 |
| Lyon County logo |
As the
RGJ reported, a Dayton man annoyed
county employees at the Dayton Public Utilities by filming video, not answering
reasonable questions, and then got upset when someone who had the phone shoved
in her face, quite naturally, took the phone he was filming with away from him.
Then he threw a fit, got his phone back, hung around the building, and was
arrested.
Anthony Passalacqua, a self-described EMT (he also claimed
he was in the Army and “was in law enforcement”), was arrested on charges of
brandishing and trespassing. Passalacqua apparently was openly carrying a
pistol as well, which Sheriff McNeil affirmed to the RGJ was indeed legal.
“First Amendment Auditors,” as these people who make videos call
themselves, engage in entering public buildings or public spaces and filming
until they are either confronted by police or security, or someone asks them
what they are doing. Usually, the “auditor’s” obdurately rude reaction escalates
the encounter into what they term a “violation”.
The
video is cringeworthy and the comments even worse. After strolling
around the parking lot, describing where he is, Passalacqua enters the office.
 |
| Anthony Passalacqua, c. Lyon County Sheriff via RGJ |
He is fairly quickly questioned as to why he is filming. When
met by the officer manager, he immediately goes outside as if he was
intimidated. Instead of saying “First Amendment Audit, ma’am,” instead he is
defensive, asks his own questions, such as “Who are you that I have to answer
to?”, and reiterates essentially “you’re in public, this is a public building,”
etc. One of his snarky rejoinders is: “Why don’t you write to Congress and tell
them to change the First Amendment?”
Passalacqua called his “audit” a “fail” because someone
questioned why he was doing and why. I guess with the bar that low, it makes
all the open carry clarification encounters that end in “sorry, you were right,”
failures too. Education in pursuit of compliance does not seem to be one of the
“auditors’” interests, a marked difference between these YouTubers and gun
rights advocates.
Things go pear-shaped when Passalacqua goes into a second office. Inside, he puts the
camera very close to the woman’s face, she pushes the camera away. A natural
reaction, I would argue. He claimed, via text on the video, that she was
blocking his exit, and immediately screams “Do not touch me!” Only audio of
this incident is available and it is important to note that the video was edited. During the “scuffle”
Passalacqua screams, “Do not approach me, you are making me in fear for my
life.” Note: taking a phone from someone does not constitute a threat to life nor does it meet the definition of “theft.”
Passalacqua also said: “Nevada law says that in the presence
of two or more people I’m allowed to defend myself.” That is incorrect. He is misquoting
one of the brandishing
statutes (which ironically can be construed against Passalacqua). It is, in fact, illegal to cause a
disturbance in a public building and given the Passalacqua’s behavior, I
would bet a jury would find that he precipitated the entire incident and overreacted
to any alleged wrong done to him.
Mike Workman, Utilities Director, came out and ensured the
phone is returned within about a minute. Rightly, Workman calls out Passalacqua’s
behavior, saying “You can’t treat our staff that way.” Workman had a very valid
point. Passalacqua was upset that the staff asked reasonable questions about
what he was doing, which Passalacqua refused to answer. That is his right.
However, the disconnect is in a total disrespect for civility. These “audits”
are about causing trouble, not finding it. Human nature and honest mistakes of
law or facts does not constitute tyranny. It would be entirely another thing for
staff to get upset if Passalacqua was filming them fudging overtime slips or stuffing
petty cash into their pockets.
The rabid anti-government “First Amendment audit” crowd
would have you believe that merely asking a question about someone filming in a
frankly suspicious manner is a violation of the Constitution. They probably
think security asking a guy who set up a camera tripod in the State Museum to
take it down for safety reasons is worthy of treason charges. I do not think
that office workers, even though they are public employees, should be held to
the same standards of calm circumspection as police officers are.
The office manager articulates her concerns as a person—not
an employee of the government—but an average human being who has a legitimate
concern about her safety. Is this a disgruntled customer, angry over his increased
sewer rates, who is going to follow staff home? “Who are you and why are you filming?”
is a lawful question. It’s not violation to ask and entirely reasonable to
expect a satisfactory explanation.
Normal folks, unware of this person or these “audits” would instinctively
be unnerved and think of their safety. Passalacqua could have honestly answered
and left it at that. Had Passalacqua stated he was seeing how staff reacted to
his filming as part of a “First Amendment audit,” that likely would have been
the end of it, aside from raised eyebrows and stifled giggles. But he didn’t.
