Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court says public has right to video police in public places(First Circuit)
universalhub.com ^ | 26 August, 2011 | adamg

Posted on 08/29/2011 9:15:51 AM PDT by marktwain

A Boston lawyer suing the city and police officers who arrested him for using his cell phone to record a drug arrest on the Common won a victory today when a federal appeals court said the officers could not claim "qualified immunity" because they were performing their job when they arrested him under a state law that bars audio recordings without the consent of both parties.

In its ruling, which lets Simon Glik continue his lawsuit, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston said the way Glik was arrested and his phone seized under a state wiretapping law violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights:

The First Amendment issue here is, as the parties frame it, fairly narrow: is there a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public? Basic First Amendment principles, along with case law from this and other circuits, answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative. It is firmly established that the First Amendment's aegis extends further than the text's proscription on laws "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information. As the Supreme Court has observed, "the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw." ...

Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting "the free discussion of governmental affairs."

The court noted that past decisions on police recording had involved fulltime reporters, but said the First Amendment does not apply just to professional news gatherers.

Moreover, changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw. The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew, and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.

The court continued that while exercise of these rights do come with limits in certain circumstances, an arrest on the Boston Common, "the oldest city park in the United States and the apotheosis of a public forum," is not one of them.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: citizen; constitution; police; record; recordcops; recordpolice
A link to the complete ruling is at the site.

It should always be legal to audio or video record public officials in the public performance of their public duties.

1 posted on 08/29/2011 9:15:55 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

If the police have done nothing wrong, then they have nothing to fear from their actions being recorded. The police have recorders in their vehicles. They can’t have it both ways. If they can record us, then we can rcord them.


2 posted on 08/29/2011 9:19:23 AM PDT by from occupied ga (your own government is your most dangerous enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

It is for their own safety.


3 posted on 08/29/2011 9:19:52 AM PDT by School of Rational Thought ("The proposition that the government is always right is manifested either in corruption or benefits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
"Moreover, changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw."

I honestly believe "citizen journalists/bloggers will eventually save the republic by breaking the stranglehold the progressives have on disseminating the news!

4 posted on 08/29/2011 9:20:16 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

One tiny step back from the abyss.


5 posted on 08/29/2011 9:21:06 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Ok, so recording the police in a public area is permitted.

What about recording security at an airport? Is the airport considered public, or would this be like recording security routines in a bank?


6 posted on 08/29/2011 9:22:21 AM PDT by Hodar ( Who needs laws; when this FEELS so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga

This was a good ruling. The rules on this need to be crystal clear so LEOS will have to stop this nonsense.


7 posted on 08/29/2011 9:23:22 AM PDT by Clump (the tree of liberty is withering like a stricken fig tree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Not just Police Officers, ALL public officials.


8 posted on 08/29/2011 9:24:34 AM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clump
This was a good ruling. The rules on this need to be crystal clear so LEOS will have to stop this nonsense.

Agreed.

9 posted on 08/29/2011 9:24:56 AM PDT by from occupied ga (your own government is your most dangerous enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
How in the world would anyone know you were recording security at the airport. Are they going to check every phone. That Jeannie is already out of the bottle.
10 posted on 08/29/2011 9:28:55 AM PDT by org.whodat (What does the Republican party stand for////??? absolutely nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
It should always be legal to audio or video record public officials in the public performance of their public duties.

I have long been convinced that Pennsylvania's very restrictive wiretap laws were written specifically to protect politicians and their conversations with mafia bag men.
11 posted on 08/29/2011 9:38:29 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

What do you need a phone for? There are 4GB high resolution cameras you can buy that look and work like fountain pens.


12 posted on 08/29/2011 9:41:00 AM PDT by sniper63 (Ever wonder why they call themselves Hamas, but don't eat pork?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

I’ll take it a step further. It has always amazed me that, with the constitution worded the way it is, that anyone could seriously suggest that somehow members of the press had more rights in areas like this than the rest of us.

Also, this is another nail in the MSM monopoly’s coffin.


13 posted on 08/29/2011 9:41:19 AM PDT by cuban leaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Bravo! That's one for true freedom!

Mike

14 posted on 08/29/2011 9:43:12 AM PDT by MichaelP (The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools ~HS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sniper63

LOL, Jeannie is out of the bottle. Anyone that thinks they can controls his stuff is sick


15 posted on 08/29/2011 9:46:46 AM PDT by org.whodat (What does the Republican party stand for////??? absolutely nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
I honestly believe "citizen journalists/bloggers will eventually save the republic by breaking the stranglehold the progressives have on disseminating the news!

Amen!

16 posted on 08/29/2011 9:48:23 AM PDT by OldMissileer (Atlas, Titan, Minuteman, PK. Winners of the Cold War)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

INDEED.

however, I’d like to see all of us call them what they are in every mention of such:

REGRESSIVES

They have regressed back to Soddom and Gomorrah.


17 posted on 08/29/2011 9:49:24 AM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: School of Rational Thought

“It is for their own safety.”

