When it comes to discipline and public service, we expect law enforcement and firefighters to set the standard. But during my latest First Amendment audit in Lake Worth, Florida, I witnessed two drastically different examples of professionalism in action—one from a Palm Beach County sheriff’s deputy, and the other from a dedicated firefighter at Engine 91.

The Deputy Who Couldn’t Park Properly

While traveling between audit locations, I stumbled upon Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office patrol car #79017 parked illegally at a stop sign, facing the wrong way. The deputy in question, later identified as Officer Jason Hole (#31765), was responding to a call about illegal dumping. Rather than using an empty parking lot, he chose to park in an unsafe and unlawful manner.

When I called him out on it, there was no response—just a silent acknowledgment as he remained focused on the service call. This raises an important question: if everyday citizens are expected to follow traffic laws, shouldn’t law enforcement be held to the same standard? If there was no emergency requiring immediate action, why not park legally like everyone else?

The Firefighter Who Showed True Strength

Contrast that with my visit to Engine 91 Firehouse, where I witnessed a firefighter engaged in an impressive physical training routine. In full gear, he was flipping a massive 300-pound tire up and down the driveway, demonstrating the kind of discipline and endurance required to serve the public effectively.

It was an incredible sight—not just because of the sheer physical strength involved, but because it showed dedication to the job even when there wasn’t an active emergency. Just as I was admiring the mural painted on the firehouse wall, the team got a call. Within moments, they were suited up, in their truck, and out the door with lights flashing.

A Tale of Two Professions

Both law enforcement and firefighters play critical roles in public safety, but the contrast between these two encounters couldn’t have been clearer. One side showed questionable judgment, while the other demonstrated unwavering commitment.

So, I’ll leave it up to you—who set the better example? Let me know your thoughts in the comments!

Support the Channel: If you appreciate this kind of reporting, consider buying me an iced coffee at buymeacoffee.com/gcnn. Your support helps keep these audits going!

Special thanks to our sponsor, Raw Naked Bean! Get free shipping on your coffee order by using code GCNN at checkout at rawnakedbean.com/gcnn.

Watch the Full Video Here: [Insert YouTube link]

While filming for a recent audit in Lake Worth, Florida, I stumbled upon something that perfectly illustrates the double standard in law enforcement. A Palm Beach County sheriff’s deputy, responding to a call, decided that traffic laws didn’t apply to him—parking illegally at a stop sign, facing the wrong way.

At the time, I called him out on it, but he didn’t engage. Now, I’ve obtained the body cam footage from that very moment, and it raises an important question: Should the people enforcing the law be allowed to break it whenever it’s convenient?

The Incident: A Clear Violation

The deputy, identified as Officer Jason Hole (#31765), was responding to a call regarding illegal dumping. Despite an empty parking lot nearby, he chose to block a stop sign and park facing oncoming traffic—something that would get any regular citizen ticketed or towed. But as we often see, the rules seem to apply differently when you have a badge.

Body Cam Footage Tells the Story

Thanks to Florida’s public records laws, I was able to obtain the body cam footage of this deputy in action. It confirms what I saw that day—there was no active emergency, no immediate threat—just a blatant disregard for basic traffic laws.

Would a regular citizen get away with this? Doubtful. So why should law enforcement?

Watch the Full Video & Decide for Yourself

This isn’t about targeting individual officers—it’s about accountability. If law enforcement wants to maintain public trust, they need to follow the same laws they enforce.

Watch the full body cam footage here: https://youtu.be/Grb1ycmfELY

What do you think? Should officers be held to the same standard as the rest of us? Drop your thoughts in the comments!

Support the Channel: If you appreciate this kind of investigative work, consider buying me an iced coffee at buymeacoffee.com/gcnn. Every bit helps keep these audits going!

Big thanks to our sponsor, Raw Naked Bean! Get free shipping on your coffee order by using code GCNN at checkout at rawnakedbean.com/gcnn.

