Appeals Court: You Have the Right To Film the Police (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A divided federal appeals court is ruling for the First Amendment, saying the public has a right to film the police. But the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in upholding the bulk of a lower court's decision against an activist who was conducting what he called a "First Amendment audit" outside a Texas police station, noted that this right is not absolute and is not applicable everywhere. The facts of the dispute are simple. Phillip Turner was 25 in September 2015 when he decided to go outside the Fort Worth police department to test officers' knowledge of the right to film the police. While filming, he was arrested for failing to identify himself to the police. Officers handcuffed and briefly held Turner before releasing him without charges. Turner sued, alleging violations of his Fourth Amendment right against unlawful arrest and detention and his First Amendment right of speech. The 2-1 decision Thursday by Judge Jacques Wiener is among a slew of rulings on the topic, and it provides fresh legal backing for the so-called YouTube society where people are constantly using their mobile phones to film themselves and the police. A dissenting appellate judge on the case -- Edith Brown Clement -- wrote Turner was not unlawfully arrested and that the majority opinion from the Texas-based appeals court jumped the gun to declare a First Amendment right here because one "is not clearly established."

Comments

Rights vs. Facts

[buss_error]

One my have the "right", but to any annoyed cop, that won't stay the baton to the face, the chrome bracelets, and the ride to jail. As the saying goes, "You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride." Until immunity is limited, and some type of consequences attain to violation of the law, bad actors in LEO will continue to behave badly. When a cop violates the law, and the taxpayers fund their defense even in the most egregious of circumstance, there is little motivation for departments or individuals to root out and stop abuse from bad cops. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

We are fortunate that there are few bad actors, but we are unfortunate that their brothers and sister officers are usually very reluctant to report those that are.

Re:Rights vs. Facts

[Anonymous Coward]

The only fix to that is swift, decisive, and extremely harsh punishment for abuses of the law; as opposed to free all-expenses-paid vacations like they instead currently get.

If using the baton and arresting someone illegally, that shouldn't JUST cost you your job: that's assault with a deadly weapon, and kidnapping to boot. People with power over others MUST be held to a higher standard: The stick MUST be at least twice the size of the carrot, and never a carrot of its own!

Re:How is FILMING "speech"?

[alvinrod]

The same way written text, or a drawing with no words, or any other form of expression is considered speech.

The first amendment was created in a time when things like radio, television, the internet, etc. didn't exist and were perhaps beyond imagination. However, it's evident that the idea was ensure a freedom of expression, regardless of medium. I only wish they'd get the same fucking clue when it comes to the fourth amendment because computers and phones are pretty obviously covered by similar reasoning.

Re:How is FILMING "speech"?

[I75BJC]

An attorney told me that there is a difference between Asking and Ordering. Asking doesn't require an answer while Ordering does. LEOs can ask or order; the Citizen can respond appropriately. A Sheriff's Deputy told me that most civilians cannot tell the difference between Asking and Ordering. So they ask and are given information they want but are not legally entitled to. The task is to determine when the LEO is Asking or Ordering. It never hurts to ask for which the LEO is doing and responding appropriately. IMHO, much of the discussion here shows a misunderstanding of Asking and Ordering.