So what about the safety of the citizenry? This crap about the primacy of “their safety uber alles” needs to be addressed. Aside from actually interfering directly with law enforcement, there should be no strictures on video and audio recording of the cops in action. No cop should be able to interfere with an interested bystander who is recording their actions and there needs to be clear laws regarding this practice together with legal penalties for any LEO abridging that right.


18 posted on 08/29/2011 9:53:05 AM PDT by vette6387 (Enough Already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
I honestly believe "citizen journalists/bloggers will eventually save the republic by breaking the stranglehold the progressives have on disseminating the news!

Exactly. You could say it started with the refusal to enforce the "Fairness Doctrine" by libertarians appointed by Ronald Reagan. Then the Internet, developed by the military (Advanced Research Projects Agency, now Defense Advanced Research Projects agency DARPA), has destroyed the near monopoly on disseminating information that was developed by the MSM under Roosevelt during WWII.

19 posted on 08/29/2011 9:54:16 AM PDT by marktwain (In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
It has always amazed me that, with the constitution worded the way it is, that anyone could seriously suggest that somehow members of the press had more rights in areas like this than the rest of us.

Moi aussi.

ML/NJ

20 posted on 08/29/2011 10:01:42 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

It’s a bit of a stretch to me that anyone can be “the press,” although these days, when the cost of getting information out there is virtually zero, perhaps the distinction between them and regular people is irrelevant. Nevertheless, I don’t feel comfortable calling this a rights issue. Laws against recording public officials are stupid, but do we have to invoke the sacred and inalienable prerogatives granted us by God and Nature for every little thing?

By the way, what will this mean for all the various ways the real press is restricted? Surely cameras from legitimate and recognized outlets are routinely turned away by the authorities in different circumstances. Could a TV station claim banning cameras from court violates amendment one? I’m as tired as anyone of the slippery slope argument, but I truly don’t see where this ends.


21 posted on 08/29/2011 10:36:29 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

bookmark


22 posted on 08/29/2011 10:40:02 AM PDT by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

“It has always amazed me that, with the constitution worded the way it is, that anyone could seriously suggest that somehow members of the press had more rights in areas like this than the rest of us.”

I’m confused. To what part of the constitution are you referring? Is videotaping the cops somehow speech? Is tape recording a cop covered under the 2nd amendment?


23 posted on 08/29/2011 10:40:21 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
Could a TV station claim banning cameras from court violates amendment one?

They have tried it in the past, it has not held up. I personally think it would be a good thing for judges to be recorded. If it was a particularily sensitive case, ban the publication of the recording until after the verdict is rendered.

24 posted on 08/29/2011 10:42:30 AM PDT by marktwain (In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

No, just that a member of the press has a right to record things that the rest of us don’t. I think the only reason that the press has “special rights” is that there are many things/events that simply don’t have the room for everyone to attend, so the press sort of represents everyone.

But that has nothing to do with what one can record in public spaces. A few years ago some guy was caught videotaping underaged girls in bikinis at some Florida beach, and a judge said that since it was in a public place it was legal.

And the guy who had a video camera on his motorcycle helmet and left it on after the stop, and the cop comes after him with gun pulled. And after the video went viral the cops hauled the guy back in for videotaping the cop while performing his duty.

I believe that anything that happens in a public place in the US is, legally speaking, fair game in the US for recording, both video or audio. This includes public officials doing their duty. It is because we are all equal and one of the things that makes the US constitution a unique document. It is literally one of the things that separates us from a banana republic or the old Soviet Union.

In public, if you can see it, you can record it. The only challenge may be if you try to present it for a paid audience (which is why people are asked to sign release forms).


25 posted on 08/29/2011 10:54:02 AM PDT by cuban leaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

—Is videotaping the cops somehow speech? Is tape recording a cop covered under the 2nd amendment?—

I wasn’t really talking about videotaping or audio recording, per-se. I was talking about the idea that the press had the right to do things that the rest of us don’t. The only exception is when there is simply not enough room in the venue to invite the world, so the press has to be our proxy.

But recording events that happen in public? Whether a person is a member of the press or not is really irrelevant.


26 posted on 08/29/2011 11:02:21 AM PDT by cuban leaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

Sorry. Between the time my first response was posted and it was reviewed and then showed up, I forgot that I had already responded.


27 posted on 08/29/2011 11:02:27 AM PDT by cuban leaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

“No, just that a member of the press has a right to record things that the rest of us don’t.”

I think it’s quite reasonable that, though our technology didn’t exist at the time the constitution was written, recording things is part of the essence of the press.

“I think the only reason that the press has ‘special rights’ is that there are many things/events that simply don’t have the room for everyone to attend, so the press sort of represents everyone.”

Not sure why you put “special rights” in quotation marks, which would normally imply they don’t actually exist. They do exist, though, since obviously the constitution singles them out for special notice in the first amendment.

“But that has nothing to do with what one can record in public spaces.”

Well, that’s what this decision said. And absolutely the press has something to don with recording (whether via cameras, notes, or perhaps just a reporter’s memory) events in public spaces.

“A few years ago some guy was caught videotaping underaged girls in bikinis at some Florida beach, and a judge said that since it was in a public place it was legal.”

