Ill-informed Security Guard Forbids Photography of Miami Federal Courthouse

An ill-informed security guard forbade PINAC crew member Taylor Hardy from photographing a Miami federal courthouse Monday, ordering him to delete his photos after saying, “I’m being nice.”

Hardy refused to delete the photo he had snapped with his iPad as he got into a brief conversation with the security guard, named Yoel Pardo who works for Alutiiq, an Alaskan-based company that is contracted by the Federal Protective Service to provide inadequate security for the Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. United States Courthouse.

They are essentially the federal version of 50 State, the Miami company that provides inadequate security for the Miami-Dade Metrorail, bilking the taxpayers of billions of dollars while trampling on the Constitutional rights of citizens, following the rules in some imaginary playbook drafted solely for security theater.

Pardo told Taylor he was allowed to photograph the building from the street, just not from the courthouse property – despite a 2010 settlement that determined photographing federal buildings from federal property was completely legal.

But as we’ve been learning from watching Massachusetts authorities in the two years after the so-called “landmark” Glik decision, settlements are evidently not worth the paper they are printed on.

A few of us tried to educate the guards at this particular courthouse back in 2010 just as we had tried to do with 50 State earlier that year, but we’re not talking the cream of the crop with either of these companies.


About Carlos Miller

Carlos Miller is founder and publisher of Photography is Not a Crime, which began as a one-man blog in 2007 to document his trial after he was arrested for photographing police during a journalistic assignment. He is also the author of The Citizen Journalist's Photography Handbook, which can be purchased through Amazon.

Check Also

William Robocop Melendez convicted

Award-Winning Michigan Officer Known as “Robocop” Receives 13-Month Sentence for Vicious Beating Caught on Camera

The Michigan cop known as Robocop will spend at least 13 months in prison for …

  • inquisitor

    “It’s a federal law.”

    “Which law?”

    “Ah…ah…hey…well…now…see…ah…it is a law…and you are…ah…breaking it…and I do what they tell me to do…and…er…ah…it is not my job to tell you the law…and I really don’t want to…ah… instruct you on the law…and I don’t really have the time to…ah…no…er…ah…don’t need to call a supervisor…’cuz I know what he is going to say…but there is a law…but I won’t tell you the law…but they told me there is one…and, well…ah…there you go…security…ah…ah…yeah, security.”

    “I am sorry, which statute is that?”

    “Why are you creating a problem arguing with me and being confrontational? Over there, on the sidewalk, you can take photos.”

    “I am sorry, which law is that?”

    (-radio in for backup-)


    • rust

      I’m not an apologist, but there is an element of truth in what SLAG (Security Guard) says, in that he is just doing what he is told. Someone else appears to have LIED to him about there being a “law”. Other than that, he definitely needs more training.

      • Difdi

        Claiming that you were “just following orders” hasn’t worked as a legal defense to a criminal charge in at least 68 years.

        • rust

          Absolutely, I agree that the Nuremberg defense is no defense. But to give this SLAG his benefit of the doubt, I think he’s acting on a belief that has been instilled by someone who knows better. Some Enforcer lied to him about PIAC, said “Hey Joey, there’s a guy takin’ pichers, go tell him it’s against the law” and in good faith, the poor SLAG doesn’t realize that he’s a patsy. He’s insecure in his body language, how he talks and in his general outlook.

          • Difdi

            Security guards have at least the same training in the law as any citizen does, and those other citizens are expected to be sufficiently expert in the law to avoid breaking it. After all, ignorance of the law does not excuse breaking it, supposedly anyway.

            Some guards have additional training in the law, as do all police officers and federal agents. Those with more training have less ability to truthfully claim ignorant good faith.

          • rust

            I know what you’re getting at. I just think he may have been getting the short end of the stick. Consider that he comes probably from Cuba where he was brought up on “respect for authority” and “don’t watch the government” — his accent (to my ear) sounds like he comes from Cuba, as opposed to other places like Puerto Rico, Mexico, Colombia and such. I should think he would then defer to those in authority. If you notice his body language and his speech patterns, they indicate that he doesn’t have too much confidence in his “mission” to put down the rebels. He can’t say which law because he hasn’t actually read it for himself.

