31:
268:
371:, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held that the officers violated Glik's constitutional rights. The court noted the principle of qualified immunity balanced the need to hold public officials accountable with the need to shield such officials from harassment on account of their public duties. The court therefore applied a two-part test: first, did the facts alleged by the plaintiff show a violation of a constitutional right, and second, was the right clearly established at the time of the violation.
356:
408:
paying Glik for damages and legal fees. Additionally, the city reversed its earlier opinion that the officers had done nothing wrong, stating that the officers had shown "unreasonable judgement" by arresting Glik. In 2012, a Boston Police
Department spokesperson stated that the officers involved in the case stood to face "discipline ranging from an oral reprimand to suspension". The Boston Police Department now trains its officers not to arrest people for openly recording them in public.
227:. The Court ruled that the right to film the police carrying out their duties in public was "clearly established," and that Glik's actions did not violate state law. However, the court also noted that the right to film public officials was subject to reasonable limitations with respect to the time, place and manner in which the recording was conducted. After losing the appeal, Boston reached a settlement with Glik in which they agreed to pay him $ 170,000 in
640:, Justin Welply argued that the right to film the police is not absolute, and that "an individual has a First Amendment right to openly record police conduct in a public park, but does not have an established First Amendment right to openly record officers in the discharge of their duties during a traffic stop" because filming the police during a traffic stop may interfere with their ability to work effectively.
632:, Caycee Hampton criticized the First Circuit for providing "no guidance for determining what situations constitute a 'public space' in which a citizen’s right to film government officials is safeguarded by the First Amendment", and absent such guidance, "citizens who choose to record law enforcement officials risk inviting the same Fourth Amendment violation confirmed in
257:
Although Glik was 10 feet away and was not interfering with the arrest, one of the officers turned to him after placing handcuffs on the suspect and said "I think you have taken enough pictures". Glik replied that he was recording the incident; he said, "I am recording this. I saw you punch him". When the officer determined that this included audio, he placed Glik under arrest for violating the
407:
Despite his victory in court, the case had negative repercussions for Glik, an attorney, who had difficulty obtaining employment as a prosecutor while criminal charges were pending against him. He is now a criminal defense lawyer. After losing the appeal, Boston settled the lawsuit for $ 170,000,
394:
for the determination of state law. The
Massachusetts court required that the recording be made secretly to be a violation, and that when a camera was in plain sight, a recording from that camera cannot be considered "secret" under state law. In Glik's case, the criminal complaint stated that he
374:
The court first addressed the question of whether Glik's First
Amendment rights had been violated. It noted that "we have previously recognized that the videotaping of public officials is an exercise of First Amendment liberties" and held that Glik had a constitutional right to videotape a public
382:
Second, the court looked at whether the right to videotape was clearly established at the time of the arrest. The court had "no trouble concluding that 'the state of the law at the time of the alleged violation gave the defendant fair warning that particular conduct was unconstitutional.'" The
424:
explicitly held that a citizen had the same rights as a journalist to record public officials in a public place, while other scholars have identified earlier rulings by circuit courts that have upheld a right of "publicly gathering information" while filming the police. Nevertheless, scholars
256:
Bicycle Unit police officers John
Cunniffe, Peter Savalis, and Jerome Hall-Brewster. Glik began recording the arrest after he heard a bystander say "ou are hurting him, stop". Because Glik was concerned that the officers were using excessive force, he filmed the encounter with his cell phone.
239:
explicitly ruled that private citizens have a right to film police officers in public spaces. The case drew media attention across the United States, and was also cited favorably by other United States
Circuit Courts of Appeals that reached similar conclusions in other cases.
494:(2017) that while the officers were entitled to qualified immunity in that case, the First Amendment protects the right to record police, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Some scholars suggest these various rulings present the potential for a
390:. Glik argued that the officers lacked probable cause when they made the arrest, while the officers argued that the allegations in the complaint established that they had probable cause to arrest Glik for violating the wiretap statute. The court looked to the
398:
Finally, the court determined that the absence of probable cause as a constitutional violation was clearly established in law. The court therefore held that the district court's denial of the officers of qualified immunity was proper, affirming the decision.
498:
in cases that involve the filming of police conduct, while others have described the different rulings among circuit courts as " an artificial split—not on the merits of the First
Amendment right violated, but on technical qualified immunity ground".
1628:
1814:
395:
had "openly record the police officers", the recording was not made in secret, and that therefore the officers had no probable cause to arrest Glik. Since there was no probable cause, Glik's Fourth
Amendment rights were violated.
