I haven't finished reading the opinion yet, but a 1st Circuit panel ruled in favor of a man who sued Boston police under 42 USC 1983, over arresting him for recording them in public.
When Glik sued, the police moved for dismissal and claimed qualified immunity "because it is not well-settled that he had a constitutional right to record the officers." The federal district court denied the motion because "in the First Circuit . . . this First Amendment right publicly to record the activities of police officers on public business is established."
The court of appeals agreed.
"It is of no significance that the present case . . . involves a private individual, and not a reporter, gathering information about public officials. The First Amendment right to gather news is, as the Court has often noted, not one that inures solely to the benefit of the news media; rather, the public's right of access to information is coextensive with that of the press."
"In our society, police officers are expected to endure significant burdens caused by citizens' exercise of their First Amendment rights."
The ruling applies in Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico. How Puerto Rico wound up in New England, I have no idea.
LOL!Originally Posted by KBCraig
As for the original topic, I'm very glad to see this ruling.
Finally a little common sense.
Now if it could just be applied coast to coast...
This should prove to be quite germane to a case evolving in some little town in New Mexico. If I find the thread and the town, I'll send a few letters their way in the hopes they'll straighten up and fly right.
Sometimes, when people become aware their actions are under national scrutiny, they tend to think, "Crap - we can't get away with this any more, can we?"
What, if any, effect will this have on states like Illinois where it is a requirement that BOTH parties be made aware of the recording? Otherwise, it is a "felony wiretapping" charge.
Woman who recorded cops acquitted of felony eavesdropping
BY RUMMANA HUSSAIN Criminal Courts Reporter firstname.lastname@example.org August 24, 2011 5:22PM
"Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
"Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
I don't know IL law.
However, typically, States with "all consent" laws only require consent from all when recording private interactions. It is incongruous to consider police officially interacting with citizens to be "private." It is clearly an "official proceeding" in which the citizen is at legal risk. Recording such should not only be legal; it should be routine.
All interactions between the government and the people, especially when the person is at risk from the power of the government, should be conducted in full sunshine.
And, you had better believe that the cops were recording the interview with the complaintant!
cheers - okboomer
Lead, follow, or get out of the way
Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!