Not clearly established that bystander had the right to photograph fatal accident scene, because broad statement of principle in prior case that there is a “right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest” did not establish that particular conduct here violated the right.
Outrageous decision holding that it was not clearly established in August 2014 that citizen had right to record officers performing official duties; court fails to reach merits of constitutional issue as well.
Officer who fired tear gas at Al Jazeera America reporters during Ferguson protest had no probable cause for doing so and violated their clearly established First Amendment rights.
Questionable decision denying plaintiff’s claim that his arrest near police station was in retaliation for his exercise of First Amendment right to photograph police vehicles and people, on ground that plaintiff’s uncooperative response to officers’ questions plus information police had regarding stolen and vandalized cars in that area and previous murder of two officers by person with history of filming the police, would give objectively reasonable person grounds to suspect plaintiff was up to more than simply recording police.
First Amendment protects right to record, audio and video, government officials, including law enforcement officers, discharging their duties in a public place, even without consent of person recorded; some limitations on the right may comport with First Amendment; Massachusetts statute banning secret recording without regard to topics or ideas recorded was content neutral and therefore not subject to strict scrutiny, statute must be subjected to intermediate scrutiny; statute held unconstitutional because not narrowly tailored to further governmental interests of preventing interference wi
Clearly established in May 2019 that journalist had First Amendment right to film police performing duties in public and reasonable officer would have known that physically interfering with and intimidating individual filming traffic stop could chill First Amendment activity; NPAP amicus brief filed in this case.