625:
was evidence of the court's willingness to protect a "vital First
Amendment right", but that "the proliferation of body cameras may make civilians feel as if they no longer need to record officers in the field". Writing for the
523:
under the First
Amendment and is therefore not protected by the constitution. Commentators have noted that this opinion "breaks with consensus among federal courts", and that the case marked "the first time a federal court has
2152:
When, Where and Why the First
Amendment Protects the Right to Record Police Communications: A Substantial Interference Guideline for Determining the Scope of the Right to Record and for Revamping Restrictive State Wiretapping
821:
When, Where and Why the First Amendment Protects the Right to Record Police Communications: A Substantial Interference Guideline for Determining the Scope of the Right to Record and for Revamping Restrictive State Wiretapping
606:, observed that the case "could play a significant role in solidifying the emerging consensus that citizens have a constitutional interest in monitoring the activities of police officers". Likewise, in an article for the
1086:
1788:
1625:
1809:
448:
In addition to the First and the Seventh Circuits, both the Ninth and Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals have held that the public has a First Amendment right to record public officials. In 2000, in
600:
hold sway only within their respective jurisdictions, it seems likely that the right to record public police activity will be treated as universal". Matt Giffin, writing for the
204:, police officers from the bicycle unit making an arrest in a public park. When the officers observed that Glik was recording the arrest, they arrested him and Glik was subsequently charged with
544:. On July 7, 2017, the third circuit ruled that the First Amendment protects citizens right to use electronic devices to record on-duty police officers and that right is clearly established.
916:
512:
1925:
383:
court noted that some constitution violations are "self-evident" and the right to film police carrying out their duties in public was clearly established a decade prior to Glik's arrest.
2249:
1439:
1412:
379:, but a right of all citizens, subject to reasonable limitations of time, place and manner. The First Circuit concluded that in the current case, none of those limitations applied.
588:, Gregory T. Frohman wrote that the court's ruling "seemingly laid down a nearly unfettered right for nonthreatening third-party recorders in public places". In an article for the
1464:
1083:
333:
1839:
1783:
1903:
282:
Glik was charged with wiretapping, disturbing the peace, and aiding in the escape of a prisoner. He was taken to the South Boston police station and his cell phone and a
464:
held that a private citizen could film police conduct at a protest because the First Amendment protects the "right to film matters of public interest". However, both the
1973:
1709:
1675:
1645:
1529:
1499:
2102:
615:
However, other analysts have questioned whether the First Circuit's ruling would, in fact, have a widespread impact in the future. For example, an article in the
453:
108:
Held that a citizen has the right to film public officials in a public place; the public's right of access to information is coextensive with that of the press.
2179:
430:
1999:
1947:
473:
541:
485:
465:
461:
344:
220:
177:
41:
612:, Travis S. Triano noted that the Court's ruling emphasized that "Glik’s filming was found to fall well within the bounds of constitutional protections".
2128:
2077:
2155:
2239:
325:
193:
158:
2025:
1762:
321:
189:
154:
480:(2009) have held that even if the constitution protects the right to film the police, such a right was "not clearly established for the purposes of
336:
denied the motion, noting that "this First Amendment right publicly to record the activities of police officers on public business is established."
913:
532:
also stated that the case is inconsistent with precedent from other federal circuit courts. Following the publication of the court's opinion, the
520:
2254:
2229:
2183:
602:
1922:
1737:
1434:
1409:
360:
2191:
1382:
184:
has the right to record video and audio of police carrying out their duties in a public place, and that the arrest of the citizen for a
1461:
787:
2051:
665:
The "escaped" prisoner was taken to the police station at the same time as Glik, having never broken free from the arresting officers.
1900:
1835:
1340:
386:
Next, the court determined if Glik's Fourth Amendment rights had been violated. The court noted that an arrest must be based upon
580:
expressing concerns over policies dealing with officer interactions with citizen photographers and videographers. Commentary from
2244:
873:
Case Comment: Constitutional Law – First Circuit Protects Right to Record Public Officials Discharging Duties in Public Space –
843:
Case Comment: Constitutional Law – First Circuit Protects Right to Record Public Officials Discharging Duties in Public Space –
760:
Case Comment: Constitutional Law – First Circuit Protects Right to Record Public Officials Discharging Duties in Public Space –
429:
to be the first case to "tackle the issue of police recording in the smartphone era". Following the First Circuit's ruling, the
1970:
1706:
1672:
1642:
1526:
1496:
391:
2099:
363:(pictured) is the headquarters of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, where Glik's appeal was heard.
573:
880:
850:
767:
1971:
What Is and What Should Never Be: Examining the Artificial Circuit "Split" on Citizens Recording Official Police Action
1707:
What Is and What Should Never Be: Examining the Artificial Circuit "Split" on Citizens Recording Official Police Action
1643:
What Is and What Should Never Be: Examining the Artificial Circuit "Split" on Citizens Recording Official Police Action
1527:
What Is and What Should Never Be: Examining the Artificial Circuit "Split" on Citizens Recording Official Police Action
1497:
What Is and What Should Never Be: Examining the Artificial Circuit "Split" on Citizens Recording Official Police Action
445:, the Seventh Circuit stated that "applying the statute in the circumstances alleged here is likely unconstitutional."
