This was 11th circuit court. They should know better. Looks like they were punishing him more for representing himself, and as such he may have made some legal mistakes that a lawyer wouldn't have.
Their actions WERE outside the law despite the court's ruling. If this was a public building he had a well recognized right to be there. The fact of the decision taking so long (four years) was a red flag indicating the ruling would go against established law, We can only hope the high court does the right thing.
Exactly!! Unless you establish that the public servants are under and bound by their oath to support and defend the Constitution. Else they can use their codes and policies against you.
Ridiculous! "Good faith on the part of the officer is NOT enough." They must have SPECIFIC and ARTICULABLE FACTS, not hunches or opinions, that support a REASONABLE SUSPICION of criminal activity. There was none. Officers or staff CANNOT trespass someone because they don't like the fact that a person is filming in public. Do they trespass someone wearing camera glasses? No. Do they trespass someone for taking a pic of friends in the lobby? No. This will 100% get overturned.
@randilaatsch9758 well obviously you don't live in a violent are the cops here arrest you for anything crime is out of control and the city's school council all 4 make more than the president were constantly lied to by our government and im guessing you haven't been to North Carolina those people are freezing in the cold while your old president says he doesn't need congress to approve money to the Ukraine but has to have approval to give money to freezing Americans so I'm not sure what your talking about take the blinders off iour government is really bad but no worries every one of the biden administration is rich now after stealing all the taxpayers money 😉
Real world lawsuits need to come there way on so many different fronts. People have lost faith in law enforcement and the so called justice system. Here is part of the reason why.
I don't understand, the fourth amendment has been clearly established since it was written, how is this man a judge !!! The Institute For Justice needs to take this to the Supreme Court.
George Metz has not won a single lawsuit OR appeal on a conviction. Hmmm, see a pattern? Like maybe George Metz doesn't know what the hell he's talking about?
Smith v Cummings was for a traditional public forum, the public sidewalk. The SCOTUS has said again, and again and again the the insides of government buildings is a LIMITED public forum, and those buildings can make rules against weirdos like George Metz just walking around and filming, and harassing and intimidating.
Listen to what they aren’t saying. He stated in the opinion “the plaintiff has got to show that the Officer or Officers violated a clearly constitutional right and the right was established at the time the misconduct occurred.” They didn’t say he wasn’t “tight” because evidently he didn’t prove he “asserted his right CLEARLY.” It’s the same when a person says “well maybe I need to talk to an attorney”… Sure but you have not CLEARLY established your right to the 5th Amendment of you simply make the statement you “probably should” or maybe you “need to” speak with an attorney. The “right” although was his argument was not “clear enough” for the officers because this mere mention is not an “assertion” of the right. You’ve GOT TO pay attention to what they not only say but what they do not say.
If the cops dont abide by the law sue the state for corruption its in the law your allowed to film in a public building so if kids were doung this your arresting them ?
While i can not see the published opinion it seems to be based on the timeline of in 2020 no ruling in the 11th to support the right. Also Rogue did not file timely. Previously the lower court ruled in favor on the suit against the Houston County Sheriff Donald Valezna So it is a little confusing
This will make MAGA so happy. Trump has spent hours in his speeches saying he's going to crack down on freedom of press, and give full immunity for law enforcement. Crowds cheered. MAGA says "We love freedom of press unless it's not favorable to us." .... I need to go cause I have a book banning meeting today.
Yet all these 1A and 2A blowhards are in the comment section pointing the finger at Dems for the behavior of tyrannical cops, DAs, and judges. 🤦🏻♂️ This is why we can't have nice things.
What part of our First and Fourth Amendment rights are not clearly established? They need to take this up to a higher court. I would sell my house and live on the street to be able to afford a constitutional lawyer. This should have been an easy win. Please name and shame the judge that ruled on this.
Is this why more and more people are now charging their Public-servants/paid Trustees whenever they want you to DO something for them? Them-`STOP recording` - `ANSWER our questions` - `DO what we tell you to do` - etc., You-`YES, CERTAINLY (there is now an agreement to comply/accommodate them) it`s just that we charge you $911 for remedy to DO that for you and because we have NO CONFIDENCE with you administrating OUR trust, payment must be with us immediately and any further communicating with us, is with you and your supervisor accepting the terms and conditions because notice-to-agent-is-notice-to-principal` Please remember that THEY are NOT volunteers….so why should YOU be? The secret to dealing with your paid Trustees/Public servants is just two words….CONDITIONAL acceptance Why not be the (polite) BUSINESS-man with your treacherous Trustees....NOT the victim?
@@andreysloan8347 ... guess again, there is no expectation of privacy in public. Any public building or space has no right of privacy .. unless there is a sign posted saying PRIVATE ROOM/OFFICE.