            If you compare him with the Psycho-bitch from hell in Oregano dipshit Dessa “Distressed” Deforest, this guy is a pussy cat. I’m sure that Carlos Miller will have a talk with him in the New Year.

          • IcedTeaParty

            I don’t give a crap about his upbringing, his accent, his home of origin, or whatever uncomfortable situation he was put in.

            I just don’t care.
            Because every one of those issues is entirely irrelevant.

          • Amicus Curia

            But, you should–we all should. It’s important for LEO’s and even security guards to have a basic understanding of the laws they supposedly enforce. Instead of marginalizing them, co-opt them. They are NOT the enemy. They’re simply badly trained. I’ve met too many LEO’s who earnestly value civil liberties to conclude otherwise. On occasion, I’ve launched into my short speech about when citizens are afraid of the government being ‘tyranny’ and when government is afraid of the citizens, it being ‘liberty’ only to look up and find the LEO nodding his head up & down in agreement.

          • IcedTeaParty

            I should care about his upbringing, his accent, home of origin, or circumstances?

            Once again, shifting the burden to the citizen.

            Are you a cop?

            Or did you not see that I was not allowing those issues to be used as EXCUSES?

          • Difdi

            That guard may well think he’s ‘putting down the rebels’ but the way laws work in the US it’s his superiors who are in rebellion if anyone is.

            The fact that they are the ones who decide if anyone is charged with rebellion (or sundry other crimes) and naturally don’t arrest themselves doesn’t change that basic fact.

          • bacchys

            There’s no law against wrongly telling people something is against the law, even if one is (somewhat) in a position of authority.

            So, ignorant though he was, he didn’t quite break the law…

          • Difdi

            Yes, there is actually such a law. Ordering someone to stop exercising a right or else you’ll arrest them for something that isn’t illegal or take other action (often violent) out of a belief that such acts are legal on your part absolutely IS a violation of rights under color of law.

            18USC241 & 242 don’t require that the violator actually have official authority, only that the violation be under color of law.

    • Difdi

      I can name two federal laws that say you CAN take pictures of a federal courthouse (given the federal court rulings that photography is one way you can exercise first amendment rights and all).

      Breaking the first one is a misdemeanor. By radioing for backup, the guard opens up the possibility of the second one being broken which is a felony.

      Title 18, Chapter 13, Section 242 of the US Code makes infringement of (among others) constitutional rights under color of law a crime punishable by a maximum of a year in prison and/or a $1,000 fine. A guard ordering you to stop exercising your rights or he’ll take action against you qualifies. If the infringement involves even a threat (let alone use) of a dangerous weapon (which isn’t just firearms — TASERs, batons and pepper spray also qualify) then the maximum punishment is 10 years and/or a $10,000 fine. And if anyone dies or is sexually assaulted (warrantless anal probing for example, as happened in New Mexico recently) the maximum penalties include death, life in prison and/or a $100,000 fine.

      But by calling for backup, the guard raises the possibility of violating Title 18, Chapter 13, Section 241 of the US Code, which is conspiracy against rights. All it takes to turn a simple order to stop exercising rights ‘or else’ into a felony for all the guards involved is backing up the first guard’s assertion. Suddenly every guard on the scene that doesn’t say something like “Um, wait a minute buddy, he DOES have a right to take pictures” is also in legal trouble.

      The DOJ rarely prosecutes people for violating those federal statutes, but it’s generally not illegal for the victim of a felony crime to resist the criminal, and if that guard stepped off federal property to commit his crime, he’s as subject to citizen’s arrest as anyone.

  • dravo1

    Here’s an interesting question. Since the dispute is taking place on federal property does the local sheriff have any jurisdiction here? Would it fall to the FPS?

    • inquisitor

      A very interesting question.

      I believe that if they make an arrest, they can detain, but must radio in and defer to the local police or the sheriff in that jurisdiction for the person to be booked and jailed.
      That is a guess.
      But if they make up that you are a terroristic threat because they don’t like the color of your i-phone, then maybe they can go right to DHS, the FBI and send you to Guantanamo with no due process. Because rendition is legal.