298:
2204:
2224:
1996:
1944:
30:
1997:
Before You Press Record: Unanswered Questions Surrounding the First Amendment Right to Film Public Police Activity
1945:
Before You Press Record: Unanswered Questions Surrounding the First Amendment Right to Film Public Police Activity
710:
Before You Press Record: Unanswered Questions Surrounding the First Amendment Right to Film Public Police Activity
421:
236:
441:
from enforcing its wiretapping law against citizens openly recording public officials in public places. Citing
1127:
533:
310:
2125:
2074:
1017:
2234:
2151:
991:
You Have the Right to Remain Vigilant: Law Enforcement Officers' Unconstitutional Responses to Being Recorded
656:
Boston Common is the oldest public park in the United States, and is known as a public forum for free speech.
2022:
1757:
1338:
Policing the Police: Freedom of the Press, the Right to Privacy, and Civilian Recordings of Police Activity
718:
Walking A Thin Blue Line: Balancing The Citizen's Right To Record Police Officers Against Officer Privacy
577:
456:
held that the First Amendment protects the right of citizens to film the police. Likewise, in 1995, in
223:
held that the officers violated Glik's constitutional rights and that the officers were not entitled to
1811:
Court: No First Amendment right to videorecord police unless you are challenging the police at the time
528:
found that recording cops while on duty and in a public setting is protected by the First Amendment".
216:
the City of Boston and the arresting officers, claiming that they violated his constitutional rights.
286:
were held as evidence. The Commonwealth dropped the charge of aiding in escape prior to trial. The
1626:
First Amendment generally protects videorecording of police, and this right is ‘clearly established’
565:
302:
785:
Sunlight Is Still the Best Disinfectant: The Case for a First Amendment Right to Record the Police
1836:"Third Circuit Declares First Amendment Right to Record Police | Electronic Frontier Foundation"
1734:
564:, amongst others. The case has also drawn notice in the legal community, with articles in the
305:. After the department refused to investigate that legitimate complaint, Glik, represented by
287:
2188:
2049:
Who Watches the Watchmen? Big Brother's Use of Wiretap Statutes to Place Civilians in Time Out
1379:
695:
784:
2048:
340:
8:
1741:
1640:(May 14, 2015) (internal citations and quotations omitted); see also Gregory T. Frohman,
209:
1657:
1897, 1954 (2014) (noting that "wo circuits declined to definitively answer the issue").
1337:
628:
617:
608:
560:
481:
329:
232:
224:
569:
554:
261:
205:
129:
121:
294:
for the wiretapping arrest and that the officers were unhappy about being recorded.
1667:
490:
173:
2208:
2195:
2159:
2132:
2126:
Confirmation of a Catch-22: Glik v. Cunniffe and the Paradox of Citizen Recording
2106:
2081:
2075:
Confirmation of a Catch-22: Glik v. Cunniffe and the Paradox of Citizen Recording
2055:
2029:
2003:
1977:
1951:
1929:
1907:
1818:
1792:
1766:
1713:
1679:
1649:
1632:
1533:
1503:
1468:
1443:
1416:
1386:
1344:
1090:
1021:
920:
884:
854:
791:
771:
738:
Confirmation of a Catch-22: Glik v. Cunniffe and the Paradox of Citizen Recording
508:
181:
1785:
Federal judge: Recording cops isn’t necessarily protected by the First Amendment
98:
Interlocutory appeal of oral denial of motion for summary judgment by defendants
387:
355:
291:
2218:
871:
841:
758:
529:
495:
272:
267:
258:
249:
201:
1887:
Good Cop, Bad Citizen? As Cellphone Recording Increases, Officers Are Uneasy
2201:
581:
368:
314:
306:
125:
375:
official in a public place. The court noted that this was not limited to
290:
dismissed the other two counts in February 2008, noting that there was no
283:
185:
1084:
Boston Lawyer Sues Police, City Over His Arrest for Recording an Arrest
1014:
678:
that "occurs before the trial court's final ruling on the entire case".
434:
376:
552:
The case drew national media attention, prompting editorials from the
2089:
1549, 1559 (2011) (questioning the future applicability of the case).
584:
also discussed the lasting impact of the case. In an article for the
513:
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
1923:
Justice Dept. Defends Public’s Constitutional ‘Right to Record’ Cops
1380:
Bad Footage: Surveillance Laws, Police Misconduct, and the Internet
691:
438:
317:
228:
213:
1901:
First Amendment Right to Openly Record Police Officers in Public
810:
Who Will Watch the Watchmen?: Citizens Recording Police Conduct
675:
537:
253:
197:
1436:
Boston PD Admits Arrest for Cell Phone Recording was a Mistake
1410:
Boston PD Admits Arrest for Cell Phone Recording was a Mistake
334:
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
320:
against the officers and the city, alleging violations of his
1515:, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995)) (internal quotations omitted).
328:
rights. The officers moved for dismissal, based in part on
1759:
Is Video Recording Police Protected by the First Amendment?
