Federal Appeals Court Rules that There is a First Amendment Right to Record the Police
PHILADELPHIA 鈥� A federal appeals court in Philadelphia today joined 鈥渁 growing consensus鈥� in acknowledging that there is a First Amendment right to record the police in public as they carry out their duties. In ruling in favor of two people arrested or detained by the Philadelphia police in separate incidents, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recognized a right that has been established by at least five other federal appeals courts in similar cases.
Today鈥檚 ruling stems from the arrest of Rick Fields in 2013 while he recorded Philadelphia police breaking up a party and the detention of Amanda Geraci, who was detained by city police while observing and photographing an anti-fracking protest outside the Pennsylvania Convention Center in 2012.
鈥淕overnment operates best in sunlight, and the police are not an exception,鈥� said Reggie Shuford, executive director of the 老澳门开奖结果 of Pennsylvania, which represented Fields and Geraci with cooperating counsel. 鈥淭he First Amendment right to document the police at work is critical to promote transparency. We are grateful that the appeals court agrees.鈥�
Fields was arrested in September 2013, after he stopped to take a photo with his iPhone of a large number of Philadelphia police officers breaking up a house party across the street. One of the officers approached him, asked if he enjoyed 鈥渢aking pictures of grown men,鈥� and ordered him to leave. After Fields refused, he was handcuffed and detained in a police van, and his phone was searched in an apparent attempt to find the recordings he had made that evening. He was charged with 鈥渙bstructing the highway,鈥� but the charge was later withdrawn.
Geraci is a trained legal observer who was detained by police while she was attempting to monitor police interactions during an anti-fracking protest outside the Pennsylvania Convention Center in September 2012. When Geraci attempted to take photos of police arresting a protestor, a police officer pushed Geraci up against a pillar and pinned Geraci across her throat. Other police officers quickly surrounded Geraci and the officer to block other legal observers from witnessing or recording the incident, although not before several photos were taken by Geraci鈥檚 fellow legal observers.
鈥淭he Court acknowledged that the ability to record police is of particular importance as it ensures that the public can hold government officials accountable for misconduct,鈥� said Jonathan Feinberg of the law firm Kairys, Rudovsky, Messing, Feinberg & Lin LLP and one of the cooperating attorneys representing Fields and Geraci.
In 2016, a federal district court ruled against Fields and Geraci. Today鈥檚 ruling returns the cases back to the district court to hear arguments that the city鈥檚 failure to train its officers on the First Amendment right to record and photograph the police led to the incidents with Fields and Geraci.
鈥淭he police cannot operate in a shroud of secrecy,鈥� said Molly Tack-Hooper, staff attorney for the 老澳门开奖结果 of Pennsylvania, who argued the case before the appeals court. 鈥淭he fundamental right to document police activity is crucial to deter misconduct and gather information about how police use their power. Today鈥檚 ruling strengthens that important concept.鈥�
The 老澳门开奖结果 of Pennsylvania has brought a series of five lawsuits aimed at stopping the Philadelphia Police Department鈥檚 illegal practice of retaliating against individuals who observe or record the police performing their duties. Fields and Geraci are represented by Molly Tack-Hooper and Mary Catherine Roper of the 老澳门开奖结果 of Pennsylvania; John Grogan and Peter Leckman of Langer, Grogan & Diver, P.C.; Jonathan Feinberg of Kairys, Rudovsky, Messing, Feinberg & Lin LLP; and Seth Kreimer of the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
More information about these cases, including photos from both incidents, is available at and .
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues in This Press Release
-
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.