Hoffman v. Delgado: Upholding Reasonable Anti-Filming Regulations in Limited Public Forums and the De Minimis Force Doctrine

Introduction

This commentary examines the Eleventh Circuit’s January 3, 2025 decision in Jerry Hoffman, Jr. v. Jose Delgado & City of Punta Gorda (No. 23-13213). The plaintiff, self-described photojournalist Jerry Hoffman, Jr., challenged a Punta Gorda municipal ordinance prohibiting video and audio recording inside city buildings without consent. Hoffman also alleged that Officer Jose Delgado used excessive force and effected a false arrest when he enforced that ordinance in the lobby of the Punta Gorda police headquarters. The district court dismissed Hoffman’s § 1983 claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the recording ban was a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral regulation in a limited public forum and that Delgado had probable cause to arrest Hoffman and only used de minimis force.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeals’ per curiam opinion reached three core conclusions:

The anti-filming ordinance did not violate the First Amendment. The lobby of a municipal police headquarters is properly analyzed as a limited (or nonpublic) forum, and the ordinance’s ban on recording without consent or city-manager approval is reasonable and viewpoint neutral.
Officer Delgado had probable cause to arrest Hoffman for refusing to comply with a lawful order and thereby resisting an officer in performance of his duty under Fla. Stat. § 843.02. That probable cause bars any false arrest claim.
The force alleged—pushing Hoffman against a wall, grabbing and twisting his arms, striking the camera, even kneeling in the back—fell within the de minimis force doctrine. Such minimal force cannot support an excessive-force claim once probable cause to arrest is established.

Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of all First Amendment, Fourth Amendment (false arrest and excessive force), and related claims.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2000): Recognizes First Amendment protection for recording matters of public interest on public property.
Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, 473 U.S. 788 (1985): Establishes forum analysis framework for speech regulations on government property.
International Society for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672 (1992): Confirms that government may exclude speech from nonpublic forums to prevent workplace interruptions.
McDonough v. Garcia, 116 F.4th 1319 (11th Cir. 2024 en banc): Clarifies four forum categories—traditional public forum, designated public forum, limited public forum, nonpublic forum—and the standard for restrictions in limited/nonpublic forums (reasonable and viewpoint neutral).
Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995): Defines viewpoint neutrality and reasonableness in limited forums.
Bloedorn v. Grube, 631 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 2011): Illustrates that government may regulate speech in governmental facilities to secure their intended purpose.
Zivojinovich v. Barner, 525 F.3d 1059 (11th Cir. 2008): Holds that de minimis force cannot give rise to a § 1983 excessive force claim when probable cause for arrest exists.
Nolin v. Isbell, 207 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2000): Explains that relatively minor physical contacts (e.g., grabbing, pushing against a vehicle, knee strikes) qualify as de minimis.
Rodriguez v. Farrell, 280 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2002): Confirms that painful handcuffing or twisting arms without serious injury remains de minimis force.

2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeds in two main steps:

Forum Analysis and First Amendment
The lobby of the Punta Gorda police headquarters, though open to visitors conducting official business, is not a traditional public forum like a park or sidewalk. It is a limited public forum (or arguably a nonpublic forum) wherein the government may impose reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restrictions. The ordinance’s blanket prohibition on recording without consent or city-manager approval serves important governmental interests—preventing disruptions, safeguarding confidential documents, and preserving the operational integrity of law enforcement headquarters. Because the ordinance applies equally to all viewpoints and advances legitimate objectives, it passes muster under the limited-forum standard.
Probable Cause and Fourth Amendment
Hoffman’s refusal to comply with repeated orders to cease recording or exit the building gave Officer Delgado a reasonable basis to believe Hoffman was obstructing a police officer in violation of Fla. Stat. § 843.02. That statutory violation sufficed to establish probable cause, defeating any false arrest claim. Once probable cause is established, the only remaining Fourth Amendment inquiry is whether the force used was more than de minimis. The facts alleged—shoving against a wall, twisting wrists, momentary knee strikes, switching off a camera—parallel prior decisions finding de minimis force. Thus, no plausible excessive-force claim was pleaded.

3. Impact

This decision reinforces two significant principles:

Government entities may validly regulate recording in nonpublic or limited public forums so long as the regulations are reasonable and viewpoint neutral. Public‐safety facilities—police stations, courthouses, correctional lobbies—are not open‐forum zones for unrestricted recording, and ordinances protecting operational integrity will generally be upheld.
The “de minimis force” doctrine remains robust: minor physical contacts attendant to a lawful arrest, absent serious injury, pose no constitutional violation. Plaintiffs must plead force that rises above everyday minimal contact to survive a motion to dismiss.

Future litigants challenging anti-filming ordinances or claiming excessive force will find this precedent a high bar: they must identify either viewpoint-discriminatory language or unreasonable blanket bans in a forum analysis, or allege more than de minimis injuries and contacts in a § 1983 excessive-force claim.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Limited Public Forum: A government property opened by policy for certain expressive activities but not generally open like a park or sidewalk. Government can impose reasonable, viewpoint-neutral rules.
Viewpoint Neutrality: A regulation is viewpoint neutral if it does not favor or disfavor speech based on the speaker’s ideology or message. All speakers face the same rules.
Probable Cause: A factual and reasonable belief that a person is committing or has committed an offense, sufficient to justify arrest without a warrant.
De Minimis Force Doctrine: Small amounts of physical force inherent to a lawful arrest—such as a shove, wrist twist, or brief knee strike—do not violate the Fourth Amendment if they cause no significant injury.

Conclusion

Hoffman v. Delgado clarifies that municipal anti-filming ordinances in law enforcement lobbies are constitutional when they are reasonable and viewpoint neutral, and that enforcement of such rules naturally gives rise to probable cause for arrest. It also reaffirms the de minimis force principle, shielding officers from excessive force claims based on minor contacts. In the broader legal landscape, this decision affords municipalities and their officers clear authority to regulate recording in nonpublic forums and to use minimal force in the execution of lawful duties without fear of constitutional exposure.