Third Circuit Upholds First Amendment Right to Record Police in Public

Third Circuit Upholds First Amendment Right to Record Police in Public

Introduction

In the landmark case of Richard Fields and Amanda Geraci v. City of Philadelphia, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit addressed the burgeoning issue of civilians recording police officers during the execution of their public duties. This case, decided on July 7, 2017, set a significant precedent by affirming the First Amendment rights of individuals to document police activities in public spaces. The appellants, Richard Fields and Amanda Geraci, alleged that they faced retaliation from Philadelphia police officers for exercising their constitutional right to record, leading to unlawful arrests and searches.

Summary of the Judgment

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's summary judgment that previously dismissed the plaintiffs' First Amendment claims. The appellate court recognized that the act of recording police officers in public is inherently protected under the First Amendment, aligning with precedents from other Circuit Courts. While the court affirmed the existence of this right, it concluded that the police officers involved were entitled to qualified immunity, as the right was not yet "clearly established" within the jurisdiction at the time of the incidents in question. Consequently, the case was remanded for further proceedings regarding municipal liability.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key precedents that collectively shape the legal landscape surrounding the right to record police officers:

  • Turner v. Lieutenant Driver (5th Cir. 2017): Affirmed the First Amendment right to record police activity in public.
  • Gericke v. Begin (1st Cir. 2014): Reinforced the protection of recording police by individuals.
  • GLIK v. CUNNIFFE (1st Cir. 2011): Established that recording police in public is protected speech.
  • SMITH v. CITY OF CUMMING (11th Cir. 2000): Upheld the right to record police without interference.
  • FORDYCE v. CITY OF SEATTLE (9th Cir. 1995): Recognized the First Amendment protections for recording police.

These cases collectively demonstrate a robust consensus across various Circuit Courts, reinforcing the notion that civilians have a protected right under the First Amendment to record law enforcement officers in public performing their duties.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning hinged on distinguishing the act of recording as inherently expressive under the First Amendment. The District Court had erroneously required plaintiffs to demonstrate an expressive intent, such as criticizing police actions, to qualify for protection. The Third Circuit rectified this by emphasizing that the act of recording alone serves as a mechanism for public oversight and discourse, which are core principles of the First Amendment.

Furthermore, the court delved into the concept of qualified immunity, determining that while the right to record is protected, it had not yet been "clearly established" in the Third Circuit at the time of the plaintiffs' actions. This means that, although the right exists, it wasn't sufficiently settled within that specific jurisdiction to preclude the officers from claiming qualified immunity.

Impact

This judgment has far-reaching implications:

  • Strengthening Civil Liberties: Reinforces individuals' rights to monitor and document police activities, promoting transparency and accountability.
  • Guidance for Law Enforcement: Encourages police departments to develop clear policies regarding public recordings, reducing instances of retaliation.
  • Legal Precedent: Serves as a persuasive authority for other jurisdictions grappling with similar issues, potentially leading to uniform protections nationwide.
  • Qualified Immunity Clarification: Highlights the importance of clearly established rights in qualified immunity defenses, influencing how future cases might navigate these doctrines.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Qualified Immunity: A legal doctrine that shields government officials, including police officers, from liability unless they violated "clearly established" constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

First Amendment Right to Record: The protection under the First Amendment that allows individuals to document public officials, like police officers, in the course of their public duties without facing legal repercussions.

Clearly Established Law: Refers to legal principles that have been sufficiently defined by prior judicial decisions, making it clear to individuals and officials what actions are permissible.

Conclusion

The Third Circuit's decision in Fields and Geraci v. City of Philadelphia marks a pivotal advancement in the recognition of civil liberties pertaining to the recording of police activity. By affirming the First Amendment rights of individuals to document law enforcement in public spaces, the court has bolstered mechanisms for public oversight and accountability. While the affirmation of qualified immunity in this instance underscores the nuanced balance between individual rights and government protections, the reversal and remand signal a progressive stance towards embracing the digital age's demands for transparency. This judgment not only aligns with existing appellate consensus but also sets a foundation for future cases to further delineate the boundaries and protections afforded to civilians engaging in legal, non-interfering recordings of police actions.

Case Details

Year: 2017
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Judge(s)

Thomas L. Ambro

Attorney(S)

Jonathan H. Feinberg, Esquire, Kairys Rudovsky Messing & Reinberg, 718 Arch Street, Suite 501 South, Philadelphia, PA 19106, John J. Grogan, Esquire, Peter E. Leckman, Esquire, Langer Grogan & Diver, 1717 Arch Street, Suite 4130, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Seth Kreimer, Esquire, University of Pennsylvania School of Law, 3400 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104, Mary Catherine Roper, Esquire, Molly M. Tack–Hopper, Esquire (Argued), American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, P.O. Box 60173, Philadelphia, PA 19106, Counsel for Appellants Craig R. Gottlieb, Esquire (Argued), City of Philadelphia Law Department, 1515 Arch Street, 17th Floor, One Parkway, Philadelphia, PA 19102, Counsel for Appellees Dorothy A. Hickok, Esquire, Alfred W. Putnam, Jr., Esquire, Mark D. Taticchi, Esquire, Drinker Biddle & Reath, 18th & Cherry Streets, One Logan Square, Suite 2000, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Ilya Shapiro, Esquire, Cato Institute, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20001, Counsel for Amicus Appellant, Cato Institute Eli Segal, Esquire, Pepper Hamilton, 217 Ryers Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Counsel for Amicus Appellant, Society for Photographic Education Sharon M. McGowan, Esquire, April J. Anderson, Esquire, Tovah R. Calderon, Esquire, United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Appellate Section, RFK 3724, P.O. Box 14403, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044, Counsel for Amicus Appellant, United State of America Bruce D. Brown, Esquire, Gregg P. Leslie, Esquire, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 1156 15th Street, N.W., Suite 1250, Washington, DC 20005, Counsel for Amicus Appellant, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 31 Media Organizations Sophia S. Cope, Esquire, Adam Schwartz, Esquire, Electronic Frontier Foundation, 815 Eddy Street, San Francisco, CA 94109, Counsel for Amicus Appellant, Electronic Frontier Foundation Robert J. LaRocca, Esquire, Kohn Swift & Graf, One South Broad Street, Suite 2100, Philadelphia, PA 19107, Counsel for Amicus Appellant, First Amendment Law Professors Patrick G. Geckle, Esquire, 1500 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Two Penn Center Plaza, Suite 1850, Philadelphia, PA 19102, John Burton, Esquire, The Marine Building, 128 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91103, David Milton, Esquire, Law Offices of Howard Friedman, PC, 90 Canal Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02114, Counsel for Amicus Appellant, National Police Accountability Project Jason P. Gosselin, Esquire, Drinker Biddle & Reath, 18th & Cherry Streets, One Logan Square, Suite 2000, Philadelphia, PA 19103, John W. Whitehead, Esquire, Douglas R. McKusick, Esquire, Christopher F. Moriarty, Esquire, The Rutherford Institute, P.O. Box 7482, Charlottesville, VA 22906, Counsel for Amicus Appellant, Rutherford Institute

Comments