After all, it’s never a dull moment out there when it comes to taking pictures in public.

So in an attempt to continue allowing this blog to prosper, I’ve enrolled in the Open Sky Project, a new platform that will enable me to sell products to my readers and hopefully make some money.

The official launch date is August 10.

I will review most if not all the products I’m selling, so I can provide honest feedback before anybody makes a purchase.

Considering that many of the products are food-related products, I also plan to launch a new food blog next month.

This will also help me capitalize on readers who have no interest in Photography is Not a Crime.

Also, let me know if you have any products to sell because I can refer you to Open Sky as a seller, which would allow me and other blogs to sell your products.

The ultimate goal is to make a living from blogging. ABC News featured the Open Sky Project in a recent segment.

This, of course, contradicts the opinion of Harford County State Attorney Joseph Cassilly, who insists on prosecuting Anthony Graber to the fullest extent.

Graber, the National Guardsman who was arrested for uploading a video of a cop who pulled out a gun on him on a traffic stop earlier this year, is facing 16 years in prison because the video included the voice of Maryland State Trooper Joseph Uhler.

But the 11-page opinion is just that, an opinion. It has no legal bearing on Graber’s case.

Although one would think it should serve as an influence on Cassilly, who has been criticized by major national newspapers for pursuing the charges against Graber.

Even a colleague from another county,  St. Mary’s County State Attorney Richard Fritz, does not believe that videotaping a police officer in public, including recording his voice, is illegal.

The A.G.’s opinion states that a conversation between and officer and a citizen in public is not a “private conversation,” so it should not be covered under the state’s wiretapping law.

Graber is scheduled to go on trial October 12.

Check out the Fox News video on the opinion here.

By Carlos Miller
In front of a cable/satellite news team with cameras rolling, a Miami-Dade Metrorail security guard ripped my video camera from my hand, knocking it to the ground, before pocketing it and refusing to return it.

The guard then began pushing me aggressively after I had pulled out my iPhone to continue recording – all while telling me to stop pushing him.

He then struck my hand again in an attempt to snatch the iPhone.

I struck him back, busting his lip.

It was the second time within a month that I had a confrontation with security guards over videography at the Douglas Road Metrorail Station. The first time resulted in a captain from 50 State, the security company that contracts with Miami-Dade County, to “permanently ban” me from the Metrorail.

However, I was never served an official notice. And I did not commit a crime to merit being banned from a public-funded facility in the first place.

After Thursday’s confrontation, paramedics were called to treat the security guard. Cops were called to decide whether I needed to be arrested on battery charges. Or trespassing charges.

Or illegal videography charges, which do not exist but might as well considering how they reacted to me Thursday morning.

The entire incident will be broadcast in an upcoming documentary segment on HDNet TV World Report, the network owned by Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban – the same network that hired Dan Rather when CBS terminated his contracted after 44 years.

The news crew was in town to interview me about Photography is Not a Crime for an in-depth segment on photographers’ rights that will be aired in about three weeks.

Before the incident, I was talking to correspondent Greg Dobbs – who has one hell of a bio – about how I was permanently banned from the Metrorail last month with Stretch Ledford, who is in Europe or else he would have been with us.

We walked through the parking lot of the Douglas Road Metrorail Station and purchased tickets. Dobbs and I then walked inside through the turnstile with me holding up my Canon TX1. The rest of the news crew remained outside.

Within seconds, I was accosted by the female security guard as well as the male security guard wearing a black beret and a single latex glove who knocked the camera from my hand.

I demanded my camera but he refused to give it back.

Then I remembered I had my iPhone, so I started shooting video with that, which prompted the female security to get in my face.

She even lifted her fist up a couple of times as if she was going to strike me.

HDNet TV correspondent Greg Dobbs is in the background trying to reason with the guard who had swiped my camera. This was before we exchanged blows. (Shot with my Canon 5D)

I kept trying to walk away from her while holding up my camera, which is why the video is so shaky.

The male guard then came after me and I also tried walking away from him while videotaping.

But when he struck me, I struck back instinctively.

He then pulled out a metal baton and came after me with it.

I stepped outside the station and he sat down to tend to his lip.

