Federal Court Rules You Can Be Arrested Simply for Filming the Police

[KamaAina]

http://theantimedia.org/federal-court-rules-can-arrested-simply-filming-the-police/

A federal 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 involve two different incidents 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, attended a large protest against fracking in September 2012 and was arrested while filming the arrest of another protester.

Both Fields and Geraci are seeking damages from the Philadelphia Police Department for violating their Constitutional right to videotape public officials. Previous 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....

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.”

This came to me from the FB page of an Autistic acquaintance who is nonverbal, though quite expressive at the keyboard. So I can film cops as long as I yell "Motherf'ing pigs!" or the equivalent, but she can't?

[hifiguy]

1. This will be flipped on appeal.

A boneheaded ruling at odds with lots of precedent.

[KamaAina]

3. Noted courtwatcher Eugene Volokh agrees with you.

Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at UCLA, disagrees with the decision and says he believes it will eventually be overturned by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals 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 wrote 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.”

[hifiguy]

7. Yup. Bang on.

[Hortensis]

10. NOT challenging the police on the street is not just smart,

though, it is also a statement in itself. It's hard to imagine this will not be reversed. Maybe we could also claim our smart phones have a religious right to testify.

It has occurred to me that as a retired person I have no compelling reason to avoid arrest. No job or reputation I can't afford to lose, no dependents who need me at home, a flexible schedule, house paid off, etc. Many, many millions enjoy the freedom of being jailed for documenting wrongs. Until it is reversed, bring on the cuffs.

[KamaAina]

11. "Maybe we could also claim our smart phones have a religious right to testify."

Well, Apple and Samsung are people, after all.

[Hortensis]

12. My phone talks to me and is a fount of knowledge.

[meow2u3]

2. There's going to be an appeal

Everywhere else, filiming the police is a 1st Amendment right. Where did this incompetent and/or corrupt judge come from? Who paid him off?

[SoLeftIAmRight]

4. And we move more into that world...

were we just watch the horror in silence.

[valerief]

5. Now will people believe we live in a fascist state? nt

[NV Whino]

6. Haven't the Supremes already ruled on this.

Waste of time and (our) money.

[Orrex]

9. Looks like...

Glik v. Cunniffe

Even Scalia agreed with the ruling.

This will be overturned on appeal.

[jberryhill]

8. This one won't last long

The ability of the police to conduct surveillance in public places is premised on the ability of anyone to do so.

If it turns out that people aren't allowed to photograph or video things in public, then it's not as if the police have some sort of superior right to to do so.

This is not a well-thought-out decision.

[JimDandy]

13. I wonder what greenbacks yelled to get first amendment protection.

in Citizens United?

[U4ikLefty]

14. I was a legal observer during Occupy and filming the cops can be scary.

There is a chance of arrest at a protest, so it's important to know you rights and be prepared.

Here some info from the National Lawyers Guild on legal obervers: https://www.nlg.org/sites/default/files/LO_Manual.pdf

This ruling sucks. I hope it's overturned.