Right to record government officials in public

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which includes Alabama, has held that there is a First Amendment right to record matters of public interest, including the conduct of police occurring on public property. See Toole v. City of Atlanta, 798 F. App’x 381, 387–88 (11th Cir. 2019); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2000).

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which includes Alaska, has held that there is a First Amendment right to record matters of public interest in public places, which “includes the right to record law enforcement officers engaged in the exercise of their official duties in public places.” Askins v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 899 F.3d 1035, 1044 (9th Cir. 2018); see also Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995).

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which includes Arizona, has held that there is a First Amendment right to record matters of public interest in public places, which “includes the right to record law enforcement officers engaged in the exercise of their official duties in public places.” Askins v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 899 F.3d 1035, 1044 (9th Cir. 2018); see also Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995).

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which includes Arkansas, has not yet directly addressed the First Amendment right to record, although it has favorably cited the federal courts of appeal that have recognized a right to record police activity in public. Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085, 1090 (8th Cir. 2020).

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which includes California, has held that there is a First Amendment right to record matters of public interest in public places, which “includes the right to record law enforcement officers engaged in the exercise of their official duties in public places.” Askins v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 899 F.3d 1035, 1044 (9th Cir. 2018); see also Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995).

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which includes Colorado, has held that “there is a First Amendment right to film the police performing their duties in public.”  Irizarry v. Yehia, -- 4^th ----, 2022 WL 2659462, at *6 (10^th Cir. July 11, 2022).  The Tenth Circuit noted that this right “falls squarely within the First Amendment’s core purposes to protect free and robust discussion of public affairs, hold government officials accountable, and check abuse of power.”  Id. at *9.

A Colorado statute also protects the right to record any incident involving police officers, so long as the act of recording does not interfere with the officer’s lawful performance of his or her duties. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-3-311.

If a police officer interferes with an individual’s right to record, seizes or damages the recording device, or retaliates against the person for recording, that person may petition the law enforcement agency for reimbursement of the cost of any damaged or destroyed equipment, in addition to $500 for the loss of the recording itself. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-128. If that petition is denied, the person may bring a civil lawsuit against the agency for those costs. Id.

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which includes Connecticut, has not yet directly addressed the First Amendment right to record.

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which includes Delaware, has held that there is a First Amendment right to film and audio record “police officers conducting their official duties in public.” Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353, 356 (3d Cir. 2017).

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has not yet directly addressed the First Amendment right to record.

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which includes Florida, has held that there is a First Amendment right to record matters of public interest, including the conduct of police occurring on public property. See Toole v. City of Atlanta, 798 F. App’x 381, 387–88 (11th Cir. 2019); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2000).

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which includes Georgia, has held that there is a First Amendment right to record matters of public interest, including the conduct of police occurring on public property. See Toole v. City of Atlanta, 798 F. App’x 381, 387–88 (11th Cir. 2019); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2000).

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which includes Hawai‘i, has held that there is a First Amendment right to record matters of public interest in public places, which “includes the right to record law enforcement officers engaged in the exercise of their official duties in public places.” Askins v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 899 F.3d 1035, 1044 (9th Cir. 2018); see also Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995).

The Hawai‘i Supreme Court has further held that the “filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities” is protected by both the First Amendment and article I, section 4 of the Hawai‘i Constitution. State v. Russo, 407 P.3d 137, 149 (Haw. 2017) (quotations omitted).

Additionally, Hawai‘i’s privacy law specifically permits the filming and audio recording of police officers in the performance of their duties “under circumstances in which the officer has no reasonable expectation of privacy.” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 711-1111(1)(d). This is so long as the recording does not interfere “with the officer’s ability to maintain safety and control, secure crime scenes and accident sites, protect the integrity and confidentiality of investigations, and protect the public safety and order.” Id.

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which includes Idaho, has held that there is a First Amendment right to record matters of public interest in public places, which “includes the right to record law enforcement officers engaged in the exercise of their official duties in public places.” Askins v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 899 F.3d 1035, 1044 (9th Cir. 2018); see also Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995).

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which includes Illinois, has held that there is a First Amendment right to record government officials performing their duties in public. Am. C. L. Union of Ill. v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 600 (7th Cir. 2012).