Miami-Dade detectives who arrived on the scene were considering charging me with battery until they saw the footage shot by the news crew.

After two hours of talking to cops, my camera was returned to me, minus a battery that somehow got lost.

The initial footage of the first assault was not on the memory card, so I suspected they had deleted it. But then when I tried to recover it with recovery software after I had gotten home, I could not find it either. So maybe I had just forgot to hit record.

Thankfully, the news crew did not do the same.

I also realize that I must learn how to hold the iPhone horizontally if I’m going to shoot video, which I rarely do because I always have my TX1 on me. But it did serve as a nice back-up.

After the morning excitement, we had lunch and went to my place where we continued the interview in front of my computer. They then drove up to West 
Palm Beach to interview Tasha Ford about the story I broke on PINAC last year.

And later in the week, they will fly up to Washington DC to continue interviewing people engaged in the struggle for photographers’ rights.

By Carlos Miller
Here is an issue that is ripe for debate on this blog because it involves private property rights, freedom of religion and the First Amendment rights of law enforcement officers.

A group of Christians were protesting against a Rob Zombie rock concert at the Hard Rock Cafe in Albuquerque last week.

A Bernalillo County Sheriff’s deputy ordered the group to leave because they were standing on “private property.”

“You can go or you can go to jail,” Deputy Jim Goff told the Christians, who were holding up signs and lambasting the concertgoers for listening to what they believe is devil’s music

As the Christians protested the deputy’s order, Goff turned to the concertgoers and asked the following:

“Guys, do you want them to stay or go?”

The concert goers naturally wanted them to leave.

One of the Christians then accused Goff of acting illegally by asking the opinion of the concertgoers, but my guess is that he still would have thrown them out, even if the concertgoers would have insisted they stay.

As Goff is leading the group off the property, the group continued to inform the concertgoers that they are all going to hell, which prompted Goff to spout his atheist views on the group.

“I am a non-believer, there is no god, there is no Jesus, there is no Satan,” Goff said.

And that, of course, prompted the Christians into telling him he’s going to hell.

And finally, when they are outside the gates of the venue, Goff accused the Christian who is shooting the video of being gay.

“You must have a crush on me, man are you like a gay homosexual, you keep filming me,” Goff said.

And then the Christians are arrested a few seconds later – under what charges, I haven’t a clue because the sheriff’s office has not released that info to the New Mexico media.

But the media did get Bernalillo County Sheriff Manuel Gonzalez to say Goff acted inappropriately by making these personal comments.

So obviously, they are having a hard time coming up with charges against the Christians because it’s not like the press was unable to get a hold of the sheriff. I’m betting we’ll see a few disorderly conduct charges.

Or as we prefer to call it, contempt-of-cop charges.

Personally, I don’t have a real issue with Goff stating his personal views. Cops down here do that all the time and as long as they are not physically assaulting me or giving me unlawful orders, I don’t have a problem with it. They have the same rights to their views as we do.

While it may be unprofessional, the real issue is why were these Christians arrested after they had already been escorted off the property and were no longer trespassing?

Although they protested the deputy’s orders, they did not physically resist him. They simply walked off as they sent everybody to hell. Literally.

Longtime Photography is Not Crime reader M.G. Bralley, who is a retired Albuquerque police officer, New Mexico blogger and photographer emailed me the video with some comments of his own as well as a link to a law-enforcement article titled “controlling public protest: First Amendment implications.”

From the  article:

Three general first amendment principles guide departmental decision making in controlling public protest. First, political speech in traditional public forums, such as streets and parks, is afforded a very high level of first amendment protection, and blanket prohibitions of such speech are generally unconstitutional. Second, reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on such speech are permissible if they are content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve substantial government interests, and leave ample alternative ways for the speech to occur. Third, speech or expressive conduct can be restricted because of its relationship to unlawful conduct, such as disorderly conduct or trespass.

So even though the area they were standing in was considered a public space, meaning it was open to anybody regardless if they had a ticket or not, the Hard Rock most likely had the right to have the protesters removed.

Bralley criticizes Goff for asking the concertgoers for their opinion on whether the Christians should stay or go, even suggesting that he might have been inciting a riot.

But we could also argue that the Christians were inciting a riot for criticizing the concertgoers for their musical taste.