The only thing I would consider problematic on the part of
the county employees is taking the camera, but that is a natural response under
the circumstances. A cop should know better; an officer worker who just happens
to work for the county does not have that higher expectation of decorum. Given
the confrontational and suspicious nature of the individual, I can excuse the
behavior, which is something that would almost certainly happen between exclusively
private individuals.
I would argue that asking what someone is doing is a minimal
intrusion into their privacy and upon their supposed right to film,
additionally, if they refused to answer, in these days of mass shootings and
terrorist attacks, that lacking an answer such as “First Amendment audit, ma’am,”
would constitute reasonable suspicion (at least the encounter) that such a
person may be up to no good.
For example, other than police car enthusiasts or “auditors,”
what other good explanation is there for videotaping the secure parking lot and
exit of a police station? A reasonable person would give an answer satisfactory
enough that the average person would recognize the person isn’t planning to ambush
officers as they leave on patrol or shoot up county offices.
Frankly, if this man was doing a “First Amendment audit” of
his local park by intrusively filming young girls, he would have gotten off
light if all that happened was his phone was snatched away. Government
officials should take note not to grab the camera, if only to deprive inconsiderate
individuals like this anymore ammo.
Per Passalacqua’s YouTube video page, he claims that deputies
were concerned his phone was a disguised pistol (they do exist). This was an
overstatement, but they also did not
shoot the armed man and returned his phone, video intact. Being “aggressive and
hostile” will result in one getting zero leeway from police. In other words, play
stupid games, win stupid prizes. Don’t be a jerk and you won’t be treated like
one.
“First Amendment Auditors” often display incredible rudeness
and indifference to polite social behavior. Passalacqua was no different. While
the First Amendment excuses all kinds of words, one still owes his fellow
citizens basic common courtesies; none of which Passalacqua exhibited. He
became enraged that his discourteous and bellicose attitude and actions
naturally inflamed human emotion and provoked a reaction. He went looking for
trouble and provided the ingredients to cause it.
I have encountered these kinds of people before; their sole
intent is to antagonize law enforcement, public officials, etc. into something salacious
their rabid YouTube fans can get excited over. “Auditors” rely on the presence
of the camera, their out-of-place appearance in whatever particular space, and their
intransigent behavior to generate a response that, to them, constitutes a “violation.”
Asking a question constitutes a “violation”, ignoring the “auditor’s” question constitutes
a “violation”, standing nearby and watching constitutes a “violation”…
One YouTube commentator called for Mr. Workman to be
executed. Nothing illegal happened in this video other than Passalacqua’s own
behavior. These people hate government so much that they strain at gnats to find
something to rail against. These videos are nothing more than fuel for
ignorant, anti-government hatred; pornography for their sedition fantasies.
At the end of the day, the rule of law is nice, but it is
nothing more than an artificial human construct. Our ability to freely film, to
yell, and to not answer questions relies on the simple fact that we as a whole
reserve those rights for when they are necessary and exercise them courteously.
Bad behavior makes it impossible for the rest of us to have nice things. The
history of gun control is rooted firmly to this principle; sure, we have Second
Amendment, but a violence society or notorious killings get us bad gun laws.
Behavior like this impairs the ability to correct actual
violations of important civil rights, particularly gun rights. It did not help
gun rights supporters that Passalacqua was armed, but he is not characteristic
of gun rights advocates. Noted advocates in Nevada also film, but with
discreet, purpose-made body cameras and are always respectful, while
maintaining their rights.
Of course, the gun rights advocate’s goal is to seek correction
to actual injustices rather than from a self-serving motivation to portray oneself
as a victim. Passalacqua’s passion, tempered with knowledge and respect for his
fellow citizens, is badly needed in the gun rights community, where we fight
actual willful
and wanton violations of the law where appointed officials laugh in our
faces.
Hopefully, in the wake of this incident and the internet
freedom fighters’ threats, Lyon County doesn’t need to post stupid “no guns”
signs (which prohibit concealed, but not open carry). If they do, the blame
lies with Passalacqua.
Nothing untoward happened here; a man with a camera and a
dangerously little amount of knowledge about his rights, and plenty of folks
online cheering him on, made a little trouble. In a time where true tyranny is peeking
over the horizon, and troubles are rearing their ugly head, we do not need a
normal reaction to boorish behavior conflated into government malfeasance.
