Speaker 1: 0:00

Welcome to arrested the live and local show that takes you into the belly of our criminal justice system, cohosted by Mike Brooks and Atlanta criminal defense attorney Dan Conway of Conway and strictly pc. Good morning everybody. Welcome to arrested with your host, Mike Brooks and criminal defense attorney

Speaker 2: 0:18

Dan Conaway, where we take a look at the American criminal justice system. Well then, you know, there was a, uh, just recently in Marietta, there was an arrest of a man for aggravated assault and robbery and he was caught using a license plate reader that the Marietta police had installed somewhere hidden in their jurisdiction. They're not saying exactly where it was, but this is a relatively new piece of, of technology. It's been around a little while and I know it's used by a number of different departments here in the Atlanta Metro area as long with Atlanta, the Atlanta police department. But a lot of people think that the automatic license plate readers are a violation of their privacy. What do you think?

Speaker 3: 1:11

Well, it's one of those mixed bags might cause on the one hand, uh, it certainly helps law enforcement, uh, and works for public safety and that's obviously an important issue. So, um, you've got that on the flip side, you've also got the issue of privacy, um, which is legit and obviously deep concern. So this is your sort of your typical balancing test between right to privacy versus public safety and where, where is the meeting ground here? Um, it's interesting because in July 2012, the acu in 38 states and Washington DC send a public records act request to almost 600 local and state police departments as well as other state and federal agencies to obtain information, right? Figuring out how this worked with a really looking at. And so I want to understand the procedures in place to protect the safety because for example, if you are scanning tons of a license plates and all you're getting is information and an alarm goes off with the dings when somebody has an outstanding warrant. Right? Okay. And then the rest of the dog, the rest of the data is dumped or destroyed. Uh, you know, within a reasonable period of time and protected than arguably that's not that big a violation of privacy. Right? And one thing I should say with that is that your privacy rights are not as strong a in your car with respect to your car as there are with respect to your home.

Speaker 2: 2:46

Some, some people argue that you know, your car for certain things dealing with, let's say the second man, men in carrying weapons, I can think they say that your car is an extension of your home, but not necessarily. I don't think when dealing with a violations and using license plate readers

Speaker 3: 3:03

and not necessarily with the case law. A lot of these cases were decided back in the seventies and the eighties and the nineties. Um, some of the rink was court and the moving forward and they kind of came to a middle ground with respect to automobiles, um, at the same time. So, uh, I think the Aplu is doing a very good thing here as far as tracking this. They are trying to work with law enforcement, with respect to trying to figure out what they can do to make sure that the procedures in place help. Um, it is a, it is a startling issue with respect to the, with respect to the level of technology. There's two big concerns here for civil libertarians like myself. One is, is the absolute fact that this data collection, a technology is in its infancy. I think it's been around since the early two thousands in some form or another. Uh, and so it's just going to get worse or it's just going to get better depending on how you would look at it from a law enforcement standpoint. It will get better from a loss of privacy standpoint. It will get worse. That's the one thing. The second thing is what is happening to our data because we all know that various organizations, both government and private, many, many times government working through private contractors, uh, may sell data or use data to generate revenue or income. And so what protections are there in place to keep this data private? Because if you're driving down, you know, if you're, whatever it is you're doing a, you're driving here, you're doing this, you're doing that, you do have a, an expectation of some privacy, but not in public though, not in public, but the issue here as well, never had to worry about public, about, about us being in public and having that much of a privacy restricted. And every year it gets a little worse. Like for instance, there are cities in China now where you literally are under complete government surveillance by cameras, right? Every second of the day. So if you live in that city, they can track your every movement.

