1st Circuit: recording cops in public is legal

[KBCraig]

I haven't finished reading the opinion yet, but a 1st Circuit panel ruled in favor of a man who sued Boston police, over arresting him for recording them in public.

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/10-1764P-01A.pdf

When Glik sued, the police moved for dismissal and claimed qualified immunity "because it is not well-settled that he had a constitutional right to record the officers." The federal district court denied the motion because "in the First Circuit . . . this First Amendment right publicly to record the activities of police officers on public business is established."

The court of appeals agreed.

"It is of no significance that the present case . . . involves a private individual, and not a reporter, gathering information about public officials. The First Amendment right to gather news is, as the Court has often noted, not one that inures solely to the benefit of the news media; rather, the public's right of access to information is coextensive with that of the press."

"In our society, police officers are expected to endure significant burdens caused by citizens' exercise of their First Amendment rights."

The ruling applies in Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico. How Puerto Rico wound up in New England, I have no idea.

[Pat K]

Puerto Rico? Were the Chicharrón  and plantains
and Arroz Con Gandules be at?

[Jim Johnson]

"...the public's right of access to information is coextensive with that of the press."
I wonder if they'll stop arresting reports now? 


"In our society, police officers are expected to endure significant burdens caused by citizens' exercise of their First Amendment rights."  (...would look good on a T-shirt.)  But only the first Amendment, it's like golf where the larger the number the worse the Amendment.

[MaineShark]

FYI, all they actually really ruled is that the police don't have immunity from lawsuits, at this particular time, if they arrest you for recording them.

You still might lose such a suit, because the issue has not been addressed, yet.

Basically, the police argued, "this is a stupid lawsuit, so it should be dismissed," and the court responded, "it may or may not be right, but it's not so blatantly stupid that it must be dismissed before trial."

I think everyone here knows that it's not a stupid lawsuit, and what the only correct ruling a fair court could reach, is.  But there's no telling what an actual court will do.  So don't count your chickens until they hatch.  All they've said, so far, is that you are allowed to sue the police over this, not that you'll win.

Joe