewalk as you can see. Yes. Tell me the police department. Supposed to be secure. We don't want people coming here. This is a public building. Yes. Yes. Yes. That that in there is very public. We own this building. It's not a public building. This is not a public building. You can't go in and walk around. You can in the lobby. In the lobby. In the lobby. Yeah. This is a public building. I'm filming from the outside on a public space. been allowed to videotape the police station. You most certainly can. No, you know, I can't actually. You most I'm a thousand% sure you can film anywhere outside. Are you sure about that? Yeah, I absolutely I am. You're sure about that as well? Okay. At this point of the interaction, keep in mind that these two sergeants swore an oath to the Constitution and are in leadership positions. In fact, each officer of the Waterberry Police Department must by city ordinance make an oath that in the very first sentence solemnly swears to support the Constitution of the United States. Having been chosen candidates for the Waterbury Police Department of the Department that you represent, please repeat after me. I do solemnly swear I doly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States. support the Constitution of the United States. Like almost every department in the US. The problem is that it is assumed that the officers know anything about the Constitution when swearing in. And in this case, it is evident that you do not need to be proficient in the basics of constitutional law to progress through the ranks. While it is true that many government buildings have areas that are restricted to members of the public, it is also concerning that these officers believe that the building does not belong to the public. And not only is it legal to film the exterior of the building from a public sidewalk, you can also view the building from the air and on Google Maps. And it is also 1,000% lawful for the surrounding residents and businesses to have video cameras that capture the building's exterior 24/7. And now, because Northeast Auditor has not performed any illegal activities, he denies their requests to identify. Well, I'm not going to provide my ID. I haven't performed any illegal activity. Can you articulate a crime I've committed or Usual suspicion of what crime? Usual. I don't know if you're about to blow up the building, if you're setting fire. Well, can you articulate a crime I've committed? You're videotaping secure areas of police. That's not a crime. So, I'm going to need you to let me know what crime I've committed. Reasonable suspicion. You do not have to commit a crime. Okay. Am I being detained right now or am I free to go? Yes. Okay. On what? Under what suspicion of what crime? Reasonable suspicion. I don't know. Are you sure about this? I'm positive. Okay. So, I would I would ask for a supervisor to come out at this point because Okay. Provide identification or not. I'm not providing any identification. I don't behind your back. You're being detained. Okay, that's fine. I'm gonna hold the camera. Please don't turn it off. I don't have my license on me. So, after ending the recording, the officers took Northeast Auditor inside where he was booked and charged with misdemeanor interference. He is then given conditions for his release and allowed to leave on his own recgnissance with a promise to appear at all upcoming court dates. The officers confiscated all of his belongings except for a payub found in his pocket. A few months after his arrest, they agreed to return his property, but withheld the SD card from his camera. It remained in their possession until May of 2021 when a new prosecutor was given the case and immediately dropped the charges, officially ending the case in Northeast Auditor's favor. To be perfectly clear, Northeast Auditor was arrested and maliciously prosecuted for 2 and 1/2 years simply for recording a government building that is visible to anyone from a busy downtown street, a building that frequently appears in news coverage. Yet, mainstream media reporters are never jailed or dragged through court for filming it. Nearly 3 years after the encounter in August of 2021, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on his behalf, citing violations of his First Amendment rights, unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and malicious prosecution. But by early 2025, nearly 7 years after the incident, the district court had still failed to make a decision on the case, and the parties filed cross motions for summary judgement. the officers asking for qualified immunity. If qualified immunity is granted, the lawsuit is dismissed, but you wouldn't need to be immune from something if you were innocent. Qualified immunity is most commonly an admission of guilt with the excuse of being ignorant of the law. an excuse that is only granted by the government to other government employees to prevent them from being held personally liable for constitutional violations unless it was clearly established at the time of the incident. Take note that even today, federal courts have been split on whether the right to record the police is clearly established. For example, in 2009, the fourth circuit ruled that no clear precedent existed in the jurisdiction and refused to look at other circuits. Meanwhile, the first circuit took a broader view in 2011 where the court relied on the First Amendment to say that the right was so obvious, even though no specific ruling had been made before. And in other circuits like the 3rd and the fifth, the court admitted that recording the police is protected by the first amendment, but claimed that at the time it wasn't a clearly established right. Northeast auditors motion cited cases from the first, 3rd, 5th, 9th, 10th, and 11th circuit that established the right to film police. The judge took note that even their own circuit had case precedent from 2011 that states that recording police activity is a clearly established right. However, in the judge's opinion, even after considering Turner v. Driver, which was based on nearly identical circumstances, he ruled that only the right to record police was clearly established, not the right to record a police station. At this point, you should know that the district courts are just a lily pad to the appellet courts as they rarely deny qualified immunity and civil rights cases almost always rule in favor of law enforcement at that level. And often what we see is that the plaintiff gives up and no progress is ever made. And though we find ourselves there again, Northeast Auditor is now appealing to the second circuit. So stay tuned and maybe whoever takes over my channel decades after I'm dead will be able to bring you news that this case was settled. In the meantime, let me know what you think of this hot garbage in the comments down below. And if you have a story that you want me to cover, or if you wish to blow the whistle, you can do so anonymously using my form in the description. As always, if you like this video, be sure to check out another one linked on screen.