Thread by @gideonoliver

This NYPD response is itself false.

Neither the First Amendment nor the NYPD Patrol Guide make the self-serving distinction the NYPD seeks to make below between "members of the press" who are bystanders/observers without NYPD credentials and those credentialed by the NYPD.

https://twitter.com/NYPDnews/status/1323006419680067586

NYPD Patrol Guide 203-29 applies to encounters w/an "Individual Observing, Photographing, or Recording Police Activity + says: “Individuals have a right to lawfully observe and/or record police activity including, but not limited to detentions, searches, arrests or uses of force"

Patrol Guide 203-29 further instructs officers that they must “NOT:

(1)Threaten, intimidate, or otherwise discourage an observer from recording the police officer’s activities; or

...

...(2)Intentionally block or obstruct cameras or other recording devices when there is no legitimate law enforcement reason to do so; or
(3)Delete any pictures or recordings from observer’s recording device or order observer to delete such pictures or recordings.”

Additionally, PG § 203-29 dictates that, unless they engage in other actions that are independent violations of the law, “an individual CAN NOT be arrested for:

(1)Taking photographs, videotaping, or making a digital recording;
...

...(2)Requesting or making note of shield numbers or names of members of the service;
(3) Criticizing the police or objecting to police activity;
(4) Refusing to leave the area; or
(5) Using crude or vulgar speech.”

Patrol Guide 203-29 also includes examples of the kinds of conduct that give rise to the sort of “[a]ctual interference with the performance of an official function” typically required to support the arrest of a person observing, photographing, or recording police activity:

"…actual physical force (touching or physically interfering with the officer or the suspect, i.e., using a camera so close to the officer’s face that it intentionally obstructs his or her view), or intruding into the physical space necessary to safely perform police operations"

Here is a 2017 @CCRB_NYC report on NYPD interference with civilian recording of police, which discusses the CCRB's interpretation of the First Amendment and NYPD Patrol Guide standards applicable to the right to record police activity:

www1.nyc.gov/assets/ccrb/do…

Here's some of what the CCRB had to say about the right to record in 2017:

"The First Amendment right to record police activity is limited only by ―reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. In a recent, highly publicized case, the U.S. Department of Justice...

...explained these restrictions, stating that "'a person may record public police activity unless the person engages in actions that jeopardize the safety of the officer, the suspect, or others in the vicinity, violate the law, or incite others to violate the law.'"

"Thus, video recording of the police by civilians may be prohibited where it violates a preexisting statute, ordinance, regulation, or other published restriction with a legitimate governmental purpose or in situations that raise heightened concerns about safety....

...For example, even though civilians have a right to film a traffic stop, certain stops, such as one involving an armed individual, may justify a safety measure such as a command by police officers that bystanders disperse, even if the bystanders are recording."

"Civilians in New York may only be arrested when their activity amounts to actual obstruction or interference with a police officer‘s investigation. For example, a civilian who persistently attempts to engage an officer in the midst of performing her duties...

...could be arrested and charged with Obstructing Governmental Administration (Penal Law § 195.05) or Disorderly Conduct (Penal Law § 240.20) regardless of the fact they are recording or photographing police officers...."

"...as the Justice Department has noted, ―an individual‘s recording of police activity from a safe distance without any attendant action intended to obstruct the activity or threaten the safety of others does not amount to interference....

...Nor does an individual‘s conduct amount to interference if he or she expresses criticism of the police or the police activity being observed."

Again, the above is what a City agency, not a lefty lawyer like me, said about the right to record in 2017:

www1.nyc.gov/assets/ccrb/do…

Beyond that, as the CCRB report in part cites to, in 2012, the United States Department of Justice submitted Statements of Interest in two federal cases stating its position on the right to record public police activity:

justice.gov/sites/default/…

justice.gov/sites/default/…

Both set out broad protections the 1st, 4th, and 14th Amendments are supposed to give non-police trying to record public police activity.

And the Garcia Statement explicitly says, citing legal authority, press credentials just don't give you more First Amendment rights:

“The First Amendment protections afforded members of the public and press when recording public police activity are coextensive.” @ pp. 11-12 (citing cases).

justice.gov/sites/default/…

"As the Supreme Court established more than thirty years ago, 'the press does not have a monopoly on either the First Amendment or the ability to enlighten.'...[T]hat [Mr. Garcia] is a member of the press...makes no difference to the analysis under the First Amendment."

A person's status as a journalist or the existence of police agency media relations policies are simply "not relevant to the constitutional analysis...'[t]he First Amendment right to gather news is...not one that insures solely to the benefit of the news media;...

...rather, the public's right of access to information is coextensive with that of the press....

[T]he news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.'"

Again, that's the US DOJ, citing cases:

justice.gov/sites/default/…