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which includes Indiana, has held that there is a First Amendment right to record government officials performing their duties in public. Am. C. L. Union of Ill. v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 600 (7th Cir. 2012).

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which includes Iowa, has not yet directly addressed the First Amendment right to record, although it has favorably cited the federal courts of appeal that have recognized a right to record police activity in public. Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085, 1090 (8th Cir. 2020).

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which includes Kansas, has held that “there is a First Amendment right to film the police performing their duties in public.”  Irizarry v. Yehia, -- 4^th ----, 2022 WL 2659462, at *6 (10^th Cir. July 11, 2022).  The Tenth Circuit noted that this right “falls squarely within the First Amendment’s core purposes to protect free and robust discussion of public affairs, hold government officials accountable, and check abuse of power.”  Id. at *9.

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which includes Kentucky, has not yet directly addressed the First Amendment right to record.

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which includes Louisiana, has held that there is a First Amendment right to record, including the right to film and audio record the police, subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. See Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678, 689 (5th Cir. 2017).

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which includes Maine, has held that there is a First Amendment right to record “government officials in public spaces.” Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 87 (1st Cir. 2011). This includes filming and audio recording “police carrying out their duties in public,” such as during traffic stops, so long as the officer cannot “reasonably conclude that the filming itself is interfering, or is about to interfere, with his duties.” Gericke v. Begin, 753 F.3d 1, 7–8 (1st Cir. 2014).

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which includes Maryland, has not yet directly addressed the First Amendment right to record.

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which includes Massachusetts, has held that there is a First Amendment right to record “government officials in public spaces.” Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 87 (1st Cir. 2011). This includes filming and audio recording “police carrying out their duties in public,” such as during traffic stops, so long as the officer cannot “reasonably conclude that the filming itself is interfering, or is about to interfere, with his duties.” Gericke v. Begin, 753 F.3d 1, 7–8 (1st Cir. 2014).

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which includes Michigan, has not yet directly addressed the First Amendment right to record.

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which includes Minnesota, has not yet directly addressed the First Amendment right to record, although it has favorably cited the federal courts of appeal that have recognized a right to record police activity in public. Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085, 1090 (8th Cir. 2020).

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which includes Mississippi, has held that there is a First Amendment right to record, including the right to film and audio record the police, subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. See Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678, 689 (5th Cir. 2017).

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which includes Missouri, has not yet directly addressed the First Amendment right to record, although it has favorably cited the federal courts of appeal that have recognized a right to record police activity in public. Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085, 1090 (8th Cir. 2020).

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which includes Montana, has held that there is a First Amendment right to record matters of public interest in public places, which “includes the right to record law enforcement officers engaged in the exercise of their official duties in public places.” Askins v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 899 F.3d 1035, 1044 (9th Cir. 2018); see also Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995).

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which includes Nebraska, has not yet directly addressed the First Amendment right to record, although it has favorably cited the federal courts of appeal that have recognized a right to record police activity in public. Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085, 1090 (8th Cir. 2020).

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which includes Nevada, has held that there is a First Amendment right to record matters of public interest in public places, which “includes the right to record law enforcement officers engaged in the exercise of their official duties in public places.” Askins v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 899 F.3d 1035, 1044 (9th Cir. 2018); see also Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995).

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which includes New Hampshire, has held that there is a First Amendment right to record “government officials in public spaces.” Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 87 (1st Cir. 2011). This includes filming and audio recording “police carrying out their duties in public,” such as during traffic stops, so long as the officer cannot “reasonably conclude that the filming itself is interfering, or is about to interfere, with his duties.” Gericke v. Begin, 753 F.3d 1, 7–8 (1st Cir. 2014).

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which includes New Jersey, has held that there is a First Amendment right to film and audio record “police officers conducting their official duties in public.” Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353, 356 (3d Cir. 2017).

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which includes New Mexico, has held that “there is a First Amendment right to film the police performing their duties in public.”  Irizarry v. Yehia, -- 4^th ----, 2022 WL 2659462, at *6 (10^th Cir. July 11, 2022).  The Tenth Circuit noted that this right “falls squarely within the First Amendment’s core purposes to protect free and robust discussion of public affairs, hold government officials accountable, and check abuse of power.”  Id. at *9.

