Can Journalists Follow Public Figures? Public vs Private
By The National Press Association editorial team · Last reviewed:
Generally, yes. The Reporters Committee says courts usually find no reasonable expectation of privacy in public, so you can usually photograph public figures there. But following can become harassment or stalking, and homes are different. Crimes and torts in newsgathering are not protected, and state laws vary.
Key takeaways
- Public places generally give you room to photograph and film people without their consent.
- Public figure status makes someone a fair subject of coverage. It does not excuse how you gather the story.
- Touching, blocking, frightening, or repeatedly pursuing someone can bring civil or criminal liability.
- The First Amendment does not shield trespass or other crimes and torts committed while newsgathering.
- State laws differ, so check the law where you work before you follow anyone.
This guide covers following and photographing public figures. It draws on court opinions, two state statutes, and two legal guides. It is general information, not legal advice.
The short answer: public places are open, but conduct still counts
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press says courts usually find that people have no reasonable expectation of privacy when they are in public [1]. It also says reporting news events that take place in public generally does not constitute invasion of privacy [1].
For photos and video, the Digital Media Law Project says you generally will not be liable for intrusion for filming people in public places, even without their consent [2]. The reason is the same. People cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public [2].
That is the starting point, not the whole answer. The sections below show where the limits begin.
Video from Digital Media Law Project (Berkman Klein Center). Open at youtube.com. Content from youtube.com loads only if you click.
What does "public figure" change?
In Galella v. Onassis, the Second Circuit agreed that Jacqueline Onassis was properly found to be a public figure and thus subject to news coverage [3]. The court still found that photographer Ron Galella's actions went far beyond the reasonable bounds of news gathering [3].
So public figure status makes a person a fair subject of coverage. It does not excuse how you gather that coverage [3].
The court also said any interference with a public figure's privacy and freedom from harassment may be no greater than needed to protect the overriding public interest [3]. The case shows a court weighing coverage on one side and the person's interest in being left alone on the other [3].
Public places: what can you photograph, film, and observe?
The Digital Media Law Project says you generally will not be liable for intrusion for photographing or filming people in public places, even without their consent [2]. The Reporters Committee says courts usually find no reasonable expectation of privacy in public [1].
Publication is not the test. The Reporters Committee says an intrusion claim may arise whether or not a news story is ever published or aired [1]. So a decision not to run the story does not fix a problem in how you gathered the material [1].
This guide does not settle whether you can shoot from a public street into a private yard or home. Check your state's law first. California, for one, has a rule aimed at attempts to capture private, personal, or familial activity, covered below [4].
Private places: homes, yards, offices, and permission
Private places work differently. In Dietemann, the Ninth Circuit treated the plaintiff's den inside his home as a sphere from which he could reasonably expect to exclude eavesdropping newsmen [5]. The court said the First Amendment is not a license to trespass, to steal, or to intrude by electronic means into the precincts of another's home or office [5].
Document · CourtListener (Free Law Project)
A. A. Dietemann v. Time, Inc., 449 F.2d 245 (9th Cir. 1971)
Document from CourtListener (Free Law Project). Open at courtlistener.com. Content from courtlistener.com loads only if you click.
The Supreme Court spoke in broader terms. In Cohen v. Cowles Media, it stated that the press may not with impunity break and enter an office or dwelling to gather news [6].
Your status as a journalist does not widen your access. The Reporters Committee says most courts have held the First Amendment gives journalists no greater right of access to property than the public has [1]. If a property owner tells the public to leave, assume that applies to you [1].
Where does following become harassment? Galella v. Onassis
Galella shows where one court drew the line between covering a public figure and going too far [3].
The Second Circuit narrowed the order against the photographer. It barred only approaching within 25 feet of Onassis, touching her, or blocking her movement in public places and thoroughfares [3].
The narrowed order also barred any act foreseeably or reasonably calculated to place her life and safety in jeopardy [3]. It barred any conduct reasonably foreseen to harass, alarm, or frighten her [3].
