First Amendment Pros And Cons

The First Amendment guarantees that congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. U.S. CONST. amend. I. The courts have heeded the First Amendment’s underlying values in order to determine whether or not recording police officers is a freedom of the press and have answered in the affirmative; they have firmly established that the First Amendment extends further and encompasses a range of conduct related to receiving information and ideas. Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 82 (1st Cir. 2011). The Supreme Court has observed that the First Amendment protects the right to gather news from any source by means within the law. See id.at 82.

The right to gather news from a source is not limited to news media personnel. The

In Glik, the Eleventh Circuit court held that the First Amendment protects the filming of public officials performing their duties in public places. Additionally, Glik recognized that the First Amendment protects the right to gather information that it is of public interest regarding the behavior of police officers. See Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000) (finding that “[t]he First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matter of public interest” (emphasis added)); Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 439 (9th Cir. 1995) (recognizing a First Amendment right to film matters of public

Rivera, 445 Mass. 119, 833 N.E.2d 1113 (2005). In Rivera, a convenience store’s surveillance camera recorded a violent robbery. The victim refused to open the register despite several demands by two masked robbers. The robbers then left the store and the victim pursued them. One of the robbers then shot the victim and fled the scene. Id. at 1116. Similar to Rivera, Dr. Knowles’s camera was installed by a private party for security purpose, but the court held that the convenience store’s recording was not secretive because the surveillance camera was in plain view, where a person is likely to know they are being recorded. Id. Relying on this decision, the police department may distinguish their case by arguing that even if cameras are installed for security purposes, they are a violation of privacy if not apparent to the public. See also Commonwealth v. Jackson, 370 Mass. 502, 349 N.E.2d 227, 339 (1976) (“It is clear that the Legislature intended that the statutory restrictions be applicable…to the secret use of such devices”). The police may argue that the state-of-the-art eye equipment was not detectable. Since it is a webcam from a private investigation firm, it is meant to be undetected by the naked