Just saw this on GB and thought I would spread it around. Maybe Dave has something on it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you can film a crime in progress I don't know why you can't film the police if you think a law might be violated
Appeals Court: Arresting Guy For Filming Cops Was A Clear Violation Of
> Both 1st & 4th Amendments
> from the huge-victory-for-free-speech dept
> We've had a lot of stories this year about police arresting people for
> filming them. It's become quite a trend. Even worse, a couple weeks ago, we
> wrote about a police officer in Massachusetts, Michael Sedergren, who is
> trying to get criminal wiretapping charges brought against a woman who filmed
> some police officers beating a guy. This officer claims that the woman
> violated Massachusetts anti-wiretapping law, a common claim from police in such
> situations.
> Segederin may have been better off if he'd waited a couple weeks for an
> appeals court ruling that came out Friday, because that ruling found that
> arresting someone for filming the police is a clear violation of both the
> First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. How the case got
> to this point is a bit complex, but basically, a guy named Simon Glik saw
> some police arresting someone in Boston, and thought they were using
> excessive force. He took out his camera phone and began recording. The police saw
> that and told him to stop taking pictures. He told them he was recording
> them, and that he'd seen them punch the guy they were arresting. One officer
> asked him if the phone recorded audio as well and Glik told him it did. At
> that point, they arrested him, saying that recording audio was a violation
> of Massachusetts wiretap laws.
> Even more ridiculous, they then had him charged not just with that, but
> also with disturbing the peace and "aiding in the escape of a prisoner."
> After realizing that last one didn't even pass the guffaw test, Massachusetts
> officials dropped that charge. A Boston court then dumped the other charges
> and Glik was free. However, he wanted to take things further, as he thought
> his treatment was against the law. He first filed a complaint with Boston
> Police Internal Affairs who promptly set about totally ignoring it. After
> they refused to investigate, Glik sued the officers who arrested him and the
> City of Boston in federal court for violating both his First and Fourth
> Amendment rights. The police officers filed for qualified immunity, which is
> designed to protect them from frivolous charges from people they arrest.
> The district court rejected the officers' rights to qualified immunity,
> saying that their actions violated the First & Fourth Amendments. Before the
> rest of the case could go on, the officers appealed, and that brings us to
> Friday's ruling, which, once again, unequivocally states that recording
> police in public is protected under the First Amendment, and that the use of
> Massachusetts wiretapping laws to arrest Glik was a violation of his Fourth
> Amendment rights as well. The ruling (pdf) is a fantastic and quick read
> and makes the point pretty clearly. Best of all, it not only says that it was
> a clear violation, but that the officers were basically full of it in
> suggesting that this was even in question. The court more or less slams the
> officers for pretending they had a valid excuse to harass a guy who filmed
> them arresting someone.
> The 4th Amendment bit may not be as widely applicable, since it mainly
> focuses on the Massachusetts wiretapping law. Here, the court notes that the
> law only covers audio recording in secret. But there is no indication that
> Glik did any of his filming in secret. It found the officers' arguments that
> he could have been doing lots of things on his mobile phone completely
> uncompelling, stating that the "argument suffers from factual as well as legal
> flaws."
> The full ruling is embedded below, but a few choice quotes:
> 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."
> Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1966). Moreover, as the Court has noted,
> "[f]reedom of expression has particular significance with respect to
> government because 't is here that the state has a special incentive to
> repress opposition and often wields a more effective power of suppression.'"
> First Nat'l Bank, 435 U.S. at 777 n.11 (alteration in original) (quoting Thomas
> Emerson, Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment 9 (1966)). This is
> particularly true of law enforcement officials, who are granted
> substantial discretion that may be misused to deprive individuals of their
> liberties....
> [....]
> In our society, police officers are expected to endure significant burdens
> caused by citizens' exercise of their First Amendment rights. See City of
> Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 461 (1987) ("[T]he First Amendment protects
> a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police
> officers."). Indeed, "[t]he freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or
> challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal
> characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police
> state." Id. at 462-63. The same restraint demanded of law enforcement officers in
> the face of "provocative and challenging" speech, id. at 461 (quoting
> Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949)), must be expected when they are
> merely the subject of videotaping that memorializes, without impairing,
> their work in public spaces.
> [....]
> The presence of probable cause was not even arguable here. The allegations
> of the complaint establish that Glik was openly recording the police
> officers and that they were aware of his surveillance. For the reasons we have
> discussed, we see no basis in the law for a reasonable officer to conclude
> that such a conspicuous act of recording was "secret" merely because the
> officer did not have actual knowledge of whether audio was being recorded.
