Appeals Court Rules Live-streaming Police During Traffic Stops Protected By First Amendment

The 4^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that a North Carolina town’s pol­i­cy that alleged­ly banned video live-stream­ing police dur­ing traf­fic stops was in vio­la­tion of the First Amendment. The rul­ing stat­ed that Dijon Sharpe was live-stream­ing his traf­fic stop on Facebook Live when police offi­cer Myers Helms attempt­ed to take his phone away because he said live-stream­ing threat­ened his safe­ty. Sharpe then sued the Winterville police offi­cers in their offi­cial capac­i­ty for hav­ing a pol­i­cy that vio­lates the First Amendment and also sued Helms indi­vid­u­al­ly. The dis­trict court did not find that the pol­i­cy vio­lat­ed the First Amendment and dis­missed the indi­vid­ual com­plaint against Helms under qual­i­fied immu­ni­ty, accord­ing to the rul­ing. The appeals court vacat­ed the dis­trict court’s order, rul­ing that if such pol­i­cy exists that bans video live-stream­ing, it does vio­late the First Amendment. The rul­ing said that live-stream­ing police encoun­ters pro­vides infor­ma­tion the same way record­ing police offi­cers does.

“Recording police encoun­ters cre­ates infor­ma­tion that con­tributes to dis­cus­sion about gov­ern­men­tal affairs,” the rul­ing said. “So too does livestream­ing dis­sem­i­nate that infor­ma­tion, often cre­at­ing its own record. We thus hold that livestream­ing a police traf­fic stop is speech pro­tect­ed by the First Amendment.” The court ruled that Sharpe’s claim can pro­ceed, but that he must now prove that the alleged pol­i­cy ban­ning live-stream­ing exists in Winterville. If he can prove it, the town will then have a chance to prove it does not vio­late the First Amendment, the rul­ing reads. The appeals court did hold up the dis­trict court’s rul­ing that dis­missed the indi­vid­ual com­plaint against Helms, and said that Helms is pro­tect­ed under qual­i­fied immu­ni­ty, which is a rule that pro­tects police offi­cers from being held indi­vid­u­al­ly liable unless the offi­cer clear­ly vio­lates a con­sti­tu­tion­al right. Sharpe argued that it was “clear­ly estab­lished” that Helms vio­lat­ed his First Amendment rights, but the court dis­agreed and said the offi­cer was “enti­tled” to qual­i­fied immu­ni­ty. “On the oth­er hand, although Officer Helms was alleged­ly act­ing under the pol­i­cy that plau­si­bly vio­lates the First Amendment, Sharpe’s claim against him in his per­son­al capac­i­ty fails,” the rul­ing reads. “It was not clear­ly estab­lished that Officer Helms’s actions vio­lat­ed Sharpe’s First Amendment rights and so he is pro­tect­ed by qual­i­fied immunity.”