<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19120"></HEAD>
<BODY style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 15px"
id=MailContainerBody leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area">
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>
<DIV id=fb-root></DIV>
<DIV class=header>
<DIV class=left><A href="http://www.nytimes.com/"><IMG
title="http://www.nytimes.com/
CTRL + Click to follow link" border=0
hspace=0 alt="The New York Times" align=left
src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo153x23.gif"></A> </DIV>
<DIV class=right> </DIV></DIV><BR clear=all>
<HR align=left SIZE=1>
<DIV class=timestamp>September 1, 2011</DIV>
<DIV class=kicker></DIV>
<H1><NYT_HEADLINE version="1.0" type=" ">A Vital
Liberty</NYT_HEADLINE></H1><NYT_BYLINE></NYT_BYLINE><NYT_TEXT>
<DIV id=articleBody><NYT_CORRECTION_TOP></NYT_CORRECTION_TOP>
<P>In an important decision last week, a federal appeals court affirmed that the
First Amendment protects the right to videotape the activities of police
officers in public. When three officers arrested a man in Boston Common one
evening in 2007, a bystander named Simon Glik, concerned that the officers were
using excessive force, pulled out his cellphone and made an audio and video
recording of the arrest. Unhappy about being recorded, one officer handcuffed
and arrested Mr. Glik, too. He was charged with wiretapping, along with other
crimes. </P>
<P>After the charges were dismissed, Mr. Glik sued the Boston Police Department
for violating his constitutional rights under the First and Fourth Amendments.
The officers claimed immunity from the lawsuit because they were performing
official duties. </P>
<P>The Court of Appeals for the <A
title="A link to the August 26, 2011 opinion of the First Circuit in Glik v. Cunniffe, Savalis, Hall-Brewster, and the City of Boston"
href="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/10-1764P-01A.pdf">First
Circuit</A> wisely rejected that argument. It explains in a strong opinion that
Mr. Glik was exercising “a basic, vital, and well-established liberty
safeguarded by the First Amendment.” It did not matter that Mr. Glik was not a
journalist because “the public’s right of access to information is coextensive
with that of the press.” His use of a cellphone made “clear why the
news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional
credentials or status.” </P>
<P>Public officials are entitled to limited immunity from lawsuits when they are
operating in their official capacity. But they can be sued if they should have
known that their conduct violated a constitutional right. The court allowed Mr.
Glik’s suit to go forward because it found that the officers misused their
authority in arresting him. </P>
<P>The First Amendment clearly protects Mr. Glik’s right to videotape public
events. The Fourth Amendment protected him from arrest without probable cause;
he was obviously not engaged in illegal wiretapping since he made his recording
openly. The officers tried to turn Mr. Glik’s exercise of his rights into a
crime. By turning his cellphone camera on them, he held them accountable for
their conduct. </P><NYT_CORRECTION_BOTTOM>
<DIV
class=articleCorrection></DIV></NYT_CORRECTION_BOTTOM><NYT_UPDATE_BOTTOM></NYT_UPDATE_BOTTOM></DIV></NYT_TEXT>
<DIV id=upNextWrapper>
<DIV style="RIGHT: -410px" id=upNext>
<DIV class="wrapper opposingFloatControl"> </DIV></DIV></DIV></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>_________________________________</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>Wayne A. Fox<BR><A
title="mailto:wayne.a.fox@gmail.com
CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:wayne.a.fox@gmail.com">wayne.a.fox@gmail.com</A><BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>