First Circuit Upholds Right To Videotape Arresting Officers

[Jumping Frog]

First Circuit Upholds Right To Videotape Arresting Officers

Glik whipped out his cell phone and started videotaping the arrest. An officer asked Glik if he was recording audio. When Glik said that he was, the officer arrested him for allegedly violating the state’s wiretap law, the opinion notes.

After the charge was dropped, Glik filed a lawsuit, claiming his free speech rights had been violated. The officers claimed they were immune from the suit because they were acting in their official capacity.

A federal trial court sided with Glik, and so did the First Circuit.

“Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest,” the First Circuit held.

There are two things interesting about this case. First, the First Circuit opinion provides a great analysis of supporting how "Glik was exercising clearly established First Amendment rights in filming the officers in a public space, and that his clearly-established Fourth Amendment rights were violated by his arrest without probable cause.".

Second, a public officials (including police officers) normally have "qualified immunity" to civil lawsuits arising from acts performed as part of their public duties. The opinion spells out how this immunity no longer applies when dealing with "well established" laws.

I know the First Circuit is a different circuit, and thus not a direct precedent in this federal circuit, but it is still an interesting case and opinion.

This case directly relates to firearms in this sense. I always carry a voice recorder and also have my telephone setup with a speed dial to record any LEO interactions. This is simply to protect myself. There are also many other people in the concealed carry community who do so, and I have seen cases where the recording was the only thing that kept a CHL from being convicted in a bad LEO interaction. I have also seen cases where people have been charged under wiretap laws for recording in these situations. I didn't stop to think through that gathering information is just as vital a First Amendment right as disseminating it. Anyway, I found the opinion interesting so I thought others may also be interested.

[speedsix]

...made my day!!! Thanks...

[cubbyjg]

This is good news. Out of curiosity, how did you set up your speed dial to record something?

[Jumping Frog]

This is good news. Out of curiosity, how did you set up your speed dial to record something?

I went to freeconferencecalling.com and got a free conference call number.

Then I stored the number in my cell phone, along with the necessary pauses (every cell phone will insert a pause in a stored number) to enter the conference ID, then the moderator ID, and then pressed "5*" to record the call.

The number in my cell phone looks like 7777777777PPP999999PPP8888PP5*, where 7777777777 represents the telephone #, 999999 represents the conference ID, 8888 represents the moderator ID, and 5* records the call.

I do it this way because the conversation is then recorded at the server. Even if the LEO seizes the telephone and erases everything (or stomps on the phone breaking it), I still have the recorded conversation safely stored.

BTW, here's going to be an interesting one from Baltimore along the same lines....

Baltimore police sued over deleted videos of confrontation

Baltimore police officers deleted videos from a man's mobile phone after he recorded a confrontation between officers and a female friend at the 2010 Preakness Stakes, violating his constitutional rights and wiping away a year and a half of memories of his young son, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday.

And that is exactly why I record the call on the server.

[suthdj]

http://qik.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; has a streaming video recorder that uploads to the website however it does take a good connection to get it at uploaded quickly but my phone can lock and keep recording so nobody can delete it.

[RoyGBiv]

If you have an Android phone, try Tape-A-Talk voice recorder.
Two presses and you're recording. Free.

http://www.androidzoom.com/android_appl ... _qaku.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[cubbyjg]

Thanks for the info Jumping Frog and RoyGBiv!

[tommyg]

I'm going to set the free confrence calling on my phone ASAP

[boba]

Good decision. I hope the people who violated his rights have to pay up personally, instead of stealing money from the public at large to pay for their crimes.

[n5wd]

I know the First Circuit is a different circuit, and thus not a direct precedent in this federal circuit, but it is still an interesting case and opinion.

My understanding of the law in Texas is that recording (in person or over the phone) is legal, as long as one party (usually, the one doing to recording) is aware of it. Hopefully, the legiscritters in Austin wouldn't try something similar to the state mentioned in your court case.

But, I must say, your way of remote-recording the conversation is certainly an elegant solution to a possible problem.