“I think the Sheriff’s Deputy abandoned his duty by how he spoke. He ‘got out of uniform,’ by making it personal,” Bralley said.

Bralley describes himself as a Peelian, a supporter of Sir Robert Peel, founder of the Metropolitan London Police and creator of the theory of “community policing” – something we hear a lot about these days but rarely see in action.

Peel’s theory requires officers to specialize in mediation and conflict resolution among other things. Goff did not attempt to do either.

But as much as Goff is being criticized, he never seemed to have a problem being videotaped.

Yes, there is that one instance where he accused the videographer of being gay, but he never ordered him to shut the camera off.

But a second deputy can be seen continually ordering the videographer to “turn it off” while the videographer tells him “I have the right to videotape.”

That’s where the video ends and we can assume the deputy turned off the camera before arresting the videographer.

But nobody is making an issue over that incident.

By Carlos Miller
After being assaulted on video by a mob of senior citizens, George Edwards thought there would be enough evidence to charge the pair of geezers who attacked him with battery.

But the Los Angeles County sheriff’s office who responded to the melee at the La Habra Heights Improvement Association meeting last month could not find enough evidence on the video to charge the two men who attacked him.

So they passed the video to the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office who also could not make out whether Edwards was attacked or whether he attacked the two elderly men as they had claimed – both who happen to be two of the most politically connected men in this rural area of Los Angeles County.

Now the district attorney’s office is pursuing bogus criminal charges against Edwards for a completely unrelated incident that also happened to involve his camera and a Youtube video.

“They want to charge me with interfering with a firefighter because I asked the fire chief a question on camera,” he said in an interview with Photography is Not a Crime Sunday night.

“They just didn’t like the question I asked him.”

Edwards, a professional news videographer, asked the following question, which can be seen and heard in the above video:

“Chief, do you feel responsible for only having one fire engine staffed?

Any comment on why you only man one engine?”

La Habra Heights Fire Chief Randy Rohrer, who had just pulled up to a house fire that had just been extinguished by La Habra Height’s only fire engine, was stepping out of his car when Edwards stepped up to him with his camera and fired off his questions.

He planned to upload the video on his site where he covers community news, especially considering he had recently been reporting on how community officials have been lying about the adequate fire protection they’ve been promoting (more on that later).

The incident with the fire chief occurred on May 28, almost a month before the June 17th incident at the improvement association meeting in which Edwards was attacked.

But nobody complained about him interfering with a firefighter until he uploaded the video to Youtube on June 6.

Two days later, the city of La Habra Heights filed a complaint with the sheriff’s office against Edwards. And on June 12, he received a call from a sheriff’s detective inquiring about the video he uploaded to Youtube.

“The detective asked why I asked the chief that question,” he said. “I asked him if it was a crime to ask a question.

“Besides, if I was truly interfering, wouldn’t they have arrested me on the spot?”

And then five days later, he was assaulted by a mob of overly aggressive senior citizens as he attempted to videotape an improvement association meeting.

That incident was not only caught on his professional video camera, but on a point and shoot camera held by another journalist, which went unnoticed by the technological-inept seniors who probably imagined they were shutting down the only video camera in the building.

Edwards combined the two videos into a single video below. Here’s more background on that story from the Whittier Daily News, including a statement from one of the association members saying she now realizes that Edwards had every right to be at the meeting, even though he wasn’t a member.

After Edwards was thrown out of the meeting, he called the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Office to report the incident and to inform them that he is making a citizen’s arrest on John Pearce and Jeff Heintz, who in turn informed deputies that they were making a citizen’s arrest on Edwards.

Deputies took statements but made no arrests, even though they charged everybody involved with battery before handing the case over to the district attorney’s office.

After a month of not hearing anything from the district attorney’s office, Edwards called them to learn that because investigators did not see enough evidence of an assault on the video, they set it up for a review hearing on August 10. They also informed him that they would be reviewing the allegations against him involving the fire chief during the same hearing.

“He asked me to bring my press credentials to the meeting,” Edwards said.

“I have the credentials but it shouldn’t make a difference because the Constitution gives protection to anybody who considers themselves press. It’s not up to the local, state or federal government to determine who is press.”

