# One Man Shot 4 Flock Cameras. Another Man Blocked Them With a Sign on Sidewalk. Only One Is Lawful.
# MUMFORD LAW — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m13cyKcMOIo

you. One man in Blount County and is
running for Congress as well was
supposed to appear in court today, but
his hearing was reset. Last week we
reported the arrest of Adam Heimmerman.
Law enforcement says that 37-year-old
admitted to shooting four license plate
reader cameras in Blount County across a
week-long period. He
privacy and using data responsibly.
It's gone farther far past my
expectations.
Just some of the support Carl Gunn tells
us he's felt with his significant other
Deborah Deacon by his side making a
statement or more accurately a sign.
The The camera is seeing the back of a
piece of cardboard.
And every now and then I'll flip it
around and they can read my sign.
Getting national attention for blocking
Flock cameras around St. Petersburg.
Roland Mumford with Mumford Law and our
second YouTube channel Mumford Law off
the record. And thank you for those of
you who are helping us blow up on
Facebook. We appreciate you watching our
videos. Two men, same cameras, same
complaint. One of them brought a gun.
The other one brought a pool skimmer.
Only one of them will be back out on the
sidewalk this Saturday. The other one is
sitting in the Blount County, Tennessee
correctional facility on a $40,000
bond. And what is crazier is he is
running for Congress in East Tennessee.
He was a congressional candidate.
Whether he still is or is not as of
today, I do not know. Today we're going
to talk about why that difference is the
entire ball game as to the distinction
between these two gentlemen. Welcome
back to the channel. Again, this is
Roland Mumford with Mumford Law and we
have Mumford Law off the record. And we
appreciate those of you who are watching
us on Facebook. We are absolutely
blowing up on Facebook. We've gone from
less than 1,000 subscribers to 11,000
subscribers in around 6 weeks. We're
slowly growing on YouTube around 1,000
to 1,200 subscribers per month. We're
very appreciative of that, but the
algorithm is keeping us down. We really
need you to help us with the comments
and sharing and clicking like and so
forth. Please help us grow. So again,
this is the channel where we break down
Section 1983 and your civil rights. And
today we have a story that is almost too
perfect because it is a live
demonstration of the single most
important lesson in civil rights law.
The Constitution protects your protest.
It does not protect your aim. Let me set
the table first. Flock Safety makes
automated license plate readers. Most
people just call them Flock cameras.
They are those small black boxes mounted
on poles near intersections. They do not
catch you speeding. They do not mail you
a red light ticket. They photograph
every single car that drives past. Every
plate, every timestamp, every location.
Then the software builds what the
company calls a vehicle fingerprint.
Color, make, body style, roof rack,
bumper sticker, dents, all of it goes
into a searchable database. The company
says its cameras are in more than 5,000
communities and in most of those places
police can search that database without
a warrant. I have done several Flock
videos. Please go back to my main
channel and watch those videos. Now,
hold that thought because two very
different men looked at those cameras
and had two very different ideas. Man
number one is Adam Lee Armerment, 37
years old out of Lenoir City, Tennessee.
He is an independent candidate for
Congress in Tennessee's second district.
And according to an affidavit reported
by local news, he admitted to shooting
four of these cameras. Three in Blount
County, one in the city of Maryville
over about 9 days in July. He is now
charged with four counts of felony
vandalism. He's being held on a $40,000
bond. I want to be careful here. These
are allegations. He has not been
convicted of anything. But here is the
detail that turns this from a headline
into a civil rights lesson.
Investigators say he reached one of
those cameras from the property of a
house of worship while a service was
going on inside. I make jokes on this
channel. I'm not going to make one there
because that is the exact moment a
property crime becomes a public safety
problem. And it is the exact moment you
stop being a protester and start being a
defendant. And here is the irony you
could not put in a screenplay. The man
he is running against, Congressman Tim
Burchett, is one of the loudest critics
of these cameras in Congress. Burchett
has pushed legislation to stop federal
agencies from buying this technology and
to stop state and local agencies from
using federal money to buy it. He has
cited the Fourth Amendment by name. So
the incumbent is trying to ban the
cameras with a bill and his challenger
allegedly tried to ban them with a
firearm. One of those two methods has a
significantly better record on appeal.