Speaker 2: 5:16

But you know, here in the United States, I mean, you can drive around the city of Atlanta, uh, no matter where you are from bucket all the way to the west side to southwest Atlanta and when you're riding around, you'll see'em up on Poles, the little blue light. Well, that let you know that there is a camera in that particular area in many places I know in the city of Atlanta, uh, are these license plate readers. Now there are some license plate readers that are on police vehicles. You can usually see them because he had, it looks like little cameras on, um, on the rear of the car and also on the front. And as you go by, it reads your to it. It's just laser boom, read your tag number. And I think during the course of a, of a tour of duty that police officers can read, they'll, they'll, they'll run over a thousand tags, you know, just by on their regular patrol beat because it did go by that quick and you know, but then, but most of law enforcement, they're looking for people who are wanted. But it can also can tell you whether or not that, uh, if your insurance is current or not. Um, and many of these license plate readers, you know, and in the city of Atlanta, there are right around 400 license plate readers that are on Poles. And let's say there's a, a certain area that needs special attention because of certain crimes that they can have. They have portable license plate readers that they can place there as well. But you know, as, as when it comes to your expectation of privacy with the, you know, with, with the LPRS, because they are used in conjunction many times with the cameras because I know I'm on Glenwood Avenue and Kirkwood at a certain intersection, uh, just recently there was a, um, a call a code 19 or just stolen vehicle from cobb county. Well, it came by the license plate reader on Glenwood Avenue and the video integration center for APD. They pinged on their, in their system and they announced it to the zone six units that there was a stolen vehicle and they were able to canvas the neighborhood, found that stolen vehicle and at chase and sued, but they were able to Qa to capture all four people that were inside that stolen vehicle.

Speaker 3: 7:34

And you know, Mike, that's the kind of thing where the technology's obviously useful for law enforcement. Right? And my gap says is that most American citizens, what support that kind of use for this technology, right? Um, the issue comes, it's a slippery slope. That's your standard slippery slope situation. The issue comes in a couple of ways and that is one misuse because for instance, there has been discussion in some states and about using this to track other kinds of things, for instance, and they could learn to use it to track whether somebody has a tax lien against them. They could use it to, uh, to go after if you haven't paid child support. So these kinds of slippery slope issues are the kinds of things that the acl is looking at and they should look at it because we need to decide as a society, as technology moves forward, how much do we want to be simply bugs under a microscope?

Speaker 2: 8:32

Well, we are going to discuss even some more uses that people might not even know about for these license plate readers. When arrested returns on the new talk, one zero six seven. This is arrested with Mike Brooks and Atlanta criminal defense attorney. Damn conaway. You're listening to arrested with your host, Mike Brooks, criminal defense attorney Dan conaway. And I also wanted to let everyone know, if you haven't read Dan's book, arrested badly in America's criminal justice system, you are missing out day. And where is your book available to? Anyone who wants to read it? Because I'd tell you it is a great read,

Speaker 3: 9:13

Mike. It's available on Amazon, Barnes and noble and www.arrestedbook.com.

Speaker 2: 9:21

So go and make sure you pick yourself up a copy and pick a copy up for a friend. Even if you've never been involved in a criminal justice system, you've never been arrested. There's always that possibility and you need to know what your rights are and it would make a great a great Christmas gift while we're talking about license plate readers, Dan, and know whether or not they are a violation of of of someone's privacy. Now we're talking about some of the uses, a w we know that law enforcement, I think personally I think it's a great tool. I'm the murder that we had earlier this year up at the, in front of the capital city club, and if it weren't for a license plate reader in conjunction with the use of a Atlanta police department, video surveillance cameras right at the corner of peachtree and Lennox, um, they may not have calls caught the people who were responsible for the murder of, of, of that young man from Washington DC, which is obviously a very good thing. Absolutely. And you know, they are also are fantastic tools, uh, and other criminal investigations that can put people in a certain area at a certain time, put a timeline together, uh, that most investigators liked to do when they like to have a timeline of a crime, you know, before it was committed and putting people in certain areas certain time. But we're talking about some of the other uses that I had no idea until we, I was doing some research for this band. And you were also saying, you know, that there's a concern that, uh, these would be used to try to track down people for child support. Those kinds of things. Right now with tax liens, what's that? And also for Tax Lien, right? Well, you know, what nother used that I had no idea and a repossession companies use these and, and you know, I'm right and during and during my show, you know, uh, on the new truck, one to six, seven every day from noon to three m hangman and I were talking, we're fat, we found out about, you know, the repo companies are using these things as a tool to go in and repossess cars, which I had no idea, but

