An Open Letter to Brevard County Sheriff Wayne Ivey

On Wednesday, October 23, 2013, your deputies [__arrested__](http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2013/10/23/jeff-gray-arrested-recording-cops-days-becoming-pinac-partner/) [*__Photography is Not a Crime__*](http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2013/10/23/jeff-gray-arrested-recording-cops-days-becoming-pinac-partner/) [__Editor Jeff Gray__](http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2013/10/23/jeff-gray-arrested-recording-cops-days-becoming-pinac-partner/) for legally video recording a traffic stop from a respectable distance, knocking the iPhone out of his hand and causing its screen to shatter, claiming his actions somehow jeopardized the safety of the deputies conducting the stop.

Now your department is refusing to return the shattered iPhone, along with his body-mounted cameras, claiming they must be held as “evidence” against Gray.

But cameras can only be held as evidence if they are used during the commission of a crime such as child pornography or upskirting, not trespassing or resisting arrest as Gray was charged with.

Obviously, the real crime here, at least in the eyes of your deputies, was that he was video recording the traffic stop, which was why they knocked the phone out of his hands and are refusing to return it along with the other cameras, even though they should be considered personal property and be returned upon release.

Judging by the deletion of comments from the Facebook page of the Brevard County’s Sheriff’s Office criticizing and questioning Gray’s arrest, it is becoming evident that withholding the cameras is merely an attempt at damage control.

As your staff has been informed, your department may be legally liable for destruction of public records for deleting comments on a social media page funded by taxpayer dollars.

Your department may also be held legally liable for arresting a citizen for video recording a traffic stop as numerous court decisions have determined that this is protected by the First Amendment, including [__Smith vs the City of Cumming__](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=212+F.3d+1332&hl=en&as_sdt=2,7&case=16398383335009435380&scilh=0), which states the following:

*As to the First Amendment claim under Section 1983, we agree with the Smiths that they had a First Amendment right, subject to reasonable time, manner and place restrictions, to photograph or videotape police conduct. The First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest*

Last year, the United States Department of Justice compiled a [__set of guidelines__](http://static.photographyisnotacrime.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/USDOJ-on-recording-cops.pdf) for police departments regarding the rights of citizens to record police on duty, listing several more significant cases that further affirmed this is Constitutionally protected behavior as well as pointing out that the warrantless seizure of a camera, unless it is done under exigent circumstances, which is not the case here, is a violation of a citizen’s First and Fourth Amendment rights:

*Police departments must also recognize that the seizure of a camera that may contain evidence of a crime is significantly different from the seizure of other evidence because such seizure implicates the First, as well as the Fourth, Amendment. The Supreme Court has afforded heightened protection to recordings containing material protected by the First Amendment.* ***An individual’s recording may contain both footage of a crime relevant to a police investigation and evidence of police misconduct.*** ***The latter falls squarely within the protection of First Amendment.*** *See, e.g., Gentile v. State Bar of Nev., 501 U.S. 1030, 1034 (1991) (“There is no question that speech critical of the exercise of the State’s power lies at the very center of the First Amendment.”). The warrantless seizure of such material is a form of prior restraint, a long disfavored practice. Roaden v. Kentucky, 413 U.S. 496, 503 (1973) (when an officer “br[ings] to an abrupt halt an orderly and presumptively legitimate distribution or exhibition” of material protected by the First Amendment, such action is “plainly a form of prior restraint and is, in those circumstances, unreasonable under Fourth Amendment standards.”). See also Rossignol v. Voorhaar, 316 F.3d 516, 522 (4th Cir. 2003) (Where sheriff’s deputies suppressed newspapers critical of the sheriff “before the critical commentary ever reached the eyes of readers, their conduct met the classic definition of a prior restraint.”). An officer’s warrantless seizure of an individual’s recording of police activity is no different. See Robinson v. Fetterman, 378 F.Supp.2d 534, 541 (E.D. Penn 2005) (By restraining an individual from “publicizing or publishing what he has filmed,” officer’s “conduct clearly amounts to an unlawful prior restraint upon [] protected speech.”); see Channel 10, Inc. v. Gunnarson, 337 F.Supp. 634, 637 (D.Minn. 1972) (“it is clear to this court that the seizure and holding of the camera and undeveloped film was an unlawful ‘prior restraint’ whether or not the film was ever reviewed.”).* 

Sheriff Ivey, it is obvious that you are no stranger to social media, frequently posting on your personal Facebook page as well as your official [__“public figure” Facebook page__](http://photographyisnotacrime.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/SheriffWayneIvey), not to mention the official [__Brevard County Sheriff’s Office Facebook page__](http://photographyisnotacrime.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/BrevardCountySheriff1) where numerous comments have been deleted.

So we ask that you provide a public statement on the latter two Facebook pages as to why was a member of the public arrested for legally recording a traffic stop and why haven’t his cameras been returned?

On Wednesday, October 23, 2013, your deputies [__arrested__](http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2013/10/23/jeff-gray-arrested-recording-cops-days-becoming-pinac-partner/) [*__Photography is Not a Crime__*](http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2013/10/23/jeff-gray-arrested-recording-cops-days-becoming-pinac-partner/) [__Editor Jeff Gray__](http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2013/10/23/jeff-gray-arrested-recording-cops-days-becoming-pinac-partner/) for legally video recording a traffic stop from a respectable distance, knocking the iPhone out of his hand and causing its screen to shatter, claiming his actions somehow jeopardized the safety of the deputies conducting the stop.

