One of the key points this analysis fails to mention is that Reyes is an independent journalist, publishing content of public interest about government transparency, so the First Amendment implications extend not only to freedom of speech/expression but also freedom of press.<p>Why does that matter?<p>"That the First Amendment speaks separately of freedom of speech and freedom of the press is no constitutional accident, but an acknowledgment of the critical role played by the press in American society," wrote Justice Potter Stewart in Houchins v. KQED, Inc. (1978)<p>In that ruling, the court noted that journalists do not enjoy privileged access -- that is, they don't enjoy _greater_ access to government-run spaces than the general public. But neither do they enjoy _less_ access. So if it is permitted for a member of the public to be in a particular location, then it is permitted for a member of the press to be in that location as well.<p>All of the concerns raised about privacy implications, such as Reyes' potentially recording the location of security cameras in the lobby, are a red herring. A person with nefarious intent could very easily surreptitiously record that information without detection, or could merely jot down the details on a notepad and then disseminate them. But Reyes films conspicuously to highlight the absurdity of these supposed privacy violations. The Supreme Court has held that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public, and the government has a duty to _create_ privacy for private information, such as keeping sensitive documents outside of public view, or blocking the public's view of restricted areas, since merely viewing a restricted area from a publicly accessible area is legal, for as the law says, "the eye cannot trespass."
The guy behind this, Sean Paul Reyes, has a youtube channel where he audits police activity called "Long Island Audit": <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe1IA5kmY578O_Qo7Skr-TQ" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe1IA5kmY578O_Qo7Skr-TQ</a>
While I support freedom of speech, I cannot bring myself to support these auditors. They all act like entitled jerks bent on provoking confrontation to generate clicks. I'm ashamed that these jerks are at the forefront of anything. In the past it was Hustler magazine fighting against a religious-political system styming freedom of speech. Today it is losers with cellphones fighting over their right to shout at people in libraries.
> * Despite a pretty much affirmed right to record officers (under the First Amendment), policy directives reminding officers of this fact, and — much more importantly — a state law codifying this right, the NYPD still pretends it can control when and where it can be recorded.*<p>Reasons include: Reprimand chances reduced by unions and internal culture, post-violation support by the same, ability to greatly intimidate most citizens without much consequence, lawsuit payouts get covered by taxpayers and more lenience from judges and prosecutors. If discipline leads to exiting a force, officers find uneven or no tracking of bad LEO behavior and plenty of other departments willing to pick them up.<p>All of this is mitigated by the quality of a police chief and tons of random stuff out of the officer's control.
I think recording of police officers in public is absolutely allowed, but standing around the lobby of a precinct recording, that feels like a step too far. The article described the person doing the filming as an agitator, and I get why they are doing it, but the confrontational nature of the filming just seems like the wrong way to go.<p>As the article discusses, I agree that a victim reporting a crime may feel very uncomfortable standing in the lobby of a police precinct while being recorded by someone.