Ayatollahgondola
09-17-2011, 04:11 PM
Relieved to read this. There has been several people charged with various offenses for videotaping cops durring arrests and such. this ruling goes a long way towards insuring we can document our events and the interactions with law enforcement that often come about from that
Glick v. Cunniffe, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17841, August 26, 2011
Glick was arrested for using his cell phone’s digital camera to film several police officers arresting a man on the Boston Common. The charges against him for violating a state wiretap statute and two other offenses were eventually dismissed. Glick sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that his arrest for filming the officers violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights.
The court held that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. First, a citizen’s right to film government officials, including law enforcement officers, in the discharge of their duties in a public space is a basic, vital and well-established liberty protected by the First Amendment. Glick was exercising clearly established First Amendment rights in filming the officers in the Boston Common, the oldest city park in the United States.
Additionally, the officers arrested Glick without probable cause, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The state wiretap statute prohibits individuals from secretly recording others. Here, Glick told the officers he was recording their actions and they acknowledged this by arresting him. A reasonable officer would have known that arresting Glick for a wiretap offense under these circumstances was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.
Click HERE for the court’s opinion: http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/10-1764P-01A.pdf
Glick v. Cunniffe, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17841, August 26, 2011
Glick was arrested for using his cell phone’s digital camera to film several police officers arresting a man on the Boston Common. The charges against him for violating a state wiretap statute and two other offenses were eventually dismissed. Glick sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that his arrest for filming the officers violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights.
The court held that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. First, a citizen’s right to film government officials, including law enforcement officers, in the discharge of their duties in a public space is a basic, vital and well-established liberty protected by the First Amendment. Glick was exercising clearly established First Amendment rights in filming the officers in the Boston Common, the oldest city park in the United States.
Additionally, the officers arrested Glick without probable cause, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The state wiretap statute prohibits individuals from secretly recording others. Here, Glick told the officers he was recording their actions and they acknowledged this by arresting him. A reasonable officer would have known that arresting Glick for a wiretap offense under these circumstances was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.
Click HERE for the court’s opinion: http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/10-1764P-01A.pdf