DHS Fusion Center Admits Photographer Is Covered By 1st Amendment But Just Doesn't Like The Way He Treats Officers
from the rights-apparently-dependent-on-compliant-behavior dept
The uselessness of the Department of Homeland Security's Fusion Centers has been detailed here before, but they've never been quite as useless as this. Here's the backstory, from Carlos Miller at Photography Is Not A Crime.
All Jeff Gray has been trying to do is ensure law enforcement officers honor the oath they swore to the Constitution upon receiving their badge, which is why he routinely video records them in public for his Youtube channel, HONORYOUROATH.When not recording interactions with cops, Gray also photographs publicly-visible structures like government buildings and prisons -- the sort of photography that has been equated with terrorism by the DHS.
But that has led him to become the subject of an active investigation by the Florida Fusion Center, a collusion of local, state and federal law enforcement agencies encouraging citizens to rat on each other for taking too many pictures or asking too many questions.
Gray sent FOIA requests to several law enforcement agencies for anything they may have collected on his photography and recording efforts. Some requests didn't produce any documents, but others he obtained show that law enforcement agencies clearly don't know how to solve a problem like Jeff.
The most ridiculous document Jeff Gray obtained was from a DHS Fusion Center. Here's the Center's rationale for treating Gray with suspicion: He's clearly covered by the First Amendment. We just don't like his attitude.
Seriously.
On 06-23-2013, units with CCSO were dispatched to CCA, a private prison located within Columbia County, after being contacted by prison staff in reference to a suspicious person. The Subject was recording and or taking pictures of the front as he was standing on a public access across the street from the prison. Once confronted by prison staff the subject only stated that he was an independent journalist and was doing a story on the prison system. The subject refused to stop videoing after being asked to do so by prison staff. During the confrontation the subject referred to his first amendment right to be there and continued to question and press the staff to give him a reason why he could not record the outside of the facility. Once law enforcement arrived, the subject was asked for identification, the subject asked if he was being detained and once told that he was not he refused to provide ID to law enforcement. Ultimately the situation was diffused and the subject left. The subject later posted the videos of his encounters with the prison staff and CCSO Deputies on YouTube and on another website called photography is not a crime.com. This subject is exercising his first amendment rights, however the manner in which he lures the officers in is concerning.To paraphrase Homer Simpson: it takes two to lure, one to lure and one to overreact to the utter lack of criminal activity. But the Fusion Center obviously believes that, First Amendment or no, Gray should be checked out because he's making police officers, prison staff and government agents looks bad with his "manner."
On the bright side (I guess…), the Fusion Center's "investigation" apparently involved little more than rigorously browsing the internet.
The following information has been learned from viewing the mentioned website and the subject's YouTube account.The findings? Gray urges people to "flex their rights," and publicly calls out (via YouTube postings) officers who fail to respect his rights. Troubling stuff, but not for the reason the DHS thinks.
Beyond the DHS's belief that Gray's attitude should somehow nullify his rights, other troubling info was uncovered as well.
Gray also obtained a series of field intelligence reports from the St. Johns Sheriff’s Office regarding his video activity. One of the reports includes an incident when he was visited by the Florida Department of Children and Families after they claimed they received an anonymous tip that he had guns in his home, which is not a crime and not even a secret considering Gray is very open about his gun ownership.I guess the lesson here is that "luring" cops and security guards through the open exercise of your rights is all the reason needed for law enforcement and government agencies to open investigations. The implication that there's something more wrong with Gray's "luring" than there is with law enforcement's response is ridiculous. Law enforcement officers certainly don't need to "flex" their misguided muscle when confronted with a citizen "flexing" their rights. One is wholly optional while the other is actually protected activity.
But that didn’t stop DCF from interviewing his children at school without his knowledge before paying him a visit at home, which he video recorded and posted on Youtube, as well as his follow-up phone conversation with the investigator that his children were not in any imminent danger, so there was no need to further investigate him.
This lousy spin attempt from the Fusion Center does nothing to improve the reputation of this national travesty. Maybe next time, officers could just walk away and not become YouTube fodder. But they can't seem to help themselves, and the DHS seems to believe it's all Gray's fault.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 1st amendment, dhs, fusion center, jeff gray, photographers
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If a bad attitude were a criminal offense, most cops that I have encountered would meet the criteria and should be locked up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Whether or not the threat is ever acted upon is irrelevant at that point, like you said, what parent is going to risk it when dealing with people so screwed up that they'll involve the kids of the person they have a problem with just to make a point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or when the officers overstepped their rights, and were angry that he knew and stood up for his rights?
