The link below explains the legalities of recording police in public. This is a good resource.
http://www.rcfp.org/sites/
1
UNITED STATES DISTRI
CT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF
MARYLAND
MANNIE GARCIA
,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
Civil No.
8:
12
-
cv
-
03592
-
JFM
)
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
,
)
MARYLAND
,
et al
.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
STATEMENT OF INTERES
T OF THE
UNITED STATES
The United States addressed the central questions
raised
in this case
–
whether individuals have a
First Amendment right to record police officers in the public discharge of their duties, and whether
officers violate individuals’
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they seize such recordings
without a w
arrant or due process
–
in a Statement of Interest filed in
Sharp v. Baltimore City Police
Dept
.
, et al
.
,
No.
1:
11
-
cv
-
0
2888 (D. Md.)
, attached here as Exhibit A.
1
This case raises questions that
the United States
did not address directly in
Sharp
, the answers to
which are critical
to ensuring that the constitutional rights at issue in that case are upheld. First, the
United States
urges the Court to find that both the First and Fourth Amendments protect an individual
who peacefully photographs police activity on a public street
, if officers arrest
the individual
and seize
the camera of that individual for that activity. Second,
the United States
is concerned
that discretionary
charges
,
such as disorderly conduct
, loitering, disturbing the peace, and resisting arrest,
are all too easily
used to curtail expressive conduct or retaliate against individuals for exercising their First
Amendment
Here, as there, the United States
urges the Court to answer both
of
those questions in the a
ffirmative.
1
Statement of Interest of the United States,
Sharp v. Baltimore City Police Dept
.
, et al
,
No. 1:
11
-
cv
-
0
2888 (D. Md.
Jan. 10, 2012
)
, ECF No. 24.
Case 8:12-cv-03592-JFM Document 15 Filed 03/04/13 Page 1 of 13
http://www.rcfp.org/sites/
