filming in federal buildings inside post office

in a residential neighborhood in order to preserve peace and quiet during a time when people seek rest. For example, a local government could prohibit a protest taking place at 1 a.m. They must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open alternative channels of communication. Restrictions must be content-neutral - meaning that they cannot be aimed at speech based on the subject matter. Courts use a three-part test to assess whether they are consistent with the First Amendment.

These are restrictions imposed on expression that are designed to maintain public safety and other valid concerns. Recording in public is subject to “time, place, and manner” restrictions. The First Amendment and the Right to Record PoliceĪlthough the courts have recognized a First Amendment right to record the work of police officers in public, that right is not absolute. In February 2023, the Fourth Circuit followed suit. Court of Appeals in the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh have all ruled that the right to record police in public places is protected by the First Amendment. However, given the resounding support so far for this First Amendment protection, it seems highly likely that the remaining federal appeal courts would reach the same conclusion if the issue appears on their docket.

As a result, legal protections are fully secure only in those jurisdictions where federal circuits have issued a ruling. Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue. population lives in states where federal appeals courts have recognized a First Amendment right to record police officers performing their official duties. It’s time this NYPD policy of harassing civilians over recording, and arresting individuals in retaliation is ended once and for all.” “I was not interfering with police by simply recording my surroundings. “When I was arrested, I was simply doing my civic duty, helping expose an issue that my community has been harmed by for far too long,” Reyes said in a press release. But some encounters have escalated dramatically, resulting in arrest and litigation.Ĭontroversial “First Amendment Auditors” Test the Right to Film in Public Spaces Many audits are non-violent and uneventful. Reyes, according to the suit, “sought to peacefully exercise his First Amendment right to film in public and publicly accessible areas, to promote transparency and accountability within our government, and to ensure that our public servants recognize our rights and treat us with respect.”įirst Amendment auditors typically post their interactions to YouTube, which has become a form of activism. District Court for the Southern District of New York by LatinoJustice PRLDEF on behalf of Reyes, states that the policy prohibiting recording and photography within precincts violates New York law and “chills the First Amendment rights of those who refrain from recording and denies the First Amendment rights of those who choose to exercise them in the publicly accessible areas of NYPD facilities.” Reyes recorded the interaction until he was put in handcuffs. Reyes was recording when two NYPD officers advised him that recording was prohibited, referring to a sign posted in the lobby. In April, Reyes was arrested after he recorded in the lobby of the 61st Precinct in Brooklyn while waiting to file a complaint.

Over the past two years, independent journalist SeanPaul Reyes has acted as a so-called First Amendment “auditor” - someone who specifically films on public property and police stations to test the rights to record in a public space - and has garnered over 500,000 subscribers to his YouTube channel, Long Island Audit. A journalist who was arrested for recording inside of a New York Police Department precinct sued the city July 24, claiming a department policy violates state law and his First Amendment right to record police.

Filming in federal buildings inside post office