411:
2250:
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit cases
778:
1329, 1329 (2012) (internal quotations omitted); see also
1462:
Boston Pays $ 170K to Settle Cell Phone Recording Lawsuit
942:
Fundamentals of Wearable Computers and Augmented Reality
313:
and attorneys David Milton and Howard Friedman, filed a
454:
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
1551:
American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois v. Alvarez
484:
in those cases’ factual contexts". Additionally, the
542:
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
462:
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
221:
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
212:, and aiding in the escape of a prisoner. Glik then
178:
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
42:
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
944:7 (Woodrow Barfield ed., 2d ed. 2015); Hampton, 63
891:
1329, 1329–30 (2012) (internal quotations omitted).
736:, 655 F.3d 78, 79 (1st Cir. 2011); Caycee Hampton,
576:cited the Glik case extensively in a letter to the
16:2011 court case regarding private citizen's action
2180:Amended complaint filed in Federal district court
2216:
2023:First Circuit Affirms Right to Record the Police
861:1329, 1329 (2012) (internal quotations omitted).
2184:American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts
2035:Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review
1959:485, 487 (2013) (discussing the case's impact).
603:Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review
196:rights. The case arose when Simon Glik filmed
690:The citations in this article are written in
519:that "observing and recording" police is not
1024:(Bos. Mun. Ct. Jan. 31, 2008); Alderman, 33
361:John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse
1799:, February 23, 2016 (emphasis in original).
1864:, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 8, 2011, at A23.
1744:Web Archives, slip. op. (E.D. Penn. 2016).
592:, Jesse Harlan Alderman wrote that "hough
547:
502:
402:
176:78 (1st Cir. 2011) is a case in which the
29:
2240:United States Free Speech Clause case law
1422:Boston Settled Police Videotaping Lawsuit
1364:, 655 F.3d at 89; Barfield, 7; Lautt, 51
716:485, 489 (2013); Rebecca G. Van Tassell,
621:noted that the First Circuit's ruling in
367:In a unanimous decision written by Judge
1752:
1750:
1306:, 655 F.3d at 85 (brackets in original).
412:Similar cases in other courts of appeals
354:
266:
1578:, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000).
1257:
1255:
989:, 655 F.3d at 80; Matthew Aulin Crist,
590:Northern Illinois University Law Review
350:
2255:Police misconduct in the United States
2230:Freedom of speech in the United States
2217:
636:". Additionally, in an article in the
422:United States Circuit Court of Appeals
237:United States Circuit Court of Appeals
2189:First Circuit Court of Appeals ruling
1747:
297:Glik then filed a complaint with the
235:. This was the first case in which a
144:Lipez, joined by Torruella and Howard
2211:at Simon Glik's professional website
1911:, Volokh Conspiracy (Aug. 29, 2011).
1876:, N.Y. Times, Sept. 2, 2011, at A22.
1553:, 679 F.3d 583, 608 (7th Cir. 2012).
1331:, 655 F.3d at 88; Van Tassell, 2013
1252:
840:, 655 F.3d at 80; Jane T. Haviland,
392:Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
248:On October 1, 2007 while walking in
1614:, 353 F. App’x 852 (4th Cir. 2009).
1590:, 55 F.3d 436, 439 (9th Cir. 1995).
782:, 655 F.3d at 80; Steven A. Lautt,
574:United States Department of Justice
161:, and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99
13:
2198:, located at First Circuit website
1942:See, e.g., Jesse Harlan Alderman,
1842:from the original on April 6, 2019
52:Simon Glik v. John Cunniffe, et al
14:
2266:
2173:
975:Police Fight Cellphone Recordings
914:Police Fight Cellphone Recordings
1420:, Ars Technica (Jan. 10, 2012);
1281:at 1550–1551; Van Tassell, 2013
1077:at 1549–1550; Van Tassell, 2013
638:St. Louis University Law Journal
431:Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
2143:
2117:
2100:Considering Police Body Cameras
2092:
2066:
2040:
2014:
1988:
1962:
1936:
1914:
1892:
1879:
1867:
1854:
1828:
1802:
1776:
1724:
1698:
1685:
1660:
1617:
1605:
1593:
1581:
1569:
1556:
1544:
1518:
1488:
1475:
1472:, Ars Technica (Mar. 27, 2012).
1453:
1427:
1397:
1371:
1355:
1322:
1309:
1297:
1288:
1271:
1249:at 1552 (brackets in original).
1236:
1220:
1207:
1195:
1179:
1163:
1151:
1135:
1117:
1106:, 655 F.3d at 80; Hampton, '63
1097:
1073:, 655 F.3d at 80; Hampton, '63
1064:
1051:
1044:, 655 F.3d at 80; Alderman, 33
1035:
1000:
980:
964:
951:
744:1549 (2011); Van Tassell, 2013
668:
659:
586:Case Western Reserve Law Review
2245:2011 in United States case law
1933:, Ars Technica (May 17, 2012).