Adding to the confusion, the district attorney’s office sent him a Notice of Office Hearing listing the charge he is facing as “illegal conduct at burning building,” which obviously stems from the first incident.

The letter, which makes no reference to the incident at the improvement association meeting, names Edwards, Heintz and Pearce as respondents.

However, Heintz and Pearce, the two men who attacked him in the meeting, were nowhere near the fire.

Edwards believes this could be a possible plot to threaten him with a criminal charge from the first incident unless he decides to drop charges against the two men from the La Habra Heights Improvement Association who attacked him.

“They’re the kind of people who could pull strings with the D.A.,” he said. “The improvement association controls the city government through backroom deals.

“And the City of La Habra Heights contracts with the sheriff’s office, so if they ask for an investigation, they’re going to get it.”

From what we’ve seen in the first video, the La Habra Heights Improvement Association is under the impression it can do whatever it wants, including one telling moment when Heintz – a retired cop – is chasing Edwards around the gymnasium as he tells him “we are not attacking you, you are attacking members of the improvement association.”

But at La Habra Heights, night is day and day is night.

The California Penal Code listed in the Notice of Office Hearing is 148.2, which states the following:

CA Penal Code:
148.2.  Every person who willfully commits any of the following acts at the burning of a building or at any other time and place where any fireman or firemen or emergency rescue personnel are discharging
or attempting to discharge an official duty, is guilty of a misdemeanor:
1. Resists or interferes with the lawful efforts of any fireman or firemen or emergency rescue personnel in the discharge or attempt to discharge an official duty.
2. Disobeys the lawful orders of any fireman or public officer.
3. Engages in any disorderly conduct which delays or prevents a fire from being timely extinguished.
4. Forbids or prevents others from assisting in extinguishing a fire or exhorts another person, as to whom he has no legal right or obligation to protect or control, from assisting in extinguishing a fire.

Edwards claims he did none of the above. Furthermore, he provides Penal Code 409.5 (d), which specifically states members of the media are to be given access to fires.

409.5.  (a) Whenever a menace to the public health or safety is created by a calamity including a flood, storm, fire, earthquake, explosion, accident, or other disaster, officers of the Department of the California Highway Patrol, police departments, marshal’s office or sheriff’s office, any officer or employee of the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection designated a peace officer by subdivision (g) of Section 830.2, any officer or employee of the Department of Parks and Recreation designated a peace officer by subdivision (f) of Section 830.2, any officer or employee of the Department of Fish and Game designated a peace officer under subdivision (e) of Section 830.2, and any publicly employed full-time lifeguard or publicly employed full-time marine safety officer while acting in a supervisory position in the performance of his or her official duties, may close the area where the menace exists for the
duration thereof by means of ropes, markers, or guards to any and all persons not authorized by the lifeguard or officer to enter or remain within the enclosed area.  If the calamity creates an immediate menace to the public health, the local health officer may close the area where the menace exists pursuant to the conditions set forth in this section.
(b) Officers of the Department of the California Highway Patrol, police departments, marshal’s office or sheriff’s office, officers of the Department of Fish and Game designated as peace officers by subdivision (e) of Section 830.2, or officers of the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection designated as peace officers by subdivision (g) of Section 830.2 may close the immediate area surrounding any emergency field command post or any other command
post activated for the purpose of abating any calamity enumerated in this section or any riot or other civil disturbance to any and all unauthorized persons pursuant to the conditions set forth in this section whether or not the field command post or other command post is located near to the actual calamity or riot or other civil disturbance.
(c) Any unauthorized person who willfully and knowingly enters an area closed pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) and who willfully remains within the area after receiving notice to evacuate or leave shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(d) Nothing in this section shall prevent a duly authorized representative of any news service, newspaper, or radio or television station or network from entering the areas closed pursuant to this section.

Bad Blood Begins

The bad blood between Edwards and certain members of the community goes back to 2002 when he moved to La Habra Heights with his wife and was told there were five fire stations in the community that falls in a very fire hazardous area bordering Los Angeles and Orange counties.

“This is a high-fire danger area,” he said. “We don’t have a fire season. The entire year is fire season.”

