First Circuit
Gericke v. Begin, 753 F.3d 1, 5-10 (1st Cir. 2014) (stating that “a police order that is specifically directed at the First Amendment right to film police performing their duties in public may be constitutionally imposed only if the officer can reasonably conclude that the filming itself is interfering, or is about to interfere, with his duties”).Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 85 (1st Cir. 2011) (“In summary, though not unqualified, a citizen’s right to film government officials, including law enforcement officers, in the discharge of their duties in a public space is a basic, vital, and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment.”).
Second Circuit
Charles v. City of N.Y., 12-CV-6180 (SLT)(SMG), 52 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2017) (agreeing “with Higginbotham that an argument could be made that a right to videotape police activity in public places was clearly established”).Higginbotham v. City of N.Y., 105 F. Supp. 3d 369, 380 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (concluding that “the right to record police activity in public, at least in the case of a journalist who is otherwise unconnected to the events recorded, was in fact ‘clearly established’ at the time of the events alleged in the complaint”).
Fifth Circuit
Turner v. Driver, 848 F.3d 678, 687, 690 (5th Cir. 2017) (stating that “the right was not clearly established at the time of Turner’s activities,” but agreeing “with every circuit that has ruled on this question” that “the First Amendment protects the right to record the police”).
Seventh Circuit
American Civil Liberties Union v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 600-01 (7th Cir. 2012) (implying that there was a right to make audiovisual recordings of police officers performing their duties in public places).
Eighth Circuit
Nieters v. Holtan, No. 22-2600, at *8 (8th Cir. Oct. 11, 2023) (stating that “there is a ‘clearly established right to watch police-citizen interactions at a distance and without interfering.'”).
Quraishi v. St. Charles County, Missouri, 19-2462, 2021 WL 278347, at *6 (8th Cir. Jan. 28, 2021) (stating, with regard to reporters being arrested while peacefully filming a protest, that “it is clearly established that using an arrest (that lacks arguable probable cause) to interfere with First Amendment activity is a constitutional violation”).
Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085, 1090 (8th Cir. 2020) (“Other legal authorities fully support our holding that the right here was clearly established. Every circuit court to have considered the question has held that a person has the right to record police activity in public.”).
Ninth Circuit
Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 439 (9th Cir. 1995) (recognizing a “First Amendment right to film matters of public interest”).
Eleventh Circuit
Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000) (“As to the First Amendment claim under Section 1983, we agree with the Smiths that they had a First Amendment right, subject to reasonable time, manner and place restrictions, to photograph or videotape police conduct. The First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest.”).