AyatollahGondola
Regular Member
3rd Circuit
Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 20430, October 4, 2010
Kelly filed a civil rights action claiming that his First and Fourth Amendment rights were violated when he was arrested for videotaping a police officer during a traffic stop. The officer, after noticing that Kelly, a passenger in the vehicle, was videotaping him, contacted an Assistant District Attorney (ADA) to confirm that Kelly was in violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretap Act. After the ADA concluded that Kelly violated the Wiretap Act, based on the facts described by the officer, the officer arrested him. Several weeks later, the District Attorney dropped the charges against Kelly, but issued a memorandum stating that the officer had probable cause to arrest Kelly.
The court held that the right to videotape police officers during traffic stops was not clearly established, therefore, the officer was not on notice that seizing a camera, or arresting an individual for videotaping him during a traffic stop, would violate the First Amendment. As a result, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity on Kelly’s First Amendment claim.
The court remanded Kelly’s Fourth Amendment claim to the district court for additional fact finding after concluding that the district court did not evaluate the objective reasonableness of the officer’s decision to rely on the ADA’s advice, and did not properly evaluate the state of Pennsylvania law at the time of the traffic stop.
Click HERE for the court’s opinion.
Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 20430, October 4, 2010
Kelly filed a civil rights action claiming that his First and Fourth Amendment rights were violated when he was arrested for videotaping a police officer during a traffic stop. The officer, after noticing that Kelly, a passenger in the vehicle, was videotaping him, contacted an Assistant District Attorney (ADA) to confirm that Kelly was in violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretap Act. After the ADA concluded that Kelly violated the Wiretap Act, based on the facts described by the officer, the officer arrested him. Several weeks later, the District Attorney dropped the charges against Kelly, but issued a memorandum stating that the officer had probable cause to arrest Kelly.
The court held that the right to videotape police officers during traffic stops was not clearly established, therefore, the officer was not on notice that seizing a camera, or arresting an individual for videotaping him during a traffic stop, would violate the First Amendment. As a result, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity on Kelly’s First Amendment claim.
The court remanded Kelly’s Fourth Amendment claim to the district court for additional fact finding after concluding that the district court did not evaluate the objective reasonableness of the officer’s decision to rely on the ADA’s advice, and did not properly evaluate the state of Pennsylvania law at the time of the traffic stop.
Click HERE for the court’s opinion.
