Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver

California's premier full-service law firm with an emphasis on the representation of peace officers in disciplinary, criminal, labor, workers' compensation, personal injury and other civil matters.

  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    • Labor Representation
    • Civil Litigation
    • Personal Injury
      • Example of Case Results
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • Maritime Law
    • Estate Planning
    • DOE Security Clearance Hearings
    • Peace Officers
    • Firefighters
    • EMS Agency Investigations
    • Criminal Defense
    • CalPERS Appeals
  • Our Team
  • Classes
  • Media
    • Bulletins
    • RLS in the News
  • Resources
    • Links
    • Resources
    • Newsletters
  • Clients
  • Career Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer

Glik v. Cunniffe, Savalis, Hall-Brewster, City of Boston: First Circuit Establishes First Amendment Right to Record Officers

October 5, 2011 by David Shirley

by Peter Hoffmann, Attorney, Rains Lucia Stern, PC
Factual and Legal Summary

On the evening of October 1, 2007, Simon Glik was walking past the Boston Common when he witnessed three police officers arresting a suspect. Glik heard another bystander exclaim, “You are hurting him, stop.” Concerned that the officers were employing excessive force, Glik stopped roughly ten feet away and began a video recording of the incident on his cell phone.

After placing the original suspect in handcuffs, one of the officers suggested that Glik had “taken enough pictures.” Undeterred, Glik responded, “I am recording this. I saw you punch him.” At that time, another officer approached Glik and asked if his phone also captured audio recording. When Glik responded to the officer in the affirmative, the officer placed him under arrest for unlawful audio recording in violation of Massachusetts’ wiretap statute.

In addition to the alleged violation of the state wiretap statute, Glik was ultimately charged with disturbing the peace, and aiding in the escape of a prisoner. The Commonwealth voluntarily dismissed the count of aiding in the escape of a prisoner due to a clear lack of probable cause. Thereafter, the trial court disposed of the remaining two charges in granting Glik’s motion to dismiss.

In February 2010, Glik brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that his arrest for recording the officers constituted a violation of his rights under the First and Fourth Amendments. The defendant officers moved to dismiss Glik’s complaint, arguing that the allegations of the complaint failed to adequately support Glik’s claims and that the individual officers were entitled to qualified immunity. After hearing arguments from the parties, the court orally denied the defendants’ motion. Following a timely appeal, on August 26, 2011, the First Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the district court’s decision.

Analysis

While the Court of Appeal acknowledged that an individual’s right to record law enforcement personnel is not without limitations–i.e., reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions–in denying the officers’ defense of qualified immunity, it appears such restrictions are limited to those situations where the recording of the incident interferes with the police officer’s performance of his or her duties.

In reaching this conclusion, the court completed a two-part analysis, establishing that not only were the facts alleged by the plaintiff sufficient to make out a violation of his First Amendment rights, but that the plaintiff’s right to record the officers’ conduct had been “clearly established” prior to the incident.

Despite the existence of two similar cases from different circuits in support of the officers’ argument that the First Amendment right to film was not “clearly established” at the time of the arrest, the court found those cases to be easily distinguishable and unpersuasive. Instead, the court considered a number of cases addressing public figures being recorded in public places, and reasoned:

Our recognition that the First Amendment protects the filming of government officials in public spaces accords with the decisions of numerous circuit and district courts.

The court’s opinion emphasized that the First Amendment is of particular significance as it relates to government action. Moreover, given the nature of the law enforcement profession–and the potential misuse of authority to deprive individuals of their liberties–the court found that the circumstances set forth in Glik necessitated the recognizing of the right to film police officers engaged in the course of their duties.

Conclusion

While the Circuits may not necessarily agree, and the ruling in Glik does not control here in the Ninth Circuit, it is in the best interest of our clients to presume the existence of a First Amendment right to record officers engaged in the course of their duties, so long as the citizen’s conduct does not interfere with the officer’s performance or jeopardize his or her safety.

Should situations arise where an officer believes a citizen’s conduct no longer falls within Constitutional protections, the officer would be best served to communicate with his or her supervisor before taking action.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: peter-hoffmann

Consultation Form

Offices across California to serve you.
Contact us now to schedule a consultation.
Contact form not loading? Click here!
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC publishes this website as a service to our clients and other friends for informational purposes only. It is not intended to be used as a substitute for specific legal advice or opinions, and the transmission of information through this website is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between sender and receiver. Internet subscribers and online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

© 2023 Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC. All Rights Reserved. | Disclaimer

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
Do not sell my personal information.
Cookie settingsACCEPTREJECT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT
  • Contact Us

  • News Alerts

Official logo for Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver Logo
  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    ▼
    • Labor Representation
    • Civil Litigation
    • Personal Injury
      ▼
      • Example of Case Results
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • Maritime Law
    • Estate Planning
    • DOE Security Clearance Hearings
    • Peace Officers
    • Firefighters
    • EMS Agency Investigations
    • Criminal Defense
    • CalPERS Appeals
  • Our Team
  • Classes
  • Media
    ▼
    • Bulletins
    • RLS in the News
  • Resources
    ▼
    • Links
    • Resources
    • Newsletters
  • Clients
  • Career Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
Hotline phone numbers. Northern California: 925-609-1699. Southern California: 310-393-1486.