      There is a whole spectrum of escalation they can now legally initiate against a citizen leading all the way up to you begin taken to a private location without knowing the charge, without a lawyer, without anyone knowing where you are, without due process, without a trial…all the meanwhile you are being sodomized by fluorescent light tubes and battery acid…all for the sake of…”security”…until you give up the goods as to who you are “working with”.

      Because it should be plainly known the distinction as to the “responsibilities”, the “authority” and the “jurisdiction” of the FPS.

      Since the expansion of DHS there have been efforts to reduce the jurisdiction and authority of the office of the sheriff, which is an elected official held accountable by the citizenry that voted them into that position.
      And there seems to be a very covert initiative to actually diminish and, in some cases, abolish the office of sheriff.
      This is because the office of sheriff has substantial authority when it comes to restricting federal government authority in their locale.
      So it may be a matter of how much local authority has been “surrendered” to the feds…for the sake of “security” of course.

      This seemingly corresponds with the executive branch diminishing the authority of the legislative, the elected, branch of the federal government as well. And not that the legislative has done anything substantial to assert and maintain their authority against the increasing encroachment of the executive and all this being done at the peril of the citizenry.

      This is not America.

      “In 2009, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Inspector General for the Department of Homeland Security issued reports that were highly critical of the Federal Protective Service for relying on low-wage contract personnel to provide security at federal buildings. See GAO-09-0859T and OIG-09-51. Both documented that the contractors lacked the necessary skills or training to handle their duties, which threatened the security of all federal employees and visitors. The GAO report made national headlines in July 2009 as it cited frequent lapses, including failure to prevent investigators from carrying weapons into several key federal installations. It also displayed a photograph of a contract security guard asleep at his guard post.”

      Now we now why they don’t want pictures.
      It interferes with nap time.

      “FPS law enforcement personnel derive their law enforcement authority from Section 1315 of Title 40 (40 USC 1315) of the United States Code.”

      “40 USC 1315: The Secretary may designate employees of the Department of Homeland Security, including employees transferred to the Department from the Office of the Federal Protective Service of the General Services Administration pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as officers and agents for duty in connection with the protection of property owned or occupied by the Federal Government and persons on the property, including duty in areas outside the property to the extent necessary to protect the property and persons on the property.”

      Looks like they have some type of authority in areas just outside the property depending on how panicked and worked-up they allow themselves to be and how much they can make shit up about a citizen threat.

      “Powers. – While engaged in the performance of official duties, an officer or agent designated under this subsection may –
      (A) enforce Federal laws and regulations for the protection of persons and property;
      (B) carry firearms;
      (C) make arrests without a warrant or in plain clothes for any offense against the United States committed in the presence of the officer or agent or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if the officer or agent has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing a felony;
      (D) serve warrants and subpoenas issued under the authority of the United States;
      (E) conduct investigations, on and off the property in question, of offenses that may have been committed against property owned or occupied by the Federal Government or persons on the property; and
      (F) carry out such other activities for the promotion of homeland security as the Secretary may prescribe.”

      These powers have been given to under-trained, stupid people. They have guns.

      • ExCop-Lawyer





        • inquisitor

          Extraordinary rendition to be more precise.

          Sodomized with fluorescent light tubes and battery acid.

          Still funny?

          While the states of the Old World have dealt with these threats primarily by means of existing institutions and legal systems, the United States appears to have made a fundamentally different choice: considering that neither conventional judicial instruments nor those established under the framework of the laws of war could effectively counter the new forms of international terrorism, it decided to develop new legal concepts. This legal approach is utterly alien to the European tradition and sensibility, and is clearly contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

          Two days after President Barack Obama was sworn into office, on 22 January 2009, he signed an executive order entitled “Ensuring Lawful Interrogations”
          Overall, the executive order calls for more oversight of interrogation by third parties, but does not end extraordinary rendition. The section of the Executive Order relating to extraordinary rendition provides as follows:

          (e) Mission. The mission of the Special Task Force shall be:
          (i) to study and evaluate whether the interrogation practices and techniques in Army Field Manual 2 22.3, when employed by departments or agencies outside the military, provide an appropriate means of acquiring the intelligence necessary to protect the Nation, and, if warranted, to recommend any additional or different guidance for other departments or agencies; and
          (ii) to study and evaluate the practices of transferring individuals to other nations in order to ensure that such practices comply with the domestic laws, international obligations, and policies of the United States and do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture or otherwise for the purpose, or with the effect, of undermining or circumventing the commitments or obligations of the United States to ensure the humane treatment of individuals in its custody or control.

