Source: https://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/2015/08/28/san-antonio-police-prove-that-they-do-not-understand-failure-to-id-law/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 13:54:18+00:00

Document:
if you take a very close look at the sign you will see that it calls out the Internal Security Act of 1950 and Executive Order 12036 and not 18 U.S.C. § 795. If you take a closer look at 18 U.S.C. § 795 you will see that it does NOT call out photography of defense facilities but rather “certain vital military and naval installations” as designated by the president. Ex. Ord. No. 10104, Feb. 1, 1950, 15 F.R. 597 defines “certain vital military and naval installations” as “All military, naval, or air-force installations” A poster on Battousai’s Youtube channel claims this Ex Ord was later narrowed to even fewer military or Naval installations.
NSA is not part of the military. How does 18 U.S.C. § 795 apply?
By it terms, 18 USC 795 is applicable only to “military or naval installations or equipment.” However, I would question whether an NSA facility is a military or naval installation. NSA is part of the Defense Department. However, NSA personnel are civilians and not members of any of the armed forces.
I’d also question if the law is even constitutional. Barring photography from a public sidewalk of any facility to me seems unconstitutional. If a facility is so important then it’s entrance should be much further away from public boundaries.
Check his latest video, he proves the cops liars again and further lays out how the cops screwed themselves in his arrest.
It’s easier to make a general reply than to respond to the well-thought out individual posts.
First, as noted, the NSA is part of the Department of Defense, i.e., the military. Second, the NSA is designated as a “combat support agency.” It is commanded by a military officer, of 4-star rank. There is no requirement in the law that all of its personnel be military personnel, no more than there was for the Manhattan Project 70+ years ago.
Thus far, the only court decision to cite the law used it to dismiss a false arrest lawsuit against someone who was taking photographs of an aircraft display on a military facility.
Are you talking about the Nancy Genovese case? She was awarded $1.12m this past December.
Yup, but on a different basis legally.
He did not enter the restricted sight. This sign like a trespass sign refers to what is behind it.
You need to read the sign and the statute. You should also look at Genovese v. Town of Southampton, 921 F. Supp. 2d 8 (E.D.N.Y. 2013). Genovese never entered the base either. It didn’t help her.
That seems like an extremely stupid statement, since it’s not.
Not kidnapping. Only armed abduction.
It’s not armed abduction either. In Texas, kidnapping is defined as abduction, and aggravated kidnapping is armed abduction.
There some interesting verbiage in the statute about it being for an unlawful purpose. Here the officers, although wrong, were not restraining him for an unlawful purpose.
Except it was an unlawful purpose. The law is quite clear on what constitutes a lawful arrest — there is a requirement of an actual crime being committed.
Making an arrest absent a crime is not a lawful purpose.
You need to read the case law. “Lawful purpose” means that the officer was performing a police function, such as arrest, not that the arrest be valid.
By that standard it would be impossible to charge anyone with a crime if committing that crime were part of their assigned job.
In any other profession that would be at a minimum evidence of criminal activity by the person’s superiors, if not a criminal conspiracy!
Chris, I don’t have a problem with you commenting. Use either a real email address or one that isn’t named after my handle.
No, what the Supremes said that the mistaken understanding of the law meant that the police had not violated your rights. See Heien v. North Carolina, No. 13-604, ___ U.S. ___ (2014) (slip op.).
You have to understand that while Adamo and the rest of the merry men at Copblock do a good job at filming, they don’t understand the actual state of the law. They have a view of the law that is, unfortunately, not accurate. You need to go to the opinion itself and to read it with the view of a lawyer, not that of the Copblock guys.
The problem with that is that supposedly, ignorant good faith does not excuse breaking the law for the general public. It may result in conviction on lesser charges than those requiring mens rea, but it doesn’t result in approval of the illegal act.
Unless you have a badge, are employed to enforce the law, sworn to uphold the law and have greater training in the law than the average member of the general public. Then it’s okay to be ignorant, even encouraged since good faith ignorance can allow you to do things that would otherwise be illegal.
The law is all about distinctions. Here, the distinction is that your rights aren’t violated if the police were mistaken.
In other words E-CL, the court has ruled that ignorance of the law IS a defense — but only if you have more training in the law than the standard amount. If you have that lesser level of training, ignorance is not an excuse.
This is not a legal comment but why were the police looking to find something on him? If filming the base is legal let it go. Law enforcement is best when it looks to keep order while protecting an individual’s rights to live their lives as free as they can within the law. Police are worse when they try to enforce societal norms or make trouble for someone based on the government’s disapproval of that person or their actions.