Now let me introduce man number two.
Carl Gunn, 77 years old in St.
Petersburg, Florida. He's retired, a
registered Republican, not a
professional activist. He noticed one of
these cameras on a 12-ft pole near his
neighborhood. He looked into what it
does and he did not like the answer. So
he decided he needed something 12-ft
long to hold a sign in front of it. The
only 12-ft pole he owned was his pool
skimmer. So he taped a piece of
cardboard to his pool skimmer. He
grabbed a camping chair and he sat down
on the public sidewalk. The sign said,
"Down with Flock cameras."
And every Saturday since he has done it
again at a different camera. He is not
touching the camera. He's not damaging
the camera. He is not standing on
private property. He is sitting in a
lawn chair on a public sidewalk holding
a sign in the air. And that sign just
happens to be exactly where the camera
is looking. St. Petersburg police rolled
up on him. They questioned him for 10 or
15 minutes. Somebody driving by started
filming and shouted out the window,
"What's your name? I'll come bail you
out." Nobody had to bail him out because
the police department later confirmed to
a news outlet that what he is doing is
legal. He has been at this for weeks
now. He has an Instagram account. The
handle is The Flock Blocker. And he is
asking his neighbors to bring their own
chairs. So, one man used a firearm and
collected four felonies. The other man
used a pool skimmer and collected
national news coverage. Same target,
same grievance, completely opposite
outcomes. Before I break down the law, I
want you to see both of these stories
the way the reporters covered them. I'm
going to play two news clips
back-to-back. The first one is the
report on the congressional candidate
who was arrested and jailed for shooting
at the cameras. The second one is the
report on the 77-year-old man and his
3-week sidewalk protest. Watch how
differently these two stories land. Then
come right back because we are going to
talk about what Section 1983 actually
protects. Here's the first clip.
Todd, thank you. Tonight, a candidate
for Congress in East Tennessee is
sitting in a Blount County jail. He is
accused of shooting four Flock cameras
around that county.
Adam Himmerman was arrested this week.
The sheriff's office says, "Over about a
week, he shot four different Flock
cameras." Deputies didn't catch the
damage until several days later, and
they say he admitted he used a gun to
damage the cameras. One of them was near
a church while people were attending
worship services. He is now facing
felony vandalism charges. He is running
in the second congressional district
again, an independent challenging
Republican incumbent Tim Burchett. This
marks the first court hearing for him on
Wednesday, and that's the day before
election day. Now, we want to show you
this is a ramp of anti-LPR
disclosure that we've seen in our
community over the many many months and
years now. Again, vocal opposition to
those cameras from lots of people. And
10News reporter Paul Fisher joining us
now with more on people you heard from
today in Blount County who do not like
seeing these cameras up in their
community.
No, that's definitely the case, and I
spent a couple of hours at the Weigel's
on Hunter's Circle Drive, right next to
one of these cameras. Just about
everyone in the area told me that they
don't like them and that they need to
go.
The Blount County Sheriff's Office is
among several departments in East
Tennessee that use automated license
plate reader or ALPR camera systems.
The system captures images of passing
vehicles and uses software to read and
record license plate numbers.
The Sheriff's Office says the cameras
help to solve crime. Neighbors in Blount
County aren't as trusting.
It's saying that like Big Brother's
always watching because if you look at
these cameras, that's kind of
kind of disconcerting to look at at
first. Like I've not necessarily noticed
them before now, but
that's disconcerting to look at. It's
like what is that for? Why is this
camera pointing at me?
I think it's a bit of invasion of
privacy.
Um
all I've heard about it is just really
bad things, and I didn't even know that
that one was right there, and I work
right across the road, and I I swing by
here pretty often. So, I'm actually this
is the first time I'm really seeing it.
Makes me a little uncomfortable, for
sure.
