First Amendment to the US Constitution Facts That All People Should Know. . . Including Public Employees!

YOUR CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS UNDER THE 1^st AMENDMENT WHEN YOU ARE OUT-AND-ABOUT IN THE USA WHETHER  YOU ARE A US CITIZEN, RESIDENT OR VISITOR. . . THIS APPLIES TO EVERYBODY & YOU NEED TO KNOW YOUR RIGHTS AND THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS!

The information I am sharing with you comes from my own accumulated information on this subject.  I am not a attorney who specializes in US Constitutional issues but I am confident that the information I am providing herein is correct and accurate. I invite, encourage and  urge you to fact-check every item I present herein so  that you have complete confidence to exercise your  rights when you are in public places while in the US.

I have watched, with shock and horror, far too many YouTube videos of people who travel about with camera equipment, mostly using the cameras on cell phones,  depicting interactions  between people exercising  their constitutionally protected rights of  free speech and the right  seek redress of grievance to  their governments and its agencies as these folks, sometimes referred to as First Amendment Auditors, but who see themselves as independent journalists who broadcast their videoed experiences on the internet.  The stories they are actually working on, as independent journalists, are designed to determine  if people who are employed at/in/by public venues and the patrons who are visiting publically accessible place  are aware that photography in public places is a guaranteed 1^st Amendment right, and  not a privilege, as the  constitution, the US Supreme Court, US  District Courts and various state courts have decreed time and again that taking photos in publically accessible areas on and in publically funded properties  extends to every person in public in the  US.  

I cringe in horror watching the rude and  obnoxious behavior  of public employees, many of whom, when reminded that they are public servants balk at the word “servant” as if they’ve just been insulted by the photographer.  The ignorance is never-ending and reaches to the highest level of law enforcement and  local government administration.

Too often, local police, highway patrol/state police/sheriff’s departments are summoned for the purpose of trespassing the “visitor with  a camera” on the premise that the camera-person is making the  staff and patrons of the public venue “uncomfortable,” a condition that  is not a crime. And, regrettably, I’m guessing  that 90% of  the time, maybe more, the law enforcement officers who present themselves, often in massive numbers of 6, 8, 10 or 12 officers armed with guns, mace, Tasers and batons to deal with a person with that heinous and dangerous weapon, the camera, are as clueless as the employees on site and treat the  independent journalist as a intruder and trouble-maker which leads them to trample all over the First Amendment and violate the camera-person’s legal rights. So the visitor who is the only one “in-the-right” is  victimized by the massive ignorance of the  employees at every level!   The reality is that these independent journalists know the law, often reciting chapter and verse, article and item numbers, reciting from the US Constitution, state  and local  law and decrees from US District  Courts all over the  country  and, in particular, decrees directly related to the region where they are being harassed by people who are completely ignorant  of the law.

Too often, illegal signs that are not backed by any laws are posted in publically  accessible places where  the right  to  photographing  those areas AND THE PEOPLE IN THOSE AREAS, INCLUDING SPACES AND PEOPLE LOCATED OUTSIDE  OF PUBLICALLY  ACCESSIBLE AREAS THAT CAN BE SEEN  FROM THE PUBLIC AREAS ARE  GUARANTEED UNDER THE 1^ST  AMENDMENT.  Departments and agencies of government often have handbooks and guidelines for employees that include policies and codes of behavior. However, NO POLICY IS LEGAL IF THE US CONSTITUTION STATES THAT PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHAT THE SIGN  SAYS YOU CAN’T DO IN A PUBLIC PLACE.

I feel the frustration of these photographers who go  out with cameras with an agenda to see what happens when they enter a publically accessible space with an “oh-so-dangerous-camera” to see how  they will be received. The YouTube folks I enjoy watching are incredibly self-disciplined for  the most part, are polite and  cordial but when they are slammed with rude, nasty, awful behavior from the employees at these public venues, they sometimes return the attitude. Nonetheless, they go out of their way not to be disorderly or interfere with the operation of the place they are visiting. Disorderly behavior  and obstructing the normal flow of  business generally comes from the  employees themselves who raise their voices, stop working, tell other  patrons  to the establishment  that  someone is taking photos or  video and if  they don’t  want their privacy imposed upon they should leave and come back another  day, a ploy I have viewed happening in DMVs (Departments of Motor  Vehicles), public libraries and Post Offices which are federal properties.  I have seen videos of management at public entities shuttering  service areas and waiting for the police to  arrive to escort the  camera person outside which leads the  staff to lock the entrance doors so  the  camera person cannot  re-enter and the public is completely inconvenienced as the venue  they  have just  traveled to visit is often, now, closed for  the day.