Speaker 3: 11:32

you see, that makes perfect sense because some of these, like for instance, and some of these states, um, the data is actually collected by a private company because there's a government contract in place for private company. And so whether it's that private company or whether it's a, a or whether it's the government that can obviously provide the information, that's the exact kind of thing, uh, that civil libertarians like myself, when people are concerned about the right to privacy is concerned with because you know, you're driving a car, there has to be. You do have some expectation of privacy. I would argue from the point of view of simply it didn't use to be that we were in public, right. You are being constantly recorded and constantly under surveillance and so this is a relatively new thing. It has some positives. So like for instance, capturing the murder. Sure. Right. The alleged murder, so they haven't tried yet, but at the same time it also has grave concerns. One of these issues I think is um, with respect to what you're talking about because think about it, you know, you're driving around and you've got to lean on a car or you haven't made the payment because you had to pay the gas bill or you know, you lost your job last week and you trying to negotiate a new deal or something like that. You know, the kind of stuff that American people go through all the time. Yup. And then all the sudden, you know, at 4:00 AM in the morning, five in the morning, you know, here comes Baba with a crowbar and the tow truck hauling your car away and, and you've got no notice there. And it's just, I think, disturbing to your average person, and again, it comes back to this, what I call the bug under the glass routine, is that how much do we as American citizens who value our privacy want to live like this? And so ultimately, ultimately it's going to have to come down to a certain amount of regulation. This is what the ACU is pushing for in this situation. They are work trying to work with, uh, various groups. They're trying to work with the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security. They're trying to work with local police departments, but to come up with regulations and common sense, a common sense rules of transparency and protection so that you can find a balance. And this is again, this is your classic balancing test under the Constitution between your right to privacy, the right to be left alone, even in public. Because again, we've never lived in a society where you, you're, you're, when you're in public, you can be scrutinized so heavily.

Speaker 2: 14:12

Yeah. But I mean, basically though, Dan, when, when you leave your house, when you walk out the front door of your house, you're, you're in public and I mean you can, you can walk right down the street and you look right up. And I know I live in Kirkwood. I can right there. Hosea and Howard, you know, there's, there's a camera and a little bit further down the street. There's another camera, you know, I don't want to have any problem with that. The whole thing is that I always say, look, you're not doing anything wrong. We know what do you have? Die.

Speaker 3: 14:37

And, and that's the, that's the great. If you don't have anything wrong, would it, you got hired, right? And I know the police love that argument, but Nah, not for that one. Um, I think, uh, I think it's an argument, but at the same time we've never lived in. Certainly the founding fathers never could have imagined a world in which we live and he can't. It's just getting started. And so there's gonna have to be, if we're going to have any privacy at all, we're going to have to make a decision between how much are we willing to give for public safety, very important issue, right? Versus how much privacy do we expect when we're in public and because of the nature of the technology, the courts are ultimately going to have to deal with this issue of how technology so permeates our lives when we're in public that we literally have no right to privacy because you still have your right to privacy when you're in public to some extent. The question, how much of an extent. Well at the end, but that's for the courts to decide because we've never had. We've never had the technology like, you know what though? Let, let, let me give you an example. All right? It's 20 years from now. Hell it may be five years from now, the way we are gone and you're walking down the street and you got a machine that can read every single thought in your head. And it beams it up to a satellite system and it sticks. It sticks it, uh, over in the, uh, homeland security database and then later it's of course sold to Google and Yahoo and everything else cause you're thinking about eating ice cream bar or maybe you're deciding which beer to buy. And so the Margaret emotionally much like decision markers one another. So the question there is you've got this technology that never existed before. And so where is that line between privacy, uh, where the government can permeate down to the deepest pores of your life to end your very thoughts versus public safety. And that's its constitution is, is a, is a piece of machinery that's geared to deal with that. But the courts ultimately are going to have to deal with these things. And I say in this case, Bravo to the HCLU for making an issue and trying to work out common sense solutions.

