<div class="header">
<div class="left">
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/"><img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo153x23.gif" alt="The New York Times" align="left" border="0" hspace="0" vspace="0"></a>
</div>
<div class="right">
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&sn2=336c557e/4f3dd5d2&sn1=c5714c24/61a1580e&camp=FSL2012_ArticleTools_120x60_1787506c_nyt5&ad=BEMH_120x60_May4_NoText&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Fthebestexoticmarigoldhotel" target="_blank">
<br></a>
</div>
</div>
<br clear="all"><hr align="left" size="1">
<div class="timestamp">May 20, 2012</div>
<h1>The Right to Record</h1>
<div id="articleBody">
<p>
The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department took an important stand last week, <a href="http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/05/united_states_letter_re_photography_5_14_2012_0.pdf">declaring</a>
that citizens have a First Amendment right to videotape the actions of
police officers in public places and that seizure or destruction of such
recordings violates constitutional rights. </p>
<p>
The Justice Department made the statement in a federal lawsuit brought
against the Baltimore Police Department by Christopher Sharp, who used
his cellphone to take video of the police arresting and beating a friend
at Pimlico on the day of the 2010 Preakness. The officers took Mr.
Sharp’s cellphone while he was recording and wiped the phone clean of
all videos before returning it to him. </p>
<p>
The Courts of Appeals for the <a title="Glik v. Cunniffee, decided on August 26, 2011" href="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/10-1764P-01A.pdf">First</a> and <a title="ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, decided on May 8, 2012" href="http://blogs.nppa.org/advocacy/files/2012/05/SB-1808-ACLU-7th-Circuit-Opinion.pdf">Seventh</a>
Circuits have wisely found that the Constitution protects the right to
videotape police officers while they perform official duties. The <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWF3Ddr7vdc">video</a>
taken by another witness of the beating at Pimlico shows that the right
to record is crucial to holding police accountable for their actions.
</p>
<p>
Mr. Sharp sued for damages to his personal property and for injunctive
relief in the form of a clear policy on videotaping consistent with the
Constitution and also training for the police. The judge hearing the
case arranged a settlement conference for May 30, though the case is far
from being settled. </p>
<p>
Last November, the Police Department <a title="General Order J-16, Baltimore Police Department, November 8, 2011" href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/blog/bs-public-photographs-a-crime-scenes-document,0,4003580.htmlpage">issued an order</a>
paying lip service to the right of citizens to make “video recording of
police activity.” But the day after that order became public, as <a title="The Baltimore Sun, February 11, 2012" href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/blog/bal-in-federal-hill-citizens-allowed-to-record-police-but-then-theres-loitering-20120211,0,3706866.story">The Baltimore Sun</a>
reported, police officers were caught on video threatening to arrest
for loitering a man who was recording them as they surrounded and held
someone on the ground. </p>
<p>
It is essential that the Justice Department and federal courts make
clear that police departments will be held liable for violating this
constitutionally protected right. </p>
<div class="articleCorrection">
</div>
</div>
<br>
<center>
</center>
<div id="upNextWrapper"><div style id="upNext"><div class="wrapper opposingFloatControl"><br style="clear:both"></div></div></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<br><a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br>