CdwJava
Senior Member
Oh so true!!
-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
Video Recording in Public
- Thread starter TedMann
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
- Status
justalayman
Senior Member
Since you are spouting off about "all states" I'm not chasing specific
Laws for all states but as a general statement, in many states, if a convsersation in public is conducted in a manner the parties act to maintain it as a private conversation they do retain a right of privacy. In most states you also cannot use special/electronic means of listening in on a private conversation (remote microphones, parabolic assisted microphones, laser assisted listening devices).
As mentioned earlier, up skirt videos are illegal in some, if not all, states.
You are simply incorrect about your blanket claim that all activity in a public place is legal to record.
And if you think any and all clothing you choose to wear in in public is legal, try this out;
Get a shirt printed with;
I'm on my way to shoot the president of the USA
Or
I'm wearing a bomb that I will detonate inside of a store
See how you get along with that attire.
As to your claim the police cannot confiscate a camera without a court's order; again, you are wrong. I suspect you are intending to say; if you are not committing a crime while possessing a camera the police cannot lawfully seize your camera.
Ya see, there are all sorts of reasons the cops can lawfully seize your camera without a court's order. As typical for you, you have made an overly broad statement based on a very poor interpretation of several different laws and come up with an incorrect conclusion.
Laws for all states but as a general statement, in many states, if a convsersation in public is conducted in a manner the parties act to maintain it as a private conversation they do retain a right of privacy. In most states you also cannot use special/electronic means of listening in on a private conversation (remote microphones, parabolic assisted microphones, laser assisted listening devices).
As mentioned earlier, up skirt videos are illegal in some, if not all, states.
You are simply incorrect about your blanket claim that all activity in a public place is legal to record.
And if you think any and all clothing you choose to wear in in public is legal, try this out;
Get a shirt printed with;
I'm on my way to shoot the president of the USA
Or
I'm wearing a bomb that I will detonate inside of a store
See how you get along with that attire.
As to your claim the police cannot confiscate a camera without a court's order; again, you are wrong. I suspect you are intending to say; if you are not committing a crime while possessing a camera the police cannot lawfully seize your camera.
Ya see, there are all sorts of reasons the cops can lawfully seize your camera without a court's order. As typical for you, you have made an overly broad statement based on a very poor interpretation of several different laws and come up with an incorrect conclusion.
quincy
Senior Member
There are several assert-your-rights type websites that claim people have a constitutional right to do all sorts of things, so I understand from where some of these erroneous beliefs come.
That's not true. What a person does with their video recordings is their business. This isn't Nazi Germany. I've done a lot of research on this topic since I posted this thread. Video recording in public places is permitted in all fifty state. It's protected by the First Amendment. You can video record and photograph absolutely anyone you want in any public place, whether they consent to it or not. Once a person goes into the public, they lose their privacy. You can even record on duty police.
quincy
Senior Member
You are incorrect once again. I think you broke a record with incorrectness in this thread.
In all charity, folks who have responded here are ill-informed. The ACLU in Pennsylvania has a free pamphlet they distribute on this topic. I highly recommend you read it. Also, see these articles.
https://www.aclupa.org/issues/polic...-observe-police/taking-photos-video-and-audio
https://www.acluga.org/en/know-your-rights/when-taking-photos-and-making-video-and-audio-recordings
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO VIDEO RECORD ON DUTY POLICE
If the police retaliate against you for recording them, You might have a case against them under a federal law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“section 1983”), for deprivation of civil rights. Your claim might involve your First Amendment right to record and your Fourth Amendment right against unlawful arrest.
https://www.aclutx.org/en/know-your-rights/your-right-film-police
Currently, the following U.S. Courts of Appeals have recognized the First Amendment right to record the police and/or other public officials:
First Circuit (with jurisdiction over Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island): see Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 85 (1st Cir. 2011) ("[A] citizen's right to film government officials, including law enforcement officers, in the discharge of their duties in a public space is a basic, vital, and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment."); Iacobucci v. Boulter, 193 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 1999) (police lacked authority to prohibit citizen from recording commissioners in town hall "because [the citizen's] activities were peaceful, not performed in derogation of any law, and done in the exercise of his First Amendment rights[.]").
Seventh Circuit (with jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin): see ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 595 (7th Cir. 2012) ("The act of making an audio or audiovisual recording is necessarily included within the First Amendment's guarantee of speech and press rights as a corollary of the right to disseminate the resulting recording.").
Ninth Circuit (with jurisdiction over Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, the Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, and Washington): see Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 438 (9th Cir. 1995) (assuming a First Amendment right to record the police); see also Adkins v. Limtiaco, _ Fed. App'x _, No. 11-17543, 2013 WL 4046720 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2013) (recognizing First Amendment right to photograph police, citing Fordyce).
Eleventh Circuit (with jurisdiction over Alabama, Florida and Georgia): see Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000) ("The First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest.").
https://www.aclupa.org/issues/polic...-observe-police/taking-photos-video-and-audio
https://www.acluga.org/en/know-your-rights/when-taking-photos-and-making-video-and-audio-recordings
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO VIDEO RECORD ON DUTY POLICE
If the police retaliate against you for recording them, You might have a case against them under a federal law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“section 1983”), for deprivation of civil rights. Your claim might involve your First Amendment right to record and your Fourth Amendment right against unlawful arrest.
https://www.aclutx.org/en/know-your-rights/your-right-film-police
Currently, the following U.S. Courts of Appeals have recognized the First Amendment right to record the police and/or other public officials:
First Circuit (with jurisdiction over Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island): see Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 85 (1st Cir. 2011) ("[A] citizen's right to film government officials, including law enforcement officers, in the discharge of their duties in a public space is a basic, vital, and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment."); Iacobucci v. Boulter, 193 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 1999) (police lacked authority to prohibit citizen from recording commissioners in town hall "because [the citizen's] activities were peaceful, not performed in derogation of any law, and done in the exercise of his First Amendment rights[.]").
Seventh Circuit (with jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin): see ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 595 (7th Cir. 2012) ("The act of making an audio or audiovisual recording is necessarily included within the First Amendment's guarantee of speech and press rights as a corollary of the right to disseminate the resulting recording.").
Ninth Circuit (with jurisdiction over Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, the Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, and Washington): see Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 438 (9th Cir. 1995) (assuming a First Amendment right to record the police); see also Adkins v. Limtiaco, _ Fed. App'x _, No. 11-17543, 2013 WL 4046720 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2013) (recognizing First Amendment right to photograph police, citing Fordyce).
Eleventh Circuit (with jurisdiction over Alabama, Florida and Georgia): see Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000) ("The First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest.").
Where is the evidence for your claim? Did you ever study logic before? Give evidence that my information is wrong.
quincy
Senior Member
You are not seeing the many exceptions, even when they are pointed out to you, and that has been your problem throughout this thread.
You can believe what you want, however, and continue to ignore the many exceptions to the recording laws. I hope your refusal to recognize the limits on your rights do not get you in trouble.
Last edited:
- Status