While neighbors agree the cameras are
invasive, several people we spoke to
said that damaging them is not the way
to go.
I do think it is
partly not okay just cuz it is
government property. It is illegal to
destroy it, but I do think that we
deserve to have known about it before
they went up at the same time.
He probably could have advocated for
himself a little bit better and
advocated for our town a little bit
better, but it also seems a little bit
suspicious that such felony charges were
taken up against him for
kind of a simple thing.
So.
We checked out a couple of sites looking
for the damaged camera from Heimmerman,
but we weren't able to find one. Uh
there were several spots that we reached
for and we also reached out to Flock for
a statement and asked when the devices
should be repaired. We have also not
heard anything back yet. I'm going to
send things back to you.
Paul Fischer on the update tonight.
Thank you. Before the arrest today, we
have asked several departments about
their use of Flock cameras. Blount
County did
This was a letter from the Chief Deputy
Jeff French. It outlines what the
department uses those cameras to do.
That includes finding stolen cars,
flagging wanted suspects, even finding
license plates tied to a silver or an
amber alert. The letter goes on to
explain what happens to that data. The
Chief Deputy explains after 30 days, any
data not tied to an active investigation
is destroyed. Not even those deputies
can access it anymore. State law does
allow departments to hang on to it for
90 days. Now, current Congressman
Tim Burchett did talk about these
cameras well before we knew anything
about this arrest. Here's what he said
he's doing in Washington about those
cameras.
Hopefully we'll we'll get some movement
out of this. Call your legislators. Tell
them we need it. We got to ban these
dadgum things.
That was Congressman Burchett last week
on Axe. He plans to submit a bill that
essentially bans tax dollars from ever
being used to include or buy automated
surveillance technology for governments,
not only for cameras like Flock, but
also facial recognition software and
more. We reached out to his office about
the arrest of his independent opponent,
but we have yet to hear back tonight.
Also new tonight, the Flock camera CEO
is expected to attend a workshop in Knox
County. We heard from Commission Chair
Gina Oster telling us tonight the
commission expects the CEO to appear and
answer questions. Some of the company's
executive team will also be there. Knox
County did pump the brakes on a planned
rollout of those cameras next month.
Hundreds were expected to go up. The
commission, mayor, and sheriff all
deciding that they're going to include
an extensive review before they make any
more decisions.
Now, we've had an license plate reader
update just about every day this week in
our articles online. You can check them
out right now at wbir.com and read all
of those developments.
And here is the second one.
The debate over Flock cameras like these
is heating up in St. Pete with one man
purposefully blocking license plate
readers earlier today. All this as law
enforcement says they are critical to
tracking down criminals. They were used
recently with this Florida kidnapping
suspect who ran off to Alabama. 10 Tampa
Bay news reporter Annie Crowl hears from
both sides about protecting privacy and
using data responsibly.
It's gone farther far past my
expectations.
Just some of the support Carl Gun tells
us he's felt with his significant other,
Deborah Deakin, by his side making a
statement, or more accurately, a sign.
The camera is seeing the back of a piece
of cardboard.
And every now and then I'll flip it
around and they can read my sign.
Getting national attention for blocking
Flock cameras around St. Petersburg.
I didn't expect the cameras and the
phone calls and the the media.
And you know, it's kind of overwhelming.
But cameras are exactly the problem that
Gunn says could be an invasion of
privacy while law enforcement say that
they need to use these tools to try and
find people who might be involved with
illegal activities.
Uh what they're shooting is your license
plate.
And whatever else they can do, I don't
know yet.
The St. Petersburg Police Department
already has 50 Flock cameras spread
throughout the city to identify people
and cars involved in crimes. In the last
few weeks, a spokesperson has said they
are essential and help us find the
people we need to arrest. But St. Pete
isn't alone. This continues to be a
national debate also seen on the
Charlotte stage.
I mean, I don't think that it's
overkill. I mean, if it protects the
public and it keeps people safe.
I don't want to be driving down and my
license plate get confused with somebody
else cuz it was entered wrong. We don't
need that. You got to be really, really
careful with the technology.
