• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals: right to record in public is "well established"

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals: right to record in public is "well established"

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.

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/10-1764P-01A.pdf

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.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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?"
 

Mario

New member
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
1
Location
Connecticut
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.

I'd love to know about that case, too. Let me know if you find the information. Email: mario [at] righttorecord.org

Mario
www.righttorecord.org
 

HandyHamlet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,772
Location
Terra, Sol
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.

Both parties must GIVE CONSENT to the recording in IL. If the cops become "aware" you go to jail for a felony.

However....

http://www.suntimes.com/7259815-417/woman-who-recorded-cops-acquitted-of-felony-eavesdropping.html

Woman who recorded cops acquitted of felony eavesdropping

BY RUMMANA HUSSAIN Criminal Courts Reporter rhussain@suntimes.com August 24, 2011 5:22PM
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
Yeah ^^^^^

And, you had better believe that the cops were recording the interview with the complaintant!
 
Top