1731:Fields v. City of Philadelphia
1602:, 622 F.3d 248 (3d Cir. 2010).
1424:, Boston Globe, Mar. 27, 2012.
1264:, 655 F.3d at 85; Hampton, 63
1245:, 655 F.3d at 81; Hampton, 63
1188:, 655 F.3d at 81; Hampton, 63
1172:, 655 F.3d at 81; Hampton, 63
931:
894:
864:
831:
802:
751:
727:
702:
674:An interlocutory appeal is an
650:
534:American Civil Liberties Union
517:Fields v. City of Philadelphia
420:as the first case in which a
416:Some scholars have identified
345:First Circuit Court of Appeals
311:American Civil Liberties Union
252:, Simon Glik saw an arrest by
1:
1511:1897, 1920–21 (2014) (citing
877:, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011)
847:, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011)
764:, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011)
685:
243:
219:In a unanimous decision, the
1600:Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle
1229:, 655 F.3d at 84; Lautt, 51
1144:, 655 F.3d at 80; Lautt, 51
973:, 655 F.3d at 80; Rowinski,
903:, 655 F.3d at 80; Lautt, 51
470:Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle
275:, the site of Glik's arrest.
7:
2072:See, e.g., Caycee Hampton,
578:Baltimore Police Department
10:
2271:
1588:Fordyce v. City of Seattle
1513:Fordyce v. City of Seattle
1335:at 183; Marianne F. Kies,
1094:, Law.com, (Feb. 2, 2010).
907:at 362; Van Tassell, 2013
815:(2012); Van Tassell, 2013
458:Fordyce v. City of Seattle
339:The officers then made an
1889:, A.B.A.J., Mar. 1, 2012.
911:at 183; Daniel Rowinski,
437:prohibiting the State of
377:reporters and journalists
153:
148:
140:
135:
117:
112:
107:
102:
94:
89:
81:
73:
65:
57:
47:
37:
28:
23:
2194:January 4, 2014, at the
1576:Smith v. City of Cumming
1407:at 489; Timothy B. Lee,
1110:at 1550–1551; Lautt, 51
1081:at 183; Sheri Qualters,
643:
566:American Bar Association
536:announced that it would
507:In February 2016, Judge
450:Smith v. City of Cumming
303:Boston Police Department
2225:Constitutional case law
1994:Jesse Harlan Alderman,
1028:at 490 n.20; Lautt, 51
819:at 183; Justin Welply,
708:Jesse Harlan Alderman,
548:Commentary and analysis
503:District court opinions
403:Subsequent developments
188:violation violated his
1124:Black's Law Dictionary
813:106 Nw. U. L. Rev. 273
698:for more information.
694:style. Please see the
364:
288:Boston Municipal Court
276:
2114:1794, 1815–16 (2015).
1885:David L. Hudson Jr.,
1160:, 655 F.3d at 79, 89.
995:U. Det. Mercy L. Rev.
358:
343:of the denial to the
270:
159:U.S. Const. amend. IV
2235:Freedom of the press
2207:May 2, 2012, at the
1983:Cas. W. Res. L. Rev.
1968:Gregory T. Frohman,
1862:Your Right to Record
1825:, February 23, 2016.
1773:, February 25, 2016.
1719:Cas. W. Res. L. Rev.
1704:Gregory T. Frohman,
1655:Cas. W. Res. L. Rev.
1539:Cas. W. Res. L. Rev.
1524:Gregory T. Frohman,
1509:Cas. W. Res. L. Rev.
1494:Gregory T. Frohman,
1377:Dustin F. Robinson,
1011:Commonwealth v. Glik
351:Opinion of the court
341:interlocutory appeal
284:computer flash drive
210:disturbing the peace
155:U.S. Const. amend. I
1823:The Washington Post
1797:The Washington Post
1742:Library of Congress
1638:The Washington Post
1481:See, e.g. Kies, 80
572:. In addition, the
425:generally consider
2182:, courtesy of the
2167:1085, 1105 (2013).
2158:2016-01-29 at the
2140:1549, 1559 (2011).
2131:2015-09-05 at the
2105:2015-07-09 at the
2080:2015-09-05 at the
2054:2016-01-27 at the
2046:Travis S. Triano,
2028:2016-01-26 at the
2009:N. Ill. U. L. Rev.
2002:2015-12-27 at the
1985:1897, 1923 (2014).
1976:2016-01-27 at the
1957:N. Ill. U. L. Rev.
1950:2015-12-27 at the
1928:2017-06-30 at the
1906:2012-04-20 at the
1817:2016-03-09 at the
1791:2016-03-09 at the
1765:2016-03-08 at the
1740:2016-03-04 at the
1721:1897, 1954 (2014).
1712:2016-01-27 at the
1693:N. Ill. U. L. Rev.
1678:2017-08-02 at the
1648:2016-01-27 at the
1631:2016-01-29 at the
1564:N. Ill. U. L. Rev.
