he pulled behind the case scene two young black people driving that's what it was on the stock life on the street nowhere I stopped it all three stop signs we good y'all man we just gonna I'm recording every time he was way over there we're good so far but so what kind of stock lady no it came up so much man so we got Facebook live cuz yo yeah man get off my phone man look at your boy look at your boy foreign Facebook live yeah we're not gonna have okay because that lets everybody y'all follow on Facebook that we're out here they might be just one of me next time okay lets everybody know where y'all are at We're not gonna have that if you want to record that is just fine we record too so in the future if you want to Facebook live your phone's gonna be taken from you how is that a lot and if you don't want to give up your phone you'll go to jail is that a law most people understand and accept that citizens have a constitutional right to record video of their interactions with police officers in general law enforcement has thought that every step of the way of course but is there a right to live stream encounters with police officers more specifically does a passenger of a vehicle detain to the traffic stop have a constitutional right to live stream that encounter from his cell phone anytime you hear the words officer safety from law enforcement or their lawyers or from the Judiciary for that matter that's a key word an excuse to steal your freedom law enforcement is once again using the officer safety excuse to restrict our rights what do they hate the most that's right being on video what is citizens who interact with police officers need the most video of that interaction what's the problem with a regular recording that's not live streamed just like a wildlife game camera that catches a trespasser or Thief it only has value if the trespasser or Thief doesn't confiscate it or destroy the footage and what's to stop police officers from just seizing the phone and destroying it or deleting the footage not a whole lot however live streaming is an entirely different matter live stream video removes the ability of dishonest cops to destroy evidence and to conceal their misconduct that's a good thing for us but not surprisingly they don't like that so they found a way around it officer safety okay no you can ruin my license though you got your ID number no I'll give you my name one Keystone Stadium didn't he Jean sharp was a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation in Winterville North Carolina on October 9th 2018. WPD officer Meyer Helms and William Ellis performed the stop sharp began live streaming the encounter with Facebook live at the beginning of the stop while the driver and Mr shark waited for the officers to approach the vehicle the driver called the third party on his cell phone in order to have a witness as to what was happening meanwhile sharp began live streaming what was happening on his Facebook account using his phone the live stream shows that during the stop the driver continued his conversation with the third party on his cell phone during the entire course of this stop including while speaking with the police officers I got good driver license it's the same thing they did last time hey you got an idea no all right and then man I'm about tired of this mess man it's the same thing they did last time anyhow like they didn't do that until it's gonna when we had to go to court it's the same no okay what's your name for what he said around my life I'm good okay all right no I didn't have a seat belt on and all this he should have ran it the footage shows the interaction between Mr Sharp the passenger and officer Helms the video shows officer Helms asking for Mr Sharp's identification and then returning to the police vehicle well yeah what's his name one Keystone State j-u-a-n -k-e-s-t-a s-t-a-t-o-n-j-u-a-n you got your ID on you during this time the driver continued his conversation with the third party over the cell phone explaining that police had been begun following the vehicle for some time before initiating the traffic stop he expressed concern that he had been racially profiled we got the tires in the car we just came from Walmart going to put the tires on the car we went through I went through your direction of Winterville instead of going the highway and one of them were following me the whole while when I passed y'all house the same thing again right I said the same thing man as the driver was talking to the third party on his phone sharp talks into his phone reassuring his viewers on Facebook live that he was fine advocating for his practice of recording interactions with law enforcement I'm recording every time he was way over there we're good so far but so what kind of stocks according to the lawsuit he would subsequently file sharp began recording these sorts of things because he had been the victim of a brutal beating at the hands of police officers in a nearby town of Greenville 10 months earlier during a traffic stop that experience prompted him to ensure that any future interactions he had with law enforcement would be recorded for his own protection after emerging from the police vehicle officer Helms is seen on the video approaching the car window he says what have we got Facebook live cuz as soon as Mr Sharp responds affirmatively officer Helms abruptly thrusts his arm through the passenger window and attempts to seize Mr Sharp's cell phone during this altercation officer Helms telsharp we ain't gonna do Facebook live because that's an officer safety issue oh it came up so much man look we got Facebook live cuz yo yeah man get off my phone man look at your boy look at your boy oh I'm saying why are you grabbing on them though man you got his phone oh you got me grabbing on him though look at me we got three citations we can wear your seatbelt okay there you go you stop signing okay thank you man questions no I'm good shortly afterwards following the issuance of citations to the driver officer Ellis States Facebook live We're not gonna have that okay because that lets everybody all follow on Facebook that we're at here he says that recording is fine but if you're live your phone is going to be taken otherwise you're going to jail okay in the future guys this Facebook live stuff hey look man not not y'all but boy we had some [ __ ] going with green before these man you got some [ __ ] going on with you too I don't know why you grabbing me I don't know why you grabbing me you're trying to say today you've seen them Grandma my seat belt grab on me and everything P Helms no he talked to the other dude no you talking to him I'm talking to you okay but Facebook live yeah we're not gonna have okay because that lets everybody y'all follow on Facebook that we're out here they might be just one of me next time okay lets everybody know where y'all are at We're not gonna have that if you want to record that is just fine we record too so in future if you want to Facebook live your phone's going to be taken from you how is that a lot and if you don't want to give up your phone you'll go to jail is that a law the last situation we had the officer that's not a law be the guy and then didn't have his body cam on like I said I went through that happen man I don't trust I understand that I'm sorry if I had that happen to me I'd probably be in the same situation yeah man and let you know you can record on yourself Facebook because it's not gonna happen Okay you understand passenger wait let me put my seatbelt