Filming the Police

On May 15, 2010 Chris Sharp recorded the Baltimore Police Dept. forcibly arresting his friend.  BPD seized Mr. Sharp's cell phone and immediately deleted the recording. Come to find out, BPD was actually following their own department policy to seize and delete recordings by citizens of their police in action. Mr. Sharp filed a  federal lawsuit which prompted the the United States Justice Department to issue a formal letter stating their opinion on the citizenry filming the police. 

Below are excerpts  from the DOJ letter to the BPD. If you or a loved one have been seized or have had a camera or other property seized by law enforcement after filming the police contact our office at 865.774.5515

DOJ - Dept of Civil Rights Division - May 14, 2012

Recording governmental officers engaged in public duties is a form of speech through which private individuals may gather and disseminate information of public concern, including the conduct of law enforcement officers.2 See, e.g., Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 82 (1st Cir. 2011)

First Amendment principles” and federal case law “unambiguously” establish that private individuals possess “a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties.”); Smith v. Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000) 

The right to “[g]ather[] information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting ‘the free discussion of governmental affairs.’” Glik, 655 F.3d at 82 (citing Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1966)).

Courts have also extended First Amendment protection to recordings taken on private property, including an individual filming police activity from his or her home or other private property where an individual has a right to be present. See Jean v. Massachusetts State Police, 492 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2007)

Because recording police officers in the public discharge of their duties is protected by the First Amendment, policies should prohibit interference with recording of police activities except in narrowly circumscribed situations. More particularly, policies should instruct officers that, except under limited circumstances, officers must not search or seize a camera or recording device without a warrant. In addition, policies should prohibit more subtle actions that may nonetheless infringe upon individuals’ First Amendment rights. Officers should be advised not to threaten, intimidate, or otherwise discourage an individual from recording police officer enforcement activities or intentionally block or obstruct cameras or recording devices.  

A person may record public police activity unless the person engages in actions that jeopardize the safety of the officer, the suspect, or others in the vicinity, violate the law, or incite others to violate the law. See, e.g., Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 573 (1942)

See, e.g., Duran v. City of Douglas, Arizona, 904 F.2d 1372, 1377-78 (9th Cir. 1990) (individual who was “making obscene gestures” and “yell[ed] profanities” at an officer engaged in conduct that “fell squarely within the protective umbrella of the First Amendment and any action to punish or deter such speech—such as stopping or hassling the speaker—is categorically prohibited by the Constitution.”).