To begin let’s 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.
“AUDITS”
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 streets, libraries, post offices, beaches, town halls, police and sheriffs’ stations, and other locations. They are about the auditors’ right to openly film law enforcement personnel and other public officials as they perform their duties.
While citizens have recorded police officers performing their duties in public for years, officers should be prepared to deal with two con-temporary issues related to recording. First, officers and even non-sworn police personnel should be prepared to deal with First Amendment auditors who may visit their station, town hall, or other town and county facilities. Second, officers should be prepared to deal with citizens who record them while performing their duties in the field.
In both instances, the recording is not usually passive, meaning the auditor often takes an active role in engaging with the public safety 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.
[clip]
The case of
Glik v. Cunniffe is one of the more influential, and oft-cited cases in this line of jurisprudence. In this case, Boston police officers 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 prison-er. All the charges were subsequently dismissed for lack of probable cause. Glik then filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a violation of his First Amendment rights.
The case settled, but it was determined that if the police are aware that they are being recorded, it is not unlawful for a citizen to film law enforcement officers in the discharge of their duties in a public space. The First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that “a citizen’s right to film government officials, including law enforcement officers, in the discharge of their duties in a public space is a basic, vital, and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment.”
The Court further advised that “such peaceful recording of an arrest in a public space that does not interfere with the police officers’ performance of their duties is not reasonably subject to limitation.” As a result, the Court concluded “we see no basis in the law for a reasonable officer to conclude that such a conspicuous act of recording was ‘secret’ merely because the officer did not have actual knowledge of whether audio was being recorded.” Notably, the Court determined that this state of the law was well established at the time of the arrest, and there-fore, denied the officers’ claim for qualified immunity from Glik’s First Amendment claim.
Other courts across the country have determined that citizens have a First Amendment right to record law enforcement personnel performing their duties in in public.
Some courts have even taken this one step further, ruling that secret audio recording of law enforcement officials performing their duties in public is protected by the First Amendment, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.
Petty tyrants aka Police and Gov Officials do not like being called out for bad behaviors .... however I believe these guys go looking for a confrontation
