You Have the Right to Record Law Enforcement Officers — Including at the Border
Like many people who live in San Diego, Christian Ramirez, a community organizer and human rights advocate, frequently crosses into Mexico to visit family members. One June afternoon, Mr. Ramirez witnessed male U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers at the San Ysidro Port of Entry inspecting and patting down female travelers, in contravention of agency policy. Concerned that the officers were abusing their authority, Mr. Ramirez took a dozen or so photographs on his cell phone. While doing so, he was standing outside on the United States side of the border and recording publicly visible law enforcement activity — which is protected by the First Amendment. Yet federal officials aggressively accosted Mr. Ramirez, forcibly took his cell phone, and deleted his photographs — effectively interfering with Mr. Ramirez’s constitutional right to record.
The right to record is critical for holding law enforcement, especially CBP officials, accountable for abuses at the border. Recording and documenting interactions with federal law enforcement officers are especially critical tools for over-policed, hyper-surveilled border communities. CBP is the largest law enforcement agency in the United States, and it is also one of the deadliest: Over the past 12 years, more than 200 people in encounters with CBP officials, including U.S. Border Patrol agents. For years, CBP tried to prevent the public from documenting the agency’s abuses at and near U.S. land ports of entry. CBP officials would threaten, harass, and assail people who took photographs or recordings of law enforcement activity in public view in outdoor and unrestricted areas near the border.
The ACLU has put a stop to that.
In September 2020, we achieved a in our long-running First Amendment lawsuit, In Askins, we represented Mr. Ramirez and Ray Askins, an environmental advocate who CBP officials accosted at the Calexico Port of Entry when he tried to take photographs of idling vehicles in the port’s secondary inspection area. CBP insisted that the First Amendment right to photograph and record matters of public interest exposed to public view from outdoor and otherwise unrestricted areas did not apply to any place the federal government unilaterally designated as “the border.” As a result of our lawsuit, the federal government was forced to concede that there is no border exception to this First Amendment right.
Our settlement has strengthened several protections that will help ensure people who live in border communities or frequently travel across U.S. land ports of entry will be able to fully exercise their right to record:
First, the settlement maintains that U.S. government officials cannot interfere with people’s First Amendment rights to “make and retain photographs, video recordings, or other recordings” of law enforcement activity from a “Publicly Accessible Area at any land port of entry in the United States.” A “Publicly Accessible Area” is defined as “an outdoor area at a land port of entry where a member of the public is permitted to be regardless of whether they intend to cross the United States border.” The settlement thus protects the public’s right to take photographs and other recordings from publicly accessible areas at all land ports of entry in the United States (but not at airports).
Second, the settlement prohibits U.S. government officials from requiring members of the public to obtain prior authorization to record and document at the border. This means members of the general public have a right to record and capture law enforcement abuses they might see at a land port of entry in real time, without worrying about needing the government’s prior consent.
Third, the settlement states that U.S. government officials can’t “unlawfully seize, delete, destroy, alter, or otherwise inhibit any individual’s access to photographs, video recordings, or other recordings taken from a Publicly Accessible Area at any land port of entry in the United States.”
Fourth, the settlement makes clear that taking photographs, video recordings, or other recordings from a Publicly Accessible Area at any land port of entry in the U.S. is not unlawful activity.
Fifth, the settlement does allow U.S. government officials to restrict photography or other recordings in “Restricted Access Areas.” A “Restricted Access Area” is defined as “any area within a land port of entry’s boundaries that is used regularly by the Department of Homeland Security ... to process or inspect individuals or vehicles crossing an international border.” This means that U.S. government officials may restrict photography or recording at certain points of inspection, inside port buildings, or in other areas delineated as “restricted access.”
The Askins settlement represents a significant victory in safeguarding the long-established First Amendment right to photograph and record law enforcement — which, in turn, is essential to ensuring that law enforcement officials are held accountable for civil rights violations and other misconduct, including along our borders.
If you believe your First Amendment rights have been violated under similar circumstances, please share your story with us by completing the intake form below:
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.