          (f) Administration. The Special Task Force shall be established for administrative purposes within the Department of Justice and the Department of Justice shall, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, provide administrative support and funding for the Special Task Force.

          (g) Recommendations. The Special Task Force shall provide a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and the Counsel to the President, on the matters set forth in subsection (d) within 180 days of the date of this order, unless the Chair determines that an extension is necessary.

          (h) Termination. The Chair shall terminate the Special Task Force upon the completion of its duties.

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            Are you off your meds again?

          • inquisitor

            But none of the information provided is a theory and no one is describing nor mentioning a conspiracy.

            I guess you do what you have to in order to cope.

          • bacchys

            The invocation of rendition in this case is over the top. Despite the Bush Administration’s best efforts, they were rebuked by the courts with respect to Padilla and Hamdi. We haven’t sent any Americans to GTMO, nor have we sent anyone taken into custody on U.S. soil.

            For that matter, it’s been since ’06 that GTMO gained any inhabitants.

          • ExCop-Lawyer


          • Difdi

            I hope you don’t say something like that to a judge, or you’ll likely see the wrong side of a jail cell door for contempt of court.

            Torture, extraordinary rendition and other violations of rights are all things that have come out in official investigations and court cases since 9/11. The US government has even made the argument to a court that because the handbook of interrogation techniques is classified, people claiming to have been tortured while in custody must be silenced for reasons of national security.

      • Jefft90

        You are confusing the legal powers of the FPS with the PSO (contracted
        Protective Security Officers)

        We have about 1000 sworn FPSs who have powers like you mentioned and about 13000 PSOs.

        PSOs rely on the ‘private person’ laws, or ‘citizen’s arrest’ laws, of a given state as well as that state’s laws relating to self-defense, defense of others, and use of force to defend property. Any authorities to perform protective services are based on state-specific laws where the PSO is employed.

        Now are some of the PSOs untrained and stupid? You bet. If they were highly trained and intelligent they would not be contract security guards.

    • ExCop-Lawyer

      It depends on the type of federal jurisdiction over the property. If exclusive, only the federal authorities have jurisdiction. If concurrent, both federal and state authorities have jurisdiction. If proprietary, only state authorities have jurisdiction.

      Most courthouses would be proprietary.

    • Amicus Curia

      Unless concurrent jurisdiction has been agreed upon by the State and the feds for the federal property, it is exclusively federal jurisdiction…which means that although the feds can ask for backup from local law enforcement, the arrest must be for violation of a federal statute if it occurs on and is for an act committed on that property. Even many judges and attorneys are not up to speed on this issue of jurisdiction. LEO’s almost always get it wrong.

      • ExCop-Lawyer

        Actually, that’s close, but not quite correct. The default is propriety jurisdiction instead of exclusive jurisdiction. Unless the state has ceded authority, it retains it.

        To have concurrent jurisdiction, the state has ceded some authority and has retained some.

  • Joel Chandler

    Although this was a friendly exchange relative to many we have seen, it is still an example of an overreaction by the authorities to a citizen exercising a constitutionally protected civil right. And that’s the whole point. They can’t seem to wrap their minds around the fact that their overreactions are what make activism possible.

    Were it not for the abominable conduct (and overreactions) of the Alabama State Police we would never have heard of Selma and the Edmond Pettus Bridge. Without the overreaction of the establishment we would not know names like Emmett Till, Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King, Jr.

    It seems self-evident that human nature operates in such a way as to cause those in power to overreact when they perceive a threat, whether real or imagined, to their power and influence.

    One would think we would all have to find some new way to occupy ourselves. After all, we’ve made no secret about what we do and how we operate. In this particular instance,
    had the little man in uniform simply ignored Taylor we would have no story.

    Activism well done is a lot like Br’er Rabbit. Leave me alone and I’ll be happy; throw me
    into the brier patch and I’ll have a grand story to tell.