Was this a constitutional issue? Was there an actual law the judge set aside because he personally thinks what happens in public is open season? Or did he declare the law violate simply because he didn’t like it, without reference to any rights whatsoever?

“And the guy who had a video camera on his motorcycle helmet and left it on after the stop, and the cop comes after him with gun pulled. And after the video went viral the cops hauled the guy back in for videotaping the cop while performing his duty”

I saw that.

“I believe that anything that happens in a public place in the US is, legally speaking, fair game in the US”

I believe such laws may be stupid and wrong, but what do you mean, “legally speaking”? To what legal principle are you referring?

“It is because we are all equal and one of the things that makes the US constitution a unique document.”

I’m sorry, but this is just mumbo-jumbo. No actual legal principle is involved.


28 posted on 08/29/2011 11:05:16 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

“I was talking about the idea that the press had the right to do things that the rest of us don’t”

But the first amendment clearly seperated the press and granted them different privileges from the rest of us. Unless you think “the press” meant anyone who does press-like things, which is getting ever more accurate every day. I’m not saying only such institutions as are, say, licensed by the federal government to spread news deserve special press status. But, traditionally at least, it didn’t just mean anyone.


29 posted on 08/29/2011 11:09:26 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Good...one step away from We the People having WebCams in our state and Federal representatives offices.


30 posted on 08/29/2011 11:19:40 AM PDT by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

—Was this a constitutional issue? Was there an actual law the judge set aside because he personally thinks what happens in public is open season? Or did he declare the law violate simply because he didn’t like it, without reference to any rights whatsoever?—

I don’t remember. I thought it was constitutional. What annoyed me about it though was apparently the recordings showed clear intent.

This is sort of related: I remember cleaning a friends old computer for one of my kids to use and I had to throw it away, partly because it was too old, and partly because of what it had on it. Sure, it had porn, but what I found repulsed me even more is that he had pictures of strangers (women in bikinis) that he had taken at the beach. Naturally they were not as graphic as the porn, but just the thought of what he had been doing at the beach gave me the creeps.

It’s a shame there is not a way to protect kids from this a bit better. And as technology continues to improve it is clear the day is coming where people will be able to easily record anything they want with crystal clarity. And if you are in the photos and cannot make the case of reasonable assumption of privacy, there is nothing you can do.


31 posted on 08/29/2011 11:31:20 AM PDT by cuban leaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

With the creation of the internet, as someone on this thread said, the scope of the definition of “press” is sorely tested.

If I record something and post a youtube video with comments, am I the press?


32 posted on 08/29/2011 11:31:26 AM PDT by cuban leaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: vette6387

You read more into my statement than is there, but it is understandable.

“It is for your own safety” is a common phrase from cops abridging someones rights.

In this case the phrase is applicable to LEOs while not abridging their rights.


33 posted on 08/29/2011 1:03:51 PM PDT by School of Rational Thought ("The proposition that the government is always right is manifested either in corruption or benefits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Abathar; Abcdefg; Abram; Abundy; albertp; Alexander Rubin; Allosaurs_r_us; amchugh; ...
"Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting "the free discussion of governmental affairs."



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!

34 posted on 08/29/2011 3:52:55 PM PDT by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Any public servant has NO reasonable right to privacy while in the execution of his duties. Privacy in government actions is anathema to a Republic.


35 posted on 08/29/2011 3:58:09 PM PDT by arderkrag (Georgia is God's Country. LOOKING FOR ROLEPLAYERS. Check Profile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

I don’t see why not. “The Press” is just the ordinary citizenry acting in a certain capacity, much like “A well-regulated militia”. It’s not some special, lofty group.


36 posted on 08/29/2011 4:09:36 PM PDT by arderkrag (Georgia is God's Country. LOOKING FOR ROLEPLAYERS. Check Profile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: vette6387

“...there needs to be clear laws regarding this practice together with legal penalties for any LEO abridging that right...”


There needs to be a lot less abusive and corrupt police officers walking away without a trial and prison time for violating a multitude of laws.

Union mentalities and Homeland inSecurity are transforming some of them into unprofessional, dimwitted thugs with even more cops and politicans taking up the role of making a bunch of unethical excuses for the bad apples in their ranks.


37 posted on 08/29/2011 6:00:49 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

You are right. People should be able to record trials. Our whole law enforcement system could use some light of day to help them behave in light of the power they have over others.

This is especially true today - given the limo-Left has culturally cleansed the mentalities of the American constitution and ethics from the public square and especially from the educated elite.


38 posted on 08/29/2011 6:05:50 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mo

Since the politicans gave Homeland inSecurity the power to spy on us - domestic terrorists all - in the name of safety, I guess turn around is fair play. We would all be a lot safer if were could spy on the government. We could have stopped ATF from arming the jihadists and drug lords.

I think that woman who grabbed and twisted the airport thug’s breasts while she was in the act of sexually molesting her, had the right idea. We should be allowed to “pat down” all the potential domestic terrorists in Congress. Except for Barney Frank. He would like it too much and it would be a public health threat. ;)


39 posted on 08/29/2011 6:14:50 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson