For Art Basel 2008 coverage, visit Buildings and Food.

 

Monday October 29, 2007

The Jeff Weinsier incident

Jeff Weinsier gets arrested Last week, Channel 10 reporter Jeff Weinsier was arrested in front of Miami Central Senior High. By now everyone knows what happened, but let’s recap: 1) Weinsier and his cameraman, while shooting from the sidewalk, are ordered, and more or less forced, by police to go across the street; 2) Weinsier calls his station, who calls the police department, and they’re “given permission” to go back; 3) upon returning to the sidewalk on the school’s side, another confrontation with the police ensues, and Weinsier is arrested; 4) upon being searched, he is found to be carrying a concealed weapon, which is illegal on school grounds.

Well, WPLG 10 has now released the raw video of the incident, and C.L. Jahn breaks it down. C.L. Points out the obvious — that the video doesn’t show Weinsier ever setting foot on the school’s property. This misses the rather obvious point that we don’t know what happened before the camera started rolling. Video footage and photography are like that: our brain is tricked into thinking we’re seeing all there is to see. It’s completely possible that Weinsier was standing on the grass before the video we see was shot. And if he wasn’t, the police can certainly claim so, which may give some legal standing to their “lawful order” for him to stay across the street.

The law here is murky: schools are surrounded by a 500 foot “school safety zone,” and in some regards this zone is considered an extension of school grounds. Carlos Miller addresses the various laws that come into play here and here. It seems clear that Weinsier violated the law by carrying the gun near a school. But if that’s the only thing he ends up guilty of, it may very well overshadow the much larger issue: whether the police were right in ordering him off the sidewalk, and in arresting him. Carlos says:

According to Florida Statute 810.0975, which defines trespassing in “school safety zones”, a person is committing an unlawful act if he loiters in the school safety zone, but “does not have legitimate business in the school safety zone”.

The emphasis is his, and with good reason: a possible hinge-point is whether television reporting constitutes “legitimate business.” The common-sense answer would be ‘yes,’ but of course common sense is irrelevant. What’s relevant is how all the various facts of the case, and the relevant laws, are going to be interperted here. If the officer had a legitimate reason for ordering the reporters to leave (despite the fact that he doesn’t give one on camera, he of course had a reason — TV reporters file reports from schools all the time with no trouble), does disobeying the order actually constitute trespassing? Will they continue to insist that Weinsier stepped on the grass? Is it legally relevant that the Police Department’s own Public Information Officer told the station that it was OK for Weinsier to be on the sidewalk?

Perhaps most important: will the WPLG stick up for their reporter, and fight this case hard? On Friday, the station suspended Weinsier for two weeks for carrying the concealed weapon, a violation of their company policy. Fine; they may just be erring on the side of caution in preparation for the fight to come. But barring more information, this is a clear first-amendment issue, and the station — we all — need to pursue it to make sure it’s resolved properly. If the police were not right, there needs to be a major counter-suit. And remember: if the only charge that sticks is the concealed weapons violation, the police were wrong. In this case, that constitutes a technicality, because it wasn’t discovered until after the arrest. We’ve all seen how well police reports can spin police behavior even when it is obviously and clearly wrong. Let’s not stand for that this time around.

Tags: , , , · Post to del.icio.us, digg, reddit · Comment feed for this post: RSS, atom

  1. MiamianLawStudent    Mon Oct 29, 12:40 PM #  

    Please see Fla. Stat. Sect. 810.0975(2)(b) & ©. Given these sections, the most fundamental problem in this case may be that Weinsier didn’t seek or obtain permission to be inside the school zone. The law doesn’t prevent him from reporting or around schools, it merely requires him to obtain authorization or do so 500 feet away. Of course, his defense would be that he didn’t need permission because he had a “legitimate business purpose.”

    But, please, explain why it is “common sense” that television reporting constitutes a “legitimate business” vis-a-vis a school? Certainly news reporting is generally a legitimate business purpose but is it legitimate when conducted within a school safety zone WITHOUT permission? Do we know whether the subject matter Weinser’s conduct in reporting the case was legitimate? For example, was it sanctioned by his editors? Was it based on any substantial or reasonable leads? Was he conducting his reporting in a reasonable or professionally ethical manner? Was he harassing or intimidating students? Certainly not any action by a reporter with a camera can be a “legitimate business” just because he claims to be “on the job.”

    As for the gun…well that just throws Weinsier’s credibility out the window. What the hell was he thinking?

    That said, I’m not saying Weinsier’s guilty or not guilty nor am I saying the cop (and perhaps the school administrators) had the good or bad intentions in keeping Weinsier away. All I am saying is that, based on what we know, this is not as clear cut a case as you’ve portrayed it.



  2. DJ_Kremlin    Mon Oct 29, 01:10 PM #  

    If I had to work anywhere near Miami Central, I too would carry a pistol! That is one of the most dangerous areas of Miami. I don’t blame him one bit. As MiamiLawStudent said, it’s not a clear cut case, but as far as the gun issue goes, if he didn’t step on school property and has a concealed weapons permit, then I don’t see a problem.



  3. C L Jahn    Mon Oct 29, 01:10 PM #  

    C.L. Points out the obvious — that the video doesn’t show Weinsier ever setting foot on the school’s property. This misses the rather obvious point that we don’t know what happened before the camera started rolling.

    Actually, I did not miss that at all. I directly addressed this very issue:

    “And if, as the Police Department claims, he was standing on the grass, why didn’t the police tell him that’s why he was being asked to move across the street? Weinsier asked for a reason; the cops refused to give one. At no time did they cops say “we saw you on the grass, that’s trespassing.” Not once did they say that; all they would repeat is “We kindly ask that you move across the street!”

    Weinsier was clearly on a public sidewalk, he clearly wasn’t on the grass when the police asked him to leave, and he clearly wasn’t on the grass when they arrested him.”

    As for the gun: if the charge of trespassing gets thrown out, so to must the gun charge: if it was discovered during an illegal search, it’s not admissible as evidence. Without the trespassing charge, the MDSP would have had no reason to search him.



  4. alesh    Mon Oct 29, 02:12 PM #  

    MLS~

    They were doing a piece on school violence. The stuff about needing to get permission . . . you’re just inventing that out of thin air? I mean, if I’m walking down the street, and I happen to walk by the school, that’s allowed, right? So why not a newspaper reporter? Think about what it would mean if newspaper reporters had to “ask permission” every time they wanted to report from IN FRONT of a school. They don’t even have to do that in Communist China, dude.

    CL~

    The fact that they didn’t say that when he asked them why he had to move doesn’t prove anything — cops don’t like answering “why” questions, because it just invites a debate. They say do it, you do it — that’s their position.

    I agree about the gun charge.



  5. MiamianLawStudent    Mon Oct 29, 04:42 PM #  

    The permission thing isn’t out of thin air. It’s in the statute. See:

    (b) During the period from 1 hour prior to the start of a school session until 1 hour after the conclusion of a school session, it is unlawful for any person to enter the premises or trespass within a school safety zone or to remain on such premises or within such school safety zone when that person does not have legitimate business in the school safety zone or any other authorization, license, or invitation to enter or remain in the school safety zone. Any pers