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

How is FILMING "speech"?

[mi]

While I totally support the right to record, whatever one can legally observe, I struggle to understand the commonly-used argument, that such making recordings — made silently and without expression — is somehow equivalent to speech.

Could someone, please, explain?

Re:How is FILMING "speech"?

[nctritech]

Ironically, it has been ruled that you must speak to assert your Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. I do not have a source to pass along, I just remember seeing that ruling go by one day and thinking "that's kinda stupid." I also don't think that people should have to identify themselves to police simply because police ask, but that doesn't stop it from being a requirement in several states.

Re:How is FILMING "speech"?

[PopeRatzo]

The First Amendment also includes freedom of the press.

I'm old enough to remember when that was true.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Re:How is FILMING "speech"?

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

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.

That's right, and that's how so many cops get people to give them their ID when they actually have no right to get it. They do the "I need to see your ID" and they hold their fingers about 2 inches apart as if they were holding a driver's license. Most people will just hand it over without thinking. Not me. :)

They also do the, "Hey do me a favor and ....", but that carries no more weight than if I asked you to do something. For fuck's sake, they're asking for a favor (and saying so!), not giving you an order.

They can ask you anything they want, that doesn't mean you have to satisfy their request.

(Even if they order you to do something it doesn't necessarily mean you have to do it. That's a whole 'nother subject, though.)

When they tell me they "need" to see my ID in a situation where I'm not legally compelled to provide it, I tell them that their "needs" don't outweigh my "rights".

Re:No you dont

[AHuxley]

You have the right to film from public land.
Police will try a few mind tricks at the more interesting sites. Courts, mil base, vital infrastructure, jails, prisons will usually create a chat down event.
A demand, request for photo ID and the reason for walking on public and, having a camera on public land.. .
Anything from a friendly request to "help" with the paperwork, a request to give a name, to a direct almost legal sounding demand for photo id.
Other chat down methods are Who are you working for, Will this be on the net, under what account... Do you have police press ID?
Mil, contractors and private security will often try the same with "chat downs" about been near their site. Still on public land but they have some "power" to ask who a person is well beyond their fence line...
That the jail, base, court "extends" out onto public land past any fence, sign and that the ability to film from public land is not allowed is often attempted.
The other trick is to let the person have their "rights" and follow them back to their car and get the plate and id..
Other more direct methods is the undercover talking point. Not to show faces.
Or a federal official with no ID or uniform might grab a camera to induce local police to be called. To report the crime a name will have to be given.
The crime will be reported but later FOIA will never ID the person who reached out for the camera.
A lot of chat down ways around a lack of clear Stop and identify statutes.

Re:No you dont

[knightghost]

Where is my right to privacy? It seems that you're saying I have none. Yet privacy is an established constitutional guarantee.

Re:No you dont

[AHuxley]

A persons rights cannot be taken.
But if the chat down results in photo ID voluntarily been shown or the dslr/camera been handed over?
If the chat down is loud, direct, friendly, helpful the person on public land might just show ID, stop filming or even hand over their camera.
Been surrounded by mil in uniform, private security and/or local police on public land all suggesting it might be a good time to show ID and to turn off the camera?
That police would like to or want to or need to know who a person with a camera is for their paperwork as they got called out..
The ability to suggest that its now very normal, helpful, good to stop filming and hand over photo ID? Or just give up the media/storage to be a helpful as an investigation could be started..
That line between under arrest, conducting an investigation, talking, been free to go, is having a dslr in public on public land reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime?
Another attempt is to suggest press ID, local police press ID gives permission to film in that area or city... that all land in the state is state property and not really public land :)
That very special permission is always needed to film "on" a mil base. "In" a court building due to informants or people in jail... or due to under cover officers..
Anything to keep the conversation going and the person speaking about their rights...
The hope is the person will then show photo ID just to have the ability to walk away after such creative talking points.