Is It Legal to Film Police? What Federal Courts Have Said

Is it legal to film police in public?

Federal appeals courts say yes, with limits. At least two of them, the First and Third Circuits, have held that the First Amendment protects filming police officers who are doing their jobs in public ^[1][2].

The Supreme Court has not addressed the issue ^[3]. Still, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press counts seven federal appellate courts that have recognized the right ^[3]. After the Tenth Circuit's 2022 decision in Irizarry, it wrote that the right has the support of a clean majority of the federal courts of appeal, with none dissenting ^[4].

This guide covers the main cases, the limits, and practical steps. It is not legal advice. Courts and states do not all treat every question the same way, so check your state's law.

Where does the right to film come from?

The right comes from the First Amendment. The First Circuit called a citizen's right to film government officials, including law enforcement officers, in the discharge of their duties in a public space "a basic, vital, and well-established liberty" safeguarded by the First Amendment ^[1]. In the same sentence, it said the right is "not unqualified" ^[1].

The Third Circuit put it simply. The First Amendment protects photographing, filming, or otherwise recording police officers conducting their official duties in public ^[2]. The Fifth Circuit agreed that the right exists, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions ^[5].

The ACLU gives the working rule. When you are lawfully present in a public space such as a street, sidewalk, or park, the First Amendment generally protects your right to film anything in plain view, including law enforcement ^[6].

The Fifth Circuit also noted that filming the police frequently helps officers ^[5]. A citizen's recording might corroborate a probable cause finding or even exonerate an officer charged with wrongdoing ^[5].

What did the four main cases decide?

Glik v. Cunniffe (First Circuit, 2011)

Glik used his cell phone openly and in plain view to record video and audio ^[1]. The First Circuit said peaceful recording of an arrest in a public space is not reasonably subject to limitation, as long as it does not interfere with the officers' performance of their duties ^[1]. It also said that filming officials engaged in their duties in a public place fits comfortably within basic First Amendment principles ^[1].

Document · CourtListener (Free Law Project) copy of the First Circuit opinion

Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) - full opinion PDF

Open at storage.courtlistener.com

Document from CourtListener (Free Law Project) copy of the First Circuit opinion. Open at storage.courtlistener.com. Content from storage.courtlistener.com loads only if you click.

Fields v. City of Philadelphia (Third Circuit, 2017)

The Third Circuit held that the First Amendment protects the act of recording police officers on duty in public ^[2]. It added a warning. It said it does not claim that all recording is protected or desirable, and that the right is not absolute ^[2].

The court still ruled for the officers on qualified immunity ^[2]. That doctrine is covered below.

Turner v. Lieutenant Driver (Fifth Circuit, 2017)

Turner filmed a police station from a public sidewalk across the street ^[5]. The Fifth Circuit noted that nothing in his complaint suggested he was filming an arrest, a traffic stop, or any other police action in the course of their duties ^[5]. The court concluded that a First Amendment right to record the police exists, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions ^[5].

But it also said the right was not clearly established at the time of Turner's 2015 activities ^[5]. That is why the officers won on his First Amendment claim ^[5].

Document · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (official site)

Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, No. 16-10312 (5th Cir. Feb. 2017, revised Feb. 27, 2017) - opinion

Open at ca5.uscourts.gov

Document from U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (official site). Open at ca5.uscourts.gov. Content from ca5.uscourts.gov loads only if you click.

Irizarry v. Yehia (Tenth Circuit, 2022)

The Tenth Circuit had not recognized a right to film police in public before this case ^[7]. In Irizarry, it recognized that the right exists and was clearly established when the incident occurred ^[7].

The court noted that, as of May 2019, six circuits had held that the First Amendment guarantees the right and no other circuit had ruled otherwise ^[7]. The facts were stark. The court described an officer shining a flashlight into a camera and then driving a police cruiser at two journalists ^[7].

Do you need to be a journalist or hold a press pass?

No. The First Circuit said it made no difference that Glik was a private individual and not a reporter ^[1]. The Third Circuit reasoned that because the press has the right to record police, so does the public ^[2].

That means you do not need a credential to claim the right. If you report independently and want a record of your work, see how a press credential can document your work. It documents your work and nothing more. The right to film comes from the First Amendment, not from a credential ^[2].

What are the limits on filming police?

The right to record police is not absolute ^[2]. The Fifth Circuit said it is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions ^[5]. Several limits come up again and again.

Do not interfere. The Third Circuit said that if your recording interferes with police activity, that activity might not be protected ^[2]. The ACLU also tells you not to interfere with the officials you are recording ^[6]. Conduct that interferes with or obstructs officers' work may cross the line ^[2][6].

