1st Circuit Judge says recording police stop is OK!

[Carol]

WOW!!

New Hampshire Union Leader, print edition, November 3 2011 -- Headline Story

Highlights:

"The fact that Officer (Brandon) Montplaisir may have been unwilling or unhappy about being recorded does not make a lawful exercise of the defendant's First Ammendment Rights a crime.

Defendent's lawyer argued the officer had no reasonable expectation of privacy and the defendant did not intercept the conversation with a device other than a telephone.

From the Simon Glik case in Boston, the 1st Circuit ruled "a citizen's right to film government officials, including LEOs, in the discharge of their duties in a public place is a basic, vital, and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment. In the local ruling, Judge Tenney wrote that Glik case leaves no doubt that engaging in an audio recording of a police officer in the course of his official duties in a public place is protected speech under the First Amendment. Judge Tenney also noted the defendant did nothing to interfere with the officer performing his duties.

 

[jks9199]

Federal or state 1st Circuit?

 

[Carol]

Good question....I had to go back and re-read, and some clarifications are in order.

Judge Tenney who is referenced in the article (wish they would make this available online to their print subscribers) is a New Hampshire District Judge (not a Circuit Court Judge).

However, Judge Tenney referenced the Simon Glik case in Boston, which we talked about a bit here on MT:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?90040-Use-Your-Power-Wisely
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma.../12/police_fight_cellphone_recordings/?page=1

Glik's charges were dismissed but as I mentioned in the MT thread about his case...he never should have been arrested to begin with.

Glik (an attorney) brought suit claiming a violation of his constitutional rights.

The Glik case went before the Federal 1st Circuit Court of Appeals who decided in Glik's favor.

Simon Glik was arrested for using
his cell phone's digital video camera to film several police
officers arresting a young man on the Boston Common. The charges
against Glik, which included violation of Massachusetts's wiretap
statute and two other state-law offenses, were subsequently judged
baseless and were dismissed. Glik then brought this suit under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that his arrest for filming the officers
constituted a violation of his rights under the First and Fourth
Amendments.

In this interlocutory appeal, the defendant police
officers challenge an order of the district court denying them
qualified immunity on Glik's constitutional claims. We conclude,
based on the facts alleged, that Glik was exercising clearlyestablished
First Amendment rights in filming the officers in a
public space, and that his clearly-established Fourth Amendment
rights were violated by his arrest without probable cause. We
therefore affirm.

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/10-1764P-01A.pdf


So...there was a 1st Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that recording a police stop is OK, this ruling was made in August 2011. The NH district judge referenced the 1st Circuit decision in his ruling.

 

[Sukerkin]

I know that this is a complex and volatile issue and I certainly acknowledge that no-one would love being filmed in the performance of their job. But, if defensive recording is the only way to remind police forces that they police by public consent, not by government edict, then that might have good consequences in the longer term.

A good first step is to fire any Little Hitlers', whose 'man-hood' is enhanced by a gun and a badge, caught on audio or video and hold them accountable in line with the laws and conduct codes they are supposed to uphold (we've seen a few of those on the clips linked here at MT).

Of course that is the 'small government' British Liberal coming out in me there . For the flip-side of this is what effect would there be on the efficiency of policing if, restrained by rampant recording, officers could not assume the forceful 'jack-boot' image and style when dealing with the true scum of society?

 

[Sukerkin]

[yt]NrSECcj5V7w[/yt]

 

[Carol]

I know that this is a complex and volatile issue and I certainly acknowledge that no-one would love being filmed in the performance of their job. But, if defensive recording is the only way to remind police forces that they police by public consent, not by government edict, then that might have good consequences in the longer term.

A good first step is to fire any Little Hitlers', whose 'man-hood' is enhanced by a gun and a badge, caught on audio or video and hold them accountable in line with the laws and conduct codes they are supposed to uphold (we've seen a few of those on the clips linked here at MT).

Of course that is the 'small government' British Liberal coming out in me there . For the flip-side of this is what effect would there be on the efficiency of policing if, restrained by rampant recording, officers could not assume the forceful 'jack-boot' image and style when dealing with the true scum of society?

I'll defer to the LEO's here for an answer, but here's the back story of the New Hampshire case. The actors involved weren't the true scum of society.

http://www.nhlegalservices.com/News/Documents/3-16 Hodgdon acquitted.pdf

 

[ballen0351]

We just had a meeting friday with our District States atty. They advised us that if we are out in public doing our jobs we have zero expectation of privacy there for can be recorded by anyone and everyone. They are using the 1st circuits ruling as the guide even though we fall in the 4th circuit. They are thinking it will be the rule of the land soon enough so we are just starting now.