1532:2016-01-27 at the
1502:2016-01-27 at the
1483:Geo. Wash. L. Rev.
1467:2016-10-17 at the
1442:2017-04-27 at the
1415:2017-04-27 at the
1405:N. Ill. U. L. Rev.
1394:1399, 1409 (2012).
1385:2012-10-31 at the
1350:Geo. Wash. L. Rev.
1343:2013-02-28 at the
1089:2021-11-05 at the
1059:N. Ill. U. L. Rev.
1046:N. Ill. U. L. Rev.
1026:N. Ill. U. L. Rev.
1020:2012-02-03 at the
1009:, 655 F.3d at 80;
959:N. Ill. U. L. Rev.
940:, 655 F.3d at 80;
919:2010-07-27 at the
889:Suffolk U. L. Rev.
883:2016-02-05 at the
870:Jane T. Haviland,
859:Suffolk U. L. Rev.
853:2016-02-05 at the
828:1085, 1103 (2013).
790:2013-01-22 at the
776:Suffolk U. L. Rev.
770:2016-02-05 at the
757:Jane T. Haviland,
714:N. Ill. U. L. Rev.
629:Florida Law Review
618:Harvard Law Review
609:Cardozo Law Review
561:The New York Times
521:expressive conduct
482:qualified immunity
365:
330:qualified immunity
277:
225:qualified immunity
95:Procedural history
2165:St. Louis U. L.J.
1860:Jonathan Turley,
1612:Szymecki v. Houck
1541:1897, 1922 (2014)
1204:, 655 F.3d at 81.
1132:94 (7th Ed. 1999)
570:Volokh Conspiracy
555:Los Angeles Times
478:Szymecki v. Houck
165:
164:
130:Jeffrey R. Howard
122:Juan R. Torruella
2262:
2168:
2166:
2147:
2141:
2139:
2123:Caycee Hampton,
2121:
2115:
2113:
2096:
2090:
2088:
2070:
2064:
2063:389, 399 (2012).
2062:
2044:
2038:
2036:
2018:
2012:
2011:485, 487 (2013).
2010:
1992:
1986:
1984:
1966:
1960:
1958:
1940:
1934:
1918:
1912:
1896:
1890:
1883:
1877:
1871:
1865:
1858:
1852:
1851:
1849:
1847:
1832:
1826:
1824:
1806:
1800:
1798:
1780:
1774:
1772:
1754:
1745:
1728:
1722:
1720:
1702:
1696:
1694:
1689:
1683:
1682:(5th Cir. 2017).
1668:Turner v. Driver
1664:
1658:
1656:
1639:
1621:
1615:
1609:
1603:
1597:
1591:
1585:
1579:
1573:
1567:
1565:
1560:
1554:
1548:
1542:
1540:
1522:
1516:
1510:
1492:
1486:
1484:
1479:
1473:
1459:Timothy B. Lee,
1457:
1451:
1449:
1433:Timothy B. Lee,
1431:
1425:
1406:
1401:
1395:
1393:
1375:
1369:
1367:
1359:
1353:
1351:
1334:
1326:
1320:
1318:
1313:
1307:
1301:
1295:
1292:
1286:
1284:
1280:
1275:
1269:
1267:
1259:
1250:
1248:
1240:
1234:
1232:
1224:
1218:
1216:
1211:
1205:
1199:
1193:
1191:
1183:
1177:
1175:
1167:
1161:
1155:
1149:
1147:
1139:
1133:
1125:
1121:
1115:
1113:
1109:
1101:
1095:
1080:
1076:
1068:
1062:
1060:
1055:
1049:
1047:
1039:
1033:
1031:
1027:
1015:No. 0701-CR-6687
1004:
998:
996:
984:
978:
968:
962:
960:
955:
949:
947:
943:
935:
929:
928:, Jan. 12, 2010.
927:
910:
906:
898:
892:
890:
875:Glik v. Cunniffe
868:
862:
860:
845:Glik v. Cunniffe
835:
829:
827:
826:St. Louis U.L.J.
818:
814:
808:Michael Potere,
806:
800:
799:349, 362 (2012).
798:
777:
762:Glik v. Cunniffe
755:
749:
747:
743:
734:Glik v. Cunniffe
731:
725:
723:
715:
706:
679:
672:
666:
663:
657:
654:
568:Journal and the
540:the case to the
491:Turner v. Driver
326:Fourth Amendment
299:Internal Affairs
194:Fourth Amendment
169:Glik v. Cunniffe
113:Court membership
33:
24:Glik v. Cunniffe
21:
20:
2270:
2269:
2265:
2264:
2263:
2261:
2260:
2259:
2215:
2214:
2209:Wayback Machine
2196:Wayback Machine
2176:
2171:
2164:
2160:Wayback Machine
2149:Justin Welply,
2148:
2144:
2137:
2133:Wayback Machine
2122:
2118:
2111:
2107:Wayback Machine
2097:
2093:
2086:
2082:Wayback Machine
2071:
2067:
2061:Cardozo L. Rev.