I want people to bring a chair and an
umbrella.
And just fill up the street.
And the more people I have out here, the
more people are going to pay attention.
Whitney Crowl, 10 Tampa Bay news.
And next weekend Gunn will be out at the
St. Pete Pier. He says he doesn't know
where the Flock camera is located out
there, but he's people to show up and
help him find it. We've reached out to
St. Pete police to get the latest on
their Flock camera usage. We are still
waiting to hear back.
Okay, let's talk about the law. Section
1983 is title 42 of the United States
Code, Section 1983. I litigate this
full-time and it's the majority of my
law practice. It comes out of the Civil
Rights Act of 1871. And in plain
English, it says this. If someone acting
under color of state law violates your
federal constitutional rights, you can
sue them. Now, notice what that sentence
does not say. It does not say you get to
break the law when you believe the
government is violating the
Constitution. Section 1983 is a shield.
It is not a sword. It is how you fight
back in court after the government
crosses the line. It is not a permission
slip for you to cross one. So, let's
apply it to both of our guys here. Does
Mr. Heiderman have a Section 1983 claim
here? On these facts for these charges,
no. Nobody violated his rights by
arresting him for allegedly shooting
four cameras. There was probable cause.
And when there is probable cause, your
civil rights claim gets very short and
very sad. There is a second cost and it
is bigger than the criminal case. He
just handed every police department in
America a talking point. He turned a
serious Fourth Amendment argument into a
story about property damage. Every
article written about him is about him.
It is not about the cameras. Now, flip
it. Does Mr. Gunn have a Section 1983
claim right now? No. And that is exactly
the point. Nobody violated his rights
because the police left him alone. That
is the system working the way it is
supposed to. But, watch how fast that
could change. A public sidewalk is the
most protected ground in American First
Amendment law. Courts call it a
traditional public forum. Holding a sign
is pure protected speech. He is not
blocking traffic. He is not touching
government property. He is not
trespassing. If an officer had arrested
him anyway for holding a sign on a
sidewalk, that officer would have handed
him a textbook case, First Amendment
retaliation under Section 1983. I do a
lot of Section 1983 free speech
retaliation cases. Under the Supreme
Court's decision in Yevis versus
Bartlett, if there is no probable cause
for the arrest and the arrest was driven
by your protected speech, you have a
claim. Now, again, it has to be that the
act that they're accusing you of
violating, that that would be normally
something they would cite somebody for
and not something that would be
arrestable. Now that is assuming there
was probable cause
for whatever act you were committing.
Now, setting that aside, if you are
doing something that is not a violation
of the law, then that the evidence
doesn't apply. So I did want to make
sure that I covered that important
distinction because most often times
police, like in cases that I've had,
they will arrest somebody as a free
speech retaliation. They will arrest
them when ordinarily that act, whatever
that low-level misdemeanor was or
violation of an ordinance, would just be
a citation. The evidence says, "Even
though there may have been probable
cause, that doesn't stop the 1983 free
speech retaliation lawsuit if you can
show that ordinarily the violation of
that ordinance or that low-level
misdemeanor would be something that
would ordinarily be subject to of a
citation and not something that the
police would arrest somebody for." But
again, the evidence I don't think
applies to this particular situation,
but we're going to discuss it
nonetheless. So again, that is the
contrast I want you to sit with today.
One man made himself a defendant, the
other man made himself a plaintiff in
waiting. And in civil rights work, a
plaintiff in waiting is an extremely
powerful thing to be. Now here's the
deeper question, the one that actually
matters. Are these cameras
constitutional in the first place? That
fight is real and it is happening right
now in federal court. It is not
happening at the end of a rifle. In
Norfolk, Virginia, two residents sued
the city over its Flock network. We
talked about this before. Lee Smith and
Crystal Arrington, they are represented
by the Institute for Justice. Please go
check out their website. If you can make
a donation, that would be great. They
are incredible attorneys and I look
forward to possibly working with them.