    • inquisitor


      These officers are low-grade, low IQ types and they are not thinking beyond their next paycheck.
      I posted below that the group was found to have some problems with the competency and professionalism of its officers.
      They are probably not fond of picture takers, not because of security reasons or confusion about the law, but those activities may reveal further inadequacies and threaten their jobs or positions.

  • Bob_Striffler

    Photography is not a crime please leave me alone as I’m busy in the course of my Constitutionally Protected Activity! Do not hinder that right or you’ll be guilty of a crime! Go away please! You’re interfering with me! When he puts his hands on you your under a threat of bodily harm and may have to bust him in his grill! Repeatedly! He’ll always remember your rights after that!

    • inquisitor

      …but, but, but…there is a law.

      • Bob_Striffler

        Carry civil rights law with you! That would be his mistake (Mistake of law) False Arrest and False Detention. (US v Twilly) Then Bang! Refresh his memory! Of course in a police state the laws that protect your rights are ignored by the Honorable Courts and officers are being conditioned and taught this way, by the Judiciary! You’ll at least have that feeling of satisfaction!

        • ExCop-Lawyer

          LOL, as usual, you completely misstate the principles of law, as well as the case.

          I assume that you are speaking of United States v. Twilley, 222 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2000). If so, did you Shepardize the case? You know, to see if it is still good law? No? Really?

          Then I guess you don’t know that the Eighth Circuit has declined to follow the decision, see United States v. Washington, 455 F.3d 824 (8th Cir. 2006). Or that Ninth Circuit decisions have no precential value in Florida.

          I guess explaining that ten other decisions either decline to follow or distinguish their case from Twilley would be expecting too much, as would explaining what “mistake of law” really means.

          • inquisitor

            …and that would make him a “whackjob” in your own words, and not…mistaken or in error.

          • Bob_Striffler

            I’m not mistaken or in error. He would chose cases that are about situations out side the parameter of discussion! He knows it I know it! He’s a clown!

          • Bob_Striffler

            Mistake of law differentiates from mistake of fact. Mistake of law is when the officer arrests or charges someone outside the parameters of what the law allows (no more ignorance of the law for cops) including the intent of the law and Halitosis up there knows this. He’s like the prosecutors who use case law that doesn’t even remotely apply to the circumstances of arrest/charges v. “controlling case law” which uses the exact circumstances! Or obviously damn close enough case law! And yes more than half the Judges even rubberstamp this bullshit he pulls too! Two examples: 1) when I posted Kelly about infractions in Kansas regarding kid jaywalking! Example: 2) when I posted Florida entrapment case law!
            In the first example he was telling the superior Kansas Court they were wrong also in a 2007 case v his crap response with 1993 case law which I didn’t even bother wasting my time with! In Example 2) he’s telling like 4 different appellate state courts they are wrong! You can tell he was like this as a cop too! That’s why he got bitch slapped a lot!

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            Except that “mistake of law” and “mistake of fact” are both defenses to prosecution, and deal with how the defendant viewed the situation, not how an officer viewed it.

            When an officer makes a mistake as to what the law states, it falls under the “good faith exception” doctrine.

            Try to use the correct terminology.

          • Bob_Striffler

            There is no good faith exception for mistake of law you idiot! That is the whole point!

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            Which proves my point that you don’t understand law.

          • Bob_Striffler

            Uh! Duh! Go back to school here because I’m not going to waste my time providing you Florida Supreme Court caselaw on the subject or federal court case law that the florida supreme court cites. I’m not even going to supply the different Florida appellate court rulings on the subject! So go to this cite because it’s a cite where students go to learn the law! And of course you’ll still call names. But in this case you’ll be telling all these judges they’re retards too! But that’s your MO!

          • Bob_Striffler
          • ExCop-Lawyer

            Whoops. The first paragraph clearly states “good faith” exception.


            Try reading for more information on the legal term of art, “mistake of law.”

          • Bob_Striffler

            Really idiot then why did that gentleman win his case! with that arguement It happened right around the corner from where I live! Grow up! How old are you by the way?

          • Difdi

            So why are you playing chess with pigeons, ECLS? Besides, he’s only half wrong at worst. The law does make exceptions for good faith mistakes, but somehow courts only seem to allow police and other officials to make good faith pleadings. For the general public, claiming to have acted in good faith but in error is treated as a plea of no contest or disallowed entirely.

