Hacker News Reader

Comment by sandworm101 | Hacker News Reader

There is no way to handle these people gracefully. They don't respond to police requests to leave. They see gradual escalation as weakness. Getting someone to leave private property, a provocator who doesn't want to leave and doesn't respect anyone's authority, will inevitably require more than words. Manhandling someone out of an area by force cannot be done gracefully.

Arguably, common policies on gradual escalation only exacerbate the problem of auditors. Cops go from polite requests, to direct orders, trespass notices, through non-lethal things like tasers and pepper spray, and only then to handcuffs and arrests. The cops that handle these people best seem to be the ones that skip the middle stuff, instead going straight from polite request to handcuffs, with trespass notices coming afterwards.

View on HN

> There is no way to handle these people gracefully.

The First Amendment doesn't have an "unless they're a pain in the ass" exemption.

> Getting someone to leave private property

These folks tend to be on public property. That's the whole schtick.

If the first amendment even applies. Many/most auditors are not in public spaces. They are on private property that the wrongly believe to be public spaces. I've even seen more a few on military property in some crazy belief that all such places are open to public inspection.

I can't fight a strawman.

If you trespass in restricted spaces (like a military base, or an NYPD evidence locker) you'll get arrested, yes. The crime is trespass, whether or not you have a camera filming.

Most of the "auditors" I've seen (and many are certainly insufferable) film from public sidewalks, public lobbies (as is the case in this particular court case, which the auditor won), Border Patrol checkpoint / police traffic stops within their own vehicles, etc. It's very common for them to encounter police resistance in these situations, despite a clear First Amendment right to film.

Police violating Constitutional rights isn't some wildly uncommon theoretical; I'm not sure why you seem to be portraying it as such.

If they're breaking a law, arrest them. If they aren't, what do you expect anyone to do?

Whether or not someone is breaking the law is a very difficult question. A cop must figure out what a person is doing and who they are. Is the person in the middle of a mental health crisis? Are they subject to special rules such as having been previously trespassed from a location, or are they in violation of a court order? Is this person stalking someone? When first amendment-protected "speech" become non-protected shouting in breach of the peace depends largely on context. What type of property are they sanding on? Are there special rules at play, such as publicly-accessible private spaces? (bathrooms, some areas of hospitals etc.) Even then the cop must decide if an arrest will actually prevent further issues, or whether some sort of non-arrest option might be better.

If they're standing on a public sidewalk, not trespassing, and all they're doing is holding some video equipment... then what is the basis of the cops confrontation in the first place? Is there some probable cause to believe the cop needs to do any of those things you mentioned? Why is the cop getting involved? The root of the whole issue is that cops are over-policing. They need to know when to just leave people alone because they're not doing anything illegal or really even suspicious in most cases. The cops just want to be bully's and control every situation even if unconstitutionally.

There's dozens (hundreds?) of unenforced laws on the books. I'm sure it varies by jurisdiction (where I live, using your turn signal is optional and cops would never pull you over for failure to signal- it's effectively unheard of.) Point being, cops can decided when to police and when not to police. Recording them at work seems to be a line they do not like people to cross and they don't really care if it's constitutionally protected or not.

Care to share any videos of auditors going to private property?

I've seen a few where they've removed auditors using the private property excuse because the city/state was leasing privately owned property and using it to operate public services out of. I think that's something courts may ultimately have to rule on, because it seems like an easy way for the government to shield themselves from accountability and violate people's freedoms.

> operate public services

Therein lies the rub. I'd be tempted to challenge the hell out of that.

It's kind of a different context because these people are both based in the UK but there are many videos on the channels of DJ Audits[0] and PJ Audits[1] focusing on industrial estates. They go "to" private property but not "on"; they also launch drones from public space and fly them over the property for aerial footage. I guess there's some "SIA" licensing that contracted security usually has (I'm not familiar because I'm not a UK citizen), which is a common point of contention for the auditors, but they're mostly just interested in highlighting some bit of industry.

0: https://www.youtube.com/@DJAUDITS

1: https://www.youtube.com/@PJAudits

I am less familiar with UK law, but I assume what you mean by "go to, but not on" is that they remain on a public sidewalk or some easement of some kind? If so, that is still public property, not private property. This is kind of the whole point.

Yes, that is what I meant. They remain on public property and lawfully refuse to leave if/when asked.

I called it out as different because they’re lawfully filming a private area which is visible from a public area (and also from above) rather than simply filming public areas. Apologies if I was unclear.

"I've even seen more a few on military property in some crazy belief that all such places are open to public inspection." All the auditor vids that I've seen that involve military property have been where the person doing the videoing stands on the public sidewalk or roadway easement outside the military or government building and films, which of course makes for the desired confrontation. There may be some where they're on the actual military property which can result in them being trespassed.

> Many/most auditors are not in public spaces.

So there should be plenty of self-incriminating video of them trespassing?

You don't need to carry water for the police. The Supreme Court has that job already.

>Many/most auditors are not in public spaces.

Can you link 5 or so videos of this?

> The cops that handle these people best seem to be the ones that skip the middle stuff,

Rightfully so; tasers and pepper spray were meant to incapacitate violent suspects. They were never supposed to be used to enforce compliance with orders.

Pulling out tasers to deal with "auditors" is the very behavior they seek to document.

There absolutely is.

Of course they don't leave, they have the constitutional right to stay! The very act of asking them to leave is already an overstep.

> The cops that handle these people best seem to be the ones that skip the middle stuff, instead going straight from polite request to handcuffs, with trespass notices coming afterwards.

That is absolutely disgusting. Is that how you want people to treat you?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com