Passenger’s livestreaming of officer’s traffic stop of vehicle was protected by First Amendment; plaintiff plausibly alleged a municipal policy to prohibit occupant from livestreaming traffic stop; individual officer had qualified immunity because right to livestream traffic stop was not clearly established.
Plaintiff criticized officer no. 1 on social media for issuing her a parking violation; several years later officer no. 2 stopped plaintiff for reckless driving, officer no. 1 heard it on the radio and offered to buy officer no. 2 lunch if he issued a citation, which he did; plaintiff then sued officer no.
Officer lacked probable cause for arresting plaintiff for interfering with an officer by posting sign “Cops Ahead” to warn motorists of distracted-driving operation; well-settled that only physical conduct and fighting words give rise to viable charge of interfering with an officer; plaintiff was speaking on a matter of public concern and speech was not “integral to criminal conduct” and was protected by First Amendment; restricting plaintiff’s speech did not satisfy strict scrutiny and was not narrowly tailored.