Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity for escorting patron at country fair off premises because he was spewing profanities about police and wearing shirt stating, “Fuck the Police,” which was protected speech; factual issues precluded summary judgment on claim that plaintiff’s arrest for disorderly conduct was in retaliation for protected speech.
Law was not clearly established that officer’s enforcement of protest zones violated First Amendment, officer entitled to qualified immunity for preventing journalist from engaging with counterprotester.
Reporter who published stories on Facebook was arrested and detained for violation of a Texas statute that made it a crime to, with intent to obtain a benefit, solicit or receive information from a public servant that the public servant has by means of their office or employment and that has not been made public; offense was based on reporter’s confirming last names of people in stories with a Laredo police officer; arrest infringed on her right to ask questions of public officials; officials were not entitled to qualified immunity on that claim because violation of Constitution was “obviou
Organization hosts food-sharing events in park to communicate message that scarce resources are skewed toward military and away from feeding the hungry; park rule that required city permission for social service good-sharing events violated First Amendment with respect to these demonstrations; intermediate, rather than strict scrutiny applied to rule; rule provided no guidance to when, how, or why city would grant permission; rule was not narrowly tailored nor was it a reasonable time, place, and manner regulation; individual members and organization had standing to sue.
In suit by members of synagogue against anti-Israel protestors and city, synagogue members had standing (sufficient injury) to bring claims but protestors’ actions on public sidewalks were protected by First Amendment.
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