          • Bob_Striffler

            Blah Blah Blah as usual. I only cited twilly alone to keep it simple stupid! Of course I could back it up with Florida case Including the Florida Supreme Court! Seriously after this I’m just going to ignore your dumb ass! Your such a pussy you remind me of Nelly from little house on the prairie! I hear your not a cop anymore because everyone you used to pull over used to bitch slap you!

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            LOL. You can’t even spell the name of the appellant correctly, why should we believe that you properly analyze the opinion?

          • Difdi

            Why is it that you consider police who make certain sorts of mistakes to be poorly trained…but non-police making the same mistakes are whackjobs to you?

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            It depends on the type of mistake on both sides.

            The SWAT cop in Detroit who killed the 7-year-old wasn’t poorly trained, in my opinion he was criminally negligent.

            Let’s look at other examples. I consider you wrong on a number of issues, but you’ll talk and discuss it. Some of these guys are just whackjobs.

            Anyone who claims to have beaten 41 separate criminal charges fits neatly in that category, especially when there are multiple convictions and deferred adjudications intermingled in that history, and the crimes include crimes of moral turpitude.

          • James

            I don’t understand why people are downvoting you, you gave good info, albeit in a dickish tone, but good info, so why the downvotes?

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            Some here don’t like any cops, current or ex-.

            Some also think that they can find case law on the internet, and don’t like being told they are not geniuses.

  • ray brown

    A couple of months ago I was waiting in line inside the Federal building here in Seattle. A man was standing outside practically within spitting distance of the lobby windows. Security inside commented among themselves. The consensus was that he was within his rights to film outside the building but not within.

    • Jim_Pook

      Seems that sometimes, you can teach an old dog new tricks.

  • Ian Battles

    Someone should call this guy’s boss and ask if it’s policy to misrepresent the law.

  • Paul Kisling

    I go easier on wannabe cops then real cops. These guys are generally too dumb to pass the police exams. How do you expect them to even know what a constitutional right is when they cannot read?

    Not only that, but quite often the unarmed security are convicted felons who cannot get any other job that fits their criminal skill set.

  • jwalsh

    Jailing Photogs and Smokers, Outlawing Chipotle! Plus Halle Berry! (Nanny of the Year, 2013)

  • Alma Lovell

    In Los Angeles County all photography and videography is prohibited by law inside all courthouses and also on the grounds of any courthouse.

    • kraz

      Prohibited by what law?

      • Difdi

        No law, just judicial doctrine. Some would call it judicial corruption, since supposedly judges can’t make new laws…and they did it anyway.

  • Thomas Covenant

    I always like to ask this question which gets the Deer in the Headlights Look 99% of the time. Officer “BY WHAT AUTHORITY ARE YOU DEMANDING I STOP TAKING (YOU ADD REST OF TEXT)” , Then ask for a supervisor and ask them the same question. Good for a bunch of laughs

  • inquisitor
    • Bob_Striffler

      “Whether facts that is going to” from case page at the beginning says it all! An informant can only be suggesting a future event. It can’t be fact until it happens? Right? Vegas would go bust! And there was no warrant till after..? Is there even one part of the constitution left sacred? I didn’t read the whole case though? Did the informant say there was illegal chemicals…what? Was the informant proven to be reliable and have history of this?
      The scary part is when you look at cases like Jeff’s or the kid in Topeka or the ten’s of thousands of other videos on the internet, they’re of innocent people or trivial or people posing no real threat of any kind. Or just people trying to stand up for their rights! The videos show this and the court still finds probable cause, then relentlessly pursues convictions and incarceration. These are acts of violence being done against citizens! These people are not seeking to suppress evidence of an underlying crime, just the illegal arrest! This government and big three media have to want a revolution. A revolution is actually being incited! No free people should live like this. That’s the only thing that makes sense!
      In the above case people who don’t get it won’t care and say good he had drugs! I used to get so mad and tell them what erosions that will lead too. And it already has happened innocent citizens are being brutalized and incarcerated with complete autonomy! Sorry to all the soldiers out there but I can no longer support any foreign missions against terrorists till the ones here are dealt with! With the sheer volume of what’s on the internet American Media is deliberately misleading the American people (programming them) and there is no two ways about it!