Speaker 2: 16:52

We, you know, I always say one of the reasons we have cameras and you know, I, I look, if it weren't for cameras in Boston on Boylston Street, the Sarnia brothers probably would have never been caught or if they work hard at it would have been caught as soon as they were. Good point. The terrorist bombers, bombers in midtown Manhattan a couple of years ago when they went to the, um, you know, they've had pressure cooker bombers. Bob's, well remember they were picked up on video service, video surveillance cameras. I mean, you, you go to the, you go to the ATM and drive an ATM. There's, there's cameras there and people now, you know, with the ring doorbells, you can be riding down the street and people can see you as a, you know, as you're riding down the street, you know, and people come in and steal your packages off your, off your front porch with the ring doorbell video surveillance if you will. Had that happen to us. Our front porch. Yep. Well, there you go. But the whole thing I really think, you know, especially in my world, in a, uh, as a former law enforcement officer and counterterrorism all with the FBI, we measure everything and I think because we're have all this new technology, we measure everything pre and post nine slash 11. And you know, and, and a lot of folks, you know, after nine slash 11, well everybody was all uh, yeah, I think we need, we need more cameras. We need more, you know. But now we've got all the cameras and then civil libertarians are not saying, oh well, you know, maybe it's a careful exactly. But now, I mean we're even getting into a facial recognition, you know, a technology that Delta Airlines is using for check in and in a boarding pass. Now, you know, is that, and there's also facial facial recognition when that law enforcement's using with cameras looking for terrorists in airports and other ports, you know. So is it, you say slippery slope, you know, where, where do you draw the line there?

Speaker 3: 18:57

Um, I think you have to draw the line and part of it comes from, from the American people because ultimately it's our constitution and our privacy, so, and it's also our, our desire to be safe. And so that's really where the rubber meets the road is between those two arguments. They're both valuable issues. They're both equally credible issues. The question is where is it going to end up? And quite frankly, I don't know. Like for instance, the facial recognition thing. Yeah, there's a great, there's a great movie, I can't remember the name of it, but have Wesley snipes in it were and uh, uh, rocky, that guy played rocky sylvester stallone back in the nineties and it's set in the future is sending like 20 slash 20 something and they're both chronically frozen and they come out. Okay. So they've got all this wild security stuff, uh, like a retinal scanning. Yep. Right. Okay. So you can't get into the police department that retinal scanning. Okay. So aren't a, not Arnold Schwarzenegger a slum. The loan is as a police officer. A Wesley snipes is a, is a, uh, criminal. Okay. But the both really good at what they do. And um, so what happens is, is Wesley snipes wants to get into the police department. So what he does is he gets one of the policemen, he prize out his eyeball and he sticks it up to the, up to the retina scan thing, right? And Scans and the door opens that he gets in. So my point being that with facial recognition stuff and all this other stuff, one of the things that we have to, I think one of the issues within the debate between privacy and security is that your criminal is all your criminal is always going to do things to figure out creative ways around this technology which then leads to more security and more technology. On the flip side is the our right to be left alone, our right to have a certain amount of privacy even in public. And so where do you meet that line? Don't know, but I think it will be addressed by the courts and it's going to be one of the major issues. One of the major constitutional issues of this generation and generations to come. As all this technology moves forward,

Speaker 2: 21:07

exactly. And you know, what are the concerns that you were talking about too is, and that a lot of people have an issue with, uh, is the, is the data collection and how long does law enforcement keep the records, let's say from the license plate greeters. That's right now, you know, but I can tell you that most, most jurisdictions it's going to be either 30, 60, or 90 days because because of the, just the metadata that they collect, most systems can't hold that much information for that long of a period. And that's why you were going to say that we see now with most jurisdictions, it'll be either 30, 60, or 90 days were that this information is kept

Speaker 3: 21:48

and that's the, that's the kind of thing where the Hclu and the police departments may actually be able to work together. Absolutely. To come up with common sense solutions.

