6 ms·
Quote from the ruling: "We conclude that First Amendment principles, controlling authority, and persuasive precedent demonstrate that a First Amendment right t
by gregwebs 10y ago
Quote from the ruling:
"We conclude that First Amendment principles, controlling
authority, and persuasive precedent demonstrate that a First Amendment right to record the police does exist, subject only to reasonable time, place, and
manner restrictions."
However, note that they actually affirmed the lower court ruling that the police were not liable for violating the first amendment in this case. This is because it was not clear from the courts (before this ruling) that this right existed. They did find that the police violated the fourth amendment by arresting someone for recording a police station (and at the time there was no presumption of a 1st amendment right).
- afthonos 10y agoThey did not affirm that the First Amendment was not violated; they explicitly ruled it had. What they affirmed was that it was not so obviously violated that every officer should have known it, and therefore the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, i.e. immunity from being sued because they did their jobs in a way that a reasonable officer could think was lawful.
- Sacho 10y agoBut isn't the practical effect of this that police officers can continue violating the FA rights of people in this way and then shrugging behind qualified immunity?
- int_19h 10y agoNo, because they have firmly established that right by this very ruling. "Although the right was not clearly established at the time of Turner’s activities, whether such a right exists and is protected by the First Amendment presents a separate and distinct question. Because the issue continues to arise in the qualified immunity context, we now proceed to determine it for the future. We conclude that First Amendment principles, controlling authority, and persuasive precedent demonstrate that a First Amendment right to record the police does exist, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. "
- gregwebs 10y agoThanks for the correction: I am completely changing my comment to avoid confusing others.
- spangry 10y agoHuh. I guess ignorance of the law is an excuse.
- afthonos 10y agoIn the US, the law is a combination of the written letter of the law and the interpretation courts have given to that letter via precedent. This extends to the Constitution. If there aren't rulings about an issue close enough to the one at hand, then the law is, in fact, unknowable. In addition, qualified immunity applies to civil suits, not criminal cases. If a prosecutor had deemed the officers' behavior worth prosecuting as a crime, qualified immunity would not help them (though I don't know if something equivalent exists for criminal offenses). To recap, qualified immunity gives government officials cover from civil actions when the law is unknowable. (Erm…disclaimer: IANAL)
- blazespin 10y agoNot exactly. They do say 1st amendment protects right to record (with limitations) but they say the 4th is what matters here.