By Liz Nass
Gongwer News Service
First Amendment rights to record police proceedings do not cancel out the obligation to follow other orders from police officers during traffic stops, the Court of Appeals ruled.
In People v. Garrett Jennings Van Net (COA Docket No. 374944), the defendant, Jennings, was unsuccessful in appealing a trial court’s decision that claimed he was interfering with a traffic stop
because he ignored commands to move away from law enforcement while recording them. He claimed the conviction violated his First Amendment rights.
Jennings is a self-proclaimed “First Amendment Auditor,” and observes and films officials’ interactions with the public.
During one late night traffic stop, Jennings did not comply with multiple requests to move away from the stopped car, making the passengers uncomfortable and the police officers feel as though they could not continue the routine stop.
Both troopers who arrested Jennings for obstructing a police officer said they were unable to complete actions in the traffic stop because they were dealing with Jennings.
The published decision, written by Judge Christopher Trebilcock, said while the right to film officers is “of growing importance” to training and transparency, the “right is not unlimited.”
“As this Court cogently observed in Jennings, ‘having a cellular phone and recording or… attempting to record the police does not automatically give an individual carte blanche to ignore police commands aimed at securing or maintaining scene safety,’” the decision stated.
Trebilcock wrote a police command to individuals filming is lawful if it “imposes a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction that is justified without regard to content, narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest.”
He clarified the question was not in filming the officers but doing so reasonably.
“At no point prior to defendant’s arrest did Tardiff tell defendant to stop filming,” Trebilcock wrote. “During the interaction’s entirety, Tardiff only instructed defendant on the location from which he could film (about 10 feet away from the stopped car) and to turn off the flash on the phone that defendant shined directly at Tardiff (which as video makes clear, interfered with Tardiff’s vision).”
The court agreed with the trial court to uphold the jury’s conviction of obstructing a police officer. Judge Mark Boonstra and Judge Anica Letica also ruled in favor of the trial court’s decision.
Gongwer News Service
First Amendment rights to record police proceedings do not cancel out the obligation to follow other orders from police officers during traffic stops, the Court of Appeals ruled.
In People v. Garrett Jennings Van Net (COA Docket No. 374944), the defendant, Jennings, was unsuccessful in appealing a trial court’s decision that claimed he was interfering with a traffic stop
because he ignored commands to move away from law enforcement while recording them. He claimed the conviction violated his First Amendment rights.
Jennings is a self-proclaimed “First Amendment Auditor,” and observes and films officials’ interactions with the public.
During one late night traffic stop, Jennings did not comply with multiple requests to move away from the stopped car, making the passengers uncomfortable and the police officers feel as though they could not continue the routine stop.
Both troopers who arrested Jennings for obstructing a police officer said they were unable to complete actions in the traffic stop because they were dealing with Jennings.
The published decision, written by Judge Christopher Trebilcock, said while the right to film officers is “of growing importance” to training and transparency, the “right is not unlimited.”
“As this Court cogently observed in Jennings, ‘having a cellular phone and recording or… attempting to record the police does not automatically give an individual carte blanche to ignore police commands aimed at securing or maintaining scene safety,’” the decision stated.
Trebilcock wrote a police command to individuals filming is lawful if it “imposes a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction that is justified without regard to content, narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest.”
He clarified the question was not in filming the officers but doing so reasonably.
“At no point prior to defendant’s arrest did Tardiff tell defendant to stop filming,” Trebilcock wrote. “During the interaction’s entirety, Tardiff only instructed defendant on the location from which he could film (about 10 feet away from the stopped car) and to turn off the flash on the phone that defendant shined directly at Tardiff (which as video makes clear, interfered with Tardiff’s vision).”
The court agreed with the trial court to uphold the jury’s conviction of obstructing a police officer. Judge Mark Boonstra and Judge Anica Letica also ruled in favor of the trial court’s decision.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
