The right to record police
You may record police officers doing their job in public. The Second, Third and Eleventh Circuits have each said the First Amendment protects it, and in New York a statute says so in terms and gives you a lawsuit when an officer stops you, threatens you or arrests you for it. The hard part of the case is not the right. It is qualified immunity, and the charge the officer writes afterward.
Yes, this is a claim. An officer who orders you to stop filming from a place you are allowed to stand, takes your phone, or arrests you because you were recording has interfered with a right the federal appeals courts for New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Florida have each recognized. In New York the Legislature wrote the right into a statute in 2020 and attached a civil action to it.
Whether the claim succeeds depends on three things: where you were standing, what the officer charged you with afterward, and the date. The date matters because of qualified immunity, which asks whether the right was clearly established when the officer acted. This page goes through each.
How it happens
- The order to stop. An officer tells a bystander on a public sidewalk to put the phone away or leave, with no safety reason given and no one else asked to move.
- The moving perimeter. Officers keep ordering the person filming to step back, farther each time, until the camera can no longer see the arrest it was pointed at.
- The phone is taken. An officer grabs the phone, knocks it down, or seizes it as evidence. Sometimes it comes back with the recording gone. Sometimes it does not come back for months.
- The arrest for something else. The person recording is handcuffed and charged with disorderly conduct, obstruction or resisting arrest. The paperwork does not mention the camera.
- The threat. No arrest is made, but the officer says there will be one if the recording continues, or demands identification and runs the person's name because of the phone.
- The demand to delete. An officer tells the person to erase the video, or to hand over the phone unlocked, as the price of leaving.
The claim
The federal claim is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of the First Amendment. The Third Circuit, which covers New Jersey and Pennsylvania, held that the First Amendment protects photographing and recording police in public in Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2017). The Eleventh Circuit, which covers Florida, recognized a right to photograph or videotape police, subject to reasonable time, place and manner limits, in Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2000).
For New York, the Second Circuit had not said so in a published decision until this summer. On August 17, 2026, in Massimino v. Benoit, No. 25-1104 (2d Cir. Aug. 17, 2026), the court held that the First Amendment protects recording law enforcement activity in public from a lawful vantage point. The same decision gave the officers in that case qualified immunity, because the right was not clearly established in 2018, when they acted.
Newly decided, and being verified
Massimino was decided a month before this page was written. We have it from secondary reporting and are checking the docket number, the panel and the opinion against the Second Circuit's own site. Until that is done, read the description above as reported, not as confirmed, and do not rely on it without reading the opinion. This page will be updated when the check is complete.
The New York statute
New York does not leave the question to the federal courts. Under N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 79-p, in effect since July 14, 2020, a person who is not under arrest has the right to record law enforcement activity and to keep the recording. Officers may not prevent the recording, threaten the person, order the person to stop, or arrest the person for recording. The statute creates a civil action for damages, including punitive damages and attorney's fees, with a three-year limitation period. The statute has its own definitions and limits, and they should be read with the facts in hand.
In New York City there is a further layer. The 2023 injunctive settlement of the protest cases brought by the Attorney General and others (People v. City of New York and Payne v. de Blasio, S.D.N.Y.) includes a term that the NYPD will make no arrests solely for recording. The protest policing page covers that agreement.
The claims that travel with it
If you were handcuffed, there is usually a false arrest claim and a retaliatory arrest claim alongside the recording claim. If the phone was searched, a warrant is generally required to search a cell phone seized incident to arrest (Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014)); see car and phone searches. If force was used to take the phone, that is judged separately under Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989); see excessive force.
What they will argue
Qualified immunity
An officer is shielded from damages unless the conduct violated a clearly established right "of which a reasonable person would have known" (Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982)). Massimino, as reported, shows how this works: the court recognized the right and still ruled for the officers, because the right was not clearly established in 2018. For an incident in New York after August 17, 2026, the argument that the right is unsettled is much harder to make. For an incident before that date, expect it. That is one reason the New York statute matters: it is a state-law claim, and it has existed since 2020. The qualified immunity page explains the doctrine.
You were not in a lawful place, or you interfered
The right is to record from a lawful vantage point, and the Eleventh Circuit's formulation allows reasonable time, place and manner limits. The defense will say you were inside a crime scene, in the roadway, or close enough to interfere. The answer is the video, which usually shows the distance, and whether other bystanders without cameras were treated the same way.
