greetings ata community my name is john lang and i'm the creator of audit the audit i'll be narrating today's episode for old times sake but before we get into that i want to extend my personal invitation to check out my second channel there we will be taking a more casual look at police encounters and all the news and stories surrounding them so if you like ata you're gonna love the content on my second channel there's a brand new episode out on my second channel right now so as soon as you're done with this episode head on over to that channel give it a sub and check out the new content i sincerely appreciate each and every one of you and i look forward to bringing you more police interaction content but without further ado let's dive right in and audit the audit [Music] welcome to audit the audit where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong of police interactions this episode covers the right to record public meetings and fighting words and is brought to us by jessica luther rommel's channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve on august 19th 2021 activist jessica luther rummel attempted to film a meeting of the denton county republican party executive committee meeting that was being held in a conference room at the denton county elections administration building in denton texas after being told the committee decided to move into an executive session miss roma was asked to leave the room and she continued to film in the lobby once she did so i'm sorry we're in executive session oh but the congressman's speaking but we're still with executive session oh watch here can i have a copy of the agenda to see when the executive session ends let me see if i can get it thank you so i'm looking at the agenda here so there's nothing here about a special executive session you know what i'm going to make them arrest me if that's what they want it doesn't say anything about a closed session on the agenda when she announced it sir please don't put your face in my face it's like she's the chairman she can make that decision this is a public meeting i'm glad to talk to the sheriff if you want him to come talk to me sure sure so i'm going to be with you in just a second i'll tell you what i'll go inside and the sheriff can make me leave if he wants to sir stop stop stop stop the sheriff can make me leave sheriff murphy come tell me why i'm not allowed to be in this room i have a right to be in that room it's not a closed session they cannot do that sir no they cannot under what under what rule sir it's a public event they have gone into an executive session really then why are there other people in there with guest tags on why was that the only one allowed made to leave sir because they're lying it was just a ploy to make me leave this is not a private room no sir they didn't rent this i already pulled the records tell me am i under the threat of arrest if i go in that room these people have asked you not to go in there sir they don't have a right to do that it's a public meeting miss rummel argues that she has the right to be present and record because the committee meeting was a public event as mentioned many times on ata the supreme court has not decided any case that definitively establishes a right to film in public or at a public meeting but judges generally accept that expressive conduct and communicative photography are protected by the first amendment as the supreme court summarized in the 1989 case of texas vs johnson quote in deciding whether a particular conduct possesses sufficient communicative elements to bring the first amendment into play we have asked whether an intent to convey a particularized message was present and whether the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it additionally while the first amendment does not directly establish a right for citizens to be present at a public meeting the supreme court determined in the 1976 case of madison school district versus wisconsin employment relations commission that when the government opens a forum for direct citizen involvement excluding certain people or categories of people from participation violates the first amendment the court held that quote to permit one side of a debatable public question to have a monopoly in expressing its views to the government is the antithesis of constitutional guarantees whatever its duties as an employer when the board sits in public meetings to conduct public business and hear the views of citizens it may not be required to discriminate between speakers on the basis of their employment or the content of their speech although there is not a constitutional right for citizens to be present at public meetings all 50 states have enacted open meeting laws also known as sunshine laws that guarantee a citizen's right to be present at most public government meetings while creating exceptions that allow for closed meetings or executive sessions under special circumstances texas's open meeting laws explicitly allow individuals in attendance to record stating in section 551.023 of the texas government code that quote a person in attendance may record all or any part of an open meeting of a government body by means of a recorder video camera or other oral or visual reproduction while the governmental body is permitted to adopt reasonable restrictions on the location of recording equipment and the manner in which recording is conducted these rules cannot prevent or unreasonably impair an individual from exercising their right to record the meeting because i'm here that is not allowed they can go to executives they're not in executive session it doesn't even exist it's not a thing it says public meeting you told me you're all about the constitution what about my constitutional rights right now no they have not then why are there other people in there with guest name tags on they can't do an executive session for a public meeting miss rummel claims that the committee cannot go into an executive session for a public meeting and that because the denton county republican party did not pay to rent the conference room and the event was hosted by the city free of charge they must obtain city approval before deciding to use the room privately there are several issues with this argument the first of which is that the county gop is not required to hold the meeting open to the public because it is not a government body as defined by the texas sunshine laws while section 551.002 of the texas government code requires that quote every regular special or called meeting of a governmental body shall be open to the public except as provided by this chapter section 551.001 includes a long list of governmental bodies none of which include political parties in fact according to section 527 of title 26 of the united states code political organizations such as political parties that are organized and operated primarily for the purpose of directly or indirectly accepting contributions or making expenditures are private entities while it is unclear whether the denton county republican party is operating as a tax-exempt political organization in any case the party itself would not be considered a governmental body additionally even if the denton county republican party was a governmental body the texas open meeting laws allow governmental bodies to hold closed meetings in certain situations sub-chapter d of chapter 5-5-1 of the texas government code includes many statutes that identify reasons that a meeting can be closed such as consultation with an attorney deliberations regarding real estate and contract negotiations and personal matters in order to conduct a closed meeting section 555.101 of the code requires the governmental body to first convene in an open meeting where the presiding officer publicly announces that a closed meeting will be held and identifies the exception to the open meeting rule that justifies holding a closed meeting finally as we have reviewed many times on this channel the fact that a meeting was held in a government facility does not automatically make the meeting a public forum for first amendment purposes although the denton