Tag: filming the police

DHS Says Recording or Following Law Enforcement ‘Sure Sounds Like Obstruction of Justice’

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) says recording or following federal law enforcement “sure sounds like obstruction of justice,” despite federal circuit courts repeatedly ruling that such activity is core First Amendment speech.

In response to a question from Reason asking if the department considered following or recording a federal law enforcement officer to be obstruction of justice, the DHS Office of Public Affairs said in an emailed statement attributed to an unnamed spokesperson: “That sure sounds like obstruction of justice. Our brave ICE law enforcement face a more than 1150% increase in assaults against them. If you obstruct or assault our law enforcement, we will hunt you down and you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

It’s one of the most direct public statements yet from DHS articulating a policy that treats following, recording, and revealing the identities of federal immigration officers as illegal activity. There have been months of news reports and viral showing federal immigration officers threatening, brandishing weapons, and violently detaining people for following and recording them in public. 

David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, collected dozens of these instances in a report released earlier this month. Bier concluded that the amount of video evidence, in conjunction memos and public statements from DHS leadership, amounts to “an official, nationwide policy of intimidating and threatening people who attempt to observe and record [DHS] operations.”

Civil libertarians say it’s an unconstitutional policy. Although the Supreme Court has declined to address the issue, seven federal circuit courts have firmly upheld the right to record and monitor the police, as long as one doesn’t physically interfere with them. 

“Observing, following, and recording law enforcement are unambiguously protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution,” Bier tells Reason. “They are not obstruction of justice. The right to record helps guarantee justice by ensuring accountability and an accurate record of events.”

For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit concluded in 2017 that “First Amendment principles, controlling authority, and persuasive precedent demonstrate that a First Amendment right to record the police does exist, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit joined the club in 2022, when it ruled that a Colorado man had presented a clear First Amendment retaliation claim against a police officer who prevented him from filming a traffic stop.

Likewise, courts have frequently ruled that the First Amendment protects the right to warn others of police activity, such as flashing one’s headlights to warn of a speed trap ahead. In 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that a Connecticut man’s First Amendment rights were violated when police arrested him for holding a sign warning drivers of police activity ahead.

“The right to record publicly visible law enforcement activity is a core First Amendment right,” says Scarlet Kim, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “It creates an independent record of what officers are doing, and it is no accident that some of the most high-profile cases of misconduct have involved video recordings. The burning question is why ICE officers feel the need to hide who they are and what they do from the public—masking their faces, lacking visible ID, driving unmarked vehicles, and now attacking those who document their activities.”

The guiding First Amendment principle behind these court decisions was most memorably expressed in the 1987 Supreme Court ruling in Houston v. Hill, which struck down a Houston ordinance that made it unlawful to oppose or interrupt a police officer: “The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state,” Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote.

Keep reading

New York AG Urges Public to Send Footage of ICE Raids

New York State’s attorney general on Wednesday called on the public to send her office photos, videos, and other documentation of federal immigration operations for review, just a day after an enforcement operation targeted street vendors in Manhattan’s Chinatown turned to chaos as protestors confronted agents.

Attorney General Letitia James said her office would comb over footage and further documentation of federal immigration operations via a “Federal Action Reporting Form,” stating that “every New Yorker has the right to live without fear or intimidation.”

James has also requested that New Yorkers submit photos or videos of Tuesday’s enforcement operation in Chinatown to her office, so that her office can determine if any laws were broken.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said James’s call for videos and photos “looks like obstruction of justice.”

The immigration enforcement operation took place on New York City’s Canal Street, a well-known area with a reputation for street vendors selling imitation goods, sparking resistance from city residents, many of whom were seemingly on their way home from work.

Shortly after 4 p.m. on Tuesday, federal agents began the operation, with an Associated Press reporter saying they saw dozens of agents detain a street vendor.

Protestors encircled the officers and tried to prevent their vehicles from leaving while shouting “ICE out of New York” and calling on other pedestrians to join in the protest.

Agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Border Patrol, and other federal agencies then attempted to disperse the crowd. The confrontation grew, and an unknown number of federal agents retreated on foot, which was cheered on by protestors and honking cars. Federal reinforcements with long guns and tactical gear then arrived on scene.