Speaker 2: 21:56

Well, we'll keep an eye on and see how, see what other technologies come up in the, uh, in the very near future. Yet maybe, maybe my violate your privacy a little bit. Coming up on arrested, a judge has ruled that Americans can secretly record public officials, will be talking about that a whole lot more on arrested with Mike Brooks and criminal defense attorney Dan conaway under new talk one oh, six seven. This is arrested with Mike Brooks and Atlanta criminal defense attorney Dan conaway. You're listening to arrested with Mike Brooks and criminal defense attorney Dan Conaway, and I'll also want to remind you if you haven't read Dan's book, arrested battling Americans criminal justice system, you need to pick it up and make a great, great gift and a even if you've never been arrested, never been inside the criminal justice system. It's will give you an insight that you might not have ever thought about until now. Well, there is a judge that has ruled that Americans can secretly record public officials. A federal judge has ruled that Americans have the right to secretly record their public officials, including police when they are engaged in their government duties. US District Court chief US District Court, Chief Judge Patti be. Sarah's set a Massachusetts law banning secret recordings violates the First Amendment when it comes to government employees rejecting that states claims that officials need some space to be able to operate without having to worry about being monitored. This, Dan, I think this ruling is huge. It really is for a number of different folks.

Speaker 3: 23:48

I totally agree. And it's interesting because Mike, in this case, you've got two different plaintiffs to different, um, groups that are fighting one his project Veritas, uh, and then the other is a group concerned about police misconduct and a photo video photographing the place or a recording the police, uh, when they're performing their duties. So it's interesting because you've got these two different groups with two different objectives, both interested in recording public officials and um, uh, Mr Keith said, is this impact will ripple throughout the nation. It will set it a circle precedent keeps citizen journalism alive in all 50 states. And I do agree with that because to me what this is all about and we're talking about technology. Sure. Last thing. Yep. Is that the biggest change with all this technology is the breaking down of the barriers and the getting rid of and the weakening a of what I call the gatekeepers. The gatekeepers were all those in traditional society and all societies have gatekeepers and we've always had them throughout human history, but they're being challenged in ways that they haven't been challenged. I think since the creation of the printing press, that's how big, not just the Internet, but the digital technology is right and social media and so you've got here, uh, opportunities for normal everyday people to be able to do things like recording public officials in private to where they can get through the gatekeeper. Because if you think about it, the police police officers or members who are in charge of or run large bureaucratic organizations like Acorn, right? Or planned parenthood, George, the kinds of things that project Barrett has this done. Uh, in both those instances you're talking about a type of gatekeeper where they've got a lot of power and they basically talked to ways they talk one way in public, in talking points and with, you know, everybody measuring what their tone and making sure the say the right thing and everything's measured and blah, blah blah. But then what we've learned through organizations like these two right, is that the, the, uh, they can talk completely differently and behave completely differently when no one's watching.

Speaker 2: 26:28

Here's what, here's what the judge had to say here. Dan just said, this is not to say the police and government officials have no privacy interests. However, the diminished privacy interests of government officials performing their duties in public must be balanced by the first amendment interest in news gathering and information dissemination.