  • jwalsh

    Your Rights When The Cops Pull You Over Explained In One Brilliant Infographic

    Read more:

    • ExCop-Lawyer

      That actually lays it out fairly well.

      • jwalsh

        Thought it was cool to see….

  • Bob_Striffler

    Hey Ex-Cop I’m putting this here as it’s important for everybody to remember when the police order them to do something using a law not legislated for that purpose! I’ve previously written a brief on this and have Florida rulings as well. I usually don’t even know where your arguments come from, EX-Cop Law Student! Your the one who cites off base rulings You should go back and read that Heritage Foundation Discussion that you told me to read! It’s not case law! It was a great discussion! This discussion was not about police being ignorant of the law. This makes 4 times you’ve called me an idiot and thus called these courts including Florida Courts who ruled all this idiots too. I’m not doing your homework for you!

    Furthermore, a police officer’s mistake of law as to what constitutes a violation of the law, no matter how reasonable, can not provide objectively reasonable grounds to support probable cause or reasonable suspicion. United States v. Chanthasouxat, 342 F.3d 1271, 1276 (11th Cir. 2003) (holding that an officer’s mistake of law may never provide objective grounds for probable cause or reasonable suspicion).
    See the word never!

    • ExCop-Lawyer

      Still more BS info from BS.

      • ExCop-Lawyer

        Just so people know why I say that, here is what happens when you cite-check (Shepardize) the case he mentioned, United States v. Chanthasouxat, 342 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2003). Let’s look at the negative history in ten short years….

        United States v. Washington, 455 F.3d 824 (8th Cir. 2006).
        State v. Helen, 366 N.C. 271 (2012).

        Giron v. City of Alexander, 693 F. Supp. 2d 904 (E. D. Ark. 2010).

        United States v. Weaver, 145 Fed. Appx. 639 (11th Cir. 2005).
        United States v. Coplin, 463 F.3d 96 (1st Cir. 2006).
        United States v. Delfin-Colina, 464 F.3d 392 (3d Cir. 2006).
        United States v. Delancy, 502 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2007).
        United States v. Lopez-Garcia, 565 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2009).
        United States v. Prince, 593 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 2010).
        United States v. Jones, 2010 WL 1628049 (N. D. Ohio Apr. 7, 2010).
        Commonwealth v. Rivas, 77 Mass.App.Ct. 210 (2010).
        United States v. Fields, 2011 WL 6181343 (N. D. Fla. Nov. 23, 2011).
        United States v. Mubdi, 691 F.3d 334 (4th Cir. 2012).

        It’s not a case I would depend on.

        • Bob_Striffler

          Here is United States v. Washington, 455 F.3d 824 (8th Cir. 2006

          All the 8th did was talk about some exceptions then vacated defendent’s plea and sentence, ruling MISTAKE OF LAW. Read it and weep! Oh and by the way the 11th is Florida’s! Kansas is the 10th! The 10th is like the 5th 7th 9th 11th etc… and makes NO exceptions for mistake of law! Even the 8th blows off Good Faith! I think that about covers it, ya think? Want to challenge me on Constitutional Vagueness and Over-breadth, other things you called me an idiot about? Do you even understand how the chain of Jurisdiction works? Not! Duh!

          • ExCop-Lawyer


            I’m impressed. You figured out all of that by yourself?

            No wonder you have most of the legal principles all f*cked up.

            Maybe you should cut back on the stimulants. Or the booze. Or both.

          • Bob_Striffler

            Maybe you should listen to how your horn sounds when you blow it! You just got blown away by your own arguments. You have quite an understanding of the law don’t you? Do you even read the cases you so proudly cite? You need to pay more attention in school! A lot more, Boy!

          • Bob_Striffler

            Let’s not forget that the 3rd. the 4th and the 1st first all followed and up held these rulings besides the ones as distinguished above that you provided…….as an argument? Don’t you know what the purpose of shepardizing is? And the 8th the one you cited actually ruled mistake of law too? What was your argument again where I was an idiot?

