The Right to Record Police Doesn鈥檛 Disappear When You Put Your Phone in Your Pocket
The First Amendment right to record the police is a critical check and balance for people living in a free, open, and democratic society. It promotes the free discussion of governmental affairs as well as protects the democratic process. And for some communities, it鈥檚 a vital tool for uncovering, if not deterring, police misconduct.
But Boston-based civil rights activists Eric Martin and Ren茅 P茅rez were afraid to record the police. Under a state wiretap law passed in 1968, known as , it is a crime to secretly record private individuals and government workers, even those on duty like police officers. Since 2011, the Boston Police Department has applied for a criminal complaint against at least nine people for secretly recording police officers performing their duties in public, and the Suffolk County District Attorney鈥檚 Office has opened numerous case files based on this felony charge as well.
Because of this fact, although Martin and P茅rez often feared for their safety when openly recording police officers in public, they also knew recording secretly could subject them to arrest and prosecution. Caught between safety concerns and fear of punishment, they often chose not to record at all.
But that鈥檚 about to change.
Two years ago, the 老澳门开奖结果 of Massachusetts , Martin v. Gross, on behalf of Martin and P茅rez, arguing that they have every right under the First Amendment to secretly record police officers carrying out their duties in public. This week, agreed.
Taking photographs, video, and audio in public spaces is a constitutional right 鈥� and that includes law enforcement officials carrying out their duties. The defendants in this case argued that they could lawfully apply Section 99 to prevent individuals from secretly recording police officers performing their duties in public. In her recent ruling, Judge Patti B. Saris of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts called that application of the wiretap law unconstitutional.
The court explained that police officers have 鈥渄iminished privacy interests鈥� when performing their job in public, while the public has a constitutionally protected interest in newsgathering, information-dissemination, and monitoring the conduct of law enforcement officials. The parties must now submit proposed language for an order implementing the court鈥檚 decision by January 10.
The 老澳门开奖结果 of Massachusetts has long championed the right to record the police in the public performance of their duties. In , Simon Glik openly recorded Boston police officers when they treated a man too roughly on the Boston Common. Glik himself was then arrested for his constitutionally protected behavior. In 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit unanimously affirmed that he had a First Amendment right to record the police carrying out their duties on the Boston Common.
Although the fact pattern in Glik happened to involve an open recording, the First Circuit did not so limit its First Amendment ruling. Judge Saris鈥� ruling evokes Glik鈥檚 protection of both the open and secret recording of police officers performing their duties in public, reiterating that 鈥渢he First Amendment鈥檚 protection for information-gathering has special force with respect to law enforcement officials who are granted so much discretion in depriving individuals of their liberties.鈥�
In recent years, the exercise of this First Amendment right has changed the public鈥檚 understanding of encounters between police officers and the public. Time and time again, people鈥檚 recordings of police interactions have started national conversations about police reform and accountability, from Eric Garner to Philando Castile to Sandra Bland. As the Trump administration welcomes a new attorney general who opposes Obama-era police reform and civil rights work, all of us play an increasingly important role in keeping the local police in check.
This week鈥檚 decision will help ensure that we have the tools to do so.
Sign up for the and get our finest content from the week delivered to your inbox every Saturday.
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok鈥檚 challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 老澳门开奖结果 of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter鈥檚 privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer鈥檚 subpoenas.