Speaker 3: 26:51

Bingo. And so, and the whole first part of the First Amendment, the whole point of it is to be able to have an open marketplace of ideas where you can have an open marketplace of ideas if everybody's hiding behind gates and walls, right? If all the decision makers are able to put up barricades from your average person, your average American, and say, this is none of your business, don't worry about it. It's so bad, so sad, too bad. Instead with the first amendment and what the judge is saying here, and I think it's a wonderful rolling and a very wise ruling. Is she saying, no? Yes, we've got privacy interests with respect to these public officials and government officials, but at the same time the public has a right to know what they're thinking and they have the right to catch them off guard. They have the right to put them in situations and get them in situations where they actually say what they're thinking and what influences their policy. Then those ideas can be brought to the marketplace. Fight is not just through a controlled newspaper like the New York Times or through Time magazine or whatever, but through the Internet where there's the free interplay of ideas amongst private citizens gathering to discuss things in the marketplace of ideas and so and then it's just a wonderful ruling for free speech. First Amendment rights and for enlarging the conversation for all of us as Americans,

Speaker 2: 28:19

you know, it was interesting because she went on to say that the first amendment protections are particularly important with respect to law enforcement officials who are granted so much discretion and depriving individuals of their liberties.

Speaker 3: 28:35

Yes, and that's one of the issues is that government has the reason why government is so terrifying. Again, government is the necessary evil. It's very necessary. We absolutely, without. We got to enter, sure James Madison necessary evil, but it's evil. Why is it evil? It's evil because all the people at government is evil. I worked with a lot of people in government, a lot of prosecutors, judges and so forth, and a lot of them are actually wonderful people. They're excellent public officials. Um, the issue is, is that government has so much power. Why? Well, the first reason is because it can. A government has the ability to throw you in an iron cage. In some cases they have the right to actually kill you. And so this is the ultimate power that government possesses. A, we give government that power because we want public safety, we don't want anarchy and that makes sense, but we can never underestimate the issue of evil that comes with that power and so what's. What's the counter balance to it, right? The counter balances is a ruling like this one right here that says, look, we've got this new technology that actually allows your average American some power and the ability to do investigative journalism, to do, to to gather information to news gathering information which is vital and part of their first amendment right, and by doing that, by balancing it out and you help create transparency and you help create hopefully a more responsive government and kept to government officials and to those in power. Again, whether it's planned parenthood or the police or whomever, it's time for some of these folks. Some of these gatekeepers, as I as I refer to them to understand that the people have more power. Now digital technology is giving the individual more power and now the courts have decided that they can use it and I think they should. And so public officials need to understand this and need to perform their duties properly and not abuse them.

Speaker 2: 30:44

Well, where do you draw the line though, Dan? Because there are times where, let's say there's a certain incident, a, let's say a hostage barricade situation or there's a suspicious package on the streets of Atlanta or Washington dc or anywhere else. And you've got people that. Well, I wanna I wanna I wanna take pictures, you know, because now everybody gets their camera out and everybody's their own journalists. Right. But there comes a time where I think that. Does someone need to know how a bomb squad goes about looking at a suspicious package? The technology they're using a. does someone need to know this information? I don't think so, you know, but some people say, oh, you can't stop me from recording what the bomb squad is doing. Um, because I've got my first amendment rights. Well that's fine. The bomb squad can then take a, take a curtain and then put that curtain up around where they're working because as far as I'm concerned, they don't need to know what the bomb squads doing. You know, in that, in that particular instance,

Speaker 3: 31:56

am I, I think that's a good point because there you're looking at the other side with the public safety side of right and there, you know, why do, why do I as a private citizen need to understand how the bomb squad works, right? Right. When I need the bombs.

Speaker 2: 32:09

If you're a terrorist, you would like to know that.

Speaker 3: 32:11

Well, exactly. Yeah. Let's assume that I'm just a normal human being. It was no desire to commit acts of terrorism, which is obviously the vast majority of us. Do I really need to know how the bomb squad does their job? The answer is no, I don't. So there are public safety. Trumps trumps first amendment. Yeah. So there are, again, there's that balancing act there. There's certainly room for both sides, but I think you'd make a good point with respect to the public safety factors is. It definitely is there. It needs to be.

