- Jan 14, 2014
- 50
What are First Amendment Auditors?
By Evan Avnet, USTASC
Disclaimer: The following text should be read as informative only and not as legal advice, RAS, or probable cause. Contact your attorney and/or state’s attorneys office for legal advice.
The recent months have seen a rise in the number of people who call themselves “First Amendment auditors” or “free speech activists.” These self-proclaimed activists enter businesses, public areas and other locations to test the limits of their freedom of speech and capture video footage that can then be posted on social media. While some may view these activities as harmless, they can cause serious problems for business owners, police departments and security personnel. Let's discuss what First Amendment auditors are and why they are becoming an issue.
Auditors can be spotted easily:
First Amendment auditors are typically individuals who record their interactions with law enforcement officers, security guards or other authorities while in public places in order to test their right to free speech. They may also take pictures or film inside businesses or other private locations without permission to further demonstrate their rights. I many cases they will enter public buildings and record staff, walk around hallways, enter open offices, etc in an attempt to inflame and irritate building personnel. In many cases, these individuals claim that they are testing the boundaries of their constitutional rights, though there is no legal basis for such claims. It is important to note that these activities can be dangerous and can lead to confrontations with law enforcement or security personnel if not handled properly. It should also be noted that their activity can prompt serious civil litigation if not handled properly. Although their claims are protecting the 1st amendment, many auditors record in order to 1) obtain grounds for civil action against police, security personnel, and business owners. 2) Monetize their social media channels. 3) Make business owners, police and security personnel look bad publicly.
What Are the Issues?
There have been numerous reports of First Amendment auditors creating issues for business owners and police departments across the country. In some cases, these activists have entered into businesses without permission and caused disturbances by filming customers without their consent or taking pictures of employees without asking first. Additionally, many police departments have reported an increase in calls regarding these activists entering into restricted areas or attempting to interfere with law enforcement operations.
The problem with First Amendment auditors is that they often do not understand the full scope of their rights under the Constitution as well as local laws and regulations governing public spaces. This lack of understanding can lead to confrontations between them and authority figures which can quickly escalate into dangerous situations for everyone involved.
Business owners should be aware that 1st amendment auditors have the right to be present on public property and may even record conversations between themselves and staff members. Police and security officers should understand that recording from public property (i.e. roadway, sidewalk, park, etc) is not illegal. There is no expectation of privacy in public areas or from view from a public area. The peeping tom law does not apply unless they are recording into a window from private property.
Businesses that choose to should post “NO TRESPASSING” signs at entryways and property boundaries, including parking lots, not just on buildings. Business owners should not confront these individuals or have discussions with them. If they are on your property business owners can call police to have them trespassed from their property.
Laws that apply:
It is important for business owners and security personnel alike to be aware of how First Amendment auditing can create issues in public spaces and private businesses alike. By understanding who these activists are, what they do, and how to handle them should they arrive on your premises you can help ensure that everyone remains safe during any potential encounters with them. Furthermore, it is important for those engaging in this activity to understand the limits of their rights under both federal law as well as local regulations so as not create unnecessary conflict when exercising their rights in a public space or business setting.
Do you agree with first amendment auditors? Why or why not?
By Evan Avnet, USTASC
Disclaimer: The following text should be read as informative only and not as legal advice, RAS, or probable cause. Contact your attorney and/or state’s attorneys office for legal advice.
The recent months have seen a rise in the number of people who call themselves “First Amendment auditors” or “free speech activists.” These self-proclaimed activists enter businesses, public areas and other locations to test the limits of their freedom of speech and capture video footage that can then be posted on social media. While some may view these activities as harmless, they can cause serious problems for business owners, police departments and security personnel. Let's discuss what First Amendment auditors are and why they are becoming an issue.
Auditors can be spotted easily:
- Recording from areas adjacent to business or government building entrances
- Recording individuals and vehicles entering and leaving the premises
- Recording through the windows of parked vehicles, especially police vehicles
- Moving toward property or being on property that they feel is not trespassing (i.e. not posted as trespassing). Sometimes they claim that there is a right that allows them closer to the private property.
- Have recording equipment, usually portable video recorders such as GoPros, cell phones, or similar type devices
- Are confrontational with business owners, police officers, and security personnel
- Use inflammatory rhetoric in an attempt to enflame the situation so it results in an assault, that then prompts civil litigation on the property owner or complaints on law enforcement personnel
- Use of drones over private property or government property, especially law enforcement agencies
- Use of language such as “I don’t answer questions” , “I am not required to present identification”, “Am I committing a crime?”, “Am I being detained?”, “What is your name and ID number”.
- Claim to support law enforcement just not “bad” law enforcement who do not support 1st amendment rights.
First Amendment auditors are typically individuals who record their interactions with law enforcement officers, security guards or other authorities while in public places in order to test their right to free speech. They may also take pictures or film inside businesses or other private locations without permission to further demonstrate their rights. I many cases they will enter public buildings and record staff, walk around hallways, enter open offices, etc in an attempt to inflame and irritate building personnel. In many cases, these individuals claim that they are testing the boundaries of their constitutional rights, though there is no legal basis for such claims. It is important to note that these activities can be dangerous and can lead to confrontations with law enforcement or security personnel if not handled properly. It should also be noted that their activity can prompt serious civil litigation if not handled properly. Although their claims are protecting the 1st amendment, many auditors record in order to 1) obtain grounds for civil action against police, security personnel, and business owners. 2) Monetize their social media channels. 3) Make business owners, police and security personnel look bad publicly.
