Idaho Man Tased for Attempting to Enter Courtroom with Camera - PINAC News
Connect
To Top

Idaho Man Tased for Attempting to Enter Courtroom with Camera

 

A man who insisted on carrying his video camera inside an Idaho courtroom was tased, handcuffed and arrested in an incident caught on video last month.

The video from his camera makes it clear he was violating state law because he had not obtained permission to record from the judge.

But it also makes it clear he did not physically batter anybody.

However, Robert Peterson was charged with three counts of battery as well as criminal contempt.

All because he wanted to document his hearing over riding a bicycle at night without lights.

Before the tasing, Peterson told bailiffs that state laws do not apply to him because he was not a person.

“I’m not a person, I’m a man,” he said at one point.

“I’m not like everybody else here,” he later said. “I’m a man , so I have rights you cannot violate without legal repercussions.”

He also threatened to sue them if they dared tase him.

Hopefully, his suit won’t be as nonsensical as some of the comments he made prior to his tasing because it would get shot down quicker than he was tased.

Here is the Idaho law regarding cameras in the courtroom:

Rule 45 of the Idaho Court Administrative Rules (ICAR) allows extended coverage of all public proceedings, provided permission to cover a proceeding is obtained in advance from the presiding judge, and ICAR Rule 46 provides guidelines for the use of cameras in appellate proceedings.

In trial courts, the presiding judge may prohibit coverage or order that the identity of a participant be concealed when such coverage would have a substantial adverse effect upon that participant. Coverage of the jury, adoptions, mental health proceedings and other proceedings closed to the public is prohibited. Permission to photograph or broadcast a proceeding must be sought, in advance, from the presiding judge. Electronic flash or artificial lighting is prohibited, and the television camera may not “give any indication of whether it is operating”. Only one still photographer and one camera operator is permitted in the courtroom, and any pooling arrangements must be made by the media.

Pursuant to ICAR Rule 46(a), cameras may be set up or taken down in the press box overlooking the Supreme Court Courtroom as long as they do not distract from the judicial proceedings.� Flash photography or the use of additional lighting for video photography is prohibited. The court will provide an audio feed for television cameras and audio recorders, but no separate microphones may be used.

Authority: Rules 45 & 46, Idaho Court Administrative Rules.


Please send stories, tips and videos to carlosmiller@magiccitymedia.com.

CARLOS MILLER’S LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

I am immersed in a legal case where I not only want to clear my criminal charges stemming from my arrest in January, but I want to sue the Miami-Dade Police Department for deleting my footage, which I was able to recover.

My goal is to set some type of precedent to ensure this does not happen as often as it does today where cops simply get away with it.

So if you would like to contribute, please click on the “donate” button below and contribute whatever you can afford.

Facebook PINAC Page

You can keep up with my stories by friending me on Facebook or following me on Twitter and/or Google + or by liking the PINAC Facebook page.

cloudfront image

 

A man who insisted on carrying his video camera inside an Idaho courtroom was tased, handcuffed and arrested in an incident caught on video last month.

The video from his camera makes it clear he was violating state law because he had not obtained permission to record from the judge.

But it also makes it clear he did not physically batter anybody.

However, Robert Peterson was charged with three counts of battery as well as criminal contempt.

All because he wanted to document his hearing over riding a bicycle at night without lights.

Before the tasing, Peterson told bailiffs that state laws do not apply to him because he was not a person.

“I’m not a person, I’m a man,” he said at one point.

“I’m not like everybody else here,” he later said. “I’m a man , so I have rights you cannot violate without legal repercussions.”

He also threatened to sue them if they dared tase him.

Hopefully, his suit won’t be as nonsensical as some of the comments he made prior to his tasing because it would get shot down quicker than he was tased.

Here is the Idaho law regarding cameras in the courtroom:

Rule 45 of the Idaho Court Administrative Rules (ICAR) allows extended coverage of all public proceedings, provided permission to cover a proceeding is obtained in advance from the presiding judge, and ICAR Rule 46 provides guidelines for the use of cameras in appellate proceedings.

In trial courts, the presiding judge may prohibit coverage or order that the identity of a participant be concealed when such coverage would have a substantial adverse effect upon that participant. Coverage of the jury, adoptions, mental health proceedings and other proceedings closed to the public is prohibited. Permission to photograph or broadcast a proceeding must be sought, in advance, from the presiding judge. Electronic flash or artificial lighting is prohibited, and the television camera may not “give any indication of whether it is operating”. Only one still photographer and one camera operator is permitted in the courtroom, and any pooling arrangements must be made by the media.

Pursuant to ICAR Rule 46(a), cameras may be set up or taken down in the press box overlooking the Supreme Court Courtroom as long as they do not distract from the judicial proceedings.� Flash photography or the use of additional lighting for video photography is prohibited. The court will provide an audio feed for television cameras and audio recorders, but no separate microphones may be used.

Authority: Rules 45 & 46, Idaho Court Administrative Rules.


Please send stories, tips and videos to carlosmiller@magiccitymedia.com.

CARLOS MILLER’S LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

I am immersed in a legal case where I not only want to clear my criminal charges stemming from my arrest in January, but I want to sue the Miami-Dade Police Department for deleting my footage, which I was able to recover.

My goal is to set some type of precedent to ensure this does not happen as often as it does today where cops simply get away with it.

So if you would like to contribute, please click on the “donate” button below and contribute whatever you can afford.

Facebook PINAC Page

You can keep up with my stories by friending me on Facebook or following me on Twitter and/or Google + or by liking the PINAC Facebook page.

cloudfront image

More in PINAC News