Chelan County juror unlawfully removed from court house

[XDsubcompact]

Hey everyone, stumbled upon this and figured I'd jump in to address a couple wrong things I've read.  I was the guy that made the video.


First of all, I didn't "walk in with a camera in hand", this was my 3rd time up to the security point after being blown off by the security officer.  Before I ever started recording I had spent about half an hour walking around asking different county employees including some Sheriff's Deputies about lock boxes and where they could be found to no avail.  You'll notice in the very beginning of the video the officer immediately says "Now there are lots of people here to talk to" because he had apparently grabbed backup after I left the second time.  When I showed up for jury duty, this wasn't even a thought in the back of my mind.  I used to work as a corrections officer and as a clerical staff employee at Yakima County so I knew full well that lock boxes should be available, and I fully expected them to be there.  I never wanted a confrontation or planned for one.  It wasn't until after I was met with resistance and attitude that I decided to record, both to protect myself legally from lies they could tell, and to record their legal position regarding lock boxes.  If I wasn't recording, we all know they could easily make stuff up and have me charged with disorderly conduct or worse.

Second, this is pretty easy to understand.  I didn't want to leave my pistol locked in my truck all day long because someone could break in and steal it, and even use it in a crime.  Not something I want to happen.  I've had my car broken into in much nicer areas than this before.  That was absolutely not an option.


Someone said they might have thought of a solution if I was nicer.  Nope, sorry.  Like I said, I spent half an hour trying to figure out a solution and nobody was willing to help.  And for the record, BEFORE I posted this video I spoke with the County Jail supervisors, the Sheriff's office and the lead deputy that's in charge of campus security for the entire courthouse.  Every time I was talked down to, ignored and they denied their responsibility to follow state law.  I was getting nowhere whiteout this being made public.

The subject of their paid lockers was brought up.  Yes, they have lockers that you can pay for but those don't even remotely meet the requirements of the law.  First of all, they're not very secure.  They could be picked up and carried off if someone really wanted them.  Second, they must be "provided" according to the law, and you don't pay for something that's provided.  Not only that, but I had no access to them because I had no change at all.  I'm sure I'm not the only person that din't have 2 quarters in their pocket when they went into the courthouse.  This is clearly a violation of the INTENT of the law.  Third, I specifically asked the lead Deputy (Deputy Elgin Shaw) if the county assumes any responsibility for or liability for theft or negligent damage to weapons placed in the pay lockers and he told me that the county absolutely does not take ANY responsibility whatsoever, and he even proceeded to tell me that I could be held accountable if a weapon was stolen from those lockers because it states on my concealed pistol license that I am responsible for securing it.  So not only did he say the county was not responsible, he went a step further and placed any blame for theft or negligent damage on me, despite the fact that state law says the opposite.  So clearly in 3 separate ways those lockers don't qualify as lockboxes that the state mandates.

I think I hit most of the areas I was wanting to respond to. 

[turbo]

That court house is as cooked as the White house. Pathetic display of ignorance. No surprise..

[dontgetcrabs]

     Good for you XD.

[ghosthunter]

As much as I've attempted to keep up on photography/videography laws, it appears I may not have kept up as much as I should have. Actually, it does appear that the 2 Party Consent law, in Washington state, when regarding public officials, may have actually been over-turned by the Ninth Circuit Court.  This would mean it is legal, even without consent, as long as you are not interfering with duty.  I'm going to keep researching this because I'm reading conflicting information...

You are correct . This has been all over the news in Seattle with Seattle Pd telling folks they have to stop recording them. Seattle has been on the news several times retracting.
As long as you are not interfering with the officers doing their duty you can record both voice and video while they are acting as a public servant. As I understand it.

[dscubame]

Spokane police are going to start wearing video recorders, business owners have video recorders all over the state.  Residential home security cameras have video recorders.  Downtown cities have video recorders throughout the city.  Not sure what all this talk is about with permission and being video recorded.  I don't think I could drive to downtown Spokane without showing up on at least a few video recordings.

[returnofsid]

Spokane police are going to start wearing video recorders, business owners have video recorders all over the state.  Residential home security cameras have video recorders.  Downtown cities have video recorders throughout the city.  Not sure what all this talk is about with permission and being video recorded.  I don't think I could drive to downtown Spokane without showing up on at least a few video recordings.

The law specifically pertains to the recording of Voice.  Just as the officer kept saying, "you do not have permission to record my voice."  Had the portion of the law pertaining to Public Servants not been overturned, that officer would have been correct.  In other instances, all of those video recordings you've mentioned, none of them are legally allowed to record audio.  Video is allowed, in some instances, audio recording is not allowed.  In other video recordings that you've mentioned, sometimes they actually are not legal, other times, private property rights allows their use, as long as they do not record anywhere that is not included in that private property.  In any event, except on private property, audio recording is not allowed at all.  Even in jails, signs have to be posted in the visitor areas, explicitly stating that audio recorders are in place, IF they are in fact in use.  That's actually one of the only areas where audio recording, without consent, is allowed.