county building use policy does require that outside groups receive approval from the commissioner's court to use county-owned facilities the denton county elections administration building is not included on the list of available facilities however though ms rummel may be correct that the committee violated the county's requirements if they did not receive approval from the commissioner's court the sunshine laws are applied based on the body holding the meeting not the location where the meeting is held as the supreme court stated in the 1981 case of u.s postal service versus greenberg civic association quote the first amendment does not guarantee access to property simply because it is owned or controlled by the government therefore applying all of the legal standards to this situation a court would likely conclude that ms rummel did not have a right to attend or record the meeting public meeting i'm going in that room yes i am yeah yeah excuse me sir i'd like to go don't put your hands on me if you touch me again dude what's your name and badge number sergeant badge number two name and badge please get out of my way this is a public building this is a public building you don't get to just make up the law as you go along and decide that all of a sudden a public event is a private event they decided they can't do that i don't want to sue them i want to go in the room because it's my right to do it and document what's going on in that room look how mad you are you're mad you can hardly control yourself yeah you killed your wife too no you can't make me don't you touch me get the [ __ ] off of me i'm in a public space no it's time to leave go let's go go i'm in a public space you told me i could be here you can't make me leave just because you don't like what i say here miss rummel makes vulgar remarks regarding sheriff murphy's wife who passed away in september of 2011 after falling off of a golf cart during a street party when sheriff murphree announced that he would be running as the gop nominee for the denton county sheriff back in 2015 rumors began circulating that sheriff murphree and his wife were drunk at the time of the incident it is unclear where these rumors began but then incumbent sheriff will travis denied any involvement to the dallas morning news in an article from november of that year although miss rummel's comments were offensive and insulting a court would probably conclude that they were protected by her right to freedom of speech while the supreme court has recognized an exception to the first amendment for quote-unquote fighting words because miss rummel's remarks expressed specific ideas about sheriff murphree's behavior and character they likely would not fall into this category in the landmark 1942 case of chiplinsky vs new hampshire the supreme court recognized a first amendment exception for insulting or fighting words which are defined as quote those by which their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace in establishing what constitutes fighting words the court explained that quote it has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality resort to epithets or personal abuse is not any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the constitution and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument based on this and other precedents in the 2008 case of prutel vs mason the seventh circuit court of appeals approved jury instructions that stated fighting words must quote play no role in the expression of ideas in other words while the fighting words doctrine may cover slurs epithets and name-calling as the supreme court justice white noted in his concurring opinion in the 1992 case of rav vs city of saint paul the mere fact that expressive activity causes hurt feelings offense or resentment does not render the expression unprotected accordingly a court would likely conclude that although miss rummel's verbal attacks on sheriff murphree could rise to the level of inciting violence they were protected by the first amendment because the comments communicated specific information and opinions you can't change the law just because you don't like what i say you're yelling you didn't tell me to leave until i accused you of killing your wife let's talk about how denton county deputies keep showing up at my house for supposed 9-1-1 calls and trespassing on my property two times two times just because you didn't log the first one doesn't mean it didn't happen let's also talk about how you used your power to deny me an open records request after sheriff murphy walked away miss rummel remained outside the conference room until the meeting ended and then interviewed various meeting participants including denton county republican party chairperson jane howell in the description for the footage of her youtube channel miss rummel stated that she filed a police report on august 20th 2021 for assault by unlawful contact and quote the sheriff's spittle in my face and asked her viewers to contact the denton county d.a to request that they press charges against sheriff murphree she also requested that her viewers take additional actions to spread the story and report the situation to the authorities overall sheriff murphree gets an a minus because although his tone was somewhat adversarial he maintained a calm and collected demeanor remained within the bounds of his authority throughout the encounter and refused to allow miss rummel's personal insults to dictate the outcome of this interaction sheriff murphree's ability to remain calm in the face of miss rummel's insults was remarkable for any person much less a member of law enforcement and i commend the sheriff for placing his professional duty before his emotional response there was a moment where sheriff murphy considered forcing miss rummel to leave the property which he likely would have been within his authority to do but once the other officers stepped in the sheriff regained his composure it is relatively clear that the sheriff was within his authority to remove miss rummel from the meeting and to prevent her from re-entering without permission the first amendment was never implicated by miss rummel's exclusion from the meeting and sheriff murphree was under no legal obligation to allow her to enter it is difficult to say whether sheriff murphree understood the constitutional implications at play during this encounter but his conduct was legal nonetheless and this interaction was ultimately resolved peacefully miss rummel gets a c-minus for failing to do her due diligence before causing a scene about being excluded from the meeting displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of the first amendment and for maintaining a rude and confrontational attitude throughout the interaction from miss rummel's perspective it likely felt as though she was being intentionally left out of the gop meeting and that is almost certainly the case however private entities have the right to meet in private for almost any reason and it would be contrary to our current interpretations of the constitution to suggest that citizens are entitled to attend private meetings held by private entities considering that ms romo went to the meeting with the intention to film her failure to research the applicable laws and jurisprudence was the catalyst for this encounter's escalation and this interaction highlights the importance of understanding the fine details of the law before exercising your rights miss rummel's decision to hurl deep cutting insults at sheriff murphree was likely influenced by their colored history that the two share and although i personally do not endorse miss rummel's choice of words she was well within her rights to make those statements it is worth bearing in mind how your actions will be perceived by a jury of peers in the event that you are a victim of police misconduct and being rude and hostile will rarely ever work in your favor in court while i do appreciate miss rummel's passion for civilian rights and government transparency i also believe that she would benefit from a tamer approach 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