**** – *** – ** – * WHERE’S THE MONEY, STEDMAN?

This entry was posted in Lancaster Courts, Lancaster Newspapers, Police, Racism, Unsolved Murders. Bookmark the permalink.

— Doing some research this afternoon. Posting tomorrow will be sporadic if at all. LIP News will absolutely return on Friday. —

**** ABC-27’s recent photo of Debra Slaymaker-Walker leaving the District Judge’s office after her preliminary hearing. Does this new law say this is no longer “legal?” How could that even be possible?

***   The statute, unlawful use of an audio or video device in court, makes it illegal for anyone to capture, record, transmit or broadcast a photograph, video, motion picture or audio of a proceeding or person within a judicial facility or in an area adjacent to that facility.
     That would include witnesses, defendants, lawyers or other parties involved in such proceedings.
From the press release below.
     Wow! Does this mean no more pictures of the alleged perp. walking into the District Judge’s office? Really? Does anyone know?

**   Stedman’s spokesperson, Brett Hambright, is busy this morning. Click here to read the below press release!

 

*     I wrote in detail about this ridiculous editorial – click here. Where’s the $149,950 laser-shooting crime scene scanner, Stedman?

******

OVER 40 UNSOLVED MURDERS!

The beginning of the recent LNP editorial, “Given the key role DNA played in finding Christy Mirack’s killer, launching Unsolved Homicide Unit seems smart,” (click here).        

     One of the callers over the last few weeks with information on the goings on in  the District Attorney’s Office asked me: “Why would Stedman only have $10,000?” I didn’t and don’t have an answer. It’s absurd! There are over 40 unsolved murders in the last 25 years. Where’s the money, Stedman?
Please check back later today. 

22 Responses to **** – *** – ** – * WHERE’S THE MONEY, STEDMAN?

  1. Give me a Break says:

    That may be, but currently it is not the law and never has been.

  2. Anonymous says:

    ALL court proceedings should be open to the public, news media, audio and video recording – with rules to maintain decorum. Its called TRANSPARENCY. And nowhere is transparency more important than a court of law. The end.

  3. Give me a Break says:

    For the last time……I neither said nor implied that you cannot record law enforcement in public places…I’m well aware of the precedent saying that is permitted (as long as you do not interfere or break any other law while doing so). I do not know why you and galty have latched onto that issue and idea….particularly since the post that this particular comment section relates to has nothing to do with that. If you read the definition within the statute, it only prohibits filming in areas directly adjacent to a courtroom or a hearing room….these would be areas WITHIN a courthouse.

    I actually have two degrees that relate to and included the study of constitutional law. In general, yes, you may film in most public places, even public officials. But, the right is more complicated than that general statement and not unlimited, especially when you are not in a traditional public forum where free speech is most protected. Currently, the law remains that neither the public nor the media has a First Amendment right to videotape, photograph, or make audio recordings of government proceedings that are by law open to the public. The law also states, and ALWAYS HAS, that certain time, place and manner restrictions can be placed on 1st amendment rights, including the right to film/photograph, even if it is a public forum, but particularly where that place is only for limited public use.

  4. Anonymous says:

    GMAB, Please tell us where you got your graduate degree in Constitutional law so that we don’t waste any more of your precious time. Also, I assume you are familiar w/the 3rd Circuit ruling on the matters of which you speak.

  5. galty says:

    S/C has ruled that the filming of Federal buildings and the Police and also all federal workers is lawful.

    Decent Americans are standing up for these rights.

    Some have been arrested over it and the Police Officers have been fired after court hearings for abusing the right of the citizen for filming.

  6. Give me a Break says:

    I never said that the taking of the photo, or any other taken outside, was illegal.

    But I am done trying to carry on a legal discussion with someone who gets their legal education/advice from Youtubers.

  7. Galty says:

    You cannot trespass what your eyes can see in public

    So that Photo is protected under the S/C 2010 ruling.

  8. Give me a Break says:

    And I’m sorry, but I cannot agree with their tactics, no matter what they say their purpose is…..it is harassment, plain and simple.

    https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article224221620.html

  9. Give me a Break says:

    I’m pretty sure I know what 2010 “SC ruling” you are talking about and it is not a ruling from any court. It is one of two things, if I am correct in my assumptions: a settlement document between two parties in a federal lawsuit often cited by auditors that is not a ruling from a court; or a Department of Homeland Security Memo to DHS officers concerning how to deal with citizens filming police and the exterior of federal buildings/property often cited by auditors. Neither one of these are court decisions and neither one is law.

    Furthermore, once again, you are talking about people filming from the outside looking in. That is not what the law at issue on this blog addresses.

  10. Galty says:

    Answer to Give me a Break

    Please look at YOUR 2010 SC ruling.

    IT states in America you can film anything if you are in a public place including military bases.

    IN the UK we have the same law except we cannot film a Military base.

    If as in both countries if you are on a public sidewalk/pavement you can film what ever you like.

  11. Give me a Break says:

    I refer to legal precedent and you refer to Youtube….yep, sounds about right considering the forum….

    I’m fully aware of “1st Amendment Audits”….I see them as grown adults acting immaturely and claiming to raise awareness while, in reality, just seeking social media notoriety. Their acts don’t really change the law and, as most of them test the right to videotape police and other officials in actual public places, are not really relevant to the law at issue….which, as pointed out in the comments above, is really limited to official proceedings and places within a courthouse, a limited public forum, and not the sidewalk outside.

  12. Give me a Break says:

    1st Amendment rights are way more complicated than that and by no means absolute. It is quite false to simply state that you can film anything you want in a public place…particularly where that place is only for limited public use (i.e., inside a courthouse). You also don’t have a right to obstruct justice, intimidate witnesses, film judicial proceedings or record certain conversations. It has long been recognized that 1st amendment rights may be restricted in time, place, and manner if they promote a proper interest and are appropriately tailored (depending on the type of restriction).

  13. Galty says:

    I live in England and have follow the many of the 1st Amendment Audits on You Tube.

    A Supreme ruling in 2010 was ruled you can film anything from a PUBLIC place.

    Any local law is invalided.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Lancaster County already has such a law. A guy was charged with posting family cour video to FB. The state law simply puts more teeth into it. As I read it, the law only applies to judicial districts that already have a similar local rule of court. Can they stop cameras crews from setting up shop outside a courthouse as people shuffle out of a newsworthy criminal or civil case? Doubtful.

  15. Anon says:

    Look at the votes for it…..not a single nay in any of the committees, the House or the Senate.

  16. Anon says:

    Read the definition of a judicial facility. It is limited and does not include the whole courthouse.

  17. Anon says:

    I have actually seen the scanner used in a case involving a complicated multi-car accident not too long ago.

  18. huh? says:

    Unconstitutional. Taking photos or videotaping in a public place such as outside on the street is legal. wonder if the LNP or other media will challenge this?

    • Becky says:

      I am trying to find the actual law. Anyone?

      * Edited – Oops! Hambright links to it:

      Unlawful use of an audio or video device in court.

      • Becky says:

        § 5103.1. Unlawful use of an audio or video device in court.

        (a) Offense defined.–A person commits an offense if the person in any manner and for any purpose uses oroperates a device to capture, record, transmit or broadcast a photograph, video, motionpicture or audio of a proceeding or person within a judicial facility or in an areaadjacent to or immediately surrounding a judicial facility without the approval ofthe court or presiding judicial officer or except as provided by rules of court.