The First Amendment Protects The Right to Videotape Police
I came across this story in the Oregonian:
After Mike Tabor turned his videocamera on two Portland cops rousting a couple of men on a downtown sidewalk, one cop seized his camera and gave him a ticket, saying he'd broken the law by recording the officers without their permission.
The Multnomah County District Attorney's Office declined to prosecute, and now Tabor is trying to force the Portland Police Bureau to take a formal position on whether it's OK for civilians to videotape cops -- with sound -- in public places.
In a tort claim notice to the city last week, attorney Benjamin Haile informed the city of Tabor's intent to sue for $100 and a written policy saying that citizens have the right to make video and audio records of police. Haile has taken on Tabor's case at no charge to Tabor. He says recording officers on the job is a fundamental part of holding police accountable that Haile believes is protected by the First Amendment.
There are some interesting tweaks in the story which discuss the officers' right to privacy, but there is a lot of precedent on the other side, which provides that not only do you have the right to videotape police, you can tape them while they perform their official duties. I think the Portland Police Bureau is fighting a losing battle on this one: The Multnomah County District Attorney's Office declined to prosecute, and now Tabor is trying to force the Portland Police Bureau to take a formal position on whether it's OK for civilians to videotape cops -- with sound -- in public places.
In a tort claim notice to the city last week, attorney Benjamin Haile informed the city of Tabor's intent to sue for $100 and a written policy saying that citizens have the right to make video and audio records of police. Haile has taken on Tabor's case at no charge to Tabor. He says recording officers on the job is a fundamental part of holding police accountable that Haile believes is protected by the First Amendment.
Robinson v. Fetterman, 378 F. Supp. 2d 534, 541 (E.D. Pa. 2005):
The activities of the police, like those of other public officials, are subject to public scrutiny. Indeed, "the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers." City of Houston, Tex. v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 461, 96 L. Ed. 2d 398, 107 S. Ct. 2502 (1987). Although Robinson need not assert any particular reason for videotaping the troopers, he was doing so in order to make a visual record of what he believed was the unsafe manner in which they were performing their duties. . . . Videotaping is a legitimate means of gathering information for public dissemination and can often provide cogent evidence, as it did in this case. In sum, there can be no doubt that the free speech clause of the Constitution protected Robinson as he videotaped the defendants on October 23, 2002 . . . .
Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. Ga. 2000):
As to the First Amendment claim under Section 1983, we agree with the Smiths that they had a First Amendment right, subject to reasonable time, manner and place restrictions, to photograph or videotape police conduct. The First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest. . . . Thus, the district court erred in concluding that there was no First Amendment right.
More, including a discussion of a case addressing the officer privacy issue here ("You can both videotape and publicize police abuse - Jean v. Mass. State Police").
Comments