“During this law enforcement operation, rioters who were shouting obscenities became violent and obstructed law enforcement duties, including blocking vehicles and assaulting law enforcement,” McLaughlin said.

Altogether, federal authorities said 14 people—illegal immigrants and demonstrators—were arrested in Tuesday’s operation, including illegal immigrants from Mali, Senegal, Mauritania, and Guinea. Some had prior criminal arrest histories.

Four people were arrested for allegedly assaulting law enforcement, and another for obstruction of justice, according to DHS.

Keep reading

Louisiana’s New Law Sparks First Amendment Showdown

Under Louisiana’s new, recently enacted law (HB 173), journalists and other citizens are limited in their right to film the police.

Anyone who finds themselves within 25 feet of an on-duty officer doing that – after being warned to stop or retreat – could face misdemeanor charges.

Now a group of Louisiana-based media companies is challenging the new legislation by suing the state – Attorney General Liz Murrill and two other officials – on First Amendment grounds, seeking an injunction.

The plaintiffs behind the Deep South Today v. Murrill case, brought before the US District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, go into the importance of the media being able to cover police activity to ensure public scrutiny and avoid miscarriage of justice.

HB 173, the filing continues, “has grave implications for the ability of reporters and news organizations, including plaintiffs, to exercise their First Amendment rights.”

Although the lawsuit does not specifically mention the consequence the law could have on speech online, given that a majority of videos showing police at work get posted on the internet, the restrictions imposed by the act could also have indirect implications for that form of freedom of expression.

According to the plaintiffs, the law is unconstitutional and enables the police to prevent both journalists and the public from being close enough to document their work.

At the same time, officers are allowed to stop those filming them from approaching, either providing a reason or not, and that includes public gatherings, arrests, and reporting from the scene of an accident.

Keep reading

A Florida Man Was Arrested for Filming Marion County Sheriff’s Deputies. Now He’s Suing.

A Florida man has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit three years after a Marion County sheriff’s deputy arrested him for filming officers from a public sidewalk.

In 2021, Marion County Sheriff’s Deputy Neil Rosaci arrested George Nathansen and charged him with obstruction of justice for refusing to follow his orders to leave the scene of an investigation. However, body camera footage showed Nathansen standing at least 30 feet away on a public sidewalk before Rosaci walked over and handcuffed him.

In Nathansen’s lawsuit, filed last Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, he alleges that Rosaci and the Marion County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) violated his Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights by falsely arresting and incarcerating him.

Numerous federal appeals courts have ruled that filming the police is protected under the First Amendment, but police around the country continue to illegally arrest people for it. The Justice Department released a report this month on pervasive civil rights violations by the Phoenix Police Department, including retaliating against citizens who were trying to record them. Earlier this year, Texas prosecutors dropped charges against a citizen journalist who was arrested, strip-searched, and jailed for filming police.

Nathansen’s case is yet another example of police retaliation against someone for core First Amendment activities.

The incident began on July 24, 2021, when Rosaci arrived at the scene of a car crash. While deputies were talking to the two parties involved in the accident, Nathansen arrived and began filming with his cell phone. There are a growing number of self-styled “First Amendment auditors” around the country who record police interactions and post them online. (In response to alleged harassment, several states have passed dubious “buffer-zone” laws that criminalize being too close to a first responder.) 

Rosaci’s body camera footage, obtained by the Ocala Post, showed that Nathansen was filming near the deputies’ cars when Rosaci first shooed him away and told him, “You can stand on the sidewalk over there.”

Keep reading

Even If You Support Police, Don’t Ban People From Recording Them


Police, questioned over tactics and culturally besieged not too long ago, find themselves with renewed cachet amidst concerns over crime and campus chaos. That means leverage to win themselves leeway in how they go about their jobs—pushing, for instance, laws that restrict the public’s right to record cops making arrests, with Florida the latest jurisdiction to enact such a bill. That pleases fans of law enforcement, but it reduces accountability for an armed and often abusive arm of government.

Florida Proudly Supports Police Unaccountability

“I was proud to sign legislation today to ensure law enforcement officers can serve our communities without worrying about harassment from anti-police activists,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced April 12. “We will continue to take action to ensure Florida remains the friendliest state in the nation for law enforcement officers.”