on yeah come on oh in the end the phone was not seized there was no citation or rest pertaining to the live streaming however the threat was made that next time the phone would be seized and an arrest would be made if the phone was not forfeited in Mr Sharp's video look how the officer is standing there watching sharp and the driver treating them like they're up to no good yet the reason for the Stop was supposedly a basic traffic violation the officer asked for Sharp's ID because he likes to know who he's out with he says is it any wonder that police officers get the reputation that they have based on the incident as well as the threat to stop live streaming in the future under penalty of arrest Sharps sued the officers and the town of Winterville under section 1983 for violation of the First Amendment The District Court dismissed the claims against the individual officers on qualified immunity grounds holding that it was not clearly established in October of 2018 that a passenger in a stopped vehicle had a constitutional right to record in live broadcast the interaction Additionally the Court held it live streaming by a vehicle passing poses a quote unique threat to officer safety that mirror recording does not and is therefore not clearly protected under the First Amendment 11 months later the district court dismissed the claim against the town of Winterville on the grounds that Mr Sharp had no constitutional right at all to live broadcast Mr Sharp appealed to the fourth circuit it drew significant attention from civil liberties groups and press Advocates seven amicus briefs were filed in support of his claims oral arguments were held last month which involved a heated discussion between one of the federal judges on the panel and the lawyer who was representing Mr Sharp during the oral arguments the federal judge seemed highly concerned about the rights of police officers as opposed to the rights of an innocent citizen being detained as a passenger in a traffic stop listen for yourself all right the first case uh we call is Sharp versus Winterville police department and uh Mr Tutt I think it's you first may it please the court this case raises questions that strike at the very heart the first amendment's most important protections the right to film police officers and the discharge of their duties in public only subject only to reasonable time place and manner restrictions is a clearly established First Amendment right can I ask you this this is a sort of a preliminary question uh whether that's relevant at all the issue we have in this case is what may the police do to persons that are subject to a Terry stop or a traffic stop or an arrest in other words when they're in the police control what may the police do my own take on this is that this is a traffic stop and during a traffic stop uh there are a bunch of incidents that the Supreme Court has recognized of the first of which is both the driver and the passenger are subject to the stop and they both have about the same rights and the police officers have about the same rights with respect to them for instance you can tell the guy to step out sit on the curb you can if a statute says you can require them to answer his name you can require a bunch of stuff you can probably if he has an open gun you can probably say I'm just for the purposes of the stop let's remove the gun if you're worried about it you can Frisk that so there are a whole bunch of incidents under a traffic stop and in this case the officer says we're not going to have live broadcasting he says you can film it but we're not going to have live broadcasting during the stop I think the question you ought to be addressing is what rights do the officer have during the course of a traffic stop your honor the officer doesn't have I want to make this clear does have has no interest in privacy with respect to a traffic stop that happens on a public Street his argument for his argument for suppressing telecommunications uh he even said you could photograph but he said the Telecommunications will worry about interfering with the stop interfering with questioning in a safety uh somebody calling a gang around the a thing all of these things are concerns uh that the officer might have if the people he's stopping or telecommunicating during the stop what rights does a officer have to maintain control of the circumstances that's what the Supreme Court has uh indicated the office has a right to do during a traffic stop and your argument is the officer may not stop broadcasting during a traffic stop because that infringes on a First Amendment right as you can see unfortunately this case appears to be going backwards instead of holding the government accountable for violating the First Amendment the court appears to be positioning itself to do just the opposite to create rights for police officers I forgot which amendment to the Bill of Rights that one is the Fourth Amendment grants no rights to officers the right of the people to be secure in the person's houses papers effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated its purpose is to guarantee individual rights against the power of the government not to government this flies in the face of actual Fourth Amendment law they're using amorphous and general concerns over officer safety that are not particular to the individual they're seeking to restrict in other words the officers here and those advocating for them to do so want the officers to have the power to stop them from live streaming based only on obscure General concerns over officer safety theoretically if some bad guy was watching the live stream he could find the location while the stop is in progress and theoretically harm the officers or cause some other safety issue they're using blanket reasons and again that flies in the face of existing Fourth Amendment law which requires particularity to the individual for things like frisks and searches the fact is freedom is scary they need to deal with it or get another job we cannot and must not appease that fear for one thing I don't believe it's genuine it's an excuse to stop people from live streaming because they don't like live streaming I just want you to be aware of this issue this case is a sort of test case on this a strategy that I believe that we'll see more of but you can counter it in a couple of ways police officers don't necessarily have to know whether you're just recording or whether you're live streaming they may start asking though also there's going to be a difference between your basic pedestrian live streaming and the occupant of a traffic stop live streaming if you're the occupant of a traffic stop don't give them any ammunition with which to claim that you're interfering with a stop or causing some sort of safety issue just film maybe hands off or using a live streaming dash cam if you're a pedestrian do everything you can to keep your distance not interfere but also be able to capture what you're entitled to capture under the First Amendment let me know in the comments if you start hearing about this I guarantee you there's a memo going around law enforcement agencies on this particular case if this starts coming up more I'd like to hear about it also make sure to subscribe if you're interested in this topic because there will definitely be an update on this one when the opinion is released and don't get your hopes up based on what we heard during the oral arguments remember freedom is scary deal with it I'll see you next time good [Music]