Legal Certainty Key Only legal uniformity can guarantee a right to record; uncertainty over “clearly rights creates a chilling effect established” Slaughter 15 Matthew Slaughter (Law clerk to the Honorable Karen L. Hayes of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana). “First Amendment Right to Record Police: When Clearly Established is Not John Marshall Law Review. Volume 49, Issue 1, Article 4. Clear Enough.” Fall 2015. http://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2437&context=lawreview [Premier] All courts have held there is a right to record police activity in public, and that a reasonable restriction on this right exists. First Amendment jurisprudence supports the recognized right to film police activity as articulated by Some commenting circuits have held the right is clearly established, while others have the circuits. declined to extend their holdings so far. Practically, citizens are restrained from freely exercising their right to film police Because reasonable restrictions have not activity in public even in circuits that have found the right clearly established. yet been clearly articulated, citizens have the recourse to film the police and merely hope that their unique situation is afforded First Amendment protections. Such uncertainty will inevitably lead to a chilling effect and encourage police officers to continue to on the protected activity limit the right to film police in public. The police could also potentially be liable for civil rights violations A national and a citizen may have to deal with the unflattering prospect of being detained or even arrested for this activity. standard could alleviate the confusion for both citizens and police alike. and issues The standard should affirmatively memorialize such a right, as well as articulate objective reasonable restrictions to prevent a chilling of a exercise of valid citizen’s First Amendment conduct.
Legal Certainty Key Only legal uniformity can guarantee a right to record; uncertainty over “clearly established” rights creates a chilling effect Slaughter 15 Matthew Slaughter (Law clerk to the Honorable Karen L. Hayes of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana). “First Amendment Right to Record Police: When Clearly Established is Not Clear Enough.” John Marshall Law Review. Volume 49, Issue 1, Article 4. Fall 2015. http://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2437&context=lawreview [Premier] All courts have held there is a right to record police activity in public, and that a reasonable restriction on this right exists. First Amendment jurisprudence supports the recognized right to film police activity as articulated by the circuits. Some commenting circuits have held the right is clearly established, while others have declined to extend their holdings so far. Practically, citizens are restrained from freely exercising their right to film police activity in public even in circuits that have found the right clearly established. Because reasonable restrictions have not yet been clearly articulated, citizens have the recourse to film the police and merely hope that their unique situation is afforded First Amendment protections. Such uncertainty will inevitably lead to a chilling effect on the protected activity and encourage police officers to continue to limit the right to film police in public. The police could also potentially be liable for civil rights violations and a citizen may have to deal with the unflattering prospect of being detained or even arrested for this activity. A national standard could alleviate the confusion and issues for both citizens and police alike. The standard should affirmatively memorialize such a right, as well as articulate objective reasonable restrictions to prevent a chilling of a citizen’s exercise of valid First Amendment conduct.
Premier-Debate-Brief-ND16.docx