Nevertheless, community officials made him and his wife feel safe by leading them to believe there was adequate fire protection.

It turns out, it was all a lie.

“They had five stations at one point, but they closed three down and there were only two left when we moved in ,” he said.

And by 2005, there was only one station left.

So in 2006, Edwards took it upon himself to protect his home and the rest of the community by purchasing a fire engine for $7,200 from New York and drove it back.

“We wanted to donate it to the community but they didn’t want it,” he said.

“They thought they were adequately protected.”

Since he was stuck with the fire engine, he decided to enroll in fire fighting classes in Colorado and California.

And then one day he came upon a car fire in his area of the community, so a police officer asked him to use his truck to put the fire out.

Eventually, the La Habra Heights volunteer fire fighters arrived and took over the job.

But then the city attorney threatened him with criminal charges because he tried to put the fire out.

In case you believe this is all too absurd to be true, check out the news clips from that era, including the one from where he tried to donate the fire engine to the community and the one where he was being threatened with criminal charges for attempting to put out a fire.

This is one backwards community.

In this piece, staff writer Annys Shin – who has taken it upon herself to become the photographer right’s advocate for the Post – interviews several Washington DC photographers who have been harassed, including our very own Jerome Vorus.

She does a good job of continuing to educate the masses about this phenomenon that has increased drastically since the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

Courts have long ruled that the First Amendment protects the right of citizens to take photographs in public places. Even after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, law enforcement agencies have reiterated that right in official policies.

But in practice, those rules don’t always filter down to police officers and security guards who continue to restrict photographers, often citing authority they don’t have. Almost nine years after the terrorist attacks, which ratcheted up security at government properties and transportation hubs, anyone photographing federal buildings, bridges, trains or airports runs the risk of being seen as a potential terrorist.

Reliable statistics on detentions and arrests of photographers are hard to come by, but photographers, their advocates and even police agree that confrontations still occur frequently. Photographers had run-ins with police before the 2001 attacks, but constitutional lawyers say the combination of heightened security concerns and the spread of digital cameras has made such incidents more common.

The issue has received an incredible amount of news coverage in the past month since Shin published her first piece on Anthony Graber last month in which she quoted me and linked to Photography is Not a Crime.

That piece was followed by an editorial in the Post denouncing these arrests. Then NPR Talk of the Nation did a segment in which myself and Radley Balko were interviewed.

And then USA Today wrote a scathing editorial denouncing these arrests. And then ABC News published a piece. And then MSNBC did its piece. And then Popular Mechanics published its piece.

And while not exactly mainstream, Gizmodo – which receives just as much traffic as the others – published a couple of articles in the past month.

And NBC Washington published a piece. And in Arizona, the Tucson Citizen – one of my former employers – also addressed the issue.

And the Cato Institute also addressed the issue.

And I’m sure I missed a few but it’s getting hard to keep up with all this coverage.

This week alone, I have two scheduled radio interviews and I’ll be scheduling a third with a correspondent from HDNet World Report who wants to fly to Miami to interview me.

By Carlos Miller
Benjamimin Bartholomew of Wheatland, California sends in this photo of himself promoting the cause of photography not being a crime.

He spent a total of two-and-a-half hours on the side of a busy road holding this sign. He said he received several horn beeps of support.

And he plans to continue doing this at least once a week.

Here are some short videos he shot.

I, for one, applaud Benjamin for his efforts.

As believers in the First Amendment, we are experiencing a huge momentum shift in the country regarding these types of incidents, thanks to all the national news coverage.

We need to keep the fight going by never leaving home without our video cameras and never being afraid to use them when the time comes. If police want to arrest one of us, somebody else should be there to record it, even if we don’t know that person.

And when these issues come to light, we need to fire off emails to the to top officials like one PINAC reader did this week, informing them that we know the law and that we expect officers to know, respect and enforce the actual law in the books, not the ones in their head.

And we are going to take this fight to Congress. Just wait and see.

And beneath that, I include the response from Maryland Capitol Police Chief Phil Palmere.

The most surprising part of the response is that the chief says he “thoroughly investigated the incident” even though it took place just two days ago.

Usually cops use the excuse of “still under investigation” to delay responding to a particular incident.