@@vulcan2882 I don't have to "guess again," and I never said anything about "right of privacy." If you do a little research into the subject, you're going to find that the SCOTUS has already ruled several times that public building owned by the government are LIMITED PUBLIC FORUMS and those buildings have the right to make rules/policies regarding photography or videotaping within their structures. Go seek the knowledge, young lad, and you will be rewarded with the knowledge that these frauditors have no clue what they're doing. That's why they continue to be arrested, convicted, and lose their appeals and law suits, like the career criminal George Metz.
Doesn't mean s*** he could take it to our higher court because it is a constitutional right to film in a State City or government building and I see a other lawsuit against the judge that was stupid enough to charge the guy when it's a constitution Right, the judge can kiss his qualified community goodbye
Unfortunately we see this a lot. Lower courts dont like considering constitutional issues, or ruling against their cop buddies.
This was 11th circuit court. They should know better. Looks like they were punishing him more for representing himself, and as such he may have made some legal mistakes that a lawyer wouldn't have.
Police again escape accountability for illegal actions. Who watches the watchmen?
Jason , Ben's dad... Amagansett Press
Their actions WERE outside the law despite the court's ruling. If this was a public building he had a well recognized right to be there. The fact of the decision taking so long (four years) was a red flag indicating the ruling would go against established law, We can only hope the high court does the right thing.
Apparently their actions weren't _illegal,_ were they?
They can plead ignorance of the law, but we cannot.
@@AnalysisMedia That's NOT true, and you know it.
Today I learned that the U.S. Constitution is not "clearly established"...
Exactly!! Unless you establish that the public servants are under and bound by their oath to support and defend the Constitution.
Else they can use their codes and policies against you.
There is NO SITUATION that cannot be made worst with the presence of cops.
Ridiculous! "Good faith on the part of the officer is NOT enough." They must have SPECIFIC and ARTICULABLE FACTS, not hunches or opinions, that support a REASONABLE SUSPICION of criminal activity. There was none. Officers or staff CANNOT trespass someone because they don't like the fact that a person is filming in public. Do they trespass someone wearing camera glasses? No. Do they trespass someone for taking a pic of friends in the lobby? No. This will 100% get overturned.
🤣🤣🤣 I guess you're finally learning, aren't you frauditor!?
So why do i pay taxes if i cant video the government building i paid for ?
Exactly
Because we the people have allowed and continue to allow our corrupt government to violate our rights however they see fit
Because of the threat of government violence against you and your family.....silly😂
@randilaatsch9758 well obviously you don't live in a violent are the cops here arrest you for anything crime is out of control and the city's school council all 4 make more than the president were constantly lied to by our government and im guessing you haven't been to North Carolina those people are freezing in the cold while your old president says he doesn't need congress to approve money to the Ukraine but has to have approval to give money to freezing Americans so I'm not sure what your talking about take the blinders off iour government is really bad but no worries every one of the biden administration is rich now after stealing all the taxpayers money 😉
@randilaatsch9758 silly 😜
Real world lawsuits need to come there way on so many different fronts. People have lost faith in law enforcement and the so called justice system. Here is part of the reason why.
I don't understand, the fourth amendment has been clearly established since it was written, how is this man a judge !!!
The Institute For Justice needs to take this to the Supreme Court.
REMOVE ALL IMMUNITY FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
Remove qualified immunity from all government employees. Judges and DAs have it too.
This sets a dangerous precedent.
a travesty of a ruling. judge is in someone's pocket.
This would get overturned.
George Metz has not won a single lawsuit OR appeal on a conviction. Hmmm, see a pattern? Like maybe George Metz doesn't know what the hell he's talking about?
It's obvious this so called lawyer is paid by the city let me make my point they can film 📽️ us but we can't
That would absolutely be "Smith v Cummings" that's already clearly established case law!!!
Smith v Cummings was for a traditional public forum, the public sidewalk. The SCOTUS has said again, and again and again the the insides of government buildings is a LIMITED public forum, and those buildings can make rules against weirdos like George Metz just walking around and filming, and harassing and intimidating.
This is the reason why lawyers dont even represent themselves
🤣🤣🤣 George Metz loses AGAIN. I don't think he's won a single lawsuit or appeal yet!
Listen to what they aren’t saying.
He stated in the opinion “the plaintiff has got to show that the Officer or
Officers violated a clearly constitutional right and the right was established at the time the misconduct occurred.”
They didn’t say he wasn’t “tight” because evidently he didn’t prove he “asserted his right CLEARLY.”
It’s the same when a person says “well maybe I need to talk to an attorney”…
Sure but you have not CLEARLY established your right to the 5th Amendment of you simply make the statement you “probably should” or maybe you “need to” speak with an attorney.
The “right” although was his argument was not “clear enough” for the officers because this mere mention is not an “assertion” of the right.
You’ve GOT TO pay attention to what they not only say but what they do not say.
We use news like this to teach our children not to trust the police
Lower courts constantly rule against the citizen and you have to take it to appeals before you can find any actual justice
So now the police can arrest a person for holding their phone in a public building. This is going to end well.
This was more of a civil case against the officers. The civil penalty against the City is still viable.