    • Bob_Striffler

      PS Ex-Cop Law Student,

      When I provided you with this,

      to read please note that it was a case tried in the 18th Judicial Circuit.(Brevard County) It was involving a case where the defendant allegedly Jaywalked, only this defendant gave a false name which is illegal under a “lawful arrest” and charged with Florida “resist obstruct or oppose.” But under current Florida law a person has to only give his name after a lawful arrest! Try to wrap your mind around that! Now I know this is going to be hard to swallow but that was Attorney Troy Webber’s successful filings here in Florida. But it ruled the exact same in the Topeka Kansas Case regarding that young man didn’t it? Remember when you called me and apparently that Kansas Appellate court idiots too? Having fun yet? Then there was the entrapment cases I cited from 4 different Florida Appellate Courts? (More successful filings from my own cases) If you actually read Troy’s filing it does go into what defines the difference between an infraction and criminal/ misdemeanor crimes just like Kansas v Kelly! Just like I said from the get go! I, Troy and the Kansas Appellate Court were all idiots there too! There sure are a lot of idiots out there! Is there anybody else out there smart like you? So I then read United States v. Washington, 455 F.3d 824 (8th Cir. 2006) which you posted in argument against! Not only did it, not decline to follow, it upheld and cited at the bottom all the other federal rulings from the 9th, 10th,11th, 5th, 7th etc… As I said all they did was discuss an exception! God your such an ass! There isn’t a damn thing you’ve called me an idiot about where you’ve been right! Grow up!

  • Bob_Striffler

    The courts need independent oversight and review. The Judges need independent oversight and review. The Cops need independent oversight and review and the prosecutors need independent oversight and review!


  • Amicus Curia

    That last clip was the most interesting in that it highlights the difficulties in educating security guards, LEO’s, the public, etc. When too many are speaking at once, little communication is had. Moreover, the participants were speaking past one another. This becomes wasted effort and annoying. The folks from PINAC could stand to do some listening too. e.g. The white guard is correct when he states he is not a LEO, is not a ‘public official’, and has no arrest powers. In fact, he has no qualified immunity from personal liability in his job either. At the same time, he is wrong when he says his civil rights are being violated by being filmed without his permission…unless his image ended up being used for commercial purposes. Even then, it’s a civil matter, not a violation of criminal law. Guards are often under the misapprehension that filming a public facility requires a release. This isn’t true unless, again, it’s for a commercial purpose such as making a commercial movie, etc. They conflate criminal statutes with civil/business law, intellectual property rights, etc. LEO’s and public officials often fall into the trap of treating public property as though it was privately owned. If a citizen has a right to be on public property at the time (some exceptions such as military bases and courtrooms apply), they have the right to photograph/document/videotape what they see/hear. In an era where intellectual property rights have become the tail that wags the dog, their confusion is understandable. If PINAC is going to continue to test the understanding of these low level functionaries, they’ll discover their training is always inadequate and commensurate with the low level wages they receive. The one guard got it about right when he basically said he didn’t know, wasn’t going to instruct/debate law, and simply did what he was told. His immediate superiors didn’t sound adequately educated either, but knew enough to concede photography from a public outside venue was permitted. But, they then shifted to asking why the photographers were ‘harassing’ the guards–a personal challenge, if you will. This comes up often when the LEO/guard has no law they can cite backing up their misapprehensions. So, they resort to ad hominem attacks like, “Why aren’t you respecting *my* civil rights?” Other times they’ll suggest, “Legitimate journalists ask for permission.” And so it goes. There’s a huge difference between “Candid Camera” and investigatory photojournalism. “Candid Camera” needs permission to commercially broadcast their subject’s image. Photojournalists do not.

    Not to put too fine a point on it, but in some respects, PINAC’s efforts are akin to going out with a camera and videotaping the depth of bouncers’ understanding on the nuances of 1st Amendment rights to photograph/video/audio record. Would anyone be surprised to learn it was almost nonexistent? Even judge’s are too often ignorant/nonplussed about these issues. Demonstrating this fact is entirely too easy. Altering it is going to be much more difficult.

  • Azzmador

    “That little dog is going after someone a lot bigger than him.” – Carlos Miller

    Carlos, were you referring to the dachshund, or the Marshal? You are correct in both instances!