Police power to declare that an assembly is unlawful and to order individuals to disperse is not limited to situations in which protestors are violating criminal laws; for example, police have authority to insure the free and orderly flow of traffic or to control entry by protestors onto state property not traditionally used as a public forum.
In case by NLG legal observers, court holds that observing and recording police-citizen interactions was not a clearly established First Amendment right in 2015, but there is a strong dissent by Judge Benton who finds right was clearly established; court rejects other theories that police who tear gassed NLG legal observers and others on private property did so in retaliation for exercise of First Amendment rights; court finds that wearing green hats that said “National Lawyers Guild Legal Observer” did not clearly convey a pro-protest message; third plaintiff who followed polic
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.
Sharpe v. Winterville Police Department addresses the case of Dijon Sharpe, who was a passenger in a traffic stop where he was threatened with arrest if he continued to Facebook Livestream the stop. In addition to the threat, the officer attempted to confiscate Mr. Sharpe's phone.
Officer entitled to qualified immunity on unlawful seizure, malicious prosecution and First Amendment retaliation claims, because objectively reasonable for officer to believe arrestee was inciting violence or intending to provoke others to violence when he laughed loudly before standing and getting “nose-to-nose” with another and yelling at rallygoers and Trump, despite fact he was acquitted in criminal case on ground he had not used “fighting words”.
Officer appealed denial of qualified immunity on First Amendment retaliatory use of force claim by protester; court affirms denial of qualified immunity on basis of facts asserted by plaintiff that she was merely participating in a peaceful protest and had done nothing more than come within a couple of feet of an officer; her right to be free from retaliatory use of force was clearly established.
In suit by police and union representative, court holds city’s policy of not allowing private recording or videotaping interviews in city investigations into police misconduct did not violate First Amendment; prohibition on recording speech is not a prohibition on speaking; freedom of the press right of access to information does not require government to open all proceedings to public; officers’ appearance at interviews is a legitimate condition of employment and nonrecording policy rationally furthers a legitimate government interest.
Officer who pepper sprayed woman live streaming a video of police officers’ activity violated her clearly established First Amendment rights and was not entitled to qualified immunity; “arguable probable cause” was not relevant to the claim because plaintiff did not complain of a search or seizure.
First Amendment claim for retaliatory prosecution accrued when plaintiff learned that defendants had indicted him on charges that he believed to be retaliatory, thus statute of limitations began to run when plaintiff was indicted, not when he was acquitted.
Nonprofit organization did not have clearly established right under First Amendment to provide religious discipleship program within 500 feet of park with playground equipment to individuals subject to statute precluding persons convicted of certain sex crimes from being present within 500 feet of such a park.