Speaker 2: 32:41

We're going to talk more about the public safety fat Joe. I've got another example I want to, I want to run by you, Dan, and you know, we're talking about license plate readers and you were talking about the slippery slope with cameras and license plate readers. Well, is there a slippery slope here that by with this judge's ruling, does law enforcement have any expectation of privacy while they're out there doing their job? Will be talking about that and, and lots of, a lot more coming up on arrested with Mike Brooks and criminal defense attorney Dan Conway on the news talk one. Oh, six seven. Thanks for joining us. You're listening to arrested with Mike Brooks and criminal defense attorney Dan conaway here on the new talk one. Oh, six seven. Dan, we were discussing this ruling by a federal judge that, uh, basically says that Americans can secret secretly record public officials, law enforcement, and other public officials. Um, and the two plaintiff of the plaintiff's was project Veritas, you know, right, right. Before we went to break, we were talking. Okay. Does does, do people have the need to know, let's say have a bomb squad and how they operate because I can tell you if I'm a, if I'm a terrorist, I want to, I want to take a look at to see exactly what, how they're going about their craft so I can be better at my craft. And we've talked about what the license plate readers and surveillance cameras all around the cities now, uh, you know, they're your expectation of privacy. Well, does law with, with this, with this decision, does law enforcement have any expectation of privacy while they are operating, whether they be local, state or federal, while they're out and about doing their jobs?

Speaker 3: 34:27

Well, Mike, just to say something you said in the first, uh, uh, the first segment, you know, if you're as a police officer, if you're not doing anything wrong,

Speaker 2: 34:38

what do you got to worry about? Right, right, right. Um,

Speaker 3: 34:40

but no, but again, I think you illustrate why that argument just doesn't work. It's the same thing. Well, if you don't have anything wrong, then why you should just talk to the police when they come and talk to you. Right. If you're being interrogated in the answer is no, you still need a lawyer. So there has to be some expectation of privacy. I think beyond that for the police, it's also expectation of public safety. Um, and so that is always the great counterbalance to individual rights. We have great rates in this country is as individuals, but we also have a public safety factor and it's always a balancing test between the two. Yeah. So I think in that respect, one of the concerns would be is the person secretly recording impeding in some way with the police officer's investigation, right? Like for instance, if, uh, the police are trying execute a warrant and go into a home, right? Right. If the person standing there, uh, in the doorway of the home, or maybe they're trying to. Maybe they're yelling and screaming, hey, here come the police here from the police. Right? Right. Things like that.

Speaker 2: 35:52

Or you've got a swat team that stage down the street and getting ready, go ahead and location and some and decides that they want to go on facebook live. Hey, we're over here at Kirkwood and it and volleys, or you're ready to hit a house in the neighborhood.

Speaker 3: 36:06

And then the guy with the guy with a five year old girl with a gunder head, he was holding her hostage all of a sudden sees it. Yeah. And so there, I think that, I think that the privacy issue is there for sure. Uh, at the same time, public officials always have an issue and that is their privacy, their expectations of privacy are not as great as your private citizen because you're in the public eye. Um, but at the same time you also have with that the public safety issue. So I think there are solutions for that. Going back to project Veritas for a minute there, I'm there. To me it's pretty straightforward. And that is, is that, um, when you have public officials, the type of public officials that project Veritas has gone after, I think one of the fascinating things about it is just seeing the difference between the public voice in the private voice, um, and some of the tape recordings they have been able to do to show the real intentions behind some of these groups. And these are things that certainly can be brought out and certainly can be discussed. And so to me, one of the fascinating things about this decision is you have arguably two different groups. You have one. Both are interested in government overreach, but from different points of view, one concerning the police, other concerning government agencies and government bureaucracies, but for both, this puts them on notice that they're going to have to do their jobs as well as the can at the same time. Um, is it absolutely unlimited in the end I said no. The answer's no right? No civil. No, no, no. Right. Is absolute unlimited. Uh, can you yell fire in a crowded movie theater? No. Can you opera? Can you own a and keep a nuclear bomb in your basement now? Well, so public safety at some point trumps all that and that's okay.

