Federal appeals court reaffirms right to videorecord, including at traffic stops

The Volokh Conspriacy (WAPO) ^ | May 25, 2014 | Eugene Volokh

[QT3.14]

From the First Circuit’s decision Friday in Gericke v. Begin (1st Cir. May 24, 2014):

This case raises an important question about an individual’s First Amendment right to film a traffic stop by a police officer. Carla Gericke attempted to film Sergeant Joseph Kelley as he was conducting a late-night traffic stop. Shortly thereafter, she was arrested and charged with several crimes, including a violation of New Hampshire’s wiretapping statute. Gericke was not brought to trial. She subsequently sued the Town of Weare, its police department, and the officers who arrested and charged her, alleging in pertinent part that the wiretapping charge constituted retaliatory prosecution in violation of her First Amendment rights….

[unixfox]

As they say...

If you don’t have anything to hide...

[fwdude]

I hope citizens are just a amenable to being recorded by strangers in public.

[DariusBane]

The difference:

In Glik, we explained that gathering information about government officials in a form that can be readily disseminated “serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting ‘the free discussion of governmental affairs.’” Protecting that right of information gathering “not only aids in the uncovering of abuses, but also may have a salutary effect on the functioning of government more generally.” Those First Amendment principles apply equally to the filming of a traffic stop and the filming of an arrest in a public park. In both instances, the subject of filming is “police carrying out their duties in public.” A traffic stop, no matter the additional circumstances, is inescapably a police duty carried out in public. Hence, a traffic stop does not extinguish an individual’s right to film.

A government employee acting in an official capacity in public can and should be filmed with audio. That just keeps the honest folks honest and the dishonest folks working harder.

[Fido969]

New Hampshire used to be a rock-solid conservative state, but has been over-run by libtards fleeing the socialist paradise they created in Massachusetts. Like Gilford, NH, where the man objecting to his daughter being taught pornography in schools was arrested, the good government storm troopers are taking over the place.

Anyway, what's the downside to the PD in this case? It's the dumb taxpayers who pick up the tab.

[samtheman]

I agree with this ruling.

[fwdude]

We’re always told that there are no differences between cops and pedestrians. Be prepared to put this rubber to the road and allow for unfettered filming of anyone in public, for any reason.

[BitWielder1]

If the cops can use their dash cams on us, it's only fair that we can film the same events to make sure that the evidence hasn't been edited or deleted.
As for private recordings, it will be hard to stop. Eventually it comes down to how those recordings are used.
Not a trivial question.

[JRandomFreeper]

A cop is a government agent, and as such, may be recorded in the performance of his duties. Can't say that about a private citizen.

Besides, the government has plenty of cameras to record people in public now anyway.

/johnny

[andyk]

Be prepared to put this rubber to the road and allow for unfettered filming of anyone in public, for any reason.

This has been the case for quite some time now. It's just cops that thought they were special. I'd hardly say that the cops illegally arresting her shows how "amenable" they are.

[wiggen]

the point of fairness is exactly the same point i bring up all the time. There cannot, there must not , be differenrt rules for goveernment employees and we civilians. we protest all the time about different rules for elected officials. Why should it stop there? These people are no better than you and I and any ruling to the contrary in this case would only serve to seperate us.

[fwdude]

Don’t know about you, but I don’t want a pervert following me around in the grocery store video taping me with his iPhone. And I wouldn’t mind a law being passed making this illegal.

[FredZarguna]

You appear to be unable to understand the difference between the execution of a public duty and the ordinary act of walking down a street, so your opinion is worthless.

[hoosierham]

Isn’t the pervert following already harassment ? Why is a new law needed?

[DariusBane]

cops already film everything and everyone.

[FredZarguna]

Actually, I disagree. Government officials are paid to serve, not rule, and consequently they must be held to a higher standard, not an equal one. In particular, a person authorized to use deadly force and to collect evidence for the prosecution of crimes is in a unique position of trust. And we should trust... but verify.

[magna carta]

I agree...its the last defense we are living in times where cops are arresting for jaywalk, public protests, etc...it may in the end keep cops in tune with a proper arrest and save taxpayers from lawsuits. Right now they are shredding the 4th Amendment.

[circlecity]

"Be prepared to put this rubber to the road and allow for unfettered filming of anyone in public, for any reason."

Since the advent of smartphones years ago that's already been happening on an hourly basis, 24/7.

[fwdude]

Isn’t the pervert following already harassment?

Depends on where you live. Not always.

[PGalt]

Interesting. Thanks for posting.