Is It Legal To Record Audio or Video of California Traffic Stops

[Madmanmike1972]

I am from CT this is all I need

SEC. 5. No law shall ever be passed to curtail or restrain the liberty of speech or of the press.

SEC. 8. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have a right to be heard by himself and by counsel; to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted by the witnesses against him;

I know its hard for you Statutory people but the Constitution has all the needed answers.

[cdwjava]

I know its hard for you Statutory people but the Constitution has all the needed answers.

Well, since statutory law is derived from the Constitution (and tested against the restrictions and limitations imposed by that document), then even you must adhere to statutory law.

You may not like it, but there it is.

The Constitution is not a document of statutes. It does not proscribe penalties for offenses, nor does it address a host of issues related to but not directly mentioned within it. That's why we have had to create a codified system of laws.

My state is NOT a statutory (common law) state. Per my state's Penal Code:

4. The rule of the common law, that penal statutes are to be
strictly construed, has no application to this Code. All its
provisions are to be construed according to the fair import of their
terms, with a view to effect its objects and to promote justice.

So, I do not work in a state that adheres to a strict interpretation of statutory law ... though very often it seems to be the case.


- Carl

[Madmanmike1972]

Well, since statutory law is derived from the Constitution (and tested against the restrictions and limitations imposed by that document), then even you must adhere to statutory law.

But Statutes are not laws, would you agree? I dont see any evidence of Statutory Law being derived from the Constitution.

SEC. 2. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority

[cdwjava]

But Statutes are not laws, would you agree? I dont see any evidence of Statutory Law being derived from the Constitution.

Sure they are. And if you will read the Constitution it certainly does NOT restrict the states - or even the federal government - from codifying laws. Even in the time of our founding fathers, people were tried based upon violations of state and even federal law - laws created and codified by the legislative bodies of the time. There are a host of criminal cases involving all manner of malfeasance from that time. Just in reading the Federalist Papers you will see plenty.

Once again, your interpretation is not relevant to a discussion of what the law is. If you want to start a discussion on what the law SHOULD be (in your opinion) please take it to the appropriate board. Most these boards are concerned with discussion of what the law IS, not what some people think it should be.

- Carl

[Madmanmike1972]

Ok well there seems to be a problem

The style of their laws shall be: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened.

I dont see any enacting clauses on Statutes.

[cdwjava]

Ok well there seems to be a problem




I dont see any enacting clauses on Statutes.

Amazing how no courts or attorneys have managed to catch that every statute in the USA is unlawful. Wow!


- Carl

[Madmanmike1972]

Amazing how no courts or attorneys have managed to catch that every statute in the USA is unlawful. Wow!

Then they would lose their fun jobs.

[BOR]

The style of their laws shall be: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened

.

Ok well there seems to be a problem


I dont see any enacting clauses on Statutes.

That IS the statutory enacting clause.

[BOR]

SEC. 5. No law shall ever be passed to curtail or restrain the liberty of speech or of the press

.

I am from CT this is all I need



I know its hard for you Statutory people but the Constitution has all the needed answers.

As with ANY personal liberty clause/AM in any state constitution, it is subject to judicial scrutiny. The federal 1st AM provides freedom of speech and of the press also, but the USSC interprets this. For instance, "fighting words" are NOT protected speech and many examples can follow.


Additionally, the media is NOT immune from libel/slander suits simply because the 1st AM provides "on it's face" protection. The case law is settled in this matter.

[Madmanmike1972]

That IS the statutory enacting clause.

The Statutes dont have this language therefore they are not laws.

What you are talking about is Judicial Legislation. I dont believe fighting words compare to filming a Police Stop, after all the Police are watching us all day long on their "Crime Fighting Cameras" and use the excuse that they are in public view therefore not a violation of privacy.