Did Danbury violate Constitution?
YouTuber’s ‘audit’ brings up questions about First, Fourth amendments
The YouTuber who has recorded his interactions with police and security guards at the Danbury Library and City Hall claims they tried to violate his First and Fourth amendment rights.
But experts say the situation is more complicated.
“There’s a lot more nuance than that,” said Laszlo Pinter, the city’s attorney.
Danbury police department has launched an internal investigation into its officers’ response captured in YouTuber Sean Paul Reyes’ video where he refused to stop recording at the Danbury Library, despite a library policy banning filming without permission.
A second video, where police are called when the YouTuber declines to give his name to a security guard at Danbury City Hall, is not part of the investigation, Chief Patrick Ridenhour said.
The five officers from the library incident, including a city sergeant who the YouTuber says he intends to sue, remain on duty, Ridenhour said.
“It has not been necessary to put anyone one on leave,” he said in an email.
Ridenhour declined to comment further, citing the ongoing investigation. Hearst Connecticut Media requested through the Freedom of Information Act the records of the officers involved in the library incident, as well as the body camera footage.
Both videos are edited.
“I only see one side of the story,” Mayor Joe Cavo said. “Until I get all the facts, I’m going to reserve my comment and see what happens with the rest of the information and how things proceed.”
Danbury plans to keep its building policies in place, although officials are reviewing the incidents.
“First Amendment law is very complicated,” Cavo said. “Fourth Amendment law is very complicated. We’re trying to sort out how that relates to our responsibilities here as a public agency, and we’re working out those details now within inside counsel and outside counsel.”
An ‘audit’ on rights
Reyes is part of a social media movement known as “First Amendment Audits,” where people film in public buildings, such as libraries or municipal centers, in an attempt to showcase how officials abide by the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and the press.
Allied Universal, the security company that the Danbury guards in the videos work for, trains its staff on how to respond to these auditors, the company spokeswoman said.
Guards take a specific training module on these audits when they join the company. The module includes “appropriate practices for how to handle these situations,” spokeswoman Vanessa Showalter said.
Guards are informed if auditors are in their area and get additional tips if so, she said.
The company has seen auditors the most in California, where Allied Universal, is based, she said.
“Their whole goal is to provoke on-site security professionals in order to illicit a negative response,” she said. “The reason why they do this is so they can get a lot of likes on their Facebook and their social sites in order to get money. That is their whole goal.”
Reyes told Hearst Connecticut Media on Friday that he aims to exercise his rights and educate police through his videos. He said he aims to start an outreach program in Connecticut where activists like himself could shed light on rights violations and is thinking about starting a YouTube channel to teach kids about these issues.
He said he has not taken any criminal justice courses and learned what he knows through YouTube and other online sources.
“I’m a big believer of knowing your rights,” he said.
His channel, Long Island Audit, has about 24,200 subscribers as of Monday evening, up from around 22,800 subscribers on Friday. His video at Danbury Library has 66,000 views, while the City Hall video has 49,000 views.
“Heck, if it does nothing other than make government employees aware that we the people have the right to observe that which is observable by the naked eye, it can’t be a bad thing from where we sit,” said Dan Barrett, legal director with the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut.
Cavo said he’d rather see a collaborative approach.
“I see what this guys doing and he has the right to do that,” he said. “For me, I don’t know. I think in this world we need to figure out how to work together instead of instigate.”
Some police officers know Constitutional law better than others, Barrett said.
“It’s never been clear to me that the training, if any, that they get on the free speech and the right to memorialize has any effect,” he said.
First Amendment concerns
Individuals have the right to film in and from public places, Barrett said.
“Anywhere that you are allowed to be as a member of the public and anything you can see with your own eyes, it’s fair game,” he said.
But the rules get “trickier” in places that are more “sensitive,” he said. Libraries can be places where people research or conduct private activities, such as research health related information, he said.
So, it’s unclear whether the library’s policy banning filming or photography would stand in court.
“It depends a little bit on what’s restricted where and what the library’s interests are,” Barrett said.
The library policy states that filming or photography is not allowed inside the building without permission from the library director. Patrons may not take photos or videos of other library users without their permission.
Motivations don’t matter when it comes to the First Amendment, Barrett said.
“It doesn’t particularly matter from the First Amendment standpoint,” Barrett said. “That’s all fair game. What matters is whether the library has a good enough reason and an appropriately tailored policy.”
Fourth Amendment concerns
In a second video uploaded Sunday, Reyes goes to City Hall to file his intent to sue a Danbury police sergeant but refuses to give his name to the security guard, as required for visitors under COVID-19 precautions.
“I shouldn’t have to surrender my Fourth Amendment right to enter a public building,” Reyes says.
“Don’t go there,” the security guard says.
“Don’t go there,” Reyes says. This is the United States of America.”
“I am the guard here,” the security officer says. “I don’t make the rules. I enforce the rules. This is what they want me to do. They want me to take your name, give you a card and you go upstairs.”
Collecting names to contact trace for COVID-19 in public buildings would likely not violate people’s protection from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment, Barrett said.
“In the time of COVID — mercifully waning though it is in Connecticut — it may be the case that collecting names is O.K., providing there is sufficient restriction on the use of those names,” Barrett said.
It’s fine if Danbury throws out the names after 14 days, but not if the city uses them to track if those people are paying their taxes, for example, he said.
Pinter argued the YouTuber’s claim about the Fourth Amendment violation is “misplaced.” Asking for someone’s name to enter a public building for COVID or security reasons is “reasonable,” he said.
“Asking for identification is not a seizure if it’s reasonable,” Pinter said. “If it’s reasonable, it’s not a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.”