They found out those cameras that
photographed their cars hundreds of
times in just a few months. They argued
that a citywide camera dragnet is a
warrantless search under the Fourth
Amendment. And pay attention to the
mechanism here. They sued the city, not
one individual officer. The city. That
is Monell liability. Under Monell versus
Department of Social Services, a city is
liable under Section 1983 when the
violation comes from an official policy
or custom. And a city council voting to
install 176
surveillance cameras is about as
official as a policy gets. In January of
this year, the district court ruled
against them. The judge held the system
was not extensive enough to track the
whole of a person's movements. But read
what he actually wrote. He warned that
this technology could cross the
constitutional line as it expands. He
essentially said, "Not today. Not never.
Just not today." They appealed and that
case is sitting in the fourth circuit
right now. And then in June, the Supreme
Court decided Chatrie, that's c h a t r
i, versus United States. 6-3. Justice
Kagan wrote for the majority. The court
held that when police obtained a man's
cell phone location history from Google,
that was a Fourth Amendment search. We
did a video on that a number of weeks
ago. Please go and watch it. Even though
it covered a short window of time. Even
though the data was sitting on a
third-party company servers. Now, think
about why that matters here. The
government's fallback argument was that
it only pulled a small slice out of a
much bigger database. The court rejected
that. Once the Fourth Amendment applies,
it does not matter how small a bite you
took. That is very close to the argument
Norfolk used to win downstairs. So, the
legal ground under this whole fight just
moved. And there is one more piece I
want you to understand. Flock is a
private company. A lot of people assume
that means the Constitution does not
touch it. Not so fast. Under cases like
Lugar versus Edmonson Oil, a private
party can be treated as a state actor
when it acts jointly with a government.
When a private company builds the
dragnet and the police run the searches,
that relationship is worth a very close
look. So, here is where I land on all of
this. The 77-year-old man in the lawn
chair is doing more damage to Flock than
the man with the gun ever did, and it is
not close. The man with the gun made
himself the story. The man with the pool
skimmer made the cameras the story. He
is on national news holding a piece of
cardboard, and every single segment is
about surveillance. He costs nothing. He
is completely lawful. And it's rather
endearing to see a retired older man
sitting on a sidewalk doing that. And he
is impossible to prosecute. That is not
weakness, that is leverage. So, if you
want to fight these cameras in your
town, here is the lane. Go to your city
council meeting and ask who approved the
contract. File a public records request
for the data retention policy and the
audit logs. Ask how many outside
agencies can search your city's data.
Ask whether any federal money paid for
it. Support the litigation that is
already moving through the appellate
courts. Call your representative about
the bills that are already filed. And if
you want to sit on a public sidewalk
with a sign, learn your local law first
because obstruction statutes vary a lot
from state to state. None of that is as
satisfying as shooting a camera. All of
it works better. One quick and necessary
note, I'm not your lawyer and this video
is not legal advice. Everything here
comes from public reporting on pending
matters, and Mr. Heimmerman is presumed
innocent. If you think you have a real
claim, talk to a civil rights attorney
in your state, and watch your statute of
limitations because of section 1983
cases, it is usually borrowed from the
state personal injury law, and it runs
faster than people expect. If you got
something out of this, hit subscribe
because we break this stuff down every
week. And tell me in the comments, is
the man with the pool skimmer a hero or
is he just delaying the inevitable? And
what would you do if one of these went
up on your street? Again, what this
gentleman may be doing in Florida
holding that pool skimmer with a piece
of cardboard blocking the blocking that
Flock camera, he's getting away with it.
They're not charging him and it appears
to be legal maybe in his community, but
that doesn't necessarily mean that it's
going to be legal in your community. So,
as I stated, it the destruction statutes
in a number of states vary and it could
violate another law that maybe I can't
think of at this moment. If you do it,
just understand the risk you're taking.
But it's certainly not at the level of
shooting Flock cameras. What that man
was doing was just absolutely stupid and
he hurt the cause is what he did. Have a
great day. Please click like, share, and
subscribe and I hope you enjoyed this
video. We'll see you in the next one.