Richard Fields v. City of Philadelphia
862 F.3d 353
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2012 (Geraci) and 2013 (Fields) two bystanders attempted to record Philadelphia police performing official duties in public; Geraci was briefly shoved and prevented from recording an arrest, Fields was arrested, had his phone searched, and received a citation later withdrawn.
- Both plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment retaliation for recording police and Fourth Amendment unlawful search/seizure; the Fourth Amendment claims were later dismissed to allow immediate appeal of the First Amendment issue.
- The Philadelphia Police Department had issued memoranda and a 2012 departmental directive recognizing a First Amendment right to record police and instructing officers not to obstruct recordings; training was later implemented after additional incidents.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding plaintiffs’ conduct was non‑expressive and therefore not First Amendment activity, and did not reach qualified immunity or Monell municipal liability.
- The Third Circuit reversed on the First Amendment question, holding the public has a First Amendment right to record police performing public duties, but held the officers entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established at the time of the incidents; municipal liability was remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the First Amendment protects photographing/filming police performing public duties | Recording is protected as access to information and as creation of material that facilitates public discourse; expressive intent not required | Plaintiffs lacked expressive intent; recording without intent to disseminate is non‑expressive conduct outside First Amendment protection | Yes: the First Amendment protects recording police in public as a right of access to information |
| Whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity for preventing/retaliating against recordings | Officers violated a clearly established right and thus are not immune | No controlling Third Circuit precedent clearly established the right at the time; appellate decisions were distinguishable | Officers entitled to qualified immunity (right not clearly established in 2012–2013) |
| Whether municipal (Monell) liability can be imposed on City for officers’ conduct | City policies recognizing the right support municipal liability or at least raise triable issues | City contends no genuine issue and no liability as matter of law | Remanded to district court to address municipal liability and related factual questions |
| Scope and limits of the recording right (time/place/manner) | Recording in public is protected but subject to reasonable restrictions when it interferes with police duties or public safety | Police may impose reasonable time/place/manner restrictions where justified | Right is not absolute; reasonable, content‑neutral time/place/manner limits may apply, but no such justification existed for these incidents |
Key Cases Cited
- Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) (First Amendment protects recording public police activity)
- Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ill. v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012) (recording and dissemination of audio/video protected speech)
- Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017) (recognizes right to record police but questioned clarity for qualified immunity)
- Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle, 622 F.3d 248 (3d Cir. 2010) (prior Third Circuit decision finding no clearly established right in the traffic‑stop context)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (framework requiring courts to consider constitutional violation before qualified immunity)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (courts may decide qualified immunity before resolving constitutional question)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires policy or custom)