The Third Circuit gave one example. Recording a police conversation with a confidential informant may interfere with an investigation and put a life at stake ^[2].

Expect reasonable rules on time, place, and manner. When police departments or officers adopt such restrictions on filming, the Fifth Circuit said they must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest ^[5]. The Reporters Committee quotes a court saying an officer cannot issue a "move on" order to a person because he is recording ^[3]. But police may order bystanders to disperse for public safety, order, and other legitimate law-enforcement needs ^[3].

The ACLU says officers may order you to move a reasonable distance away to avoid obstructing their work ^[6]. How far officers may require the press and public to stay back remains an area of substantial controversy ^[3].

Stay in public. The ACLU's rule covers places where you are lawfully present ^[6]. On private property, the owner may set rules about photography or video recording ^[6].

Do wiretap and audio-recording laws apply?

They can. Video and audio are not always treated the same way. According to the Reporters Committee, it is illegal in most states to surreptitiously record a private conversation without the consent of at least one party or, in some states, all parties ^[3]. The ACLU likewise notes that some state laws generally prohibit audio recording people without their consent ^[6].

Glik shows why open recording matters. The First Circuit described the Massachusetts wiretap law as requiring a secret recording, and the officers admitted that Glik had used his phone openly and in plain view ^[1].

Your state's rules may differ from Massachusetts. Check your state's wiretap and eavesdropping law before you record audio.

What is qualified immunity, and why does it matter?

A right on paper is not the same as a win in court. The Reporters Committee explains that, under qualified immunity, officers can avoid accountability for violating your constitutional rights if the right was not "clearly established" at the moment in question ^[4].

The cases above show how this plays out. In Fields, the Third Circuit recognized the right to record and still held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity ^[2]. In Turner, there was no clearly established right in 2015 ^[5].

Timing can decide these cases. In an earlier Tenth Circuit case, Frasier, officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established in August 2014 ^[7]. In Irizarry, the same court recognized the right as clearly established when that incident occurred ^[7].

For you, this means a court can agree that you had the right to film and still rule for the officers ^[2][5]. That is one more reason to follow the limits above and stay out of the way of police work.

How do you record police in public, step by step?

These steps rest on the rules and limits described above. They are practical habits, not legal advice.

1. Be lawfully present in a public space. The ACLU's rule covers places such as streets, sidewalks, and parks ^[6].
2. Record what is in plain view. The ACLU says the First Amendment generally protects filming anything in plain view ^[6].
3. Record openly. Glik used his phone openly and in plain view ^[1]. Secretly recording a private conversation without the consent of at least one party, or in some states all parties, is illegal in most states ^[3].
4. Do not interfere. Stay out of the way of officers' work ^[6][2].
5. Keep a safe distance if you can. The Reporters Committee says journalists at protests can reduce their risk of arrest by not interfering with law enforcement and recording from a safe distance, if possible ^[3].
6. Say you are press if you are reporting. The same guide lists identifying yourself as press as a way to reduce your risk of arrest ^[3]. For background on documenting your work, read our guide to press credentials for independent reporters.
7. Be ready to move. Officers may order you to move a reasonable distance away to avoid obstructing their work ^[6].

What if an officer stops you or tells you to move?

Police may challenge you even when your recording is lawful. Here is what the sources say about the most common situations.

If an officer tells you to stop filming. An officer cannot issue a "move on" order to you because you are recording ^[3]. But police may order bystanders to disperse for public safety and other legitimate law-enforcement needs ^[3]. An order to move back is a different matter from an order to stop filming.

If an officer asks for your phone. If you are not under arrest, the ACLU says an officer needs a warrant to confiscate your device or to view its contents without your consent ^[6].

If an officer tells you to delete your footage. The ACLU says the government may never lawfully delete your photographs or videos under any circumstances ^[6].

If an officer detains you. The ACLU says law enforcement cannot lawfully detain you without reasonable suspicion that you have committed, are about to commit, or are committing a crime ^[6].

When should you get a lawyer or call a hotline?

Get legal help if an officer takes your device, if you are detained or arrested, or if you are charged with a crime for recording. Do not wait for the situation to blow over. This guide describes court decisions and published guidance. It cannot tell you how a court would treat your facts.

The ACLU and the Reporters Committee both publish guidance on recording police and on press freedom ^[6][3]. Start there, and check your state's law. If you want to connect with other independent reporters, you can join the National Press Association.

If you need legal help, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press runs a Legal Hotline for journalists and media lawyers ^[8].