![]() ![]() § 1983 alleging a violation of his First Amendment rights. Cunniffe is one of the more influential, and oft-cited cases in this line of jurisprudence Boston Police arrested the defendant, Simon Glik, when he recorded an incident with his smartphone where officers were taking another individual into custody on the Boston Common. Glik was charged with violating the wiretap statute, disturbing the peace, and aiding in the escape of a prisoner. All the charges were subsequently dismissed for lack of probable cause. Department of Justice has taken the position, that citizens have the First Amendment right to film police performing their duties in public. Circuit Courts of Appeal have ruled, and the U.S. Right to Film Public Officials in Public Spaces ![]() This further complicates how to handle these “auditors” because they may not actually break a law. The First Amendment of the US Constitution provides that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. In both instances, the recording is not usually passive, meaning the recorder takes an active role in engaging with the personnel, challenging them on applicable laws, and in some cases, attempting to escalate the situation in order to garner support from their audience or followers. While citizens have recorded police officers performing their duties in public for years, officers should be prepared to deal with two contemporary issues related to recording: first, officers and police personnel should be prepared to deal with “First Amendment auditors” who may visit their police department, town hall or other town facilities second, officers should be prepared to deal with citizens who record them while performing their duties in the field. A First Amendment audit is a form of activism where an individual seeks to exercise their First Amendment rights. The audits can take place in public spaces such as libraries, post offices, beaches, town halls, police and sheriffs’ departments, and others. The crux of the audits focuses on the “auditors’” right to openly film law enforcement personnel and other public officials. To begin, let’s define First Amendment “Audits”. ![]() To begin we will define First Amendment Audits and begin discussing First Amendment Implications, such as the right to film in public spaces and reasonable restrictions on the right to film. In this two-part series we will break down several court cases that apply to First Amendment “auditors”, the areas of the law that protect officers, and what Law Enforcement can do moving forward. In more recent times, groups of individuals, claiming to be “First Amendment Auditors,” have been challenging police and gaining media exposure by filming the inside of various public spaces. As a result of this new phenomenon, many agencies are evaluating how to respond to these so-called “auditors.” Many of these encounters do not escalate, however, there are some encounters that have become challenging for law enforcement. What is it, What are the Implications and are there Restrictions? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |