NY Federal Court: There's a Right to Record Police, Also Inside Station Lobbies
A recent federal court ruling in New York affirms that the public has a First Amendment right to record police activity, including inside police station lobbies, under state “Right to Record” laws. Commenters weigh this against concerns about the privacy and safety of crime victims and other civilians who may be filmed in vulnerable moments, suggesting solutions such as private reporting areas or clearer legal limits on non-public spaces. The exchange broadens into questions of police accountability, the role of so‑called First Amendment auditors, and whether reforms like ending qualified immunity are needed to ensure officers respect constitutional rights.
Scope of the Ruling and Legal Framework
- Commenters note NY state’s Right to Record Acts explicitly protect recording “police activity” in public spaces, including building lobbies, and the NYPD’s own legal bulletin acknowledges this.
- The court decision is framed as enforcing existing First Amendment rights and state law, not creating a new right.
- Several emphasize that journalists and “independent journalists” have no less access than any member of the public, but also no special privilege.
Auditors: Purpose vs. Tactics
- Many see “First Amendment auditors” as obnoxious, confrontational, or click-seeking, and express dislike or embarrassment that such people become test cases.
- Others argue auditors are often calm and methodical, and that even when they are jerks, rights must protect unpleasant speech and behavior.
- A repeated theme: if police simply respected the law and de‑escalated, most audit videos would be boring and the “fad” would fade.
Privacy, Victims, and Station Lobbies
- Strong concern that filming in police lobbies harms crime victims and vulnerable people who don’t want their presence or statements on YouTube.
- Counter‑argument: there is no expectation of privacy in public areas; the burden is on government to create privacy (e.g., private rooms, remote reporting), not to ban recording.
- Disagreement over whether moving victim interactions into nonpublic spaces would “violate” the right to record, or is a reasonable balance.
Public vs. Restricted Spaces
- Broad agreement that the right to record does not grant access to restricted areas; trespass rules still apply.
- Debate over edge cases: restricted areas visible from public spaces, leased private buildings used for public services, and private or military property filmed from public sidewalks.
Police Behavior, Risk, and Accountability
- Multiple comments stress widespread distrust of police, citing shootings, lack of discipline, and union power.
- One commenter minimizes risk by citing low per‑arrest fatality rates; others reject frequency arguments and focus on impunity and moral stakes.
- Many see third‑party recording as necessary because body cameras are often misused or “forget” crucial moments.
- Some advocate ending or limiting qualified immunity, noting a few states have already done so, arguing it would improve police adherence to the law.