The two bills DeSantis signed that day certainly go a long way towards making the state very friendly to cops. H.B. 601 guarantees that police departments will control oversight boards that investigate their conduct. S.B. 184, in line with “buffer” legislation in other states intended to impede recording of law-enforcement activity, lets police order members of the public to remain at least 25 feet distant under threat of arrest.

“We appreciate the importance of protecting first responders but are concerned that the bill prevents citizens from going near or filming first responders within 25 feet if told not to approach,” noted the state’s First Amendment Foundation, which urged DeSantis to veto the legislation. “This bill would undermine citizen journalists and could allow for undocumented police misconduct.”

Lawmakers and DeSantis made much of the threat posed by citizens who “harass” and “threaten” police, and indeed we’ve seen some of that at anti-Israel protests around the country. But agitators already blocking bridges or occupying buildings are unlikely to be deterred by yet one more law. The real targets will be people upsetting cops by recording them at inconvenient moments.

Keep reading

Actress Elizabeth Hurley Performs Lesbian Sex Scene — Directed by Her Own Son

Actress Elizabeth Hurley is raising eyebrows with her next role where she engages in a steamy lesbian sex scene — that her own son wrote and directed.

Hurly’s son, Damian, 21, is making his directorial debut with the upcoming film Strictly Confidential, but gay website Pink News is noting that the LGBTQQIAAP2S+ community is already panting for the flick because of the lesbian sex scenes it reportedly contains.

The trailer for the film was posted on February 28 and shows a clip of this scene between Hurley and her co-star Pear Chiravara.

The film, which was shot on digital cameras and looks like a cross between a mystery thriller and reality shows like Love Island or Temptation Island, elicited a lot of chatter on social media, as many users found it odd that a son would direct his own mother in a sex scene.

Keep reading

An Iowa Man Published Body Camera Footage From His Arrest. The Cops Are Suing Him for Defamation.

An Iowa man published body camera footage of his arrest at the hands of two Newton, Iowa, police officers last year. Now, he’s being sued for defamation. 

In August 2022, 19-year-old Tayvin Galanakis was driving in Newton just after midnight when he was pulled over by police officers Nathan Winters and Christopher Wing. 

“How much have you had to drink tonight?” Winters asks Galanakis in body camera footage from the incident.

“None,” Galanakis responds. Winters incredulously asks, “What do you mean none?” Galanakis said, “Great, let’s do a test then.”

The footage then shows Galanakis undergoing a series of field sobriety tests. After Winters claims Galanakis failed them, he administered a Breathalyzer test, which showed that Galanakis had a blood-alcohol level of 0.00. Almost immediately after proving his sobriety, body camera footage shows Winters asking Galanakis about how much marijuana he had consumed.

“Despite previously claiming he could smell alcohol on Tayvin, Officer Winters now claimed he believed Tayvin was intoxicated due to his use of marijuana,” reads a legal complaint later filed by Galanakis. “Tayvin continuously told the officers that he did not use marijuana and that his placement on the William Penn [University] football team renders him unable to use marijuana because of his weekly drug tests.”

Keep reading

A Civil Rights Attorney Started Filming a Traffic Stop. Then Police Arrested Her.

When Jill Jefferson, a civil rights attorney, began filming the traffic stop of a black motorist in Lexington, Mississippi, police turned their attention to her—eventually “snatching” her phone, searching through her car, and arresting her. Now, Jefferson says that her arrest—and the charges against her—could have been retaliation for a pending lawsuit against the Lexington Police Department filed by an organization Jefferson founded. 

According to an interview with CNN, Jefferson says she was driving home from an event on Saturday when she saw Lexington police conducting a traffic stop on a black driver. Jefferson, a Harvard alumna, began filming police from inside her car. Police soon noticed her, and pulled her over as well. 

Jefferson says police asked for her ID, but she refused to give it—an assertion backed up by audio from the incident. After refusing to give police her ID, Jefferson says they seized her phone after “yanking” her out of her car. Jefferson also claims that officers began to search her car illegally.

“They went through my glove compartment, under my floor mats, they went into the briefcase and unzipped it and started taking things out and looking through them. All of this is an illegal search,” Jefferson told CNN. Eventually, the police arrested her.