Read these terms as the order in one case. They are not a general rule for every reporter in every state, and 25 feet is not a legal line you can count on [3].
The lesson still holds. Touching, blocking, endangering, and frightening someone are conduct problems, and a public setting does not cure them [3].
Stalking and anti-paparazzi laws: why does state law matter?
Court opinions are only part of the picture. The Reporters Committee warns that anti-paparazzi laws may create statutory liability, sometimes both civil and criminal, on top of privacy-tort liability [1]. State laws differ, so two examples show the range.
California
California Civil Code section 1708.8 makes a person liable for physical invasion of privacy when the person knowingly enters onto another person's land or into the airspace above it without permission [4]. The statute adds further elements, including a purpose of capturing images or recordings [4].
Its constructive invasion provision covers attempts to capture, in a manner offensive to a reasonable person, images or recordings of someone engaged in a private, personal, or familial activity [4]. The statute adds a device condition and other terms [4]. It lists activity on residential property, where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, as one kind of private, personal, or familial activity [4].
Two more points matter. It is not a defense that no image, recording, or physical impression was captured or sold [4]. And the statute applies only to material captured or taken in California [4].
Florida
Florida's stalking law reaches conduct, not only photography. A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits stalking, a first-degree misdemeanor [7].
The statute defines harass as a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress and serves no legitimate purpose [7]. It defines course of conduct as a pattern of acts over a period of time, however short, that evidences a continuity of purpose [7].
The words "however short" mean you cannot assume a brief stretch of time protects you [7]. Whether a news purpose counts as legitimate in a given case is a question for a lawyer in your state.
Does the First Amendment protect crimes and torts in newsgathering?
No. The Ninth Circuit said the First Amendment has never been construed to give newsmen immunity from torts or crimes committed during the course of newsgathering [5]. The Second Circuit said crimes and torts committed in news gathering are not protected [3].
The Supreme Court put the principle this way in Cohen. Generally applicable laws do not offend the First Amendment simply because enforcing them against the press has incidental effects on its ability to gather and report the news [6].
Put simply, laws that apply to everyone can apply to you [6].
A field checklist: how to cover a public figure without crossing the line
Use this list before you head out. It is a set of cautious habits drawn from the cases and statutes above. It is not a legal safe harbor.
- Stay in public places when you photograph or film people [2].
- Do not trespass. The First Amendment is not a license to trespass or to intrude into another's home or office [5].
- Never touch the person or block their movement. The narrowed Galella order barred both [3].
- Give people space. The Galella order barred approaching within 25 feet in that case, so do not crowd anyone [3].
- Skip any act that could put the person's safety at risk, or that you could foresee would harass, alarm, or frighten them [3].
- Avoid a repeated pattern of pursuing one person. Florida treats willful, malicious, repeated following as stalking [7].
- Look up your state's stalking, privacy, and anti-paparazzi laws before you start [1].
- Remember that how you gather matters even if you never publish [1].
You may be asked who you are. If you want a record of your independent reporting, see how a press credential can document your work. An NPA credential is not issued by any government. It gives you no legal rights or access, and it changes none of the rules above.
What should you do if you are told to leave or threatened with legal action?
The Reporters Committee advises that if a property owner orders you to leave, you do so and contact your editor or news organization's lawyer [1].
As an independent, you may not have an editor or a news organization's lawyer to call. Decide who you would call before you go out [1]. If you want a community of working reporters to learn from, you can join the National Press Association (it is free to apply). Membership is not legal representation.
If someone threatens to sue or press charges, stop and get legal advice. This guide cannot tell you whether your conduct was lawful.
Limits: what this guide does not cover
This guide uses California and Florida as examples. Other states have their own laws, and anti-paparazzi laws may add civil and criminal liability [1]. Courts do not all treat access and privacy questions the same way. The Reporters Committee says "most courts," not all, hold that journalists have no greater right of access to property than the public [1].