Speaker 2: 38:04

Right? Yeah. Because if I'm, if I'm a law enforcement officer and I'm coming out of my coming out my precinct and I see somebody staying across the street and you know, videotape and everybody coming in and out of the police station, I'm going to go over and I'm going to ask that person what they're doing and all because if it comes down to a, you know, an officer safety issue and that particular time. And one other thing could be a terrorist. Exactly, exactly. Looking at the movements, you know, and that kind of thing. And um, and, and one of the other things that I'm, that I'm were concerns me having been in the media and also having been a law enforcement officer is um, live coverage of breaking events. You know, we're talking about a, a hostage situation, a hostage barricade situation. Let me tell you what I did back when columbine was going on, when, when, uh, you know, uh, Harrison klebold shot up and well, that particular time I was in the FBI office in Washington and we were, we were watching this unfold and it said live and it had the little bug that had the station call letters while I look that up. And I got the telephone number and I called the news director and I said, how you doing? This is detective Mike Brooks and with FBI joint terrorism task force. I just will let you know, you should not be showing live coverage of this as it's happening because you're putting law enforcement officers, you know, police, fire, ems, the students and, and others who were there. You putting their life in danger because this is a modern school that has televisions inside and if they're watching the television, your life coverage, they can see the movements of a, of the swat teams of the, of the people coming in to try to rescue the students inside the school. Well, a little bit later you saw them pull away and since then there have been policies with news agencies and in news directors across the country with local network cable. That's that, that talk about live coverage in that showing live coverage of breaking events such as that. In fact it was interesting. Boston, Massachusetts, they actually came to an agreement, and this was something I thought I'd never, never say news agencies in Boston, they signed into a memorandum saying years ago. In fact, I talked about this years ago because I thought it was just crazy that law enforcement, they would have to approve what news agencies in Boston would put on the air covering situations like that to make sure that they didn't give away any police procedures.

Speaker 3: 40:36

Well, and and again, that's a situation where yes, freedom of the press, but that was crazy. I never thought I'd ever see that, but you have freedom of the press then I'm all for freedom of the press, but at the same time you have a massive public safety concern there and there. I would. I would agree with you on that, that the, the public safety issue trumps the right to freedom of the press. Right. Do you know, I'd like to see in those situations you're talking about the mass shootings and all the terrible things we've had happened or would be an agreement amongst all the media folks. Now you're always gonna have somebody out there on the Internet who's going to try to post it and all that and I get that, but if I'm Andy Warhol, Andy Warhol, sure. A predicted 40, 50 years ago that every American would have their 15 seconds of fame. Right? Right. Well now what we're seeing is that there's a lot of people out there, a lot of real nut bags who are willing to settle for 15 minutes of infamy.

Speaker 2: 41:30

Oh, absolutely. We see that all the all the

Speaker 3: 41:32

time. So

Speaker 2: 41:33

what would be one of the simple solutions would be if all of the media numbers, it doesn't matter whom there would agree to not publish the name or the photograph of these crazy nutbag shooter with your brother. I am with you on that.

Speaker 3: 41:48

Yeah. And if they do that, then it takes away, I think at least some of the incentive, which is to sort of go out in a rage of glory and b, become infamous and then it eliminates that. I know it'd be difficult to do, but again, you're talking about the coordinating thing in Boston, Massachusetts. That could be something that me, we could look at doing nationally that would be one step towards getting rid of some of these horrific shootings. I,

Speaker 2: 42:14

I totally agree with you. And uh, you know, and at this decision, I'm glad because, look, I'm all for transparency when it comes to, when it comes to government and uh, you know, in a project Veritas or another group organization like that can go in and prove through a secret recordings that government officials or are being corrupt. I am all for that. That's for damn sure. Garden Street. Well folks, we really appreciate you tuning in to the new dog when it was examined. Two arrested with, uh, with Mike Brooks and Dan caught away. We hope to have you right back here. Next Saturday. Eight am on the new talk one. Oh, six slash seven. Thanks again for tuning in on behalf of criminal defense, Dan cutaway. I'm Mike Brooks. Thanks again and be safe everybody.