That they secretly spoke to his children about his ownership of guns following up an alleged tip about something, fishing for information from children.
This would be the same DCF that has had multiple children in care under their watch turn up missing and dead, but they had time to go after someone who bothered some cops that one time.
Yes this totally wasn't a witch hunt started because dude takes pictures and wasn't meek enough when they pursued it... wanna buy a bridge?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is no law against making law enforcement uncomfortable. They should NEVER ask anyone to stop doing something completely lawful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Rights must be exercised or they are lost. Authority figures harassing any group or individual for exercising their freedoms is tyranny!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Simply standing there in uniform at least implies an official order, no matter how the order is phrased. An official order to stop exercising a constitutional right is what is known as a color of law violation (18USC242). The most basic level of such a violation, an oral order to stop exercising rights, is worth a year in federal prison and/or a $1,000 fine, assuming a federal prosecutor can be bothered to file the charges.
In many states (and at the federal level) simply possessing a firearm while committing a crime makes that crime an armed crime. A law enforcement officer resting a hand on or near a holstered firearm is a threat of deadly force. A violation of rights by a public official with threat or use of a dangerous weapon (batons, TASERs, pepper spray and firearms all qualify) elevates the punishment of the offense to ten years and/or $10,000 fine.
Two or more public officials acting together to violate rights (even at the oral order level) trip over the conspiracy against rights statute (18USC241), which starts penalties off one step more severe than the individual color of law offenses, at ten years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine.
By any standard, a crime carrying a sentence of ten years in prison if convicted is a felony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scary
"But that didn’t stop DCF from interviewing his children at school without his knowledge before paying him a visit at home"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not the answer huh? Good thing you were not around during WWII.
USA Founding Fathers are on record ad nausea that we would eventually have to fight for our freedoms again. Hence the 2nd Amendment.
The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of Patriots and Tyrants!
Give me Liberty or Give me Death!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
THERE IS NO RECOURSE, we can't even get 'redress for our greivances'; we are subject to fucking "free speech zones" FOR FUCK'S SAKE: fascist authoritarianism is right in your face, unless you avert your gaze as Empire wants you to...
injustice you say ?
KARDASHIANS, BOOBS, SEX, etc ad nauseum...
civil rights you say ?
bread and circuses, citizen, bread and circuses...
now, shutup, eat your crust, and laugh, slave, laugh...
before an idea/meme becomes current, precursors must prepare the way...
semper paratis, kampers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Police behavior is nothing new
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Police behavior is nothing new
If this were today, he would have been run off the road without warning, and filled with 30 to 50 rounds of 9mm ammunition so that the officer could feel "safe" in confronting him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Police behavior is nothing new
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two to 'lure'
As far as his gun ownership is concerned - I am in favor of a inspection system where responsible ownership can be verified (think OSHA inspections for food places). But as it is, no such system exists, and this obviously was a pretense to invade his privacy, harass him, and/or fishing for something to be used in order to bring charges against him.
In the end, I get the feeling that Mr. Miller is trolling for reaction, and DHS is giving it to him in spades.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two to 'lure'
Screw you.
The Right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
Something tells me you like most other idiots that are PART OF THE PROBLEM cannot read to save their own damn liberties!
Even so much as saying you must wait 2 additional seconds is an infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two to 'lure'
However, to call someone who takes an reasonable interpretation that you happen to disagree with an idiot who can't read is to out yourself as an idiot who can't understand the heart of the dispute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Two to 'lure'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Two to 'lure'
No, it isn't unclear at all.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
If you believe the phrase "the right of the people" in the sentence above refers to a collective, rather than an indiviudal right, you also have to believe that the phrase "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" refers to a collective, not an individual right. I'm sure your local police will be delighted to know that you're okay with them searching your house without a warrant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two to 'lure'
In the end, I get the feeling that Mr. Miller is trolling for reaction, and DHS is giving it to him in spades.
Yes, that's the point. If nobody reacted to what he was doing, his work would be done. As long as police continue to harass him and others for doing things that are legal, there's still a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two to 'lure'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
provocative innocence
He is luring us in, and this is very concerning, therefore we should approach him. It is a lure, in that there is really no reason for us to approach him, and yet he is causing us to approach him by acting in a way that gives us no reason to do so. If there really were a reason for us to approach him, then he would not be luring us. In that case he would be doing nothing wrong, but in fact he is doing nothing wrong; this is very concerning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]