Steve Sherlock

Is it fair for "obstruction" to be used as a catch-all charge when no specific law is broken? In 2018, Martinez PD Officer Michael R. Lincoln approached two men filming on a public sidewalk near a refinery in Martinez, CA. He questioned their purpose, ordered hands visible, and treated the filming as suspicious. The auditors cited the First Amendment and California Penal Code § 148(g), which states that openly recording a peace officer in a public place does not, by itself, constitute obstruction or provide reasonable suspicion to detain. No arrest or citation occurred. ❓Does an officer “work for the public,” or for his supervisor and the department? ❓How should officers handle people who refuse to explain their purpose for filming?

What’s the real reason so many officers refuse to simply state their name when asked and instead say "right here"? It's their standard answer rather than just saying their name. In August 2024, Long Island Audit (SeanPaul Reyes) was recording in the publicly accessible exterior areas of the Nassau County Correctional Center in East Meadow, NY when he was confronted by Nassau County Deputy Sheriffs. Reyes stated he was an independent journalist exercising his First Amendment right to film publicly accessible government property and working on a story. Deputies challenged his presence, telling him he could not proceed past a security gate without a scheduled inmate visit and that certain areas were restricted. When asked for his name and badge number, one deputy repeatedly said it was “right here” on his shirt. Reyes responded that the name tag was scrunched and unreadable and asked how to spell it, noting the difficulty in identifying the officer. Deputies also stated there were no cell phones allowed in the building. Reyes pointed out that another woman had been allowed through the same area without the same check, asking why the rule appeared to be applied differently. Key exchange from the video: Deputy: “Right now, unless you have a visit, you’re not going to go any further.” Reyes questioned the restriction and noted the open gate and lack of clear restricted-area signage at his location. Deputy: “You don’t have any business here. You don’t have an inmate.” No arrest occurred. Reyes completed his recording. ❓Is it gaslighting to repeatedly tell a person they have “no business” being in a non-restricted publicly accessible area while they’re recording? ❓Is saying “right here” a respectful answer, or a dismissive one that shows contempt and signals the person asking isn’t worthy of a proper response?

Should police be able to demand your ID just because a neighbor sees you parked taking pictures from a public street? North Branch, MN — May 2022: Man sits in his parked car on the public street at 6186 Oak Street. A neighbor calls police, claiming he’s taking pictures of her while she’s in her yard. Officer David Janssen (Badge 518, North Branch PD; later promoted to Sergeant) arrives and immediately demands the man’s driver’s license and proof of insurance. He says the call is about photographing the neighbor in her yard and that the activity “can be considered intrusive and disorderly conduct.” He detains the man for investigation into “suspicious activity.” The man is on public property. He states he committed no crime, that photography from a public vantage point is protected by the First Amendment, and that he is not required to produce ID without reasonable articulable suspicion of a specific crime. He repeatedly asks if he is being detained and for what crime, films the entire encounter, and eventually gets the officer’s name and badge on camera. The stop lasts roughly 13 minutes. No crime is identified. Janssen ends the detention and leaves. No citation, no arrest, no forced ID. ❓Does knowing your rights actually change the outcome in these encounters? ❓If the man had handed over his ID immediately, would the stop have ended faster or gone further?