• 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.

Federal Appeals Court Rules Recording Of Police Is Constitutionally Protected!

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
Good. Now if anyone gets stopped in places like ILLinoise, they can record without being charged with a felony! It really helps with it is "he said" vs "she said" when the dashcam footage is "lost."
 

rcawdor57

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
1,643
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Yep! Just Make Sure They KNOW They Are Being Recorded.

Reading the ruling one of the reasons given for it being Constitutionally protected is because everyone knew he was recording both video and audio. So in those states where they have unconstitutional laws against recording the police just inform them they are being recorded in video and audio.

Works for me.
 

HandyHamlet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,772
Location
Terra, Sol
Thanks for starting this thread. All of our rights are intertwined. All of our rights are under attack every day.

The important thing about this case in my opinion is the Judge said NO qualified immunity for the arresting public servants.

Naturally, the police officers moved to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity, but Judge Young was having none of that. The police officers then appealed to the First Circuit, but they have now struck out on appeal as well, with the First Circuit ruling that "Glik was exercising clearly-established First Amendment rights in filiming the officers in a public space, and that his clearly-established Fourth Amendment rights were violated by his arrest without probable cause."

"s there a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public? Basic First Amendment principles, along with case law from this and other circuits, answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative."

"Glik filmed the defendant police officers in the Boston Common, the oldest city park in the United States and the apotheosis of a public forum. In such traditional public spaces, the rights of the state to limit the exercise of First Amendment activity are 'sharply circumscribed.'"

"[A] citizen's right to film government officials, including law enforcement officers, in the discharge of their duties in a public space is a basic, vital, and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment."

"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.'"


http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2011/victory-recording-public
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Unless I am seriously mistaken, this ruling will only apply in the federal district over which this court has jurisdiction. Right?
 

johnfenter

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
209
Location
, ,
Not necessarily...

Have there been any similar decisions in other districts? More importantly, has there been a decision in another district in direct contradiction? If so, that is a strong path to the USSC to resolve the conflict....
 
Top