The auditor, upon entering the building, was immediately informed by security personnel that an appointment was necessary to conduct his business. Disagreeing with this protocol, the auditor argued that such a requirement was discriminatory and unlawful. The situation escalated when law enforcement officers were called to the scene. They reiterated the need for an appointment, explaining that failure to comply could result in a criminal trespass order. The auditor countered that criminal trespass on public property required the commission of a crime, and he insisted that the officers' demands were unconstitutional.
The core constitutional provisions implicated in this scenario are the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and assembly, and the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Additionally, the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause may be invoked by the auditor to argue against discriminatory practices.
The First Amendment ensures that individuals have the right to freely enter public spaces for purposes such as speech, assembly, and petitioning the government. However, this right is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The requirement for an appointment can be seen as a manner restriction, intended to ensure orderly conduct and security within the building. The key legal question is whether this restriction is reasonable and non-discriminatory.
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, which extends to detentions and arrests by law enforcement officers. The auditor's refusal to provide personal information and the officers' insistence on compliance could be scrutinized under this provision. If the officers' actions are deemed unreasonable or lacking probable cause, it could constitute a violation of the auditor's Fourth Amendment rights.
The auditor's claim of discriminatory treatment could invoke the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. To succeed, the auditor would need to demonstrate that the appointment requirement was applied in a discriminatory manner, singling him out without a legitimate government interest. Courts typically analyze such claims under a rational basis review, unless a suspect classification or fundamental right is involved, in which case strict scrutiny would apply.
Under most state trespass statutes, criminal trespass occurs when an individual remains on property after being notified that their presence is unlawful. Public property, however, poses unique challenges as it is generally open to the public. The validity of a no-trespass order on public property hinges on whether the individual’s conduct disrupts the normal operations or poses a security risk.
The officers' actions must be evaluated for reasonableness and proportionality. Their insistence on the auditor providing personal information and the threat of criminal trespass must be justified by a legitimate security concern or a disruption to public order.
THIS VIDEO IS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ..
This video was created to educate citizens about constitutionally protected activities, law, and civilian rights, and emphasize the importance of constitutional awareness.
FAIR USE NOTICE.. this video may contain copyright material, the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available for the purposes of criticism, comment, reviews and news reporting which constitute the fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Notwithstanding the provisions of sections and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, comment, review and news reporting is not an infringement of copyright.
Disclaimer: NONE of our videos should be considered a "call to action." We are not attorneys. Our videos should not be construed as legal advice. You should seek legal counsel if you believe that you are a victim of police misconduct. The facts presented in our videos are not indicative of our personal opinions. Laws, case law, ordinances, policies, legal doctrine, and all other jurisprudence is subject to the interpretation of the court. The videos shown are designed to be educational, and informative based on the information available at the time the video was published. All claims made are alleged.
Original video: / @fortherecord11777
First Amendment audit 1st Amendment audit cops get owned id refusal dui checkpoint refusal auditing britain Amagansett press
#idrefusal #CopGetsOwned #dismissed #firstamendmentaudit #4thAmendment #CopWatch #Trespassing #Dismissed #copdismissed #RookieCop #1aAudit #Cop #Police #CopsOwned #1stamendmentaudit #Trespassing #rookiecops #4thamendment #5thamendment #walkofshame #1aAudits #copwatch #CopsGetOwned #CopsGettingOwned #lawenforcement