2060:
2056:Wayback Machine
2045:
2041:
2034:
2030:Wayback Machine
2019:
2015:
2008:
2004:Wayback Machine
1993:
1989:
1982:
1978:Wayback Machine
1967:
1963:
1956:
1952:Wayback Machine
1941:
1937:
1930:Wayback Machine
1919:
1915:
1908:Wayback Machine
1898:Eugene Volokh,
1897:
1893:
1884:
1880:
1874:A Vital Liberty
1872:
1868:
1859:
1855:
1845:
1843:
1834:
1833:
1829:
1822:
1819:Wayback Machine
1808:Eugene Volokh,
1807:
1803:
1796:
1793:Wayback Machine
1781:
1777:
1770:
1767:Wayback Machine
1755:
1748:
1729:
1725:
1718:
1714:Wayback Machine
1703:
1699:
1692:
1690:
1686:
1680:Wayback Machine
1665:
1661:
1654:
1650:Wayback Machine
1637:
1633:Wayback Machine
1623:Eugene Volokh,
1622:
1618:
1610:
1606:
1598:
1594:
1586:
1582:
1574:
1570:
1563:
1561:
1557:
1549:
1545:
1538:
1534:Wayback Machine
1523:
1519:
1508:
1504:Wayback Machine
1493:
1489:
1482:
1480:
1476:
1469:Wayback Machine
1458:
1454:
1450:(Jan 10, 2012).
1447:
1444:Wayback Machine
1432:
1428:
1417:Wayback Machine
1404:
1402:
1398:
1391:
1387:Wayback Machine
1376:
1372:
1365:
1360:
1356:
1349:
1345:Wayback Machine
1332:
1327:
1323:
1316:
1314:
1310:
1302:
1298:
1294:Potere, at 290.
1293:
1289:
1282:
1278:
1276:
1272:
1265:
1260:
1253:
1246:
1241:
1237:
1230:
1225:
1221:
1214:
1212:
1208:
1200:
1196:
1189:
1184:
1180:
1173:
1168:
1164:
1156:
1152:
1145:
1140:
1136:
1123:
1122:
1118:
1111:
1107:
1102:
1098:
1091:Wayback Machine
1078:
1074:
1069:
1065:
1058:
1056:
1052:
1045:
1040:
1036:
1029:
1025:
1022:Wayback Machine
1005:
1001:
994:
985:
981:
969:
965:
958:
956:
952:
945:
941:
936:
932:
925:
921:Wayback Machine
908:
904:
899:
895:
888:
885:Wayback Machine
869:
865:
858:
855:Wayback Machine
836:
832:
825:
816:
812:
807:
803:
796:
792:Wayback Machine
775:
772:Wayback Machine
756:
752:
745:
741:
732:
728:
721:
713:
707:
703:
688:
683:
682:
673:
669:
664:
660:
655:
651:
646:
550:
509:Mark A. Kearney
505:
472:(2010) and the
414:
405:
353:
301:section of the
279:
246:
233:attorney's fees
182:private citizen
17:
12:
11:
5:
2268:
2258:
2257:
2252:
2247:
2242:
2237:
2232:
2227:
2213:
2212:
2199:
2186:
2175:
2174:External links
2172:
2170:
2169:
2142:
2116:
2091:
2065:
2039:
2013:
1987:
1961:
1935:
1913:
1891:
1878:
1866:
1853:
1827:
1801:
1782:Radley Balko,
1775:
1746:
1723:
1697:
1684:
1659:
1616:
1604:
1592:
1580:
1568:
1555:
1543:
1517:
1487:
1474:
1452:
1426:
1396:
1370:
1354:
1333:B.Y.U. L. Rev.
1321:
1308:
1296:
1287:
1283:B.Y.U. L. Rev.
1270:
1251:
1235:
1219:
1206:
1194:
1178:
1162:
1150:
1134:
1116:
1096:
1079:B.Y.U. L. Rev.
1063:
1050:
1034:
999:
997:77, 79 (2014).
979:
963:
950:
930:
909:B.Y.U. L. Rev.
893:
863:
830:
817:B.Y.U. L. Rev.
801:
750:
746:B.Y.U. L. Rev.
726:
722:B.Y.U. L. Rev.
700:
687:
684:
681:
680:
667:
658:
648:
647:
645:
642:
549:
546:
504:
501:
474:Fourth Circuit
413:
410:
404:
401:
388:probable cause
352:
349:
292:probable cause
245:
242:
163:
162:
151:
150:
146:
145:
142:
138:
137:
133:
132:
119:
118:Judges sitting
115:
114:
110:
109:
105:
104:
100:
99:
96:
92:
91:
87:
86:
83:
79:
78:
75:
71:
70:
69:August 26 2011
67:
63:
62:
59:
55:
54:
49:
48:Full case name
45:
44:
39:
35:
34:
26:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2267:
2256:
2253:
2251:
2248:
2246:
2243:
2241:
2238:
2236:
2233:
2231:
2228:
2226:
2223:
2222:
2220:
2210:
2206:
2203:
2200:
2197:
2193:
2190:
2187:
2185:
2181:
2178:
2177:
2162:
2161:
2157:
2154:
2146:
2135:
2134:
2130:
2127:
2120:
2112:Harv. L. Rev.
