While it appears that there is a general, amorphous right to film police, a decision by Judge Kevin Castel, SDNY, Higginbotham v. City of New York, both focuses and fuzzies the right at the same time. The cases involved Douglas Higginbotham, a free-lance video-journalist, working for TV New Zealand covering Occupy Wall Street. And New York’s Finest treated him like anyone else.
While he was filming “an arrest that resulted in a significant injury to the person being arrested,” he was ordered to climb down from the telephone booth by the defendant police captain, but could not immediately comply because there were too many people surrounding the booth. Eventually, he began to climb down, and when he did so, the three individual [police officer] defendants pulled his legs out from under him, causing him to drop his camera and fall onto the ground.
He was cuffed (plastic) for three hours, held until issued a summons for disorderly conduct, which was subsequently dismissed. And he sued. In a decision denying summary judgment, the court rejected the defendants’ claim of qualified immunity by holding:
The Court concludes, however, 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. When neither the Supreme Court nor the Second Circuit has decided an issue, a court “may nonetheless treat the law as clearly established if decisions from . . . other circuits ‘clearly foreshadow a particular ruling on the issue.’”