Now your department is refusing to return the shattered iPhone, along with his body-mounted cameras, claiming they must be held as “evidence” against Gray.

But cameras can only be held as evidence if they are used during the commission of a crime such as child pornography or upskirting, not trespassing or resisting arrest as Gray was charged with.

Obviously, the real crime here, at least in the eyes of your deputies, was that he was video recording the traffic stop, which was why they knocked the phone out of his hands and are refusing to return it along with the other cameras, even though they should be considered personal property and be returned upon release.

Judging by the deletion of comments from the Facebook page of the Brevard County’s Sheriff’s Office criticizing and questioning Gray’s arrest, it is becoming evident that withholding the cameras is merely an attempt at damage control.

As your staff has been informed, your department may be legally liable for destruction of public records for deleting comments on a social media page funded by taxpayer dollars.

Your department may also be held legally liable for arresting a citizen for video recording a traffic stop as numerous court decisions have determined that this is protected by the First Amendment, including [__Smith vs the City of Cumming__](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=212+F.3d+1332&hl=en&as_sdt=2,7&case=16398383335009435380&scilh=0), which states the following:

*As to the First Amendment claim under Section 1983, we agree with the Smiths that they had a First Amendment right, subject to reasonable time, manner and place restrictions, to photograph or videotape police conduct. The First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest*

Last year, the United States Department of Justice compiled a [__set of guidelines__](http://static.photographyisnotacrime.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/USDOJ-on-recording-cops.pdf) for police departments regarding the rights of citizens to record police on duty, listing several more significant cases that further affirmed this is Constitutionally protected behavior as well as pointing out that the warrantless seizure of a camera, unless it is done under exigent circumstances, which is not the case here, is a violation of a citizen’s First and Fourth Amendment rights:

*Police departments must also recognize that the seizure of a camera that may contain evidence of a crime is significantly different from the seizure of other evidence because such seizure implicates the First, as well as the Fourth, Amendment. The Supreme Court has afforded heightened protection to recordings containing material protected by the First Amendment.* ***An individual’s recording may contain both footage of a crime relevant to a police investigation and evidence of police misconduct.*** ***The latter falls squarely within the protection of First Amendment.*** *See, e.g., Gentile v. State Bar of Nev., 501 U.S. 1030, 1034 (1991) (“There is no question that speech critical of the exercise of the State’s power lies at the very center of the First Amendment.”). The warrantless seizure of such material is a form of prior restraint, a long disfavored practice. Roaden v. Kentucky, 413 U.S. 496, 503 (1973) (when an officer “br[ings] to an abrupt halt an orderly and presumptively legitimate distribution or exhibition” of material protected by the First Amendment, such action is “plainly a form of prior restraint and is, in those circumstances, unreasonable under Fourth Amendment standards.”). See also Rossignol v. Voorhaar, 316 F.3d 516, 522 (4th Cir. 2003) (Where sheriff’s deputies suppressed newspapers critical of the sheriff “before the critical commentary ever reached the eyes of readers, their conduct met the classic definition of a prior restraint.”). An officer’s warrantless seizure of an individual’s recording of police activity is no different. See Robinson v. Fetterman, 378 F.Supp.2d 534, 541 (E.D. Penn 2005) (By restraining an individual from “publicizing or publishing what he has filmed,” officer’s “conduct clearly amounts to an unlawful prior restraint upon [] protected speech.”); see Channel 10, Inc. v. Gunnarson, 337 F.Supp. 634, 637 (D.Minn. 1972) (“it is clear to this court that the seizure and holding of the camera and undeveloped film was an unlawful ‘prior restraint’ whether or not the film was ever reviewed.”).* 

Sheriff Ivey, it is obvious that you are no stranger to social media, frequently posting on your personal Facebook page as well as your official [__“public figure” Facebook page__](http://photographyisnotacrime.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/SheriffWayneIvey), not to mention the official [__Brevard County Sheriff’s Office Facebook page__](http://photographyisnotacrime.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/BrevardCountySheriff1) where numerous comments have been deleted.

So we ask that you provide a public statement on the latter two Facebook pages as to why was a member of the public arrested for legally recording a traffic stop and why haven’t his cameras been returned?

Support our Mission

Help us build a database of bad cops

For almost 15 years, PINAC News has remained active despite continuous efforts by the government and Big Tech to shut us down by either arresting us for lawful activity or by restricting access to our readers under the pretense that we write about “social issues.”

Since we are forbidden from discussing social issues on social media, we have created forums on our site to allow us to fulfill our mission with as little restriction as possible. We welcome our readers to join our forums and support our mission by either donating, volunteering or both.

Our plan is to build a national database of bad cops obtained from public records maintained by local prosecutors. The goal is to teach our readers how to obtain these lists to ensure we cover every city, county and state in the country.

After all, the government has made it clear it will not police the police so the role falls upon us.

It will be our most ambitious project yet but it can only be done with your help.

But if we succeed, we will be able to keep innocent people out of prison.

Please make a donation below or click on side tab to learn more about our mission.

Subscribe to PINAC

Bypass Big Tech censorship.

Carlos Millerhttps://pinacnews.com
Editor-in-Chief Carlos Miller spent a decade covering the cop beat for various newspapers in the Southwest before returning to his hometown Miami and launching Photography is Not a Crime aka PINAC News in 2007. He also published a book, The Citizen Journalist's Photography Handbook, which is available on Amazon.

Leave a Reply

- Advertisement -

Latest articles