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which includes New York, has not yet directly addressed the First Amendment right to record.

A New York statute, however, protects the right to record law enforcement officers, as long as the person recording is not under arrest or otherwise in the custody of police. N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 79-p. The statute also excludes any “actions that physically interfere with law enforcement activity or otherwise constitute a crime.” Id.

If a police officer interferes with an individual’s right to record — including by preventing the recording, threatening the person, commanding them to stop recording, or taking the recording equipment — that person may bring a civil suit for damages and attorneys’ fees. Id.

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which includes North Carolina, has not yet directly addressed the First Amendment right to record.

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which includes North Dakota, has not yet directly addressed the First Amendment right to record, although it has favorably cited the federal courts of appeal that have recognized a right to record police activity in public. Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085, 1090 (8th Cir. 2020).

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which includes Ohio, has not yet directly addressed the First Amendment right to record.

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which includes Oklahoma, has held that “there is a First Amendment right to film the police performing their duties in public.”  Irizarry v. Yehia, -- 4^th ----, 2022 WL 2659462, at *6 (10^th Cir. July 11, 2022).  The Tenth Circuit noted that this right “falls squarely within the First Amendment’s core purposes to protect free and robust discussion of public affairs, hold government officials accountable, and check abuse of power.”  Id. at *9.

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which includes Oregon, has held that there is a First Amendment right to record matters of public interest in public places, which “includes the right to record law enforcement officers engaged in the exercise of their official duties in public places.” Askins v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 899 F.3d 1035, 1044 (9th Cir. 2018); see also Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995).

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which includes Pennsylvania, has held that there is a First Amendment right to film and audio record “police officers conducting their official duties in public.” Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353, 356 (3d Cir. 2017).

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which includes Rhode Island, has held that there is a First Amendment right to record “government officials in public spaces.” Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 87 (1st Cir. 2011). This includes filming and audio recording “police carrying out their duties in public,” such as during traffic stops, so long as the officer cannot “reasonably conclude that the filming itself is interfering, or is about to interfere, with his duties.” Gericke v. Begin, 753 F.3d 1, 7–8 (1st Cir. 2014).

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which includes South Carolina, has not yet directly addressed the First Amendment right to record.

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which includes South Dakota, has not yet directly addressed the First Amendment right to record, although it has favorably cited the federal courts of appeal that have recognized a right to record police activity in public. Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085, 1090 (8th Cir. 2020).

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which includes Tennessee, has not yet directly addressed the First Amendment right to record.

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas, has held that there is a First Amendment right to record, including the right to film and audio record the police, subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. See Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678, 689 (5th Cir. 2017).

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which includes Utah, has held that “there is a First Amendment right to film the police performing their duties in public.”  Irizarry v. Yehia, -- 4^th ----, 2022 WL 2659462, at *6 (10^th Cir. July 11, 2022).  The Tenth Circuit noted that this right “falls squarely within the First Amendment’s core purposes to protect free and robust discussion of public affairs, hold government officials accountable, and check abuse of power.”  Id. at *9.

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which includes Vermont, has not yet directly addressed the First Amendment right to record.

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which includes Virginia, has not yet directly addressed the First Amendment right to record.

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which includes Washington, has held that there is a First Amendment right to record matters of public interest in public places, which “includes the right to record law enforcement officers engaged in the exercise of their official duties in public places.” Askins v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 899 F.3d 1035, 1044 (9th Cir. 2018); see also Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995).

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which includes West Virginia, has not yet directly addressed the First Amendment right to record.

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which includes Wisconsin, has held that there is a First Amendment right to record government officials performing their duties in public. Am. C. L. Union of Ill. v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 600 (7th Cir. 2012).

A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which includes Wyoming, has held that “there is a First Amendment right to film the police performing their duties in public.”  Irizarry v. Yehia, -- 4^th ----, 2022 WL 2659462, at *6 (10^th Cir. July 11, 2022).  The Tenth Circuit noted that this right “falls squarely within the First Amendment’s core purposes to protect free and robust discussion of public affairs, hold government officials accountable, and check abuse of power.”  Id. at *9.