Sometimes, the photographer is detained, often handcuffed and, too often, arrested and carted off to jail. The only crimes perpetrated in this too often enacted scenario are committed by the public employees and the law enforcement team whose actions, due to complete ignorance of the law, lead them to violate the 1^st, and, too often, the 4^th Amendment rights of the photo-journalist. And too often, law enforcement personnel take the side of the complainant, who too often embellished the story of what of  is  going on  with outright lies telling the 911 operator that the photo-journalist is coming behind desk, ruffling through private papers, is cursing at people, which, by the  way, is protected speech under the First Amendment so, while rude, is not  a crime, and the police often won’t even listen to what the  photo-journalist has to say. Happily, the video in their cameras don’t lie. Regrettably, the brand image of the locale is completely destroyed by public employees and law enforcement by their horrible behavior and ignorance caught on video and publicized online. So a town or city that is investing  time and resources to  attract new non-polluting businesses  to  their vicinity with plans to use tax revenue  from those businesses  to increase their tax rolls  and  expand employment opportunities with hopes of   to maintain and grow services for local residents, to increase  the school population to build state-of the-art language and computer labs, theaters to expand their  drama departments and art departments, creating free-instruments and music education programs to  enhance  the quality of life for students, to expand their track and field and stadium areas, to expand their  library facilities and their  online  learning programs, to develop more playgrounds and other outside public venues of value to the community,  can all be put at risk when a decision-maker  looks into what a locale might have to offer their  business and  their  employees  and  their families in the process of doing their  due diligence before announcing a move to  a particular town only stumble over a video about that  town or city online in which key individuals at public agencies of government, appointed and elected officials, even mayors and town/city  executive that may be  elected or appointed, routinely trash the  visitor who  comes by with camera in hand  and is treated like rubbish and often called awful names.  If I were considering  a move to  a place, as an family or as the  head  of a company that could be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax revenue to  the  place we would setter, and I saw a video showing that, in that destination, people whose jobs are fundamentally designed to  serve the  public cavalierly  treat the  public badly, violate their constitutionally guaranteed rights, and have no concern about acting illegally, too often not  even apologizing or indicating  that  they learned something because of that visit once they find out the visitor was well within their rights, I’d  find  another  place to move to!

There are some fundamental rights that you, as a person, have when in the sanctity and privacy of your home.  Even the police must have evidence stong enough to convince a judge that it appears that criminal behavior is in progress at  a particular home in order to get a search warrant to enter that home. Without that search warrant, law enforcement is not supposed to step across the threshold of your doorway unless you issue an invitation to them to come in. .  . which I  wouldn’t do without my attorney’s recommendation and presence  in my home at the time of the  visit!  Your home is truly your castle!

But, the moment you step out onto a public sidewalk or  drive onto a public roadway, YOU LOSE THE  RIGHT  TO PRIVACY!  That’s one of  the  reasons that there are surveillance cameras everywhere once you leave your house photographing  you inside and outside of publically accessible  areas.  The law is clear (go Google it!): THERE IS NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN PUBLIC.  And that means that the government can photograph  you in all public areas, private businesses can photograph you outside and  inside of their establishments and nobody needs to get your permission or consent to capture you on film or digitally. 

I hope I have given you enough to want to review exactly what your rights, and the  rights of others, are so  that you don’t get caught  up in supporting the illegal detainment and/or arrest of someone who is doing something that  is  legally within their rights. When people get arrested or detained by law enforcement when  they have committed no crime and they are engaged  in constitutionally protected activity, there  are consequences

1. People sometimes get demoted or fired.
2. People lose their pensions.
3. Law enforcement personnel lose their Qualified Immunity which removes their protection by the law enforcement agency when the municipality and the law enforcement agency is sued for illegal detainment and/or arrest.
4. The video the photographer took plus the body-camera and surveillance camera video become evidence in a law suit and, in general, the arrested/detained party wins a sizable lawsuit whose penalty and the winner’s court costs and attorneys’ fees are paid for by the taxpayers. . . and from the law enforcement folks who if they lost their qualified immunity in the  process. Generally speaking, the award to the winner of the suit, sometimes coming from a  pre-trial  settlement because  the district attorney knew  there was no way the  city and police department could win this case, or from a jury trial or a bench trial where there is no jury and the  judge makes the decision, results in an award in the  tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, or more, depending on the extent of the damage to the person who is suing.

