Image result for Federal Court Rules Citizens Have No Right to Film Politicians & Police in PublicContradicting the rulings of six other federal courts, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals annihilated free speech rights in upholding a district court decision stating citizens do not have the right to film public officials — politicians, police, and others — in public.

In affirming the decision of the lower court to dismiss, the Eighth Circuit effectively ended free speech activist Matthew Akins’ challenge to the Columbia, Missouri, Police Department, which he accuses of unlawfully stopping and arresting him on multiple occasions — though nearly all charges were later dropped — as he filmed their encounters with the public, in public.

Akins says the spate of arrests and harassment from law enforcement is brazen retaliation for the nature of his activist work — filming officers on the job.

As a journalist and founder of Citizens for Justice in 2011, a group committed to monitoring police for accountability purposes, Akins frequently stopped to record officers’ interactions with the general public — a tactic employed by a plethora of civilian impartial observation groups to stem an epidemic of police violence and veritable impunity in courts, so common to law enforcement officers who misbehave.

Judge Nanette Laughrey penned in the stunning decision Columbia Police officers indeed had probable cause to arrest Akins each time, and — again, contrary to previous rulings from six circuit courts —that “he has no constitutional right to videotape any public proceeding he wishes to.”

Attorney Stephen Wyse already filed an appeal on Wednesday for the court to rehear the case — originally filed against Boone County Prosecutor Dan Knight, two former Boone County assistant prosecuting attorneys, and several members of the Columbia Police Department — as he contended unequivocally, prior,

“You can’t target journalists because you don’t like their reporting.”

ABC affiliate KMIZ reports,

“Wyse took issue with Laughrey’s decision to stay on the case, despite his request she recuse herself. Laughrey’s husband, Chris Kelly, was the head of a city task force on infrastructure, which could have skewed her decisions in a case against the city, Wyse claimed. While federal law does call for a judge’s recusal, the appeals court said nothing in Akins’ case rose to the level of bias or prejudice against his case.”

While the topic of filming the police — of particular interest to law enforcement accountability activists, First Amendment advocates, and others concerned for decaying free speech rights — appeared in federal court before, Laughrey’s ruling goes against precedence established by the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, which decided the Constitution guarantees the right to film public officials in public settings, as long as recording does not interfere.

In fact, Judge Thomas Ambro wrote the decision for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in a similar casecomprised of separate instances in which Philadelphia law enforcement actively thwarted the efforts of two citizens, Amanda Geraci and Richard Fields, to film arrests. Both sued for violations of their civil rights, and — like many other litigants — won.

“The First Amendment protects the public’s right of access to information about their officials’ public activities,” Ambro clarified, adding that access “is particularly important because it leads to citizen discourse” on public and private issues — an exalted exercise of that preeminent protection. The government, ruled the judge, is prohibited constitutionally from “limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.”

American law enforcement, on the whole, has not responded hat graciously to civilians whipping out cell phones and video cameras to record encounters in public — though filming police can indeed provide additional pictorial and audio evidence in the event of contention or disputation.

“Bystander videos provide different perspectives than police and dashboard cameras, portraying circumstances and surroundings that police videos often do not capture,” Ambro continued“Civilian video also fills the gaps created when police choose not to record video or withhold their footage from the public.”

Laughrey, however, broke ranks in a manner which could portend a precarious existence of certain First Amendment rights — rights which had previously been assumed by the public and averred in peer courts. States comprising the Eighth Circuit are Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota.

“The First Amendment is a core American value,” Wyse asserted in a press statement following the decision’s astonishing departure from precedent. “The right to free speech and a free press are central to our liberty and our ability to hold our government accountable. This holding of the 8th Circuit undermines the basic rights of Missourians and the citizens of the six other 8th Circuit states and undermines the First Amendment rights for all Americans.”

Reports indicate Akins — barring an unlikely rehearing in the Eighth Circuit Court — may indeed appeal his case to the Supreme Court. Because multiple federal judges have upheld the right to film police and public officials as a constitutionally-protected activity on multiple occasions, the ramifications of Laughrey’s ruling may not be as far-reaching and detrimental as appears now — but the ultimate litmus test seems inevitably poised for SCOTUS.

In the meantime, irascible law enforcement officers keen to prevent civilians from filming their activities would do well to remember two crucial points: recording public officials keeps them responsible and accountable for their actions — but can also protect them in situations of disputing claims. After all, raw video recordings — not police, officials, or citizens — have no need of mendacity and duplicity.

“We ask much of our police,” Ambro wrote in the July decision. “They can be our shelter from the storm. Yet officers are public officials carrying out public functions, and the First Amendment requires them to bear bystanders recording their actions. This is vital to promote the access that fosters free discussion of governmental actions, especially when that discussion benefits not only citizens but the officers themselves.”

Laughrey, unfortunately, did not agree — and now the public has yet another constitutionally-protected right left dangling by a fraying thread.

Views: 226

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

That is true Ron, I believe that the communist liberals hope that we will act   with emotion to what they are doing to us. Instead of using our intelligence to return the country to like our forefathers intended it to be.  I also know that I have to watch what I say on here, because it seems to find it's way to the open internet.

America must find the resolve to ORGANIZE its people to resist the overt subversion of its heritage and Constitution... When such legal decisions become routine it is time to actively resist such tyranny.  

We must look for LEADERS with the RESOURCES to effectively organize the people on a National level... the President could do just that if he would.  He obviously understands that he doesn't have the support of the Political Establishment in either political party and must understand that his power rests with the people and his ability to mobilize them... to put boots in the main streets across America... demanding a 'Recall and Term Limits Amendment' to the Constitution.

