"The United States addressed the central questions raised in this case - whether individuals have a First Amendment right to record police officers in the public discharge of their duties, and whether officers violate individuals' Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they seize such recordings without a warrant or due process Ã¯ - - in a Statement of Interest filed in Sharp v. Baltimore City Police Dept., et al., No. 1:11-cv-02888 (D. Md.), attached here as Exhibit A.1 Here, as there, the United States urges the Court to answer both of those questions in the affirmative.
"This case raises questions that the United States did not address directly in Sharp, the answers to which are critical to ensuring that the constitutional rights at issue in that case are upheld. First, the United States urges the Court to find that both the First and Fourth Amendments protect an individual who peacefully photographs police activity on a public street, if officers arrest the individual and seize the camera of that individual for that activity. Second, the United States is concerned that discretionary charges, such as disorderly conduct, loitering, disturbing the peace, and resisting arrest, are all too easily used to curtail expressive conduct or retaliate against individuals for exercising their First Amendment rights. The United States believes that courts should view such charges skeptically to ensure that individuals' First Amendment rights are protected. Core First Amendment conduct, such as recording a police officer performing duties on a public street, cannot be the sole basis for such charges. Third, the First Amendment right to record police officers performing public duties extends to both the public and members of the media, and the Court should not make a distinction between the public's and the media's rights to record here. The derogation of these rights erodes public confidence in our police departments, decreases the accountability of our governmental officers, and conflicts with the liberties that the Constitution was designed to uphold."
DOJ RULES: 'It Is Legal To Photograph And Film The Police' 3/15/13
'It is settled law that citizens have the right to record police.'
Here is a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights
Division dated May 14, 2012 outlining the "individuals' right to record
U.S. Department of Justice Slaps Baltimore Police Over Right to Record
First Circuit Court of Appeals Rules that Citizens Can Videotape
"On Friday, August 26, 2011, the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which is New England's highest federal court just below the U.S. Supreme Court, ruled that citizens are allowed to videotape law officials while they conduct official duties."
Federal Courts Rule it is Not Illegal to Film Police 9/1/11
"This specific case in question was Simon Glik vs.The City of Boston (and several police officers), in which a teenage Simon Gilk was arrested after videotaping Boston Police abusing a homeless man. While Mr. Gilk was not interfering with the police, he was arrested on wiretapping charges."
Here is the text of the Glik ruling:
For those of you pushing the propaganda that filming police is "wiretapping", that is bogus too:
Federal Appeals Court Rejects Illinois' Eavesdropping Law As Likely
Violating The First Amendment
Carlos Miller: photographyisnotacrime.com
LibertyFight.com Filming Cops Archive