8th Circuit says you're not allowed to film public officials

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • foszoe

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Jun 2, 2011
    16,052
    113
    Read more like a ruling on who was more qualified to judge the case.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Read more like a ruling on who was more qualified to judge the case.

    Before I even look at it, I'm going to bet "no, no they didn't".

    http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/17/07/163555P.pdf

    Ok, help me find " you're not allowed to film public officials"

    Or even where the right to film public officials is even discussed. It's about recusal of a judge.

    Wait.

    Not so fast.

    The appellate court "summarily" affirmed the grant of motions to dismiss and summary judgment. I'm not sure I've ever seen that before. And this is a final appeal (apparently). The panel totally dodged the issues that actually resolved the case.

    Now, from the statement of the issues, the REAL issue appears to be whether the PD can take down videos posted on their book of faces. Well. Yes. It is their book. They can do whatever they want.

    Dude can film and put them on his own book.

    Stopping someone from filming in the (public) lobby of a PD is a closer call, but it is their property. If they have a no filming rule, that's probably a reasonable time/place/manner restriction.

    So, it really isn't clear WHAT the appeals court is saying, other than the recusal wasn't necessary.
     

    KLB

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Sep 12, 2011
    23,006
    77
    Porter County
    Wait.

    Not so fast.

    The appellate court "summarily" affirmed the grant of motions to dismiss and summary judgment. I'm not sure I've ever seen that before. And this is a final appeal (apparently). The panel totally dodged the issues that actually resolved the case.

    Now, from the statement of the issues, the REAL issue appears to be whether the PD can take down videos posted on their book of faces. Well. Yes. It is their book. They can do whatever they want.

    Dude can film and put them on his own book.

    Stopping someone from filming in the (public) lobby of a PD is a closer call, but it is their property. If they have a no filming rule, that's probably a reasonable time/place/manner restriction.

    So, it really isn't clear WHAT the appeals court is saying, other than the recusal wasn't necessary.
    Thanks for the Cliff's notes version. :):
     

    Alamo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Oct 4, 2010
    8,087
    113
    Texas
    Wait.

    ...
    So, it really isn't clear WHAT the appeals court is saying, other than the recusal wasn't necessary.

    About a dozen paragraphs explaining why the district judge got the (denial of) recusal decision right, and one rather brief one about the actual issues of fiming and such:
    Akins also argues that the district court erred by granting the motions to
    dismiss and for summary judgment filed by the defendants and by denying his own
    motion for partial summary judgment. After careful de novo review, see Letterman
    v. Does, 789 F.3d 856, 858–59, 861 (8th Cir. 2015) (summary judgment standard);
    Gomez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 676 F.3d 655, 660 (8th Cir. 2012) (motion to
    dismiss standard), we conclude that the district court did not err in its thorough and
    well reasoned opinions. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

    So I guess you would have to read the district court opinion to really find out that the issues were - and doesn't a "de novo" review mean the appellate court looked at the issues, not just "did the judge follow the rules?" Anyway, it seems the appellate court is saying the district court judge not only got it right -- "did not err" -- but did it well -- "thorough and well reasoned opinions." So siddown and shaddup.
     

    Trigger Time

    Air guitar master
    Rating - 98.6%
    204   3   0
    Aug 26, 2011
    40,112
    113
    SOUTH of Zombie city
    Wait.

    Not so fast.

    The appellate court "summarily" affirmed the grant of motions to dismiss and summary judgment. I'm not sure I've ever seen that before. And this is a final appeal (apparently). The panel totally dodged the issues that actually resolved the case.

    Now, from the statement of the issues, the REAL issue appears to be whether the PD can take down videos posted on their book of faces. Well. Yes. It is their book. They can do whatever they want.

    Dude can film and put them on his own book.

    Stopping someone from filming in the (public) lobby of a PD is a closer call, but it is their property. If they have a no filming rule, that's probably a reasonable time/place/manner restriction.

    So, it really isn't clear WHAT the appeals court is saying, other than the recusal wasn't necessary.

    No it's not their Police department nor their property it's the public's. The same as anything they record or write down it belongz to the people the same as any government employee while at work

    It's public domain. Now behind the locked doors I'm willing to stretch and give that one
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Let's hope not. But they do think they are gods

    I know a lot of people who take video with their phones, but don't think they are gods.

    No it's not their Police department nor their property it's the public's. The same as anything they record or write down it belongz to the people the same as any government employee while at work

    It's public domain. Now behind the locked doors I'm willing to stretch and give that one
    Dude, once again, you're wrong on so many levels there's no way to tell where to start. So I won't. :)
     

    Libertarian01

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jan 12, 2009
    6,006
    113
    Fort Wayne
    While I do see this as a First Amendment issue, I do not see it as a "free speech" issue.

    Rather, I see it as a "...and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." If I am allowed to petition the government for a redress of grievances, I should most certainly be allowed to record said grievances I intend to complain about. The free speech section is only one of many sections and the petitioning is oft forgotten and overlooked. Nonetheless, if Officer JBT is curbstomping someone, surely it must be allowed to be recorded so that I can show the courts (read: government) exactly what it is I am complaining about.

    Still a 1A issue, but not necessarily a free speech issue.

    Regards,

    Doug
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,612
    149
    Valparaiso
    From one of the District Court decisions underlying the appeal to the 8th Circuit.

    Akins also argues that he was retaliated against when he was stopped from filming a citizen in the Police Department lobby in 2011; his links to the Citizens for Justice page were removed from the Police Department's Facebook page in the summer of 2011; and he was excluded from a Police Department Media Training Day in October 2015. None of the individual Defendants participated in these incidents, and as discussed above, the City cannot be liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory. Moreover, Akins points to no unconstitutional municipal policy or custom. Further, he has no constitutional right to videotape any public proceedings he wishes to. See Rice v. Kempker, 374 F.3d 675, 678 (8[SUP]th[/SUP] Cir. 2004) (“[N]either the public nor the media has a First Amendment right to videotape, photograph, or make audio recordings of government proceedings that are by law open to the public.”), and Wis. Interscholastic Ath. Ass'n v. Gannett Co., 658 F.3d 614, 627-628 (7[SUP]th[/SUP] Cir. 2011) (same). His links to the Police Department's Facebook page were treated the same as everyone else's and there is no constitutional right to unlimited posting. See TinleySparks, Inc. v. Vill. of Tinley Park, 2015 WL 2265451, *10 (N.D. Ill. May 11, 2015) (“Plaintiffs have not cited any case holding that they have a right to post messages that could be perceived as political in online forums intended to promote small business growth. Indeed, the cases support the opposite conclusion: that Defendants could, consistent with the First Amendment, prohibit political messages on the Downtown Tinley website and Facebook page to preserve their intended purpose as small business forums so long as they refrained from engaging in viewpoint discrimination.”) Finally, with respect to the media training event, Akins was not a member of the traditional media, nor does the record show he was an active nontraditional media member at the time. Space was limited. These were content-neutral reasons not to create an exception for Akins to attend the invitation-only event. The media does not enjoy a right of equal access or special First Amendment rights. See Snyder v. Ringgold, 133 F.3d 917 (4[SUP]th[/SUP] Cir. 1998).

    Akins v. City of Columbia, 2:15-CV-04096-NKL, 2016 WL 4126549, at *17 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 2, 2016), aff'd sub nom. Akins v. Knight, 16-3555, 2017 WL 3136922 (8th Cir. July 25, 2017)
     
    Top Bottom