Posted on 08/28/2010 8:20:09 AM PDT by markomalley
It’s an enduring doctrine in America that one’s home is off limits to prying eyes and ears, and can be defended to the death if necessary. It’s not strictly true, of course, and certain states have eroded the doctrine to a gossamer wisp of the core idea. Yet, we tend to operate on an almost instinctual presumption that, when we are on our own property, we are kings and queens of the castle.
Felicia Gibson clearly adhered to this principle, and it’s landed her in serious legal trouble (via Glenn Reynolds):
The resisting-arrest conviction last week of Felicia Gibson has left a lot of people wondering. Can a person be charged with resisting arrest while observing a traffic stop from his or her own front porch?
Salisbury Police Officer Mark Hunter thought so, and last week District Court Judge Beth Dixon agreed. Because Gibson did not at first comply when the officer told her and others to go inside, the judge found Gibson guilty of resisting, delaying or obstructing an officer.
Gibson was not the only bystander watching the action on the street. She was the only one holding up a cell-phone video camera. But court testimony never indicated that Hunter told her to stop the camera; he just told her to go inside.
Taking video of police stops is becoming more common with the ubiquity of cell-phone cameras and the like, and so is the backlash from law enforcement as has been amply covered by people like Glenn Reynolds (the famous Instapundit) and Radley Balko (from Reason Magazine). From the account given, it appears this why Ms. Gibson was arrested. What makes her case unique, however, is that she was on her own front porch when the encounter took place, and that she was taken into custody on a charge of “resisting arrest.”
According to Salisbury Police Chief Rorie Collins, explained the North Carolina statute under which Gibson was charged as this:
“This crime is considered a Class 2 misdemeanor and involves:
“Any person who shall willfully and unlawfully resist, delay, or obstruct a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge a duty of his office.
“Obviously, this charge is rather broad and can encompass many different types of actions that are designed to, or serves to hinder a law enforcement officer as he/she performs their duties.
“This charge is most commonly used in situations where a person who is being arrested refuses to cooperate and either passively or aggressively resists an arrest or tries to run away.
“Another very common situation in which this charge is used involves instances when an officer is conducting an investigation and the individuals with whom he/she is dealing provide a false identity when required to identify themselves.
“As you can imagine, there are also many other circumstances in which this charge would be appropriate.”
Chief Collins wouldn’t comment on the specifics of Gibson’s case, but did allow that, in general one does have the right to observe a police stop from one’s own property. He also seemed to suggest that a charge of resisting arrest may still be appropriate in a situation where bystanders refuse to obey police commands to exit the area for their own safety.
“However, just as with many other scenarios, it is important to remember that every situation is based upon its own merits/circumstances. There are some circumstances in which the police who have stopped the vehicle in front of your house may determine that it is in the interest of safety (the officer’s, yours or the individual stopped) to require that folks move. As with other circumstances, it is best advised that an individual merely obey by the officer’s commands.”
Perhaps on a public street the Chief might have a point, in that a colorable argument could be made that the police are charged with protecting the safety of the public highways and byways, even where the only danger is self-imposed.
But to arrest someone who is unmistakably on their own property, and doing nothing remotely illegal, is an abuse of power pure and simple. Even if it were true that Gibson was endangering herself by witnessing the traffic stop from the confines of her front porch, how could that possibly be construed as “resisting arrest” or “obstructing the police” without eviscerating everything that the concept of private property (not to mention plain old individual rights) stands for? Taking such a risk is not illegal. Doing it while occupying one’s homestead should be recognized as unassailably within one’s rights.
Since it appears that neither the police nor the district attorney’s office can be shamed into refraining from such power abuses, perhaps it will take a fat lawsuit for violations of Gibson’s (et al.) constitutional rights to get their attention.
The castle walls may be crumbling and decayed, but they invaders can be fought back and the walls rebuilt.
Stay behind the front door.
Only if you pay the taxes./
This just demonstrates their contempt for the general public perfectly.
This case is only about the ego of the cop.
The only think the public can do is send a message to these “public servants” by voting down any request to fund their pay and benefits.
They will still take it away if somebody wants to build condos where your house is.
Now, armed with that bit of knowledge, it would behoove all private citizens to be equal in its devious behavior toward our government. Simply stated, "If you're going to video/photograph a government official, don't let said official know that you're doing it." And, when and if you decide to reveal to the public that information/evidence which you've gathered, first make certain that the scrotal vise is in place and well positioned.
If a person is obligated to pay tax on anything they do not own it the government does.
THE CHIEF SHOULD BE FIRED, WITH EXTRAORDINARY PREJUDICE!
Arrogant lyin' b*st*rd...
Musn’t interfere with—or record—Big Brother in the process of collecting his taxes!
A man's home is his castle was a pillar of English Common Law. Our judicial system was based on the English Common Law but has never adopted that particular facet. We do not consider private property to be inviolate. We have allowed the principal of "eminent domain", an inherent attribute of sovereignty, since the founding. ED is clearly at odds with a "home as castle" dictate. We also do not allow defense of property by lethal force. The so called "Castle Doctrine" laws currently being fostered by the NRA assert that you are under no obligation to retreat from your property if you should be under assault. That is, you have the right to defend your self with lethal force if necessary. You are defending life, not property. If a thief is running down your driveway with a sack of your stuff over his shoulder, you may not shoot him in the back.
Regards,
GtG
PS Even the British no longer hold that "A man's home is his castle". Pity that...
As far as I can interpret this, and apply it to what I understand the laws in my state to be...
I could be in my front lawn, on my property/premisis (not inside the structure on that property/premisis, and be carrying a firearm (openly), standing, sitting, laying down...
I could be observing a traffic stop out in the public street in front of my home, or in plain sight, taking video from any device I happen to have on my person, or could retrieve from inside the structure on my property/premisis and still be in my right to do so, without the need to justify or explain to anyone, including any commissioned law enforcement officer in this state in the conducting of their lawful duty in this state...
It is a law in this state that when asked by a commissioned law enforcement officer in this state to identify yourself, you are required to do so, even on your own property/premisis...
What they did to this woman is apparently a little over the top, and she should sue for the cost to her for her defense against these charges...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.