And all of the above unpleasant consequences are the result of the ignorance of some local folks who had no  clue that photography from public space of  public areas AND of anyplace one can  see from a public space, even if what your  eyes  can see, and your  camera can see, is located in specifically restricted space (!) [except for places like locker rooms and public restrooms and court rooms and areas abutting courtrooms except with permission of the judge],  is not only legal but  is guaranteed under the US Constitution’s First Amendment rights.

We will be posting specific information in the coming day to walk you through an easy step-by-step process of general information that you should know about your rights. Please fact-check each item with your own research and with a civil rights attorney or an organization focused on civil rights to verify what is  offered herein so that you are completely well-versed  in your  rights and behave accordingly and with confidence as I do not offer this information as an attorney, which I am not, or as a legal advisor of any kind, which I am not. So please exercise your  research skill by double-checking  the information presented here and let me know  if your research confirms the validity and veracity of the contents or if your research has found credible information from a reliable source that you can quote, including quoting specific law, that  would indicate the need for  a correction  herein.

Note that some state laws may differ on various specific conduct of members of the public and of public servants but local and  state laws do not nullify, override or countermand laws of  the  US Constitution.

Also, may I suggest that you attend a village, town or city council meeting and encourage those who run your local government to create and implement training programs for all public employees to review the  rights  of people to enter publically accessible areas, indoors and outside, while engaged in photography as long  as they are not  obstructing the normal flow  of business operations?  Police called to such scenes who know the law too often tell the employees that “unfortunately” the photographer has the right to  do  this! What, pray tell, is “unfortunate” about exercising your  constitutionally guaranteed rights??

And then the police often follow  the “unfortunately” bit of wisdom with their opinion that  the only reason the people  come in to do this  photography is to bait the  staff and law enforcement into behaving badly, capturing on video and posting it on YouTube to increase the number of clicks at their online distribution channels which they monetize through advertising.  While the end result of seeing  the law broken by public servants at all levels ends up in a video-horror-show which inevitably gets viral attention online, and that, indeed may put  money in the pockets of these people who actually risk their lives with each police encounter, sometimes being wrongfully  jailed for trespassing and disorderly conduct that  never happened, it  would be so wonderful if public servants and the  public, in general, were educated and poised enough to  either  ignore  the  photographer or cordially welcome them and not threaten them with trespass tickets and arrest. If that were  the case, there’s be no sensational videos coming out of these visit. 

The fact is that the photographer is just taking pictures and everyone in that area manages to “freak out!” If the staff and law enforcement knew the law, time would pass peacefully until the photographer left and there are precious few  visits  to  public places are the US that follow the  “peace in the valley”  scenario. The disturbance of the peace is caused by the  outlandish actions of the  public  employees  but , generally  speaking, with rare exception, it’s not the photographer who causes an awful  scene.

 Please explore  this section of sAbrams.net to learn more about First Amendment Rights and how  they protect your rights when you are traveling about  outside  of  your home in the USA and how  someone else’s right to exercise Free Speech through photography may affect you  and what you  think is your right to privacy!

Looking forward to your feedback. . .

Stephanie Abrams

Broadcast  Travel  Expert

Continue to Learn More. . .

The Short Course in Understanding First Amendment Rights:

https://www.youtube.com/wathttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKmnJgXyZpUch?v=NKmnJgXyZpU

1. The 1^st Amendment to the US Constitution grants 5 rights and freedoms:

    •Freedom of Speech

   • Freedom of Religion

   • Freedom of Press

   • Freedom of Assembly

  • Right to petition the government for redress of grievances

Freedom of speech includes the right to use obscene language as a form of self-expression but limits the use of language directed at people as threats and hate-speech as well as speech that endangers or threatens to endanger people’s lives.

