Federal Court Rules You Can Be Arrested Simply For Filming The Police
Federal Court Rules You Can Be Arrested Simply For Filming The Police
Philadelphia, PA – A federal appeals court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has ruled that filming the police without a specific challenge or criticism is not constitutionally protected.
The cases of Fields v. City of Philadelphia, and Geraci v. City of Philadelphia consist of 2 different occurrences where individuals were arrested for filming the police. Richard Fields, a Temple University student, was arrested after stopping to take a picture of a large group of police outside a house party. Amanda Geraci, a legal observer with CopWatch Berkeley, went to a large protest against fracking in September 2012 and was arrested while filming the arrest of another protester.
Both Fields and Geraci are looking for damages from the Philadelphia Police Department for violating their Constitutional right to videotape public officials. Earlier rulings have found the public has a right to record police as form of “expressive conduct,” such as a protest or criticism, which is protected by the First Amendment.
Court rules citizens have the right to record police
The appeals court was exclusively tasked with finding out whether or not the public has a First Amendment right to photograph and film police without a obvious expression of criticism or challenge to police behavior.
The court wrote:
“Fields’ and Geraci’s alleged ‘constitutionally protected conduct’ consists of observing and photographing, or making a record of, police activity in a public forum. Neither uttered any words to the effect he or she sought to take pictures to oppose police activity. Their particular behavior is only afforded First Amendment protection if we construe it as expressive conduct.”
The court ultimately explained, “We find no basis to craft a new First Amendment right based solely on ‘observing and recording’ without expressive conduct.”
“Absent any authority from the Supreme Court or our Court of Appeals, we decline to create a new First Amendment right for citizens to photograph officers when they have no expressive purpose such as challenging police actions,” the decision determined.
Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at UCLA, disagrees with the judgement and states he is convinced it will eventually be overturned by the Third Circuit Court upon appeal.
“Whether one is physically speaking (to challenge or criticize the police or to praise them or to say something else) is relevant to whether one is engaged in expression,” Volokh published in the Washington Post. “But it’s not relevant to whether one is gathering information, and the First Amendment protects silent gathering of information (at least by recording in public) for possible future publication as much as it protects loud gathering of information.”
No matter whether the ruling is overturned, it should serve as a reminder to all free hearts and minds that the cost of liberty is eternal vigilance. We cannot become passive and permit the ruling class and despots in government to subvert our path towards liberation. Now more than ever we require communities to actively organize copwatching and politician-watching campaigns that motivate accountability and transparency. We must also remain powerful in our sense of morality and principles, and not permit what is “legal” or “constitutional” to limit us in our fight for freedom.
It is ironic how the corporate gov films and uses video cameras everywhere to film and record members of the public, their employers but hate when we the people, their bosses record their behavior.
Doomed vessels set aside for destruction, when the dam breaks they will be washed away as if they never were.
.. and there they go.. taking the constitution and wiping their rears with it. as a kid i never imagined I would live to see this sad day.
[Job 4:8 KJV]
8 Even as I have seen, they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same.
http://www.mindfulofthetruth.wordpress.com
The article is titled “Federal Court Rules You Can Be Arrested Simply For Filming The Police” – Really? As the Video explained its exactly the opposite.
So, now it seems clear that advertising companies like Toyota run over and even block most of the News articles AND while that on its own has clearly ruined BIN, now retards have been put in charge of writing the headlines.
R.I.P. B.I.N
Apollo is the A/C The headline is correct.
The video doesn’t support the headline, but reality does. A federal judge issued a hair-splitting decision February 19th to facilitate police arrests of citizens who take pictures of them.
“In an opinion issued Friday, U.S. District Judge Mark A. Kearney wrote that unless a videographer announces the recording as an act of protest or a challenge to officers, police are free to stop it.”
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20160225_ACLU_plans_challenge_to_ruling_finding_no_First_Amendment_right_to_film_police.html
“Neither uttered any words to the effect he or she sought to take pictures to oppose police activity. Their particular behavior is only afforded First Amendment protection if we construe it as expressive conduct.”
https://jonathanturley.org/2016/02/24/federal-court-first-amendment-does-not-generally-protect-public-filming-of-police-in-public/
By the way, “opposing police activity” constitutes the crime of “obstructing an officer.”
You got to be an Anorak if you want to film the police .
I suppose next It will be watching paint dry
Federal Court Rules You Can Be Arrested Simply For Filming The Police. ( This is exactly opposite what the article says.)
mfritz0 that’s a good reason to look stuff up instead of watching videos. The headline is correct.
The video doesn’t support the headline, but reality does. A federal judge issued a hair-splitting decision February 19th to facilitate police arrests of citizens who take pictures of them.
“In an opinion issued Friday, U.S. District Judge Mark A. Kearney wrote that unless a videographer announces the recording as an act of protest or a challenge to officers, police are free to stop it.”
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20160225_ACLU_plans_challenge_to_ruling_finding_no_First_Amendment_right_to_film_police.html
“Neither uttered any words to the effect he or she sought to take pictures to oppose police activity. Their particular behavior is only afforded First Amendment protection if we construe it as expressive conduct.”
https://jonathanturley.org/2016/02/24/federal-court-first-amendment-does-not-generally-protect-public-filming-of-police-in-public/
I have a question, will this impede the press from filming them as well, when the press is providing the news to the rest of us?