# Judge rules no 1st Amendment right to film police **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 26, 2016, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174 "2016-02-26T05:37:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2016, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174/41 "2016-02-27T15:59:14Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > An encouraging development in the level of discourse between police and non-police. If you say nothing, you can be detained, but if you tell them to go fuck themselves then you are covered under the first amendment. And if you’re mute, you go to jail – unless you give them the finger? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2016, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174/42 "2016-02-27T16:00:00Z")
I’m not following your disagreement. Do you think police have the power to remove you from a place that you have a right to be sans interference with police activity? Filming is gathering information which is protected in other cicuits and should be here. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2016, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174/43 "2016-02-27T16:34:47Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Bottom line is when a police officer tells you to move along, you move along. If you think your rights were violated, you move along to the nearest ACLU office. If you tell the officer to fuck off and refuse to move along, then the ACLU will have to visit you in jail. Agreed. But when the ACLU files your suit after you moved along, for what cause of action, specifically, are they suing? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2016, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174/44 "2016-02-27T16:38:59Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I’m not following your disagreement. Do you think police have the power to remove you from a place that you have a right to be sans interference with police activity? > > Filming is gathering information which is protected in other cicuits and should be here. And there are tests the court can apply to this. Are you allowed to watch an officer interact with someone and testify in court regarding what you witnessed? Was it done in a public place where there is no presumption of privacy? If the court acknowledges this then a camera is not only an extension of this but adds a considerable amount of accuracy to any testimony. As with all legal issues they do not occur in a vacuum so there will be cases where privacy could be an issue that benefits the public at large. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2016, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174/45 "2016-02-27T18:15:03Z")
Wouldn’t one way of putting this issue to rest (i.e. the need to announce that one’s filming is a protest or a challenge) be to organize a national ‘film-the-police-to-protest-their-presence initiative’ to run indefinitely? By definition, then, anyone filming the police thereafter could be viewed as participating in the protest? In fact, as a result of this ruling, could not a case be made that any person filming the police can now be viewed as protesting the ruling? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2016, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174/46 "2016-02-27T20:06:03Z")
One of the persons took classes? From copwatch on how and what types of activity to film, instructing on the rules. It’s not realistic to think he wasn’t capturing film for the purpose of potential future dissemination. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2016, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174/47 "2016-02-27T22:09:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Agreed. > > But when the ACLU files your suit after you moved along, for what cause of action, specifically, are they suing? Do you mean " … _if_ the ACLU files … "? In the Miller case, there were about 20 police officers involved in the activity, maybe “across the street” is too close for such a large action. In the Geraci case, she got the beat crapped out of her. I’m envisioning a camera man outside the zone of the police activity. If an officer says “you can’t film this action, move on along”, then I think the ACLU has a case they can file under the right to observe and record. On the other hand, if an officer says “the suspect is threatening to machine gun down everybody they see, move on along”, the ACLU may disdain any filings. On the third hand, the cameraman’s holding a sign that says “Black lives Matter”, and the officer says “you can’t have that sign here, move on along”, then the ACLU can file under Free Speech rights. If I was to guess, I’d guess there’s a written law that says one can observe and record a police activity from outside the zone, so Miller had a _statutory_ right to have his photograph returned to him promptly upon release. His Free Speech rights have not been infringed. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174/48 "2017-07-24T20:44:31Z")
As predicted, this bad decision was reversed. You cannot be arrested for recording the cops. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174/49 "2017-07-24T20:58:34Z")
TG!, IANAL. Which means I rely on other sources for info. There are some sources for “That’s what he says, so it isn’t!”. You, I listen to more closely, outside of a few occasional spasms of unwarranted moderation and centrism. You’re welcome. So, expand and expound. Is this actually “reversed”, in the firmly negative sense of “No, fuck this shit, forget it!”, or is it more like sent back down for correcting a minor technical flaw that would render the result _kosher_ and “Mmmm-good!”. Advise. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174/50 "2017-07-24T21:00:41Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > As predicted, this bad decision was reversed. You cannot be arrested for recording the cops. Good. Because they probably -oops- have their own cameras turned off. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174/51 "2017-07-24T21:12:59Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > TG!, IANAL. Which means I rely on other sources for info. There are some sources for “That’s what he says, so it isn’t!”. You, I listen to more closely, outside of a few occasional spasms of unwarranted moderation and centrism. You’re welcome. > > So, expand and expound. Is this actually “reversed”, in the firmly negative sense of “No, fuck this shit, forget it!”, or is it more like sent back down for correcting a minor technical flaw that would render the result _kosher_ and “Mmmm-good!”. Advise. [Totally reversed](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1867206.html). > [@](#): > > Every Circuit Court of Appeals to address this issue (First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh) has held that there is a First Amendment right to record police activity in public. See Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017); Gericke v. Begin, 753 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2014); Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ill. v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012); Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2000); Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995). Today we join this growing consensus. Simply put, the First Amendment protects the act of photographing, filming, or otherwise recording police officers conducting their official duties in public. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174/52 "2017-07-24T21:50:01Z")
“Good!” tinged with “Why was there ever a question in the first place?” Still, good. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174.md?page=2)