The First Amendment is a check on police power

View this email in your browser ([link removed])
[link removed]



** For Immediate Release: January 20, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------


** Supreme Court Weakens First Amendment Right to Film & Photograph Police in Public Without Fear of Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON, DC — The U.S. Supreme Court has dealt a blow to police accountability and the First Amendment right of eyewitnesses to film and photograph police activity in public ([link removed]) without fear of retaliation.

In refusing to hear an appeal in Crocker v. Beatty, the Supreme Court has let stand a lower court ruling which granted qualified immunity to a police officer who confiscated a bystander’s cell phone, arrested him for resisting an officer, then allegedly punished him for trying to film police activity by locking him in a police car with the air conditioning turned off on a hot Florida afternoon. The Rutherford Institute had filed an amicus brief in support of Crocker ([link removed]) , rebutting the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling that eyewitnesses to a highway accident don’t have a clearly established First Amendment right to film police activity.

“The First Amendment should protect the right of citizens to make audio or video recordings of police carrying out their duties in public,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People ([link removed]) . “The ability to record police interactions in public provides for greater accountability when it comes to police interactions with the citizenry and should be preserved as a necessary right of the people.”
MAKE THE GOVERNMENT PLAY BY THE RULES OF THE CONSTITUTION: SUPPORT THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM ([link removed])

In May 2012, businessman James Crocker witnessed an accident while driving on I-95 in Florida. Crocker pulled off the road and ran to help with an individual who was trapped inside a car which had lost control and flipped over in the median. Once police and emergency personnel arrived, Crocker and other bystanders moved away from the accident. From a distance, Crocker used his cell phone to film and photograph police activity at the scene of the accident. Even though police reportedly acknowledged that it was not illegal for Crocker to take the photographs, a deputy sheriff seized Crocker’s phone and directed him to leave, refusing to return his phone even after Crocker offered to delete the pictures. Because Crocker would not leave without his phone, the deputy arrested Crocker for “resisting an officer” and left him handcuffed in a locked patrol car for about thirty minutes in 84-degree heat with little to no air conditioning while the doors and windows remained closed. When Crocker
explained that he was having difficulty breathing and asked for air, the deputy replied that “it’s not meant to be comfortable.” Crocker’s phone was eventually returned and the charges dropped after he was taken to a local jail.

Crocker filed a federal lawsuit against the deputy and sheriff. Although the trial court acknowledged that Crocker’s phone was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the trial court ruled that the deputy was protected by qualified immunity from Crocker’s First Amendment and excessive-force claims. The 11^th Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling, but a dissenting judge warned that individual police officers should not have discretion to arbitrarily determine time and place restrictions on speech or the recording of law-enforcement activities, and noted that the “right to record police activity is important not only as a form of expression, but also as a practical check on police power.” Civil liberties advocates have expressed concern ([link removed]) that the U.S. Supreme Court, by refusing to hear an appeal of the lower court’s ruling,
may contribute to a climate in which police are emboldened by the overly broad protections of qualified immunity to violate First Amendment rights in order to sidestep public accountability.

The Rutherford Institute ([link removed]) , a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.

The Rutherford Institute’s amicus brief in ([link removed]) Crocker v. Beatty ([link removed]) is available at www.rutherford.org ([link removed]) .

Source: [link removed]
[link removed] Share ([link removed])
[link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Frutherford%2Fsupreme-court-weakens-right-to-film-police-in-public Tweet ([link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Frutherford%2Fsupreme-court-weakens-right-to-film-police-in-public)
[link removed] Forward ([link removed])
CLICK HERE TO MAKE A TAX-DEDUCTIBLE DONATION ([link removed])

To donate via PayPal, please click below:
[link removed]

============================================================
** Follow us on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow us on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow us on Twitter ([link removed])
** Follow us on Twitter ([link removed])
** YouTube ([link removed])
** YouTube ([link removed])
CONTACT INFORMATION
Nisha Whitehead
(434) 978-3888 ext. 604
** [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])

THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE
Post Office Box 7482
Charlottesville, VA 22906-7482
Phone: (434) 978-3888
** www.rutherford.org ([link removed])

Copyright © 2022 The Rutherford Institute, All rights reserved.

You are receiving this email because of your interest in the work of The Rutherford Institute. Founded in 1982 by constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute is a civil liberties organization that provides free legal services to people whose constitutional and human rights have been threatened or violated. To discontinue your membership electronically, or if you feel you are receiving this message in error, please follow the link below.

Under the regulations of the United States Internal Revenue Service, The Rutherford Institute is incorporated as a 501(c)(3) tax exempt nonprofit organization. Donations to support The Rutherford Institute’s legal and educational work help to safeguard the constitutional rights of all Americans. Donations are tax-deductible. In compliance with general industry standards of a nonprofit organization, the Institute is audited annually by an independent accounting firm.

** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])

** update subscription preferences ([link removed])