A police union is asking a judge to require the Las Vegas Review-Journal to take down a video posted with a story about Henderson jail overtime and corrections officer failures, raising concerns about constitutional press freedom. …
Here’s the video.
The newspaper reported that taxpayers have paid millions of dollars to run the city’s understaffed detention center and that corrections officers sometimes made mistakes and violated policy, records show. The exclusive jail surveillance footage and photos were posted with the story.
The Nevada Association of Public Safety Officers union, on behalf of Henderson officers, filed the complaint Wednesday, claiming that the Review-Journal broke a state law that says images of officers in possession of a law enforcement agency are confidential.
The lawsuit comes days after the union sent the Review-Journal and city officials a letter demanding the newspaper remove the pictures and videos of officers attached to the story. The letter, written by executive director Andrew Regenbaum, also demanded the city open a criminal investigation into the source of the video. …
This state law is not constitutional.
The Nevada Association of Public Safety Officers union, on behalf of Henderson officers, filed the complaint Wednesday, claiming that the Review-Journal broke a state law that says images of officers in possession of a law enforcement agency are confidential.
This state law is not constitutional.
It might be constitutional, but “confidential” just means the state can punish any state employees who give the images to the general public.
Marking something “confidential” has no effect on the general public who receive the images, including any newspapers that ultimately publish them.
It might be constitutional how?
Read the language again.
I did read it.
The union lawsuit claims that the newspaper is legally required to remove or blur the images. But the newspaper responded that the union misunderstands the law and has no case:
The statute that the union is suing under does not put any restrictions on the public
If the law puts no restrictions on the public (just like most confidentiality laws), then it is likely to be constitutional.
It’s not much different in that regard from HIPAA, which prevents health care providers from sharing health information to the public but does not prevent newspapers or the general public from publishing health information that is leaked to them.
Review-Journal broke a state law that says “images of officers in possession of a law enforcement agency are confidential”.
Read that language again.
Yes. An image in possession of a law enforcement officer is confidential. That means the law enforcement officer cannot share it.
Once the image is leaked, it is in possession of the newspaper. A newspaper can do whatever it wants with its images. Even if they are “confidential”.
By this language, any image, even one not obtained by law enforcement, but later procured by them would be “in their possession “.
Get it now?
We get it dude, you’re the one having issues with it.
If I have a photo of a police officer in my hands, it is in my possession. Even if they originally took the photo, and I made a copy. The police do not possess things in my hands.
Once it is in my possession, I can do what I want with my copy. Including making more copies, and distributing them. The above law does not apply to my copy, even if they still have their own copy of the photo in their possession.
This is literally how every confidentiality law works. Once a copy is leaked to the public, the recipient can do what they want with their copy.
In fact, this sometimes leads to strange situations in which government employees are still required to protect “their” copy of documents that were already leaked to the public and widely distributed.
Snowflakes, got it.
That police chief is the most rectangular person I’ve seen in a long time.
