Introduction
Plaintiff, a citizen journalist, was livestreaming a public arrest from a public sidewalk outside City Hall when officers ordered him to stop recording and removed him for "creating a disturbance." He brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for retaliation against protected First Amendment activity.
Argument
The right to record police performing their duties in public is clearly established. Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011); Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2017). Recording and commenting on official conduct lies at the First Amendment's core. City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987).
Where officers take adverse action motivated by protected speech, the citizen states a retaliation claim. Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391 (2019); Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006). A vague "disturbance" label cannot cloak the suppression of lawful recording. Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 585 U.S. 87 (2018).
Conclusion
Plaintiff respectfully requests denial of any dispositive motion and submission of the retaliation claim to the jury.