On July 7, 2017, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that private citizens have a First Amendment right to record police officers in public. Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (3d. Cir. 2017).
The case arose out of two separate incidents:
Amanda Geraci recorded an arrest of a protestor attending an anti-fracking protest at the Philadelphia Convention Center. She did so without interfering with the police action. A police officer pushed Geraci and pinned her against a pillar for one to three minutes, which prevented her from observing or recording the arrest.
Richard Fields used his iPhone to take a photograph of the scene of police breaking up a house party across the street from his location. A police officer ordered Fields to leave. When he refused, the officer arrested him, confiscated his phone, and detained him. The police officer searched the phone, opening videos and photos. The officer then released Fields, issuing him a citation. The charges were withdrawn when the police officer did not appear at the court hearing.
Geraci and Fields filed suit, alleging violations of their First and Fourth Amendment rights. The lower court granted summary judgment in favor of the City on the First Amendment claims, finding in part that the activities were not protected by the First Amendment because neither Geraci nor Fields had any "expressive purpose such as challenging police activities."
The Third Circuit disagreed. Notably, the Third Circuit said (internal citations omitted): 1) "The First Amendment protects actual photos, videos, and recordings, and for this protection to have meaning the Amendment must also protect the act of creating that material;" 2) "The First Amendment protects the public's right of access to information about their officials' public activities;" 3) "The public's creation of this content also complements the role of the news media;" 4) "... the proliferation of bystander videos has spurred action at all levels of government to address police misconduct and to protect civil rights;" 5) "The right to record police is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. But in public places these restrictions are restrained;" and 6) "In sum, under the First Amendment's right of access to information the public has the commensurate right to record - photograph, film, or audio record - police officers conducting official police activity in public areas."
The Third Circuit joined the other circuits that have addressed this issue, and so noted: "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. 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."
Matt Cairone
The Cairone Law Firm PLLC
724-416-3261
The case arose out of two separate incidents:
Amanda Geraci recorded an arrest of a protestor attending an anti-fracking protest at the Philadelphia Convention Center. She did so without interfering with the police action. A police officer pushed Geraci and pinned her against a pillar for one to three minutes, which prevented her from observing or recording the arrest.
Richard Fields used his iPhone to take a photograph of the scene of police breaking up a house party across the street from his location. A police officer ordered Fields to leave. When he refused, the officer arrested him, confiscated his phone, and detained him. The police officer searched the phone, opening videos and photos. The officer then released Fields, issuing him a citation. The charges were withdrawn when the police officer did not appear at the court hearing.
Geraci and Fields filed suit, alleging violations of their First and Fourth Amendment rights. The lower court granted summary judgment in favor of the City on the First Amendment claims, finding in part that the activities were not protected by the First Amendment because neither Geraci nor Fields had any "expressive purpose such as challenging police activities."
The Third Circuit disagreed. Notably, the Third Circuit said (internal citations omitted): 1) "The First Amendment protects actual photos, videos, and recordings, and for this protection to have meaning the Amendment must also protect the act of creating that material;" 2) "The First Amendment protects the public's right of access to information about their officials' public activities;" 3) "The public's creation of this content also complements the role of the news media;" 4) "... the proliferation of bystander videos has spurred action at all levels of government to address police misconduct and to protect civil rights;" 5) "The right to record police is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. But in public places these restrictions are restrained;" and 6) "In sum, under the First Amendment's right of access to information the public has the commensurate right to record - photograph, film, or audio record - police officers conducting official police activity in public areas."
The Third Circuit joined the other circuits that have addressed this issue, and so noted: "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. 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."
Matt Cairone
The Cairone Law Firm PLLC
724-416-3261
Comments
Post a Comment