           Freedom of Assembly, in addition to making public protests, parades and     rallies legal, although permits may be required in some jurisdictions depending on size and interruption of traffic on public streets, the right  to be on  public grounds and in publically accessible indoor spaces is protected in this amendment.

            Freedom of press is a very broad term which acknowledges that every individual is considered to be a member of the press for the purpose of gathering and disseminating information in any and  all forms, whether destined to be printed, broadcast, verbally delivered in a speech or digitally disseminated with the messaging being delivered by words that are printed or spoken via   audio, video, film or  other  photographic  means.  Cameras are considered an extension of Free Speech and creative self-expression and cannot be used as a reason that to trespass a  person from a public place. Public buildings may have areas that prominently display signage indicating that specific spaces, hallways, stairways and offices are restricted to authorized staff only or similar language which are off limits to all visitors. Similarly, photography, except under extreme circumstances such as the police capturing  photographic evidence related to a crime in a cordoned off facility, restrooms and locker rooms are also off-limits for photography.

While courtrooms and areas adjacent to courtrooms such as hallways leading into courtrooms, vestibules abutting entry/exit areas of courtrooms, judges’ chambers, offices of court clerks and others who assist judges,  meeting rooms available for attorneys and those involved in court cases to meet and the corridors leading to these facilities are generally areas where photography can only done if the photographer has  the permission of the presiding judge which  is generally needed in writing.

­­­­_______________________________________________________________

• “Hello 911! Can you send the police to our office building? There’s a suspicious person here with a camera taking photos or video and this person is making our employees and visitors to this public building uncomfortable!  I’m the supervisor and my staff just can’t do their jobs while he’s here.  It’s an invasion of our employees’ privacy and the privacy of those who come here to avail themselves our services. No one has given this photographer consent to take photos of the people here.  And he looks suspicious! We want him out of here! Please come quickly!”

There is a lot to unpack here so let’s do it simply. The comments above are typical of the kinds of things that employees in public buildings say when they call the police. The remarks, which often include reporting to the 911 operator  exaggerations and outright lies about what the photographer is doing, often turning the report of “a person with a camera” into a story about a person  involved in committing a crime of vandalism, robbery and/or assault. Ironically, the video  that the photographer is taking generally captures the scenario  which demonstrates what  the photographer has actually done or not done and has said or not said, including the tone, language and decibel level of the photographer’s voice which is, most often, quieter and more cordial than the  tone, language and decibel level of the personnel  and, sometimes, the other visitors to this public space. In this process, the complainant to 911 is often guilty of lying about the facts of the incident which is a crime while what the photographer is doing is not a crime! You have to love the irony!

Also of importance to not is that the purpose of 911 service is for emergencies. The first question that the 911 operator will ask is, “What is your emergency?”  If the emergency is related to a fire or someone’s life is hanging in the balance due to a sudden illness or accident, the 911 operator will dispatch the fire department or paramedics to the address given. But when the situation involves dealing with a crime, the police are sent to the scene. A person taking photos in a public place is not engaged in criminal activity. A person with a camera in a publically accessible area cannot be trespassed from that area simply because they have a camera. To be asked or ordered to leave, the person must be creating a disturbance, obstructing or interfering with staff that disrupts the normal flow of business. 

But when the staff has no clue as to what is guaranteed by law as a right and the police arrive who often  have no knowledge about what is legal and what rights are guaranteed, too often the only one who knows the law and knows what rights are guaranteed by the Constitution is the photographer. And because the photographer is outnumbered by people who are ignorant of the law but confident that they are right, the law enforcement officers at the scene side with the public employees against the  photographer. These are cringe-worthy scenes where ignorance wins because of a democratic vote.” All those in favor of trespassing this person with a camera say ‘Aye’.”Too often, police officers and sheriffs’ deputies talk over the photographer’s protestations and act like bullies and tyrants showing total disregard for the information the photographer is trying to convey.  But we’ll get to the law enforcement process next!