First Amendment Audit at Sunnyside Dispensary – What Happened?

The First Amendment gives us the right to record on public sidewalks, but how often do businesses and the public truly understand and respect this right? In my latest audit, I visited Sunnyside Cannabis Dispensary to see how they would react to someone filming from the sidewalk.

Customer Reactions & Public Interactions

During the audit, I had a few interactions with customers. One moment that stood out was when a young woman and an elderly man were picking up their order from the drive-through window. The young woman asked me what my problem was and later questioned if I was getting paid for filming. The older man she was with looked like Dale from King of the Hill. He was making various gestures with his hands that looked like a middle finger or gang signs. As they pulled off, he displayed his Medical Marijuana card for the camera.

Another interesting encounter happened when a passerby stopped to ask if I was making a YouTube video. When I gave him my business card and explained that I was filming a First Amendment audit, he seemed pleased and even recommended other locations I could check out.

The Store Manager’s Response

At one point, the store manager came outside to confront me. However, once I explained that I was filming in public, he seemed okay with it. He mentioned that it was unusual for someone to film their store from the sidewalk but wanted to make sure I didn’t have any problems with the dispensary. Unlike some audits where businesses overreact, this one was fairly calm.

Challenges & Lessons Learned

One of the biggest challenges of the day was getting used to the DJI Osmo Mobile 6 gimbal. This was my first time using it, and while it helped stabilize my shots, there was definitely a learning curve. One of my takeaways for the day is I need to do a better job with my camera movements.I also wasn’t happy with the audio in this video and will use the DJI Mic Mini for the foreseeable future.

Watch the Full Audit Here!

What do you think? Did Sunnyside Dispensary handle this well? Could they use a refresher on public photography laws? Drop a comment on the video and let me know!

Support the Channel & Stay Connected

If you enjoyed this audit and want to see more, don’t forget to:

Subscribe to my YouTube channel: Good Citizen News Network

Your rights matter. Stay informed, keep filming, and let’s continue holding public spaces accountable. Thanks for watching and supporting the movement!

#FirstAmendmentAudit #PublicPhotography #KnowYourRights #SunnysideDispensary #GoodCitizenNewsNetwork

Should bank employees feel threatened over a camera? The rise of auditors filming bank exteriors has sparked an unexpected tension. While the auditors see it as a routine practice to document potential safety hazards or suspicious activity, some banks feel threatened by this seemingly innocuous act. Understanding both perspectives sheds light on the concerns at play.

Auditors, often independent security consultants or investigative journalists, film bank facades for various reasons. They might be documenting the accessibility of entrances for disabled individuals, identifying poorly lit areas that could be security risks, or capturing footage of suspicious activity like loitering or attempted break-ins. This footage can be used as evidence for reports, highlighting potential security vulnerabilities for the bank’s benefit.

However, banks express discomfort with being filmed. Concerns range from privacy violations of customers entering and exiting to reputational damage if the footage captures negative aspects like long lines or protests. Additionally, some banks worry that filming might be a precursor to a more elaborate attack, with criminals using the footage to plan robberies.

It’s important to remember that filming on public sidewalks is generally legal. Public spaces offer little expectation of privacy, and auditors operating within legal boundaries have the right to document what they see. To mitigate bank anxieties, auditors could ensure transparency by informing the bank of their filming intentions and purpose.

One potential solution is for the the banks to use privacy screens on their computer monitors, and ensure monitors aren’t facing public view. This can be done with curtains, blinds, and or reflective tint. What they shouldn’t do is try to enforce their policies on lawabiding citizens as they cannot control what others do on public sidewalks.

Ultimately, both sides share a common goal: bank security. By fostering open communication and acknowledging the legitimacy of both filming and bank concerns, a collaborative approach can be reached. This ensures auditors can conduct their work effectively while respecting bank anxieties, leading to a safer and more secure banking environment for everyone. Should bank employees feel threatened over a camera? Tell me what you think in the video’s comment section.