The facts of your situation matter. Talk to a lawyer licensed in your state if someone has told you to stop, if you have been warned about stalking, or if you plan to work near someone's home.
For more on proving who you are on assignment, read our guide to press credentials for independent reporters. The Reporters Committee's First Amendment Handbook is also worth reading for privacy law [1].
If you need legal help, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press runs a Legal Hotline for journalists and media lawyers [8].
Frequently asked questions
Can a journalist legally follow a public figure in public places?
The Digital Media Law Project says you generally will not be liable for intrusion for photographing or filming people in public places, even without their consent. But following can cross into harassment or stalking under state law, and courts have limited conduct such as blocking or approaching too closely. Check your state's law.
Does being a public figure mean a person gives up all privacy?
No. In Galella v. Onassis, the Second Circuit agreed Jacqueline Onassis was a public figure subject to news coverage. It still found the photographer's actions went far beyond the reasonable bounds of news gathering. Public figure status makes someone a fair subject of coverage, but it does not excuse how you gather it.
What is the difference between newsgathering and harassment or stalking?
Florida's stalking law defines harass as a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress and serves no legitimate purpose. In Galella, the court looked at conduct such as blocking, touching, and frightening. Other states word their laws differently, so check yours.
What did Galella v. Onassis decide?
The Second Circuit agreed Onassis was a public figure subject to news coverage. It found photographer Ron Galella's actions went far beyond the reasonable bounds of news gathering. It narrowed the order against him to bar approaching within 25 feet, touching, blocking her movement, endangering her safety, and conduct reasonably foreseen to harass, alarm, or frighten her.
Does the First Amendment protect journalists who trespass or break other laws to get a story?
No. Courts have said the First Amendment has never been read to give newsmen immunity from torts or crimes committed while newsgathering. The Supreme Court has said generally applicable laws do not violate the First Amendment just because enforcing them affects how the press gathers news. Trespass and similar laws can apply to you.
Does it matter if I never publish what I gather?
Yes, it can. The Reporters Committee says an intrusion claim may arise whether or not a news story is ever published or aired. California's privacy statute also says it is not a defense that no image or recording was captured or sold. The way you gather material is what counts.
Answers restate the sourced facts on this page.
NPA membership is separate from any credential an agency issues
The National Press Association credential is a private association credential. It is not government-issued, it does not give you legal rights, and it does not guarantee access to any event, venue, or agency. It can serve as identity verification and supporting documentation alongside your published work. It is free to apply.
Sources
- First Amendment Handbook, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (secondary source; retrieved October 24, 2026)
- Gathering Private Information (Legal Guide), Digital Media Law Project, Berkman Klein Center, Harvard (secondary source; retrieved October 24, 2026)
- Galella v. Onassis, 487 F.2d 986 (2d Cir. 1973), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (via Justia) (primary source; retrieved October 24, 2026)
- California Civil Code section 1708.8 (physical and constructive invasion of privacy), California Legislature (via Justia codes) (primary source; retrieved October 24, 2026)
- Dietemann v. Time, Inc., 449 F.2d 245 (9th Cir. 1971), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (via Justia) (primary source; retrieved October 24, 2026)
- Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663 (1991), U.S. Supreme Court (via Cornell Legal Information Institute) (primary source; retrieved October 24, 2026)
- Florida Statutes section 784.048 (stalking; definitions; penalties), Florida Legislature (via Justia codes) (primary source; retrieved October 24, 2026)
- Reporters Committee Legal Hotline, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (primary source; retrieved October 24, 2026)
Five primary sources (two federal appellate opinions, one U.S. Supreme Court opinion, two state statutes) plus two secondary legal guides. The federal opinions were read via Justia/Cornell reproductions of the official text. There is no single federal statute governing following public figures; the law is a mix of state privacy torts, state stalking and anti-paparazzi statutes, and general trespass law, so state-specific facts are separated by state.
Last reviewed: .