Ok, at 9 minutes or so he talks about the Restrictions on first ammendment activity. At 9:35 he cites a case called GERICKE v. Weare Police Department, Town of Weare, Defendants. (2014)
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-1s ... 67549.html <- Yes I looked this case up.
He says the case states that "reasonable restrictions on the right to film may be imposed when the circumstances require them." He also draws attention to the line that says
He then goes on to say that a police officer can reasonably arrest an auditor if they were committing crones such as disorderly conduct, stalking or harassment. He cites the case of Joey Perez, who had a history of inserting themselves into arrests, getting in close proximity to police and their vehicles, and shining lights from their cameras into officers eyes."However, a police order that is specifically directed at the First Amendment right to film police performing their duties in public may be constitutionally imposed only if the officer can reasonably conclude that the filming itself is interfering, or is about to interfere, with his duties."
And then he quotes examples of Auditors who have been Successfully prosecuted for screaming profanity at officers and other activities while "auditing", and gives an example of someone following a swat team around filming them and cursing and using Homophobic Slurs. The auditor argued that His foul language was constitutionally protected free speech too, but it didn't work as he was actively interfering with the Officers performing their duties.
Then after going through a few more examples of Auditors being dicks, he does say that there have been a few successful suits against Police Stations. But rather than the whole "must drop all action against Auditors" impression that was given above, it actually caused the Police orgs to issue guidelines on how to deal with Auditors.
Of course, some orgs have gotten creative, including playing music at the Auditor in order to get their video blocked by video sides like Instagram or Youtube on Copyright grounds.
Then he foes on to Cite a town that issued and ordinance that allowed officers to designate a Zone around a crime scene where Auditors cannot cross (in response to an Auditor standing in front of a Female officer and subjecting her to 4 minutes of abuse and Gender based slurs), and Arizona enacted a bill that stopped recording Officers from a distance of 8 feet (down from the requested 15 feet) (Possibly the bill that was quashed as noted abovem I dont know)
Thus conclusion is as to are Auditors constitutionally protected Truth Warriors or Trolls looking for a buck. To quote him "it depends." he quotes a number of organizations who have done good work.
Regardless, based on the talk of this laywer who was citing specific cases and case law, the talk about SCOTUS quashing all restrictions on Filming, and convictions getting quashed when Auditors Sue for tens of thousands of dollars, is pure fantasy. It has not happened.
And even when appellate courts have affirmed the right to film public officials in the course of their duties has, restrictions on Filming HAVE been allowed. And there was no mention of the right to film inside public buildings in the video.
So, ya, I stand by the fact that unless they are people who are part of a well respected org like the ACLU, 95% of Auditors are egotistical trash.
I have never observed a 1AA poke a microphone in the face of a random person. What some 1AA do is walk thru government offices (publically accessible areas) and ask government workers what their business is and details of procedures of their specific work. General information that can be interesting for viewers, how your tax dollars are used. It's also a test to see how curteous staff interacts with the public.
x4