End qualified immunity
Tyrants
Wrong.
If the cops dont abide by the law sue the state for corruption its in the law your allowed to film in a public building so if kids were doung this your arresting them ?
The police WERE abiding by the law.
Dothan Alabama in the house? LMAO
That court is a s show
Keep going to the supreme court! There's already supreme court case law on this!
While i can not see the published opinion it seems to be based on the timeline of in 2020 no ruling in the 11th to support the right. Also Rogue did not file timely. Previously the lower court ruled in favor on the suit against the Houston County Sheriff Donald Valezna
So it is a little confusing
There sure IS - and it shoots down all of these lawsuits!
Because the First and Fourth Amendments haven’t been clearly established yet…
Cant get justice on our courts.....
Then we will have to pursue other options....
Like the streets.
Do the police want street justice?
@RogueNation
LMAO Dothan Alabama baby locking boys up baby LMAO
What a joke judges have become.
First amendment right, ask DHS.
What misconduct occurred if there was no crime being or about to be committed?
looks like it needs to be appealed again up the the supreme court
Congratulations 🎊 you accomplished Nothing! Hahaha 😆
Dothan AL Stasi is allowed to use the Constitution as Charmin.
Police State
You can pull out all of the codes and statues and even their policy and they'll still take you to jail
This will make MAGA so happy. Trump has spent hours in his speeches saying he's going to crack down on freedom of press, and give full immunity for law enforcement. Crowds cheered. MAGA says "We love freedom of press unless it's not favorable to us." .... I need to go cause I have a book banning meeting today.
Yet all these 1A and 2A blowhards are in the comment section pointing the finger at Dems for the behavior of tyrannical cops, DAs, and judges. 🤦🏻♂️ This is why we can't have nice things.
What part of our First and Fourth Amendment rights are not clearly established? They need to take this up to a higher court. I would sell my house and live on the street to be able to afford a constitutional lawyer. This should have been an easy win. Please name and shame the judge that ruled on this.
Of Course 🍏🤢🤮
Is this why more and more people are now charging their Public-servants/paid Trustees whenever they want you to DO something for them?
Them-`STOP recording` - `ANSWER our questions` - `DO what we tell you to do` - etc.,
You-`YES, CERTAINLY (there is now an agreement to comply/accommodate them) it`s just that we charge you $911 for remedy to DO that for you and because we have NO CONFIDENCE with you administrating OUR trust, payment must be with us immediately and any further communicating with us, is with you and your supervisor accepting the terms and conditions because notice-to-agent-is-notice-to-principal`
Please remember that THEY are NOT volunteers….so why should YOU be?
The secret to dealing with your paid Trustees/Public servants is just two words….CONDITIONAL acceptance
Why not be the (polite) BUSINESS-man with your treacherous Trustees....NOT the victim?
So citizens no longer have civil rights.
Recording in a public building is LEGAL ... hence the meaning there's no expectation of privacy in public.
That is completely wrong...
@@andreysloan8347 ... guess again, there is no expectation of privacy in public. Any public building or space has no right of privacy .. unless there is a sign posted saying PRIVATE ROOM/OFFICE.
@@vulcan2882 I don't have to "guess again," and I never said anything about "right of privacy." If you do a little research into the subject, you're going to find that the SCOTUS has already ruled several times that public building owned by the government are LIMITED PUBLIC FORUMS and those buildings have the right to make rules/policies regarding photography or videotaping within their structures. Go seek the knowledge, young lad, and you will be rewarded with the knowledge that these frauditors have no clue what they're doing. That's why they continue to be arrested, convicted, and lose their appeals and law suits, like the career criminal George Metz.
"Anyone that represents themselves in court has a fool for a client!" (or words to that effect) Abraham Lincoln
Doesn't mean s*** he could take it to our higher court because it is a constitutional right to film in a State City or government building and I see a other lawsuit against the judge that was stupid enough to charge the guy when it's a constitution Right, the judge can kiss his qualified community goodbye
You've got one more court to take it to, and the SCOTUS have already ruled pretty plainly on the matter! You're going to lose.
*IT WILL BE OVERTURNED.*
I'm sure this judge would rule Derek Chauvin was just making a "good faith effort" while dealing with Floyd as well smh 😢
Dirty dirty dirty government !
Let’s watch drag out for another 4 years only for the Higher Court to give it back to the Lower Court, and watch them drag it out again!
We will be going to the supreme court..
👍
Yea OK, IF the SCOTUS agrees to listen to the case. They have already ruled so many times that government buildings are LIMITED public forums...
Thank a Democrat
You obviously don't know much about politics, do you?
Nothing just about out justice system.
"Dothan Police Officer fired after failing to stop drug deal, source says." ~WDHN, Oct. 21, 2024.
Yes they did
Total bull!
Say "Lower courts in America are a joke and all about maintaining status quo not the law nor justice" ??
Judges usually start as stupid lawyers….
And cops wonder why . . .
Officer Your wife has my name on her lips ask her