Federal Court Rules You Can Be Arrested Simply for Filming the PoliceBy Derrick Broze The cases of Fields v. City of Philadelphia, and Geraci v. City of Philadelphia involve two different incidents where individuals were arrested for filming the police. Richard Fields, a Temple University student, was arrested after stopping to take a picture of a large group of police outside a house party. Amanda Geraci, a legal observer with CopWatch Berkeley, attended a large protest against fracking in September 2012 and was arrested while filming the arrest of another protester. Both Fields and Geraci are seeking damages from the Philadelphia Police Department for violating their Constitutional right to videotape public officials. Previous rulings have found the public has a right to record police as form of expressive conduct, such as a protest or criticism, which is protected by the FirstAmendment. The appeals court was specifically tasked with finding out whether or not the public has a First Amendment right to photograph and film police without a clear expression of criticism or challenge to police conduct. The court wrote: Fields and Geracis alleged constitutionally protected conduct consists of observing and photographing, or making a record of, police activity in a public forum. Neither uttered any words to the effect he or she sought to take pictures to oppose police activity. Their particular behavior is only afforded First Amendment protection if we construe it as expressive conduct. The court ultimately stated, We find no basis to craft a new First Amendment right based solely on observing and recording without expressive conduct. Absent any authority from the Supreme Court or our Court of Appeals, we decline to create a new First Amendment right for citizens to photograph officers when they have no expressive purpose such as challenging police actions, the decision concluded. Eugene Volokh, a professor of law atUCLA, disagrees with the decision and says he believes it will eventually be overturned by the ThirdCircuit Court upon appeal. Whether one is physically speaking (to challenge or criticize the police or to praise them or to say something else) is relevant to whether one is engaged in expression, Volokh wrote in the Washington Post. But its not relevant to whether one is gathering information, and the First Amendment protects silent gathering of information (at least by recording in public) for possible future publication as much as it protects loud gathering of information. Whether or not the ruling is overturned, it should serve as a reminder to all free hearts and minds that the cost of liberty is eternal vigilance. We cannot become passive and allow the ruling class and despots in government to subvert our path towards liberation. Now more than ever we need communities to actively organize cop-watching and politician-watching campaigns that encourage accountability and transparency. We must also remain strong in our sense of morality and principles, and not allow what is legal or constitutional to limit us in our fight for freedom. Image Credit This article (Federal Court Rules You Can Be Arrested Simply for Filming the Police) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Derrick Broze andtheAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. Image credit: Peripitus. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article at edits@theantimedia.org. The Supreme Court ruled today that breathing in the vicinity of a police officer is now a legal cause for arrest, and while activists say this is a further attack on our liberties, the Justice Department put out a statement saying that if you STOP breathing in the vicinity of a police officer, they will respect your privacy and make no attempt to interfere with your right not to do so, under any circumstances. -Future six o clock news brief Hey, when I was in the joint, I saw an inmate yoked up by the Goon Squad and taken to isolation because he farted in the presence of a female officer. Why would you think that Tyranny gives a crap where it treads? Holy crap thats crazy FTP Arent they looking at this backwards? We may not have an explicit right to film police as this was never a specific part of the first, or any other, amendment. But the police have no right to arrest or prevent someone from filming them while performing their jobs as public employees. The courts should not allow police officers who are abusing their position of authority to escape scrutiny. People should be explicitly allowed to film police officers without interference, as long as they pose no threat or get in the way of public safety. We cannot let the courts provide unwarranted and dangerous protection for any abuses or criminal actions by police. Check your facts: Geraci was not arrested, Fields was cited for obstructing the highway. Filming police provides no inoculation from getting a ticket. Fields was detained, handcuffed, searched and issued a ticket for standing on the sidewalk, not the highway. Officer Sisca asked him to leave. Fields refused to leave [b]ecause I felt that I was doing nothing wrong. I was perfectly acting within my rights just standing on the sidewalk,taking a picture of public property. Fields was about 15 feet away from any police officer. Obviously, he was detained, searched, and handcuffed for taking pictures, since standing on a sidewalk is otherwise not obstructing a public passageway. Geraci was not arrested but she was physically restrained from photographing, tho she wore a pink identifier as a legal observer, whose clear expressive intent is to record any possible misbehavior. Geraci claims Officer Brown In both cases, the police misbehaved, infringing on First Amendment Rights. B.A.L.O.N.E.Y. Its all the same thing. I recorded while they beat the man up. vs I recorded them in anticipation that they would beat the man up due to past reputation. The judicial crew that came up with this definition of lack of expression is pretty lame, or corrupt. They didnt want the lawsuits to be successful, or a precedent set to regain accountability in any Govt. office. I would like to buy you a drink! Excellent. Its refreshing to hear someone who understands this world and is able to think there way through the load of BS. Hangem all. I would relish nothing more. In a world where the BS flies at phenomenal speeds, alcohol would only impede my judgment, where I either dodge or duck to later ponder it rationally, or just stop the aggravation and flat out not do news. Ill take something organic though, like a mocha. lol. Or, I make a rose syrup that when mixed with Trader Joes Honey Crisp Apple Cider, is out of this world good. Just saying. (Trying to let go of some of the 2016 frustration with comedic diversion) You are liked. From one of your friends. Life and relationships are so tenuous. Yes? Thank you for reaching out. Let us hope that better legal minds prevail. The First Amendment protects many things without declared intent. Citizenship (your political status) is such a First Amendment right and no government or police activity can decide for you what your status is, anymore than they can decide for you whether you are a Democrat or Republican. I would therefore point out that the police can neither demand of nor decide for a photographer or videographer what their intent is, since, as an objective observer, one must witness or record police activity first in order to decide for themselves which opinion they might form based on the recorded activity. You cant put the cart before the horse Did this also just outlaw all security cameras? That was my thought what gives anyone the right to film me in a public area Rights are given of God. Only protected by the Constitution. Your body is protected, not your image. Get over it. Well replied. Ever heard of the paparazzi? Erin Andrews might disagree that her image is not protected. I suppose youre in the witness-protection program. Therefore, well be sure to facially redact any images of you. Wouldnt wish the mob to get you. Like Randje K Randje aptly replied, Get over it. That judge(s) of that court are treasonous criminals! The filming of police misconduct should not be considered a crime. Tho police have a duty to obey the law as much as anyone else. From Rodney King to the present, filming police misconduct has acted as a deterrent to police misconduct and should be allowed. DO IT ANYWAY. REMEMBER THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT! Revolution anyone??? So when one records them beating or shooting someone to deathtough luck to the victim, better luck next time. But set yourself at ease, the police have recorded the event. Whoops. The camera was malfunctioning, better luck next time. Hitler would be proud. Sieg heil, mein Federal Court! Did I mention abusing, stealing, groping, etc.? In case anyone hasnt noticed the courts no longer fairly represent the citizens of America, they CONSTANTLY rule against freedom and towards any and all government tyranny~ They are all bought and paid for, its a big club and you aint in it, as the late George Carlin so correctly stated~ Heres your clear expression of criticism: Two things on this bulls**t. 