Citizens’ Right to Record the Police (Part 3)

This is the third blog post installment in a multi-part series on citizens’ right to record the police.

The right to record police is broad but not unlimited.

The right to record the police, while broad and vital to the healthy functioning of our democracy, is not wholly unlimited. The right only extends to recordings in public or on private property in which the recorder has a possessory interest. Further, someone exercising their right to record is not allowed to break the law to record. For example, if someone trespasses onto private property in order to catch footage, the footage is generally not protected under the First Amendment.

The right to record is similarly limited if it truly obstructs an officer’s ability to do their job. For instance, the visible presence of a recording may make a suspect more confrontational and put the officer’s safety at risk. In that case, an officer may be permitted to prevent further recordings of the confrontation without violating the First Amendment. However, officers need an objectively reasonable basis for seeking to stop the recording; mere annoyance that they are being recorded falls far short of supplying that justification. In our experience, it is rare for video recordings to legitimately interfere with the pursuit of police duties.

Finally, narrow limitations on the right to record the police should not distract from the more important point, which is that holding public officials accountable is a crucial role of citizens within a democracy. Exercising the protected right to record the police performing their public duties is an essential component of the promotion of truth, justice, and accountability within policing.

This blog exists for educational and informational purposes only. It should not be seen as legal advice on any subject matter and does not form an attorney-client relationship. Readers should consult with their own counsel regarding any legal questions they have related to a specific circumstance. Additionally, any information contained on the blog is true and accurate to the best of our knowledge, but there may be omissions, errors, or mistakes. Particularly because the law regarding an issue can change over time, this blog should not be used as a substitute for the reader’s own legal research.