“I told her to give me her license 5, 6, 7, 8 times. She argued she ain’t got to,” one officer said to another in audio from an unclear point during the incident. “She came riding by filming…. I guess she thought that was a good idea.”

Making matters worse for Jefferson, she says that she soon recognized one of the officers from her legal advocacy—and they recognized her. “I heard them talking about me once they took me to jail. They said, ‘That’s the woman that’s suing us,'” Jefferson told CNN. “That’s when I learned that they definitely knew who I was when I got there.”

Keep reading

Afroman sued by law enforcement officers who raided his home

Seven members of the Adams County Sheriff’s Office who raided Joseph Foreman’s home last year are now suing him claiming, among other things, he invaded their privacy.

Four deputies, two sergeants and a detective are claiming Foreman (a.k.a. “Afroman”) took footage of their faces obtained during the raid and used it in music videos and social media posts without their consent, a misdemeanor violation under Ohio Revised Code.

They’re also suing on civil grounds, saying Foreman’s use of their faces (i.e. personas) in the videos and social media posts resulted in their “emotional distress, embarrassment, ridicule, loss of reputation and humiliation.”

The plaintiffs say they’re entitled to all of Foreman’s profits from his use of their personas. That includes, according to the complaint, proceeds from the songs, music videos and live event tickets as well as the promotion of Foreman’s “Afroman” brand, under which he sells beer, marijuana, t-shirts and other merchandise.

They’re also asking for an injunction to take down all videos and posts containing their personas.

Cincinnati attorney Robert Klingler filed the suit in Adams County Common Pleas Court on March 13 against Foreman, his recording firm and a Texas-based media distribution company. Not every law enforcement officer involved in the raid is named as a plaintiff.

Foreman on Wednesday posted to Instagram promising to countersue “for the undeniable damage this had on my clients, family, career and property.”

The sheriff’s office conducted the armed raid of Foreman’s Adams County home last August. [Bodycam video]

Sheriff’s deputies acted on a warrant claiming probable cause existed that drugs and drug paraphernalia would be found on Foreman’s property and that trafficking and kidnapping had taken place there.

“They come up here with AR-15, traumatize my kids, destroyed my property, kick in my door, rip up and destroy my camera system,” he said in August.

The suspicions turned out to be unfounded. The Adams County Prosecutor’s Office said the raid failed to turn up probative criminal evidence, according to attorney Anna Castellini. No charges were ever filed.

Keep reading

Ohio Woman Says Cops Broke Her Wrist for Recording During Traffic Stop

A new lawsuit alleges that an Ohio woman suffered a broken wrist and other injuries after being violently arrested during a traffic stop, in part due to filming the police who pulled her over.

In February 2020, Amanda Mills was pulled over for speeding in Walton Hills, a small town outside Cleveland, Ohio. According to the suit, a police officer, identified in the lawsuit only as “Officer Schmidt” exited his cruiser “irate” and “screaming.” Nervous, Mills began recording the encounter. Schmidt ordered Mills to get out of her vehicle. According to the suit, “Amanda asked ‘why?’ without making any other statement or any sudden movement. At this point, Officer Schmidt realized Amanda was filming him with her cellphone, and he became even more agitated.”

According to the complaint, Schmidt “opened Amanda’s driver-side door, grabbed her by the wrist and arm, and ripped her out of her vehicle.” Another officer helped Schmidt pin Mills to the side of her vehicle. The suit alleges that “Amanda screamed that she was not resisting arrest and continued to cry out in pain.” However, rather than releasing her, officers handcuffed Mills and put her in the back of their cruiser while they searched her vehicle. Eventually, Mills was released from custody after officers could not find illegal substances or outstanding warrants for her arrest. While Mills was initially charged with a first-degree misdemeanor for “failing to comply” with police orders, that charge was eventually dropped.

According to the suit, Mills was left with a broken wrist and other injuries to her arm and breasts. The complaint alleges that the officers’ excessive force violated Mills’ Fourth and 14th Amendment rights. The complaint also says that the Walton Hills Police Department’s practices are the “moving force behind the injuries suffered by Amanda,” and the department is guilty of “failing to adequately train, adequately supervise, as well as failing to investigate and discipline, its police officers when it comes to the excessive use of force.”

Keep reading