Court: Videotaping police is constitutional act

J

jimpeel

New member
The court ruled that a citizen may videotape those who serve them in the course of their public duties.

SOURCE

From the decision:

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." This is particularly true of law enforcement officials who are granted substantial discretion that may be misused to deprive individuals of their liberties…

We conclude, based on the facts alleged, that Glik was exercising clearly-established First Amendment rights in filming the officers in a public space, and that his clearly-established Fourth Amendment rights were violated by his arrest without probable cause.
Click to expand...

In addition, the Justice Department filed a "statement of interest" in the Sharp case which stated:

This litigation presents constitutional questions of great moment in this digital age: whether private citizens have a First Amendment right to record police officers in the public discharge of their duties, and whether officers violate citizens’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they seize and destroy such recordings without a warrant or due process. The United States urges this Court to answer both of those questions in the affirmative. The right to record police officers while performing duties in a public place, as well as the right to be protected from the warrantless seizure and destruction of those recordings, are not only required by the Constitution. They are consistent with our fundamental notions of liberty, promote the accountability of our governmental officers, and instill public confidence in the police officers who serve us daily.
Click to expand...

We shall see where this goes now.
 
You think you're uncomfortable? I agree with enough ACLU positions that I got elected to the Board of Directors, Southern Arizona chapter :).

NOTE: the AZ state ACLU has rebelled against the national org on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, holding that it's a personal civil right in line with the AZ Constitution and Heller/McDonald. Nevada and at least one other state went the same way with likely more to follow. Wouldn't have done so otherwise.
 
Good for you, Jim! :)

I also find myself generally in agreement with the ACLU, at least concerning non-gun issues. In fact, I wish they would back away from any official position on the 2nd Amendment entirely, since the NRA and many other groups have a firm handle on that one.
 
i was stopped awhile back and this cop was wearing a lil camera taping me..all's fair
the position supporting the seizure and destruction is morally bankrupt
 
'You may not tape me in public, peasant.'

Eventually enough cases will go against the police they will succumb.

It would go faster if they had to personally pay some damages though.
 
My first thought was "duh".

As long as the person videotaping the police doesn't physically interfere with the police I don't see how it could come out any other way.

I would change the title of this thread to:

Videotaping police is a constitutionaly protected act.
 
There is always someone who wants to widdle away at one or another of our constitutional rights, and not just the Second Amendment.

Lisa Madigan won a landmark case before SCOTUS that a police officer having a dog who "alerts"(not really specific as to what that means) to something (not really specified), constitues probable cause.

When pulling over suspected drug dealers and having an actual trained drug sniffing dog who is trained to alert by barking or something - I have no problem with it. But it does open the door for abuse. Basically any officer with any kind of dog can say Fido alerted and now he can pull you out of your vehicle and go over your car and go on a fishing expedition to try to find something in your car.
 
And I would turn this entire issue around on its head: the suppression of video and/or audio recording of official acts is obstruction of justice and the violation of one's civil liberties under color of law. In other words, it should be something a LEO goes to the pokey for if he prevents an otherwise law abiding citizen from recording him while engaged in law enforcement activity.
 
Yes there is a difference.

The acts of a citizen are not constitutional or unconstitutional. Those designations apply to government actions.

Acts of citizens are either constitutionally protected or not.
 
vranasaurus said:
As long as the person videotaping the police doesn't physically interfere with the police I don't see how it could come out any other way.
Click to expand...

I would say that perhaps the next issue is when does the protected videotaping of police cross the line in to interfering with an officer doing his duty?


Just playing devils advocate on this for a minute...

If a person was videotaping something other from sidewalk on one side of the street, and then an officer does a regular a regular traffic stop on the other side, then person videos the officer. That should never be a problem.

If a person comes upon a regular traffic stop while driving down the road, stops, and gets out with his camera trying to go step by step with the officer, always in his face, asking questions, etc. This is something that should be prohibited, as it is a problem.


I guess its more of a where is the line going to be drawn?
 
Wait. This has to be a hoax. You mean to say this Justice Department actually argued on behalf of a citizen's constitutional rights???
 
Fishing Cabin, that's actually a strawman. The citizen in your scenario is clearl interfering with the LEO performing his duties, whether he has a camera or tape recorder or not. It's not the recording of the event that should be at issue - it's the ancillary behavior of the citizen that either is or is not legal.
 
csmss,

What I was trying to illustrate is that, there are a few people on both sides that will try to test the issue and see how far they can, or can not go. While this ruling is important. I look forward to more court rulings to see where the line is drawn between what is constitutionally protected, and what is interfering in an officers duties.
 
Last edited:
Frankly if an Officer is performing his duty in a professional and proper manner, there is no need to fear being recorded. The recording will support his actions. If he is not preforming properly, then we need to remove him from the Law Enforcement community.

If the recorder is interfering with the Officer then he/she should be cited for the interference and the recording preserved as evidence for the recorders trial.

When the recording involves methods of a sensitive operation by say an EOD Tech. then the recording should be stopped, Siezed and destroyed by an authorized person other than the officer on site.

When assigned to a Presidential support mission, a Television Photographer recorded my search techniques on 16mm film. When he exited the event, a Secret Service Agent ordered me to search his film cassettes. I exposed every inch of movie fillm which he had. We never had a problem with news people filming us again. I considered that to be a proper exercise at the time as my life and the lives of my team were on the line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top