A reminder about the general right to record police activities in public places ...

SCOTUS has not determined whether the recording of police officers performing their duties in public is protected by the First Amendment, but federal appeals courts have held that such a right exists, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.

See, e.g., Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017); Am. Civil Liberties Union of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012); Gilk v. Cunniffee, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011).

Indeed, no federal appeals court has ruled otherwise. One outlined the reasons for protection this way: It “aids in the uncovering of abuses” of gov't power, and the police “are expected to endure significant burdens caused by citizens’ exercise of their First Amendment rights.”

In a different context, the Supreme Court once noted that scrutinizing the police through the public's exercise of its First Amendment rights guards against miscarriages of justice.

It's also worth mentioning that the Fourth Amendment provides protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, and in the newsgathering context journalists have additional protections under the Privacy Protection Act.

The PPA generally commands police to get a subpoena (instead of a search warrant) to search or seize a journalist's documentary or work-product materials. Police may not delete media from a journalist's devices, either.

Notably, too, there is generally no reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces, such as streets, parks, and large public gatherings, so the right to record in public applies to subjects who are not police officers, too.

That means journalists and citizens are generally free in public to observe and record what they can plainly see and hear. Put differently, there is a general right to record in public, and it applies with special force when subjects are police officers acting as police officers.