Reyes v. The City of New York
1:23-cv-06369
S.D.N.Y.Sep 30, 2024Background
- Plaintiff SeanPaul Reyes, an independent journalist, was arrested by NYPD for recording in the publicly accessible lobby of an NYPD precinct while attempting to file a complaint.
- NYPD had a formal policy (the "Procedure") prohibiting members of the public from recording or photographing inside precincts, enforced by signs and officers' orders.
- Reyes contends he was conducting constitutionally protected activity and cites state and city "Right to Record" statutes, which guarantee a right to record police activity unless it physically interferes with law enforcement.
- Reyes was arrested on two occasions for recording in precinct lobbies; both criminal cases against him were ultimately dismissed.
- Plaintiff challenged the Procedure on First, Fourth Amendment, state, and city statutory grounds, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief; NYPD (City of New York) moved to dismiss all claims.
- Court had previously issued a preliminary injunction against the NYPD enforcing the Procedure (still in effect as to Reyes).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NYPD’s ban on recording in precinct lobbies violates First Amendment | Reyes: Recording police in public spaces is protected First Amendment activity; blanket ban isn’t narrowly tailored. | City: The ban is reasonable and protects security and privacy; forum analysis applies. | Plaintiff stated a plausible First Amendment claim; intermediate scrutiny applies, not forum analysis. |
| Whether arresting for recording in precinct lobbies violates Fourth Amendment | Reyes: Arrest lacked probable cause under city/state Right to Record Acts permitting recording. | City: Plaintiff was arrested for trespass/obstruction; the Acts don’t apply to precincts. | Arrest was plausibly without probable cause; Right to Record Acts are unambiguous and allow such recording. |
| Whether Plaintiff states a claim under the Right to Record Acts | Reyes: The Acts give an affirmative right to record law enforcement absent interference. | City: The Acts do not apply to precincts, or to these circumstances. | Plaintiff sufficiently stated claims under the Acts. |
| Whether Plaintiff can pursue claim under the City Administrative Procedure Act (CAPA) | Reyes: NYPD policy violates CAPA since it was not properly promulgated. | City: CAPA provides no private right of action here. | CAPA claim dismissed; no private right of action under CAPA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for claims under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard in federal pleading)
- Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40 (§1983 claim elements)
- Westmoreland v. CBS, Inc., 752 F.2d 16 (Second Circuit did not apply forum analysis for right to record on government property)
- United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., 747 F.2d 111 (Second Circuit applied time, place, and manner rather than forum analysis to restrictions on recording)