America must RECALL every elected and appointed federal official... including all federal judges, subject to new elections and appointments. The Several States must call an  Article V Convention as there is no longer any hope that Congress will act to reform the government.  The Convention must Amend the Constitution by passing a Term Limits and Recall Amendment... Recalling all sitting elected and appointed officials and establishing Term Limits on all future elected and appointed officials: ONE TERM of 6 yrs., with 1/3rd standing for election and appointment every 2 yrs.  We will not see any of the existing public officials espousing such reforms. They will not give up their power willingly, it must be taken from them by one of two means: 1) An Article V Convention of States and the passage of a RECALL and TERM LIMITS AMENDMENT... or 2) by force of arms and a civil war... The first action being the preferred and most efficient means. 

Any expectation that the current political process will return Constitutional government is foolishness... the system is RIGGED as Pres. Trump so aptly put it. The People no longer have a franchise on the electoral process... they are being lied to and defrauded by their political leaders. There is not one righteous, no not one, professional politician worthy or our TRUST.

Pres. Trump is not a professional politician... He holds the keys to our liberty. If he will organize the people and call on them DIRECTLY to remove Congress, and those who have usurped the people's power,he may well drain the swamp. In fact, he may also need to call on them to remove several of the States Executives and Legislatures... who have ignored the people and will not heed their calls for Constitutional reform.

So Trump needs to take to the airwaves and announce to the people our alternatives after he explains the condition America is in. The first state of the union address would be a good opportunity to do so. Then the ultimatum of Art V convention of states but I doubt he would give the option of civil war. We would have to come to that conclusion, I do believe many have already reached that point.

We are not doing services today and I'm being called to the kitchen 4 5gal buckets of tomatoes are being prepared for stewed tomatoes pressure cooker canning.

Trump needs to create a new political wing (caucuses) within the GOP and Democrat Party... a Patriot wing/caucus that calls on all Americans to resist the Establishment... too, return America to its Constitutional roots.  Both political parties have betrayed America and are not worthy of  the People's support.

It will be  necessary to work peacefully... within both political parties, recognizing the reality that exist, if we are to peacefully return the Government to the People... that our Government may be of the people, for the people and by the people.  Pres. Trump can do this by organizing and co-opting the existing political structure... overturning its corrupt leadership, thru the use of peaceful demonstrations, and organizing massive challenges to its corrupt leadership... at the polls... in the primaries and general elections.

Trump has the bully pulpit of the Presidency... to expose the sins of both political parties and the DC swamp for what they really are... subversive and treasonous groups, composed of special interests, who seek to use the government, in order to enslave America,  too put America under the heal of a New World Order.. A fascist and socialist government by a few... an oligarchy of the rich and powerful.

However, if we fail to find a LEADER willing and capable... with the resource, to organize the people... any efforts to reform are over... before they get started.

YES, you are exactly right. The Conservative Caucus is already there, if Trump would support them, and ask Congress to come over to the Constitution, it would be a great beginning back from the precipice of hell that is this country.

'Recall and Term Limits Amendment' to the Constitution.  Good point.


Why isn't this liberal brain dead judge removed from office by President Trump.

Joseph, Because your country is gone unless American Patriots are willing to stand up that oath is more than words it's time to tell them and act if they don't listen. They will continue until we exercise our constitutional rights an oath, then they will run for the hills. So help me God. I am protected and I proclaim it here and now.

I  have stood up to a lot of liberals and when they can't bully you they run.

Trump can not remove a Judge... they must be IMPEACHED by Congress. It is Congress that has permitted the decay of our Judicial system along with every other institution of the federal government.

Congress has failed the American People and it continues to ignore its duty to the Constitution and the People.

Thanks  Ron, I should of known that, but my emotions sometimes get the best of me.




“You’d Go To Jail For Contempt”FBI Refuses Order To Produce McCabe Communications

Fox News contributor Sara A. Carter reports that the FBI refuses to produce outgoing FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s communications in response to “a government watchdog group that has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a former senior FBI special agent.”

Carter reports:

The communications in question are related to McCabe’s wife’s unsuccessful run for Virginia State senate and might also contain invaluable information on McCabe’s role in the Bureau’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server used to send classified information, several former FBI sources and a government official told this reporter.

In January, Judicial Watch, a formidable conservative watchdog group based in Washington D.C., filed a lawsuit against the FBI for the communications on behalf of retired FBI Supervisory Special Agent Jeff Danik. Danik spent more than 28 years with the bureau as a supervisor in the counter-terrorism division and special overseas advisor. Danik filed his original Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in October 2016 for McCabe’s communications.

“They have not produced not one text of McCabe, not one,” said Danik, referencing the bureau. “The government is out of control and it’s astonishing. Do you know what would happen if the government subpoenaed you for information and you didn’t produce records that you had in your possession? You’d go to jail for contempt.”

Carter recently told Fox News host Sean Hannity that Justice Department Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, is investigating whether or not McCabe asked bureau agents to “change their 302s.”

A day after the New York Times reported FBI Director Christopher Wray confronted McCabe over unspecified findings in DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report, the Washington Post reveals the embattled bureau official is being probed over his role in examining emails found on former Rep. Anthony Weiner’s laptop.

That’s not all.

Former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino has hinted to his nearly 320,000-strong Twitter followers that the next bombshell to drop could involve McCabe’s mishandling of classified information.

“Here’s the next shoe to drop -> was Andy McCabe using secure comms to send/receive classified information? Someone should check on that,” tweeted Bongino. 


Here’s the next shoe to drop -> was Andy McCabe using secure comms to send/receive classified information? Someone should check on that.


McCabe stepped down January 29th, as first reported by NBC News.

McCabe, who served a brief stint as acting director of the bureau, was already expected to leave. He will stay on “terminal leave” until he is eligible to retire with benefits in March,” reports CNBC.


© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service