The Expanding Legal Battle Over Recording Police: A Looming Crisis for Accountability
The right to film police officers is rapidly becoming the defining battleground in the fight for police accountability. While the Supreme Court hasn’t definitively weighed in, the legal precedent increasingly supports the public’s ability to document law enforcement activity. But as a recent case in Indiana demonstrates, police departments and legislatures aren’t conceding this right quietly – they’re actively attempting to legislate it away, often with laws so vague they practically invite abuse. This isn’t just about individual rights; it’s a systemic effort to control the narrative and shield officers from scrutiny, and it’s a trend poised to escalate.
Indiana’s “25-Foot Rule” and the Erosion of First Amendment Rights
In 2023, Indiana passed a law establishing a 25-foot buffer zone around police officers, prohibiting individuals from “approaching” them while engaged in official duties after being ordered to stop. The intent, critics argued, wasn’t public safety but the suppression of recording. As the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals bluntly noted, the law offered officers a convenient pretext for arresting anyone – particularly journalists and citizen observers – who got “too close” while documenting their actions. The state doubled down with a revised law in 2025, attempting to add a “reasonable belief” standard for issuing the stop order, but the court saw through the cosmetic change.
The core problem, as highlighted by the RCFP (Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press) and the ACLU, wasn’t just the distance but the vagueness of the law. What constituted “approaching”? What qualified as interfering with an officer’s duties? The law provided no clear guidance, effectively granting officers unchecked discretion. The court’s exasperation was palpable, with judges even questioning whether an officer could invoke the law simply because they’d had a bad breakfast.
The Fourteenth Amendment as a Backstop for Accountability
While the First Amendment – guaranteeing freedom of speech and the press – is central to this debate, the Indiana case was ultimately decided on Fourteenth Amendment grounds. The court found the law “void for vagueness,” meaning it failed to provide fair notice of what conduct was prohibited and invited arbitrary enforcement. This is a crucial point. It demonstrates that even without explicit First Amendment rulings from the Supreme Court, constitutional protections can be upheld through other avenues. The Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause, requiring clear and understandable laws, is proving to be a powerful tool in safeguarding the right to filming police.
A National Trend: Laws Designed to Obstruct Oversight
Indiana isn’t an isolated case. Across the country, state legislatures are introducing and, in some instances, passing similar laws aimed at restricting public observation of police activity. These laws often take different forms – restrictions on sidewalk access during protests, prohibitions on filming within a certain distance of crime scenes, or broadly worded “obstruction” statutes. A report by the Brennan Center for Justice details a growing number of these legislative attempts, often framed as measures to protect officer safety but demonstrably impacting transparency and accountability. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research/filming-police
The SCOTUS Complication: Injunctions and Fragmented Justice
The legal landscape is further complicated by a recent Supreme Court decision regarding injunctions. The court ruled that injunctions covering more than a single jurisdiction are problematic, forcing the lower court in the Indiana case to revisit the scope of its original injunction. This means the protection against the unconstitutional law may be limited to the two counties where it was initially challenged, creating a patchwork of legal protections and leaving citizens in other areas vulnerable. This decision, while seemingly procedural, has significant implications for nationwide efforts to challenge similar laws.
Looking Ahead: The Rise of “Qualified Immunity” 2.0?
The Indiana case, and the broader trend of restrictive legislation, points to a concerning future. As courts continue to strike down these laws, police departments and legislatures may shift tactics, focusing on more subtle forms of obstruction. This could include aggressive enforcement of existing laws – like loitering or disorderly conduct – to harass and intimidate those filming police, or a renewed push for expanded “qualified immunity” protections for officers. Qualified immunity already shields officers from liability unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights, and a further expansion would make it even more difficult to hold them accountable.
The fight over the right to record police is far from over. It’s evolving into a multi-pronged battle involving legislation, litigation, and increasingly, a struggle over the very definition of “reasonable” police conduct. The outcome will determine not only the extent of public oversight of law enforcement but also the future of police accountability in America. What strategies do you think will be most effective in protecting this crucial right? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