> While this case isn't over yet, it's still a huge victory for those
> arrested by police for filming them in action. It suggests such people can bring
> charges against the police for civil rights violations in taking away
> their First Amendment rights. A tremendous ruling all around.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you can film a crime in progress I don't know why you can't film the police if you think a law might be violated
Appeals Court: Arresting Guy For Filming Cops Was A Clear Violation Of
> Both 1st & 4th Amendments
> from the huge-victory-for-free-speech dept
> We've had a lot of stories this year about police arresting people for
> filming them. It's become quite a trend. Even worse, a couple weeks ago, we
> wrote about a police officer in Massachusetts, Michael Sedergren, who is
> trying to get criminal wiretapping charges brought against a woman who filmed
> some police officers beating a guy. This officer claims that the woman
> violated Massachusetts anti-wiretapping law, a common claim from police in such
> situations.
> Segederin may have been better off if he'd waited a couple weeks for an
> appeals court ruling that came out Friday, because that ruling found that
> arresting someone for filming the police is a clear violation of both the
> First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. How the case got
> to this point is a bit complex, but basically, a guy named Simon Glik saw
> some police arresting someone in Boston, and thought they were using
> excessive force. He took out his camera phone and began recording. The police saw
> that and told him to stop taking pictures. He told them he was recording
> them, and that he'd seen them punch the guy they were arresting. One officer
> asked him if the phone recorded audio as well and Glik told him it did. At
> that point, they arrested him, saying that recording audio was a violation
> of Massachusetts wiretap laws.
> Even more ridiculous, they then had him charged not just with that, but
> also with disturbing the peace and "aiding in the escape of a prisoner."
> After realizing that last one didn't even pass the guffaw test, Massachusetts
> officials dropped that charge. A Boston court then dumped the other charges
> and Glik was free. However, he wanted to take things further, as he thought
> his treatment was against the law. He first filed a complaint with Boston
> Police Internal Affairs who promptly set about totally ignoring it. After
> they refused to investigate, Glik sued the officers who arrested him and the
> City of Boston in federal court for violating both his First and Fourth
> Amendment rights. The police officers filed for qualified immunity, which is
> designed to protect them from frivolous charges from people they arrest.
> The district court rejected the officers' rights to qualified immunity,
> saying that their actions violated the First & Fourth Amendments. Before the
> rest of the case could go on, the officers appealed, and that brings us to
> Friday's ruling, which, once again, unequivocally states that recording
> police in public is protected under the First Amendment, and that the use of
> Massachusetts wiretapping laws to arrest Glik was a violation of his Fourth
> Amendment rights as well. The ruling (pdf) is a fantastic and quick read
> and makes the point pretty clearly. Best of all, it not only says that it was
> a clear violation, but that the officers were basically full of it in
> suggesting that this was even in question. The court more or less slams the
> officers for pretending they had a valid excuse to harass a guy who filmed
> them arresting someone.
> The 4th Amendment bit may not be as widely applicable, since it mainly
> focuses on the Massachusetts wiretapping law. Here, the court notes that the
> law only covers audio recording in secret. But there is no indication that
> Glik did any of his filming in secret. It found the officers' arguments that
> he could have been doing lots of things on his mobile phone completely
> uncompelling, stating that the "argument suffers from factual as well as legal
> flaws."
> The full ruling is embedded below, but a few choice quotes:
> 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."
> Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1966). Moreover, as the Court has noted,
> "[f]reedom of expression has particular significance with respect to
> government because 't is here that the state has a special incentive to
> repress opposition and often wields a more effective power of suppression.'"
> First Nat'l Bank, 435 U.S. at 777 n.11 (alteration in original) (quoting Thomas
> Emerson, Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment 9 (1966)). This is
> particularly true of law enforcement officials, who are granted
> substantial discretion that may be misused to deprive individuals of their
> liberties....
> [....]
> In our society, police officers are expected to endure significant burdens
> caused by citizens' exercise of their First Amendment rights. See City of
> Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 461 (1987) ("[T]he First Amendment protects
> a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police
> officers."). Indeed, "[t]he freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or
> challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal
> characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police
> state." Id. at 462-63. The same restraint demanded of law enforcement officers in
> the face of "provocative and challenging" speech, id. at 461 (quoting
> Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949)), must be expected when they are
> merely the subject of videotaping that memorializes, without impairing,
> their work in public spaces.
> [....]
> The presence of probable cause was not even arguable here. The allegations
> of the complaint establish that Glik was openly recording the police
> officers and that they were aware of his surveillance. For the reasons we have
> discussed, we see no basis in the law for a reasonable officer to conclude
> that such a conspicuous act of recording was "secret" merely because the
> officer did not have actual knowledge of whether audio was being recorded.
> While this case isn't over yet, it's still a huge victory for those
> arrested by police for filming them in action. It suggests such people can bring
> charges against the police for civil rights violations in taking away
> their First Amendment rights. A tremendous ruling all around.
