This is a motion in support of an Order directing court personnel to permit court camera access and coverage of the proceedings of Joe and Paula-Gloria Barton on the grounds that there exists a public Fourth Amendment personal property right to be secure with one’s camera and there exists a Fourth Amendment right to express control and dominion of said camera by operating it, unless a penal or other constitutionally valid law exists that prohibits the carrying and operating of said camera and then only if that law can withstand an examination on the level of strict judicial scrutiny. While most motions for an Order directing the passage of court cameras are steeped in a First Amendment/Freedom of the Press analysis, the Fourth Amendment, on careful consideration, provides both the press member and the citizen with a fundamental Fourth Amendment property interest in controlling and expressing dominion over one’s property, even if the property is a camera. The Fourth Amendment reads: “ The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The word “effects” in the Fourth Amendment refers to a sovereign’s property. A camera is an effect, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, a camera shall not be seized against reason and no Warrant for the seizure of said camera shall issue but upon probable cause supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to search for the camera, and particularly describing the camera to be seized.” At this time, nor is there likely to be after all these years of cameras in New York State courts, there is no Warrant or penal law (with any elements constituting probable cause for arrest) for the seizure of any camera in or near any courtroom. Nor does probable cause to arrest exist for the possession or use of a camera in said courtroom; cameras are legal to buy and use, silent, and unobtrusive. . Although Civil Rights Law 52 is presumed to be a valid law CRL 52 violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against a property owner’s right to express control and dominion over effects. The relevant portion of CRL 52 reads: Sec. 52. Televising, broadcasting or taking motion pictures of certain proceedings prohibited. No person, firm, association or corporation shall televise, broadcast, take motion pictures or arrange for the televising, broadcasting, or taking of motion pictures within this state of proceedings, in which the testimony of witnesses by subpoena or other compulsory process is or may be taken,...” . In Kessler v Dept. of Education, No. 594 August Term, 1966 - Docket No. 96-7632, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that: “Whenever it is determined that legislation significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right, a court must review the legislation with strict judicial scrutiny. See, e.g. , Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 15 , 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Shapiro v. Thompson , 394 U.S. 618 (1969); Skinner v. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson , 316 U.S. 535 (1942). Under this heightened standard of review, the state must demonstrate that the statute serves a compelling state interest and that the state's objectives could not be achieved by any less restrictive measures. See Dunn v. Blumstein , 405 U.S. 330, 343 (1972) (citing cases). “ Civil Rights Law § 52 significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental Fourth Amendment right to express control and dominion over personal property. Accordingly, this “ court must review the legislation with strict judicial scrutiny.” Upon review of CRL § 52 the court will find that there is no compelling public interest in barring courtroom cameras as CRL § 52 sets forth. As a matter of fact many pictures, in spite of Civil Rights Law § 52, have been taken in New York State Courtrooms of: Nicholas Minucci, Supreme Court, Queens, on June 10, 2006 Hakim Scott, Keith Phoenix, and Julia Quintuna, Brooklyn, Supreme Court, on August 6, 2010 Africa Owes on March of 2011, Tyronne Gibbs and Jaquan Layne at arraignment, Supreme Court, on February 16, 2011 Kenneth Minor, Manhattan, Supreme Court, on April 5, 2011 Brian Brockington, Bronx, Supreme Court, on February 21, 2012 These are only a few of the captured courtroom instances, in the State of New York, that are evidence, since 1987, that there is no compelling government interest in barring court cameras as set out in CRL § 52. Even if there were a compelling government interest in hiding court proceedings from the number of people who cannot fit in a courtroom, the restriction must be “narrowly-tailored” to eliminate only the threat to the public interest as described in Dunn v Blumstein. WHEREFORE, there is no compelling government interest in cloaking court proceedings from those who cannot get to or fit into this courtroom, the undersigned respectfully request an Order directing court security to permit the undersigned to pool footage from one camera in the proceedings of Joe and Paula-Gloria Barton and that this court declare Civil Rights law § 52, as written, unconstitutional. Posr A. Posr Dated: March 20, 2012 62 East 125th St., #3G NYC 10035 646 359 5663