It just goes to show you that we, as citizens, have the power to influence. At least every once in a while.

A big thumbs up to the chief.

Today I viewed a YouTube video showing Maryland Capitol Police Lt. Derwyn Parker’s ignorance of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. If you have not already seen the video, please watch it here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe9QNdcRplw&feature=player_embedded

The people shooting the video were in no way impeding, causing a disturbance, or even demonstrating. They were peacefully standing and listening to the speaker like the other citizens in that square. They should never have been singled out because they were recording the event which was in a public space, on public land. While I am not an expert on Maryland law, but it would seem that the permit  mentioned would not give them the right to decide who could observe the event, and who would be excluded. If indeed they wanted to control who could attend they should have had the event in a private meeting room, not in a public square.

In addition, Officer Parker’s threat to incarcerate the person taking the video tape is upsetting and troubling. This person did not commit a crime, the officer had no reasonable suspicion that he had or was about to commit a crime. Then Officer Parker seems to back pedal and try to justify his reprehensible actions with several lines of nonsense. Officer Parker mentions that the person taking the video became a “Problem” and “An issue”, which in viewing the video is not the case. Since when does the State of Maryland decide who can attend and listen to a speech in a public square? Since when does the State of Maryland decide that they can stop someone from taking video of an event in a public square? You might want to consult the Attorney General about freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and prior restraint.

In my opinion, Officer Parker should be sent to attend a high school civics class on the Constitution, and to re-attend his law enforcement training, both of which he seems to have forgotten. In addition, I would advocate for an official reprimand to be placed in his personnel file.

I thank you for your consideration in this matter.

XXXX

Now here is the response from the Maryland Capital Police Chief.

Dear Mr. (name removed by request),

Thank you for contacting me regarding the situation that occurred on July 21 at Lawyer’s Mall in Annapolis. I have thoroughly investigated this incident and have concluded that the situation should have been handled differently. I regret the way this was conducted and take full responsibility for any inconvenience or embarrassment this may have caused. We are already in the process of instituting corrective training measures to address issues of this nature in the future.

We are also in the process of modifying our website to include the rules and regulations on the utilization of Lawyer’s Mall for both those who apply and are approved for permits, for those who are observing, and for any counter-demonstrators.

Once again I greatly appreciate you bringing this issue to my attention. If I can be of any further assistance, please don’t hesitate to contact me at (410) 260-2901 in Annapolis, (410) 767-6744 in Baltimore City or by e-mail at phil.palmere@dgs.state.md.us.

Sincerely,

Phil Palmere
Chief of Police
Department of General Services Maryland Capitol Police

Judge Jose L. Fernandez

By Carlos Miller

The republican turned independent appointed Miami-Dade Judge Jose L. Fernandez to the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court – the same court that reversed my conviction for resisting arrest without violence on the basis that Fernandez abused his discretion as a trial judge.

This is what the governor had to say about Fernandez:

“As a lifelong Floridian and Miami native, Judge Fernandez has served the people of Miami-Dade County well while sitting on county bench, and I am confident he will serve the circuit court with the same level of integrity,” said Governor Crist. “In addition, his wide variety of legal experience ensures that he will review each case with impartiality and fairness.”

Integrity? Impartiality? Fairness?

This is the same judge who allowed improper evidence to be entered in my trial which led to my conviction of resisting arrest without violence, despite the overwhelming evidence – not to mention the acquittal of other charges – that I had not committed an arrestable offense.

This is the same judge that slapped me with a harsher sentence than sought by the prosecutor because he was “shocked” by my “lack of remorse.”

This is the same judge who had to recuse himself from the trial of my second arrest because he had proven to be biased against me during my first trial.

What else can you expect from a guy who spent four years as an attorney for the Professional Law Enforcement Association before becoming a county judge?

It didn’t help that the prosecutor in the case was the son of a veteran Miami-Dade police officer.

For those of you who are new to this blog, let me break it down for you quickly.

During the trial of my first arrest, the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office did not have any actual evidence to convince the jurors that I had been standing in the middle of the street taking photos, which is for what I was supposedly arrested.

The picture in the header of this blog – the one I took seconds before they arrested me – shows the street behind the officers, making it impossible for me to have been standing in the street blocking traffic.