Police don’t like non-compliance, even if it is legal.
For example, in the Genovese, the lady lost part of her federal lawsuit because the officer had probable cause under the federal photography ban. The case went to trial where she won a million dollars because the cops wanted to make an example of her. Suicide watch. Denied medical treatment. Malicious prosecution, etc.
The wording of the sign would be enough to stop me from recording, but I have seen military bases with much more explicit prohibitions on filming. Those signs said the base commander had prohibited photography with penalty of arrest, bla bla bla. Much more explicit than this sign. I question local PD trying to enforce a federal law they probably aren’t familiar with. Should have called a federal officer or MP. Just looking to nail the guy for no good reason.
Please check out his newest videos posted today. More Texas cops that don’t understand failure to ID or Terry stops for that matter. Do you happen to have the name of a civil rights attorney in his area that we could pass on to him?
As an ex cop, why do you think it is that so many cops either don’t understand the laws and the Constitution they swore an oath to support, or choose to violate that oath and our rights so often?
@ Criminals in blue costumes. Is there any wonder that the public is losing respect for the police and the prosecutors that routinely suborn their perjury and refuse to charge them?
Abusive people love power. BUT!! There are a few honorable people left, not many, but, a few. Some people don’t feel normal unless they can control. They are called tyrants & we have too many tyrants.It starts with the Municipal so called “authorities”. Look at all of the “victimless crimes”!!!
Criminals in blue costumes. Is there any wonder that the public is losing respect for the police and the prosecutors that routinely suborn their perjury and refuse to charge them?
I would say they had RAS to initiate a detainment but once they saw that he did not “disturb the peace” which is what I think they were trying to cite him with, it seems the detainment ended there. I don’t think it’s proper to demand ID prior to discovering PC. RAS should not be a gateway to a demand to ID.
RAS is all that is needed per SCOTUS, together with a statute that authorizes it. Those states are called stop & ID states. About half of the states are stop & ID. Texas is not one of those states.
I think Hibel has been over extended to what it was originally intended for. HIbel was stopped in Humboldt county because the police received a call that someone matching his description had assaulted someone. Now police are using Hibel to immediately demand ID for anyone they encounter, whether or not police can articulate that a crime has been committed.
People have the deck completely stacked against them during a police encounter. How are people to evaluate if an officer’s RAS is sound or unfounded when police need not provide it at the time of detainment?
Something definitely needs to change. If police can demand ID in half the states in USA through the flimsy threshold of probable cause, then I think they should have to clearly state their RAS at the time of detainment. Allowing them time later to think their story over with the help of the DA to “get their story straight” is unjust.
That last paragraph should read “flimsy threshold of RAS”.
What is this Jade Helm stuff all about? Are you ready for the 15th of Sept?
IF we ever hear something that has the ring of truth in it we need to know who said it before we consider if it has merit. It’s not what is said that may be important, it’s WHO said it. ExCop will agree with that. WHY? Because! He is a Lawyer.
Ex, It appears you do not want some of your comments to be responded to. There is not a Reply button after some of your messages.If I am wrong in my presumption, why no Reply Button?
There is no reply button when it gets to a certain level or nested indentation point. I don’t control that, and one can always make their point as a new thread.
I do censor out certain information, solely at my discretion.
Re: I do censor out certain information, solely at my discretion.
Understood. If it doesn’t fit in with the Program, censor it. Either get in with the Program, or, take a hike. As you, said, Police do not like non compliance even if it’s legal. Gotcha!
My blog, my rules. If you don’t like it, read someone else’s blog, but you do not have a right to be heard here, nor do I have to publish information that is off-topic or incorrect.
You misunderstand ExCop-Lawyer. Gene agrees with you. He said he did. Do you need a picture painted?
5 people witnessing an accident see 5 different things.
@ 5 people witnessing an accident see 5 different things.
I don’t don’t know what I am seeing or what I saw. I think I do see what ExCop-Lawyer is saying.
ECL, why don’t you blog more? There’s so much more stuff you can be commenting on. Do you only comment on Texas issues?
I am in practice now and it just takes more time than when I was a law student.
@ Lawyers practice law they say,………………………………………….
@ I am in practice now and it just takes more time than when I was a law student.
Are you & ExCop “connected”? What’s the difference tween a lawyer & a Lawman? An Attorney v. a Lawyer, Legal v. Lawful?

References: § 795
 § 795
 § 795
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.