Last night, October 21st, 2008, the Greater NYC Campaign for Liberty, some members of the Manhattan Libertarian Party and other liberty activists demonstrated in Grand Central Station. A bit of theater. A breadline containing a decent amount of individuals with others as satellites handing out literature, discussing the bailout with passer bys and filming the event. I was in the latter group. Not 10 minutes into the demonstration officers started speaking with Russ, requesting our reasons for being their, what exactly we were doing and I’d imagine if we had a permit.

I was at one point, not caught on video, threatened by the officer seen walking away from Russ at approximately 48 seconds into the video. A very loud and angry, similar to: “Back up! Get away from me!” I was merely walking up to inquire to what the problem was and why Russ was being engaged. After talking with Russ briefly I went around to the other side to get a different angle and hand out more literature. I soon noticed another officer appear (about 1 minute in) and start approaching the breadline. You can see at about 1:04 the first officer points me out to the new cop.

At 1:45 I’m approached by the first officer and told to stop filming the officers. The officer in particular was 5 or more feet from me and I was attempting to pick up the dialog in the rather loud station. I was not at any point noticed by the officer as I was completely behind him so there was no possibility of my existence being an interference. There were others standing closer who were not filming who were not harassed. I was left alone only because he become distracted by another officer or his radio. As Russ was being handcuffed I believe it’s the original officer who threatens to lock me up too if I don’t “take a walk.” So I took a walk. Following closely Russ and the two officers who were bringing him to the holding cell. I unfortunately stopped recording while in the police office talking with the officer at the main desk though I got some of it.

It one point an officer threatens to bring out the K-9 unit to sniff all our bags. A short time one happens to just walk right by all of us and our belongings and does not react.

At 6:30 the officer who was talking with Andrew asked if he could help me. I inform him I’m a member of the group there implying my reason for being next to him… though I think obviously the problem was my filming. When you see the camera go from facing the floor to the side is when the officer grabbed my arm motioning to either take my camera or start to place cuffs on me. He too was distracted by what appeared to be a superior officer calling on the radio. I hand the camera off to Andrew in case he came back to detain me. Listen to the radio. “You were told what to do. THAT’S ENOUGH. OK?! Do what you got to do!”

I kept the camera going while trying to act as it wasn’t. We were told the office was not a waiting room even though there had been people in there waiting and instructed to leave. Shortly after Russ is released.

Once we left the station after a couple minutes we noticed most of the officers involved in the incendent standing just inside the doorway staring and talking among themselves. I wasn’t quick enough, nor would it had gone over well, to record them watching us but I was able to get them walking away. A rather good ending to the video I think.

Take aways:

1. Don’t carry ‘official’ state identification when doing these things. That way when you tell them you don’t have ID to show them you’re telling the truth. In fact I now plan to not carry my state ID with me on a regular basis.
2. Don’t ever stop recording. These things don’t take long and it’s better to have too much footage and have to spend more time editing then missing some of the good parts.
3. I had my Free Talk Live press pass on me but forgot to wear it. However, it’s my ‘official’ one with all my information on it. I need to get another one printed with basic info which doesn’t give away my full identity.

We plan on doing this again in the next couple weeks. We’ll see how it goes.

Not that we very much care but if someone is familiar with the laws regarding the actions we took please post the relevant statutes in the comments. Thank you.

http://www.nj.com/…

The New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments today over whether to change the circumstances under which police may search cars on Garden State roadways.

State prosecutors argue the current method needs a tune-up because it creates real-world problems for police trying to make decisions in the field. Under current rules, if police want to search a car without first getting a judge’s approval, they must determine that there is probable cause, whether the evidence might disappear and if the safety of the officer or public is at risk.

Instead, the state want to see the state’s high court adopt the method used by the federal courts, which lets police search a car on the belief there is contraband inside.

“It’s a rule that makes sense and is by no means a radical departure of the last 30 or 40 years,” said assistant Attorney General Ronald Susswein.

But criminal defense lawyers say the current system helps preserve important constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

“There is not a crisis with regard to automobile searches. The sky is not falling,” said assistant deputy state public defender, Stephen Kirsch.

And former Attorney General John Farmer Jr., who represents the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers — New Jersey , argued the advances in technology have so changed the landscape that there are fewer instances in which a warrantless search is necessary.

During arguments in Trenton, the justices peppered lawyers with questions about the law, such as what circumstances dictate when a vehicle might be impounded in connection with a stop and how the courts have defined the situations in which a warrantless search was okay.

“We’re defining it differently in difference circumstances,” said Justice Barry Albin.

If they really want to search your vehicle they will find a way to justify it. Rarely are you going to get the search found illegitimate by the courts. As with all other situations with police and the threat of a search: Just say no. Then say nothing. Anything, and I mean anything, can and will be used against you. If you are stopped by cops refuse to search you query whether you are being detained, if not ask to leave. Continue with the same questions until allowed to leave.

http://thinkprogress.org/…

Today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) spoke to the National Urban League, a group “devoted to empowering African Americans to enter the economic and social mainstream.” When an audience member asked him how he planned to reduce urban crime, McCain praised Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s efforts in New York Cirty before invoking the military’s tactics in Iraq as the model for crime-fighting:

MCCAIN: And some of those tactics — you mention the war in Iraq — are like that we use in the military. You go into neighborhoods, you clamp down, you provide a secure environment for the people that live there, and you make sure that the known criminals are kept under control. And you provide them with a stable environment and then they cooperate with law enforcement, etc, etc.

What was it I heard last week about McCain? “I hate war” I believe it was. Just like he loves the 1st and 4th Amendment right?

http://www.syracuse.com/…

The city of Syracuse has asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit by a woman whose 303 Gere Ave. apartment was gassed last year during a police standoff with her neighbor.

The motion to dismiss, filed this week in U.S. District Court, responded for the first time to Eileen Malay’s allegations that police violated her constitutional rights March 17, 2007, during a 29-hour standoff with her landlord, Thach Ros, 62.

Ros, who lived in an attached house, fatally shot his son and wounded his wife before eventually killing himself.

While arguing Malay, 59, has no grounds to sue the city, the motion did not dispute Malay’s account of the gassing. She fled the apartment that day and hasn’t been back.

In the motion, the city argues police officers were confronted with a deadly situation and didn’t know whether Malay was in her apartment.

“A reasonable police officer would not believe that deploying gas to diffuse a lethal situation could (violate) Plantiff’s civil rights, particularly if they were not even aware that she was inside the apartment,” wrote Jennifer Savion, assistant corporation counsel.

Also, the city argued, police didn’t violate Malay’s constitutional right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure because of the imminent danger the gunman posed.

“There can be no doubt that there were exigent circumstances sufficient to allow police action to try and diffuse the situation,” Savion wrote. “That meant using CS gas inside the property to try to disarm Ros.”

CS gas is a type of tear gas that the U.S. military has agreed under international treaty not to use in warfare.

How does the fact that the gunman posed an “imminent danger” negate the fact that they ruined her property with a chemical that even the military has agreed not to use? They harmed this woman and she should be paid restitution. Period. If anyone other then government thugs tried to use this excuse the public would be outraged. Collateral damage is still damage and those officers are still responsible. The gang of which they are a member of and the colors they were do not put them above to fundamental societal concepts.

5PM, 3 NYPD officers to the left of the turnstiles at the South Ferry 1 train station. None of them I recall seeing before. Two notice me and let me go by without harassment.

Not very consistent. I’m a threat on Thuesdays but not Wednesdays?

I think I’m going to send the NYPD some questions regarding the inconsistancy, walking to another station, etc.