There are several key cases regarding the rights of citizens to film police officers and whether officers can block or interfere with this activity. Here are some important rulings:
- Glik v. Cunniffe (2011): This First Circuit Court of Appeals case established that the right to film public officials, including police officers, in public spaces is protected by the First Amendment, as long as the filming does not interfere with police operations. The case arose after Simon Glik was arrested for recording officers making an arrest in Boston.
- Turner v. Driver (2017): In this Fifth Circuit case, Phillip Turner was detained for filming police officers outside a police station in Texas. The court held that the First Amendment protects the right to film police, and the officers involved were denied qualified immunity.
- Fields v. City of Philadelphia (2017): This Third Circuit ruling affirmed that citizens have a First Amendment right to record police officers performing their duties in public. The case involved two individuals who had their phones confiscated while recording officers.
- Smith v. City of Cumming (2000): This Eleventh Circuit case involved citizens who sued the City of Cumming, Georgia, for preventing them from videotaping police officers. The court ruled that the right to record matters of public interest, including police activities, is protected by the First Amendment.
Irizarry v. Yehia
On July 11, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals denied qualified immunity to an officer sued for First Amendment retaliation based on allegations that the officer obstructed the filming of a traffic stop by standing in front of the plaintiff and shining his flashlight into the camera (Irizarry v. Yehia, No. 21-1247, 2022 WL 2659462 fn. 10 [10th Cir. July 11, 2022]). The appellate court recognized a constitutional right to photograph and video record police officers performing their duties, which including the Ninth Circuit, brings a total of seven circuits holding an officer’s violation of this right could result in liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
When it comes to recording police officers in your home, the legal landscape can vary slightly compared to filming in public, but there are still important protections for citizens. Here’s how case law and legal principles generally apply:
- First Amendment Protection: The right to record police is typically grounded in the First Amendment, which applies in both public and private settings. This includes your own home. As long as you’re in a location where you have the right to be and you’re not interfering with police duties, you generally have the right to record officers who are inside your home (e.g., during a search, an arrest, or an emergency situation).
- Searches and Warrants: If police officers are inside your home with a warrant or under exigent circumstances, they are carrying out their official duties, and your right to record them is generally upheld, provided you are not obstructing their work. However, they might try to argue that recording interferes with their ability to perform their duties or compromises officer safety.
- Qualified Immunity: Officers might argue qualified immunity if they prevent you from recording in your home. However, court decisions, such as Glik v. Cunniffe and Turner v. Driver, suggest that citizens’ rights to record police are clearly established, especially in non-public settings like homes, where privacy interests are even stronger.
- Smith v. City of Cumming (2000): This Eleventh Circuit case, which covers states like Georgia, applies broadly to filming officers, and it would likely extend to situations inside private residences as long as the recording doesn’t impede police work.
- Retaliation and Interference: Police blocking a citizen’s attempt to record in their home may lead to claims of retaliation or suppression of First Amendment rights. For example, if police block a camera specifically to prevent recording, that could be considered an unconstitutional action under some circumstances.
Thus, blocking a citizen’s attempt to film inside their own home may violate their First Amendment rights, depending on how the situation unfolds and the degree of interference with the officers’ duties. However, if recording directly interferes with the officers’ ability to carry out a lawful task, there may be exceptions.
Askins v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2018)
In Askins v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Christian Askins, along with others, was photographing and filming U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers at the U.S.-Mexico border in Southern California. The officers were engaged in public activities, including monitoring the border and conducting law enforcement duties. In response to being filmed, the officers repeatedly attempted to obstruct the cameras by shining bright lights, positioning their vehicles in front of the cameras, and using other tactics to block the public’s view of their actions.
Askins filed a lawsuit, claiming that the officers’ deliberate efforts to obstruct his ability to record constituted a violation of his First Amendment rights. He argued that photographing and filming law enforcement officers performing their official duties in public spaces is a constitutionally protected activity. The officers, in turn, sought to dismiss the case, arguing that they were immune from liability.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the right to record public officials, including law enforcement officers, is clearly protected under the First Amendment. The court allowed Askins’ claim to move forward, holding that deliberate obstruction of someone’s right to film law enforcement could be seen as a violation of their constitutional rights. The case highlighted that using bright lights or other physical means to obstruct recording is potentially unconstitutional. Although the officers argued for qualified immunity, the court rejected this defense, emphasizing that the right to record police and other public officials in public spaces was well-established at the time of the incident.
This case, while not delivering a final ruling on the merits of the specific obstruction tactics used, reinforced the legal principle that citizens have a right to record law enforcement officers performing public duties. It built on prior cases like Glik v. Cunniffe and Turner v. Driver, further clarifying that intentional interference with a citizen’s right to record could be grounds for legal action.
#FirstAmendmentRights #RightToRecord #PoliceAccountability #BorderPatrol #AskinsvDHS #CivilLiberties #NinthCircuit #FilmingPolice #CustomsAndBorderProtection #FreeSpeech #ConstitutionalRights #QualifiedImmunity #CourtRulings #ObstructionOfFilming #CitizenJournalism #PoliceTransparency #PublicOfficials #LawEnforcement #KnowYourRights #CivilRights
Disclaimer: This webpage is not an official government page or an emergency line. It is dedicated to displaying information about police misconduct and naming the agencies involved. The content provided here is for informational purposes only and does not constitute official records or legal advice. In case of an emergency, please contact your local authorities or dial 911. For official information, please refer to the appropriate government or law enforcement websites.
police misconduct law enforcement accountability public safety officer misconduct police transparency police oversight misconduct reporting police ethics public trust community safety law enforcement agencies police corruption misconduct exposure officer integrity justice reform police investigation citizen rights misconduct database police reform public accountability
#PoliceMisconduct #LawEnforcement #Accountability #PublicSafety #OfficerMisconduct #PoliceTransparency #PoliceOversight #MisconductReporting #PoliceEthics #PublicTrust #CommunitySafety #LawEnforcementAgencies #PoliceCorruption #MisconductExposure #OfficerIntegrity #JusticeReform #PoliceInvestigation #CitizenRights #MisconductDatabase #PoliceReform #PublicAccountability
Visit the Youtube counterpart to this website where the videos are located.
Please consider contributing to the Open Records Fund
https://gofund.me/8b866727
Cashapp $madvideos
Venmo @madvideos
PayPal madvideos@gmail.com
Thank you