COURT RULES CITIZENS HAVE RIGHT TO FILM COPS

There have been a number of people arrested all over the country for videotaping cops while they were making arrests. I call it the ‘Rodney King Fallout Syndrome.’ I’ll be the first to admit that, as a cop, I would not want anyone to videotape me while I was making an arrest. But is that against the law or grounds for arresting the video-shooter if he is not interfering with the police operation? A court has now ruled that citizens have a right to film cops.

One cop made a very good point when he commented on this PoliceOne report by saying, “Videotaping doesn't bother me. I'm just surprised that nobody has been shot for pointing a cell phone in a low light condition during a high risk incident they decided to film. I'm sure it's going to happen eventually.”

Another officer said, “I have to admit that being recorded by people just sucks. But the [court] is right. If you’re doing your job, you’re gonna be okay. The only problem is when the video gets edited [by the media] and all the un-involved citizens freak out by the officer's actions because of the edited version they saw” [as with the Rodney King case].

COURT UPHOLDS ‘CITIZEN’S RIGHT’ TO FILM COPS

PoliceOne.com
August 29, 2011

BOSTON — Arresting someone for filming the police is a constitutional violation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit announced Friday.

The case began when Simon Glik was taken into police custody for recording an arrest with his cell phone camera, according to Tech Dirt. Glik told police he saw an officer punch the suspect and believed their use of force was excessive, sources say. Officers reportedly asked him to stop recording because audio recording — a capability of Glik’s phone — violated Massachusetts wiretap laws.

Glik was charged with disturbing the peace and aiding in the escape of a prisoner — charges that were later dropped — but he sued the officers who arrested him and the City of Boston for failing to investigate the case further. His First and Fourth Amendment rights were violated, he said.

The police officers filed for qualified immunity, which is designed to protect them against frivolous charges, but the district court ruled in Glik’s favor, unequivocally stating that recording police in public is protected under the First Amendment.

“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,” the decision said.

The court also ruled that the use of Massachusetts wiretapping laws to arrest Glik was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.