What Are the Issues?
There have been numerous reports of First Amendment auditors creating issues for business owners and police departments across the country. In some cases, these activists have entered into businesses without permission and caused disturbances by filming customers without their consent or taking pictures of employees without asking first. Additionally, many police departments have reported an increase in calls regarding these activists entering into restricted areas or attempting to interfere with law enforcement operations.
The problem with First Amendment auditors is that they often do not understand the full scope of their rights under the Constitution as well as local laws and regulations governing public spaces. This lack of understanding can lead to confrontations between them and authority figures which can quickly escalate into dangerous situations for everyone involved.
Business owners should be aware that 1st amendment auditors have the right to be present on public property and may even record conversations between themselves and staff members. Police and security officers should understand that recording from public property (i.e. roadway, sidewalk, park, etc) is not illegal. There is no expectation of privacy in public areas or from view from a public area. The peeping tom law does not apply unless they are recording into a window from private property.
Businesses that choose to should post “NO TRESPASSING” signs at entryways and property boundaries, including parking lots, not just on buildings. Business owners should not confront these individuals or have discussions with them. If they are on your property business owners can call police to have them trespassed from their property.
Laws that apply:
- CR 6-402 MISDEMEANOR $500.00 - 90 DAYS *2_2210* **TRESPASS-POSTED PROPERTY** ...did trespass and enter upon the property at _______(location), said property being posted against trespassers in a conspicuous manner.
- CR 6-403 MISDEMEANOR $500.00 - 90 DAYS *2_2220* **TRESPASS: PRIVATE PROPERTY** ...did [enter upon/remain upon/cross over] the private property, and premises of _____ (owner) after having been duly notified not to do so by _____, the [owner/agent of the owner].
- CR 6-408 MISDEMEANOR $500.00 - 90 DAYS *2_2280* **TRESPASS-PEEPING TOM** ...did enter upon the land and premises of _____ (owner) for the purpose of invading the privacy of the occupant of said premises by looking into said premises.
- CR 6-409(a)(2) MISDEMEANOR $1,000.00 - 6 MONTHS *3_5707* **TRESPAS PUB AGNCY AFTER HR** ...did [refuse/fail to leave] _____, a property of the ______, a public agency, during regular closing hours, having no lawful business therein and having been requested to leave by ______(name) an authorized employee.
- CR 6-409(b) MISDEMEANOR $1,000.00 - 6 MONTHS *1_0344* **TREPASS PUB AGNCY DUR HRS** ...did [refuse/fail to leave] _____, a property of ______, a public agency, during regular business hours upon being requested to do so by an authorized employee and when the defendant [had no apparent lawful business to pursue/was acting in a manner disruptive of and disturbing to the conduct of normal business]. NOTE: It must show that the acts took place during regular business hours. The facts must clearly describe "no lawful business", or the acts complained of must clearly specify how the normal business was disrupted and disturbed. Mere entrance into a public building, following a prior notification, does not amount to a criminal trespass under this section.
- CR 6-410 MISDEMEANOR $1,000.00 - 6 MONTHS *2_2290* **TRESPASS GOVERNMENT HOUSE** ...did wantonly trespass on the property of Government House. NOTE: No requirement that the property of Government House be posted against unlawful entry or trespass.
- CR 10-201(c)(2) MISDEMEANOR $500.00 - 60 DAYS *2_0050* **DISORDERLY CONDUCT** ...did wilfully act in a disorderly manner to the disturbance of the public peace.
- CR 10-201(c)(1) MISDEMEANOR $500.00 - 60 DAYS *2_0045* **DISTURB PEACE HINDER PASSG** ...did willfully and without lawful purpose [obstruct/hinder] the free passage of another and others in a public place or on a public conveyance.
- CR 10-201(c)(3) MISDEMEANOR $500.00 - 60 DAYS *2_0055* **FAIL OBEY RENBLE/LAWFL** ...did wilfully fail to obey a reasonable and lawful order of a law enforcement officer, to wit, _____ , made to prevent a disturbance to the public peace.
- CR 10-201(c)(4) MISDEMEANOR $500.00 - 60 DAYS *2_0060* **DISTURB THE PEACE/DISORDERLY** ...did enter the [land/premises/beach] of ____(name), and did wilfully [disturb the peace of persons thereon by unreasonably loud noise/acting in disorderly manner].
- CR 10-201(c)(5) MISDEMEANOR $500.00 - 60 DAYS *2_0065* **DISTURB PEACE - LOUD NOISE** ...did unlawfully, by unreasonably loud noise willfully disturb the peace of another [on the other's land and premises/in a place of business/in a public place/on a public conveyance].
It is important for business owners and security personnel alike to be aware of how First Amendment auditing can create issues in public spaces and private businesses alike. By understanding who these activists are, what they do, and how to handle them should they arrive on your premises you can help ensure that everyone remains safe during any potential encounters with them. Furthermore, it is important for those engaging in this activity to understand the limits of their rights under both federal law as well as local regulations so as not create unnecessary conflict when exercising their rights in a public space or business setting.
Do you agree with first amendment auditors? Why or why not?
Last edited:
