Recording Police

ZigZagZeke · Dec 6, 2011

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, the 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.

Read the Federal Appellate Court Decision

deen_ad · Dec 6, 2011

GOOD!!

jp1985 · Dec 7, 2011

Link broken

.

pokerace · Dec 7, 2011

Link worked for me.. here is part of the decision

August 26, 2011

LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. Simon Glik was arrested for using his cell phone's digital video camera to film several police officers arresting a young man on the Boston Common. The charges against Glik, which included violation of Massachusetts's wiretap statute and two other state-law offenses, were subsequently judged baseless and were dismissed. Glik then brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that his arrest for filming the officers constituted a violation of his rights under the First and Fourth Amendments.

In this interlocutory appeal, the defendant police officers challenge an order of the district court denying them qualified immunity on Glik's constitutional claims. We conclude, based on the facts alleged, that Glik was exercising clearly-established First Amendment rights in filming the officers in a public space, and that his clearly-established Fourth Amendment rights were violated by his arrest without probable cause. We therefore affirm

ZigZagZeke · Dec 7, 2011

The link was overwhelmed. Looks like the moderators consider this topic to be more "Off Topic" than the NDAA thread under "Legal", which doesn't mention guns either. Wonder why?