[dscubame]

Spokane police are going to start wearing video recorders, business owners have video recorders all over the state.  Residential home security cameras have video recorders.  Downtown cities have video recorders throughout the city.  Not sure what all this talk is about with permission and being video recorded.  I don't think I could drive to downtown Spokane without showing up on at least a few video recordings.

The law specifically pertains to the recording of Voice.  Just as the officer kept saying, "you do not have permission to record my voice."  Had the portion of the law pertaining to Public Servants not been overturned, that officer would have been correct.  In other instances, all of those video recordings you've mentioned, none of them are legally allowed to record audio.  Video is allowed, in some instances, audio recording is not allowed.  In other video recordings that you've mentioned, sometimes they actually are not legal, other times, private property rights allows their use, as long as they do not record anywhere that is not included in that private property.  In any event, except on private property, audio recording is not allowed at all.  Even in jails, signs have to be posted in the visitor areas, explicitly stating that audio recorders are in place, IF they are in fact in use.  That's actually one of the only areas where audio recording, without consent, is allowed.

Copy that.

[ghosthunter]

Perhaps how it was effectively fought in other counties that pulled this crap...

Or is it just a call to the Prosecuting office and filing a complaint and or following up withthe State office if nothing is done... Dunno just figured you might enlighten us a little...


Cool Thx

The three I know about were all handled through the prosecutors office. Since in many counties the prosecutor is the legal adviser for the county commissioners.
A call to the Skagit County Prosecutor solved both the lock box problem and fair sign problem.
Some open carriers have attended county commissioner meeting in other counties to inform them of their non compliance and have got change.
It is really cut and dried in this state. They have to provide lock boxes. Period.

On going along this line but a little off topic is signs in public parks saying No Firearms.
Totally against state law. Many have been changed but many still need to be changed.
They should read No Discharge of Firearms except for self Defense. Or something like that.

But prohibiting Firearms
 in Public Parks against state law.
Sorry off topic.
 

Yeah Seattle tried and were shot down in court.

[pat2bear]

I've only watched 35 seconds of it and had to pause it to comment here.  So far, he's already completely WRONG!  The officer is absolutely correct about video/voice recordings. I am a photographer and I pride myself on educating myself, very well, on the laws and rights pertaining to both still photography and videography.  Still photos fall under a completely different law, and are allowed anywhere that is public, except for a few exceptions.  HOWEVER, video and/or voice recordings are completely different and permission is indeed required!  Back to the video...

I may be wrong but I don't think that is entirely accurate. I know that at my work I have the ability to record conversations for record. (Even though I've never had to do it) But I believe the all party consent can can satisfied if announce to the other party that I will be recording the conversation before and after I start recording.

Announcing to the other parties does not constitute consent.  They have to actually consent, in any "2 Party Consent State."  In other words, if they tell you, "you do not have permission to record this conversation," you either have to stop recording, or hang up.

However, I'm finding conflicting information, when it comes to public servants.  That WAS the law, even with public servants.  However, I'm finding information that that MAY have been over-turned, by the Ninth Circuit Court, only when it comes to public servants.

Like I said I may be wrong but RCW reads like you don't need consent. This is what I found.
In Washington, you can satisfy the consent requirement by "announc[ing] to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted," so long as this announcement is also recorded. Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030(3).
I would think since you've now satisfied your obligation then it is now their choice to either be recorded or end the conversation.

[ghosthunter]

Some chatter here now.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?122352-Juror-refused-right-to-be-a-jury-over-asking-about-lock-box&p=2066363#post2066363

[ghosthunter]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/court-upholds-first-amendment-right-to-film-police/

[pat2bear]

You're probably right though Sid. It does say all party consent and I was also reading the federal law that says one party consent. Confusing. This is why I'm not a lawyer. 

[ghosthunter]

And this/

http://www.wolfstonelaw.com/kyreacos.html

[Stretch_8]

I've only watched 35 seconds of it and had to pause it to comment here.  So far, he's already completely WRONG!  The officer is absolutely correct about video/voice recordings. I am a photographer and I pride myself on educating myself, very well, on the laws and rights pertaining to both still photography and videography.  Still photos fall under a completely different law, and are allowed anywhere that is public, except for a few exceptions.  HOWEVER, video and/or voice recordings are completely different and permission is indeed required!  Back to the video...

Public officials have no expectations of privacy while performing their duties.  Too tired to link to all of the various rulings in WA alone.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[returnofsid]

I've only watched 35 seconds of it and had to pause it to comment here.  So far, he's already completely WRONG!  The officer is absolutely correct about video/voice recordings. I am a photographer and I pride myself on educating myself, very well, on the laws and rights pertaining to both still photography and videography.  Still photos fall under a completely different law, and are allowed anywhere that is public, except for a few exceptions.  HOWEVER, video and/or voice recordings are completely different and permission is indeed required!  Back to the video...

Public officials have no expectations of privacy while performing their duties.  Too tired to link to all of the various rulings in WA alone.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Laws relating to Still Photography hinge on an "reasonable expectation of privacy," whether Public Official or Not.  "Reasonable Expectation of Privacy" has absolutely nothing to do with the laws relating to Videography or Audio Recording. Most laws relating to Audio Recording actually fall under Wiretapping rules.