1. The mere act of carrying any kind of camera or recording device does not make a person “suspicious.” Complainants often state that they would not classify that same person as suspicious if they were not carrying a camera. Cameras are designated as an extension of free speech and, given the commonly accepted adage that “one picture  is worth a thousand words,” cameras play a strong role in telling a story and telling it accurately and in a way  that words alone often cannot explain effectively.
2. Engaging in photography in a publically accessible space in a right guaranteed and protected by the 1^st Amendment and many decrees of US District Courts and state courts.
3. There is a common theme among employees in public buildings blaming the photographer for making them uncomfortable. While I have used the term photographers to describe visitors with cameras, those visitors will generally describe themselves as journalists. But no one would think twice about someone who took out a notebook, made some notes and maybe drew a few diagrams to better remember what was in the public space and what was observed in this place. There’d be little to no interest in anyone making some notes or staring to indelibly imbed into one’s photographic memory all that could be seen at this venue.  So the distinguishing feature that makes  people “uncomfortable” is the photographic  aspect of this visitor. . . whose visit to a public place with a camera is legal, constitutionally protected and is not a criminal  act! Nonetheless, police are called and community resources are wasted on that call. Even worse is that not all police visits end well. But you knew that! And we’ll get into that soon!

Making someone “uncomfortable” is not a crime.  I  get uncomfortable when some fool decides to poorly tell a really awful “joke.” While that should be a crime, it’s clearly not!  So let’s clear up the whole “privacy in public” thing quickly:

Please commit this to memory:

THERE IS NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN PUBLIC.

Let’s delve into that piece by piece because far too many people, public employees of  all kinds and the  average person out in public, including, it pains me to say, attorneys who haven’t a clue about civil rights law, truly believe that no one can take their photo when they are out and  about in a public setting and that  the photographer  must  get  their  written consent in  order to randomly take a photo in which their image is captured.

So let’s talk about something everyone knows:

If  you are a celebrity and news leaks out that  you are going to be arriving at an airport in some wonderful US city, you can already imagine that  the press, generally consisting of people with microphones  and  recording devices and photographers will be lined up some publically accessible place closest to where the celebrity is arriving  or, if they are lucky, the airport management finds a way to create a safe place close to where the celebrity will exit the plane, whether the celebrity wants all  of  these  people and cameras snapping  his/her photo.

I’m sure you already have visions of the trail of cars and motorcycles that will  shadow the celeb’s limo to some posh hotel in the heart of the city and they will camp out on the sidewalk lined up  their vehicles as close to the front entrance and back exits of the hotel hoping they can get more candid shots that they can sell to  broadcast, digital  and print media. One unique photo could be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and they make their living off of other people’s celebrity and achievements.  I’m confident that you can envision, having seen so many scenes of this published in various forms of media, a gang of fifty to one hundred, or more, of the “paparazzi” with all of their photographic equipment.

If it were illegal to randomly snap people’s photos without having first obtained their permission to  take their picture in a public place, like and airport or from a sidewalk in front of  a hotel or on  a public sidewalk looking through the window of a store or restaurant or other public business to capture the celeb having a drink or a meal, why wouldn’t the celeb or  the hotelier or restaurant owner call the police and have  the photographers all locked up and carted away. After all, this is  America and people have a right  to  their privacy!

Yes, people have a right  to privacy in their hotel room, in their homes, in offices with door that are closed or inside offices with glass walls that also have curtains or shades or blinds to create privacy  but. . .remember the phrase:

THERE IS NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN PUBLIC. . . and that is why celebrities get swamped by photographers in public spaces all over America all the time.

So if very wealthy people who can afford a herd of attorneys and are influential in so many ways because of  the influential people in their social  network and can afford to buy  whatever  they want whenever they want it, why can’t they get rid of the annoying people following them around with cameras making them “uncomfortable,”  who haven’t been  given no permission or consent to allow these hounds to  follow the celeb and to endlessly take photos of them and who plan to make money  by selling their image for  publication? How is that even possible?

Because in the United States (as well as in a number of other democracies in the world), THERE IS NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN PUBLIC.

That means that employees in a public building have no right to privacy. Visitors to public buildings have no right to privacy. So if you’re in the Witness Protection Program and you don’t want to be photographed by anyone because whomever you’re hiding from might find you, then stay out of public places, wear a wig, a hat, sunglasses, and now that we’ve experienced Covid-19, no one will think twice about your wearing  a mask across your face as part of your  disguise. But you have no right, in public, to carry on about being “uncomfortable” because someone is there with a camera!

