Say ‘cheese’
Court upholds right to film police
IN the wake of cases such as the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., and the chokehold death of Eric Garner in New York City, support for police body cameras — even among cops — is on the rise. For the great majority of conscientious and duty-bound law enforcement officers, body cameras can act as a safety net, protecting them from frivolous claims and allegations.
Yet some police officers become quite camera shy when it comes to members of the public using their smartphones to document their activity.
In a welcome ruling this week, however, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has concluded that efforts to prevent citizens from filming police with their smartphones run afoul of the Constitution. The ruling centered on a pair of incidents dating to September 2012.
During a protest against fracking at a convention center in Philadelphia, Amanda Geraci, who monitors and videotapes interactions between citizens and police at protests and demonstrations, sought to get a better vantage point after police arrested a protester. After she moved, Ms. Geraci says, police physically restrained her against a pillar and blocked her from filming the arrest.
During the same demonstration, a Temple student named Richard Fields was walking down the street when he noticed 20 police officers standing outside a house party. When Mr. Fields snapped a shot of the scene on his phone, an officer ordered him to leave. When Mr. Fields refused, he was handcuffed and arrested.
While the charge against Mr. Fields was eventually dropped, both he and Ms. Geraci sued, accusing police of retaliating against them for recording officers’ actions.
Taking up the case were attorneys for the Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization that had filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that citizens have an essential right to record public law enforcement activities.
A lower court had previously ruled the city was immune from such lawsuits. It also ruled that the First Amendment protects the right to film public police activities only if there is an “expressive” purpose for recording them.
The 3rd Circuit reversed that ruling, finding that members of the public aren’t subject to such limitations. While the court held that the officers involved were protected by qualified immunity and couldn’t be held personally liable, it also cited numerous other rulings affirming the First Amendment right to collect information about government activities.
The ruling acknowledges important constitutional principals involving free speech and expression. Police officers should have no legal grounds to stop a law-abiding citizen from simply recording their public activities, absent some indication that the filming endangers a legitimate law enforcement operation.
The Review-journal welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should not exceed 275 words and must include the writer’s name, mailing address and phone number. Submissions may be edited and become the property of the Review-journal.
Email letters@reviewjournal.com Mail Letters to the Editor
P.O. Box 70
Las Vegas, NV 89125
Fax 702-383-4676 attracting capital investment because many large tech companies take the ability to purchase renewable energy into account when making location decisions. Capital investment boosts our economy and creates jobs.
Contrary to Mr. Smith’s statements, nuclear energy is not a viable alternative to fossil fuels. The radioactive waste resulting from nuclear energy production damages the environment and human health. This is reflected in continued bipartisan opposition to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. While the Sierra Club has clearly stated the environmental risks of some biomass projects, this is not relevant to AB 206, as this bill did not include biomass in its renewable portfolio standards.
Mr. Smith speaks of renewable portfolio standards far too generally. The issue is Nevada, and Mr. Smith bases his critiques on proposals that have nothing to do with AB 206. Gov. Sandoval’s veto of AB 206 hurts the environment and was a vote against economic growth and energy security. teacher issue is simple: offer outstanding pay and benefits and the applicants will break down your door.
It seems we exist to benefit only those who reap the profits of tourism. So beware, residents, when you spend your dollars at those businesses that do not support your community.