Probable cause for something
An arrest is lawful under the Fourth Amendment if the officer had probable cause for any offense, not only the one announced (Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004)). And probable cause generally defeats a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim, unless the plaintiff presents objective evidence that otherwise similarly situated people not engaged in the same protected speech were not arrested (Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391 (2019)). That evidence need not be a named comparator; proof that no one is ever arrested for the conduct can be enough (Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U.S. 653 (2024)). The cover charges page is about the charges written to supply that probable cause.
The plea
If you were convicted of the charge, or pleaded to something to end the case, a damages claim that would imply the conviction is invalid is barred while the conviction stands (Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)).
The city is not automatically liable
Under the federal claim, a city answers only where an official policy or custom caused the violation (Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978)). See municipal liability.
What people have recovered
No public figure is published here for a case that was only about the right to record. Our ledger of public recoveries has none that we could verify to a source, and this site does not print an amount it cannot source. Recording claims often travel inside larger false arrest and protest cases; the public settlements page lists the verified matters, including the New York protest class settlement, with their sources.
Those are other people's cases. What a case is worth depends on the injury, the evidence and the defenses, and the what a case is worth page explains why this site will not put a number on yours.
The clock
The federal claim borrows each state's personal injury period, and state notice rules do not apply to it (Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (1988)). The New York statutory claim under § 79-p has its own three years. A state-law claim against a city, county or agency is on the much shorter notice clock in the third column.
| State | Federal Section 1983 claim | State-law claim against a public employer | Authority |
|---|---|---|---|
| New York | Three years; three years under Civ. Rights Law § 79-p | Notice of claim within 90 days; suit within one year and 90 days | Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (1989); N.Y. CPLR 214(5); N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law §§ 50-e(1)(a), 50-i(1) |
| New Jersey | Two years, also for the Civil Rights Act claim | Tort Claims Act notice within 90 days; six-month wait; barred after two years. No notice for a Civil Rights Act claim | N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2; 10:6-2; 59:8-8; Owens v. Feigin, 194 N.J. 607 (2008) |
| Florida | Four years | Written claim to the agency within three years; six-month wait; suit within four years | Fla. Stat. §§ 95.11(3), 768.28(6), (14) |
| Pennsylvania | Two years | Written notice to the government unit within six months | 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 5524, 5522(a); Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626 (3d Cir. 2009) |
If you were arrested, the federal false arrest clock starts when you were held under legal process, usually arraignment (Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007)). The New York, New Jersey, Florida and Pennsylvania pages go through each state.
If a charge from the same incident is still open, talk to your defense lawyer before you describe the arrest to anyone, and do not post the video with commentary. The criminal case and civil case page explains why the order matters. Keep the original file, back it up, and do not edit it; the evidence page explains how to request the officers' own footage.
Arrested for what you said
How the probable cause rule applies when the arrest was payback for speech, and the exception to it.
Retaliatory arrest →Protest policing
Kettling, mass arrests and the New York City agreement that bars arrests solely for recording.
Protest policing →Cover charges
Disorderly conduct, obstruction and resisting arrest, written after the fact to justify what happened.
Cover charges →Common questions
Is it legal to record the police in New York?
Yes. New York Civil Rights Law 79-p, in effect since July 14, 2020, gives a person who is not under arrest the right to record law enforcement activity and to keep the recording. Federal appeals courts covering New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Florida have also held that the First Amendment protects recording police in public.
The officer took my phone. Can he look through it or delete the video?
Under Riley v. California a warrant is generally required to search a cell phone seized in an arrest. New York's statute separately protects your right to keep the recording. If a phone was taken, write down who took it and when, ask for a property voucher, and do not unlock it for anyone before you have spoken with a lawyer.
I was arrested for disorderly conduct while filming. Does that end my case?
Not necessarily. If the officer had probable cause for some offense, a federal retaliatory arrest claim is generally defeated under Nieves v. Bartlett, unless you can show with objective evidence that people doing the same thing without filming were not arrested. The New York statute is a separate claim with its own terms. The video itself is usually the evidence that decides both.
How long do I have?
Three years for the federal claim in New York and three years under Civil Rights Law 79-p. Two years in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, four in Florida. State-law claims against a city or county carry much shorter notice rules, 90 days in New York and New Jersey and six months in Pennsylvania. The deadline tool goes through each.
Tell us what happened.
One conversation with an attorney, in your language. We tell you which claims the facts support, which deadline runs first for the agency involved, what evidence to preserve this week, and whether a pending criminal case changes the timing. If it is not a case we can take, we say so and tell you where to go.
(718) 484-7510If a criminal charge is still open, talk to your defense lawyer before you describe the arrest to anyone, including us. English, Russian and Spanish in-house; an interpreter for any other language. Contingency fee, confirmed in writing before we begin.