And if you’re really uncomfortable because of cameras, you really need to stay home or wear  that disguise because the new statistic states that if you go out in public in just about any municipality in the US, in the course of one day you will be photographed, on average, 71 times. Cameras are on just about every highly trafficked street, public building, park, parking lots and private businesses too! Make a project out of counting how many cameras you can count in the course of a single day of running errands! And you just may not be able to spot all of the  surveillance cameras that are  cleverly hidden in the crevices of poles and buildings!  Now add the body cameras on the law enforcement officers who showed up for  the 911 call that are also photographing the public employees and note that  the police are overloaded with toxic sprays and guns and Tasers and batons and explain to me how that doesn’t make anyone “uncomfortable!” If  the answer is that the weaponized police officers are there to protect the staff, let me direct your attention to this recent  news report about a police officer wearing a bulletproof vest threw himself to the ground yelling that he was hit by a bullet fired by an unarmed man who was handcuffed in the backseat of a patrol car whom the officer shot  at in response to the “gunfire” that hit him. . . only to find  out  that the sound the officer hear was not a gunshot, he was not hit  by a bullet and the hardly audible sound that  he equated to gunfire was the sound of a tiny acorn falling from a tree and landing on the hood  of a car parked near him. I hope you watched the video at the top of this page! Yes, things can get out of hand when confrontation and guns are involved even in circumstances where the there’s no way the man in custody could have shot anything!

Anytime one is in the  presence of people with weapons, even people who are well trained in the safe use  of weapons, things can get  out of hand and unexpected injuries or death can be the  end result. So what is guaranteed not to injure someone if used  as the manufacturer intended: a gun or a camera?  The only thing a camera will shoot is pictures.  That should present a clear and present danger to any rational person, rational being  the key here!

So, it’s hard to believe that public servants working in public facilities who are under camera surveillance ALL  DAY, EVERY DAY THAT THEY ARE WORKING, are suddenly camera shy when a lone stranger enters with a camera! And if  they think  that the video taken by the cameras from  every angle over their  heads won’t be seen by anyone, all it takes is  a request to that footage and you, too, can have a video  of the workers without ever stepping foot  into the facility.

So let’s summarize:

1. Suspicion is not a crime. If someone has committed a crime, a specific crime that you can articulate, is committing a crime or you have evidence they are about to commit a crime, then calling 911 is the  sensible  thing to do. But walking around a public place with a camera is not a crime and is, in fact, and activity that is protected by the 1^st Amendment to the US Constitution.
2. Being accused of making people uncomfortable does not constitute a crime in the United States.   People who  feel  uncomfortable because someone, in a public place, is taking photos of workers should get a job in the private sector.  The discomfort of a public employee cannot infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed rights of others.
3. When no crime has been committed, it’s a crying shame that police are called to come to  the scene of no-crime-here, wasting the time of law enforcement officers and potentially starting  a chain of events that could lead to physical injury of the non-criminal, or bystanders who happen to get ensnared in some unexpected conflict as we have too often seen when egos and tempers get in the  way of  good judgment.  Unlawful detainments and unlawful arrests will invariably  lead to lawsuits that the municipality will lose and taxpayers will pick up the burden of supporting the budget that needs to pay the economic award to the wrongfully detained/arrested whose only crime was to enter a public building with a camera that he/she is guaranteed the right to do under US laws.  Time and again, the photographer wins, and deservedly so.
4. The only good that can come out of  these photographic visits is the value of the lessons learned by those whose  gaining the knowledge about 1^st Amendment rights that  too many people are seriously lacking and confused about.  The hope is that the  next person who enters a public space in that town or city, who has a camera in use as they walk about publically accessible spaces, that  they will be cordially welcomed and left to their own resources to take their photos and leave when they are ready to live within the framework of the designated hours of operation of that public space.  We  can only hope.  . .

But  there’s more on this subject , so click on Page 2 below to read:

NEWS ALERT: California DMV Training Materials For Staff Encourage “Call Law Enforcement” for “Uncooperative Visitors.” Is Engaging in Constitutionally Protected Activity Deemed to Be “Uncooperative” and a Crime?

From Ghosties and Ghoulies and Under-Educated Public Employees,

Good Lord, Deliver Me!

Please Read On!