So the prosecutor decided to use my blog against me in the hopes that it would paint me as a cop-hater. The prosecutor even printed out one article I wrote where I referred to Los Angeles police officers as Gestapo because they had been caught on camera beating kids and journalists with billy clubs.

The prosecutor began telling the jury that I thought all cops were Nazis, which is why I got myself arrested.

My attorney immediately objected on the basis that it was completely irrelevant.

But Judge Fernandez agreed with the prosecutor, saying that the article I wrote proved I was bias against cops.

The jury was then treated to a long monologue about me hating cops so much that I purposely got myself arrested in order to start a blog dedicated to badmouthing them.

When I tried to explain on the witness stand the context behind the article, Fernandez would shut me up, ordering me to only answer “yes” or “no” to the questions. If you read the article in question, you would see that I even complimented NYPD. But the prosecutor never mentioned that and I was not allowed to explain.

This led the jury to believe that I had resisted arrest, even though they acknowledged that I did nothing illegal to get arrested in the first place because they acquitted me of refusing a lawful order and disorderly conduct.

When it came time to sentence me, the prosecutor recommended that I get 3 months probation and 50 community hours.

Fernandez turned around and slapped me with one year probation and 100 community hours.

And he based his sentencing solely on my lack of remorse.

Remorse? For taking pictures?

This is what the panel of Circuit Court judges had to say about that when they reversed the conviction in my appeal (the entire appeal decision is  below).

“We see no reasonable basis that the inflammatory issues of Nazism and Gestapo, or the actions of Los Angeles Police Officers, should have been injected into this, a misdemeanor trial, involving the City of Miami Police.

We reject the State’s contention that Defense counsel had a reasonable opportunity to rehabilitate the witness. To do so would have required introducing and explaining the article, screening the referenced videos and other materiel taken of the Los Angeles melee, and including the contrite responses of the senior Los Angeles Police officials.

It would, in essence, have turned Miller’s misdemeanor trial int an examination of a violent, cross-continental incident. In that this evidence is more prejudicial than probative under these circumstances, we find the trial court abused its discretion and reverse the conviction.”

But Fernandez didn’t stop there. He continued to abuse the discretion of his judicial powers when he slapped me with a harsher sentence just because I maintained my innocence.

This what the Circuit Court had to say about that:

It is Constitutionally impermissible for a trial court to impose a sentence based upon a defendant’s assertion of innocence before, during and after trial.

The State contends this did not occur, stating”. . . the court reviewed the total trial evidence and entered its sentence with a mere passing remark on remorse in the context of a comment on the Appellant’s misbehavior and demeanor.”

On the assumption that we have reviewed the same transcript, we reject the State’s interpretation of the record.

As evidenced by the sentencing colloquy, the trial court’s concern, in large part, was for the “real” heroes at Arlington, for Miller’s supporters and for Miller’s “shocking” lack of remorse. The trial court’s comments were not so much passing references, but, instead, grounds for sentencing.

REVERSED with directions that defendant be tried and, if necessary, sentenced before a different judge.

The Circuit Court judges wrote this in December and made it official in January. Crist appointed Fernandez to the same Circuit Court in May.

Perhaps Crist should have Googled Fernandez before making his decision.

When I had to stand before Fernandez on the trial date of my second arrest in January, my lawyer asked him to recuse himself or else we would file a motion demanding him to recuse himself. He recused himself immediately, which allowed me to stand before another judge in March who dismissed the case when the cop didn’t show up.

It should be noted that earlier this month, a Los Angeles jury awarded a reporter $1.5 million in damages because she was brutalized by LAPD officers on that notorious day. So yes, they were acting like complete Nazis.

This is what Fox11 camerawoman Patricia Ballaz had to say about the verdict:

“May 1, 2007 is a day that I will never forget, it is a day that has changed my life forever,” she said. “My genuine hope is that this trial and its verdict will serve as a strong reminder to the LAPD to think twice about using excessive force in any kind of situation.

“Our free speech and civil rights are precious and if we can’t rely on the police to protect them, who can we trust?”

Not Fernandez. That’s for sure.

Here is five page decision from the Circuit Court that reversed my conviction.

Carlos Miller’s appeal victory