2109:
2108:
2104:
2101:
2095:
2084:
2083:
2079:
2076:
2069:
2058:
2057:
2053:
2050:
2043:
2032:
2031:
2027:
2024:
2020:Matt Giffin,
2017:
2006:
2005:
2001:
1998:
1991:
1980:
1979:
1975:
1972:
1965:
1954:
1953:
1949:
1946:
1939:
1932:
1931:
1927:
1924:
1917:
1910:
1909:
1905:
1902:
1895:
1888:
1882:
1875:
1870:
1863:
1857:
1841:
1837:
1831:
1820:
1816:
1813:
1812:
1805:
1794:
1790:
1787:
1786:
1779:
1768:
1764:
1761:
1760:
1753:
1751:
1743:
1739:
1736:
1732:
1727:
1716:
1715:
1711:
1708:
1701:
1691:Alderman, 33
1688:
1681:
1677:
1674:
1670:
1669:
1663:
1652:
1651:
1647:
1644:
1635:
1634:
1630:
1627:
1620:
1613:
1608:
1601:
1596:
1589:
1584:
1577:
1572:
1562:Alderman, 33
1559:
1552:
1547:
1536:
1535:
1531:
1528:
1521:
1514:
1506:
1505:
1501:
1498:
1491:
1478:
1471:
1470:
1466:
1463:
1456:
1445:
1441:
1438:
1437:
1430:
1423:
1419:
1418:
1414:
1411:
1403:Alderman, 33
1400:
1389:
1388:
1384:
1381:
1374:
1366:Washburn L.J.
1363:
1358:
1347:
1346:
1342:
1339:
1330:
1325:
1312:
1305:
1300:
1291:
1274:
1263:
1258:
1256:
1244:
1239:
1231:Washburn L.J.
1228:
1223:
1217:at 1550–1551.
1210:
1203:
1198:
1187:
1182:
1171:
1166:
1159:
1154:
1146:Washburn L.J.
1143:
1138:
1131:
1130:
1120:
1112:Washburn L.J.
1105:
1100:
1093:
1092:
1088:
1085:
1072:
1067:
1057:Alderman, 33
1054:
1043:
1038:
1030:Washburn L.J.
1023:
1019:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1003:
992:
988:
983:
976:
972:
967:
957:Alderman, 33
954:
939:
934:
923:
922:
918:
915:
905:Washburn L.J.
902:
897:
886:
882:
879:
878:
874:
867:
856:
852:
849:
848:
844:
839:
834:
823:
811:
805:
797:Washburn L.J.
794:
793:
789:
786:
781:
773:
769:
766:
765:
761:
754:
739:
735:
730:
719:
711:
705:
701:
699:
697:
693:
677:
671:
662:
653:
649:
641:
639:
635:
631:
630:
624:
620:
619:
613:
611:
610:
605:
604:
599:
595:
591:
587:
583:
579:
575:
571:
567:
563:
562:
557:
556:
545:
543:
539:
535:
531:
530:Eugene Volokh
527:
522:
518:
514:
510:
500:
497:
496:circuit split
493:
492:
487:
486:Fifth Circuit
483:
479:
475:
471:
467:
466:Third Circuit
463:
459:
455:
451:
446:
444:
440:
436:
432:
428:
423:
419:
409:
400:
396:
393:
389:
384:
380:
378:
372:
370:
362:
357:
348:
346:
342:
337:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
316:
312:
308:
304:
300:
295:
293:
289:
285:
280:
274:
273:Boston Common
269:
265:
263:
260:
259:Massachusetts
255:
251:
250:Boston Common
241:
238:
234:
230:
226:
222:
217:
215:
211:
207:
203:
202:Massachusetts
199:
195:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
170:
160:
156:
152:
147:
143:
139:
136:Case opinions
134:
131:
127:
123:
120:
116:
111:
106:
101:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
60:
56:
53:
50:
46:
43:
40:
36:
32:
27:
22:
19:
2150:
2145:
2138:Fla. L. Rev.
2124:
2119:
2098:
2094:
2087:Fla. L. Rev.
2073:
2068:
2047:
2042:
2021:
2016:
1995:
1990:
1969:
1964:
1943:
1938:
1921:
1920:Kim Zetter,
1916:
1899:
1894:
1886:
1881:
1873:
1869:
1861:
1856:
1844:. Retrieved
1830:
1810:
1804:
1784:
1778:
1758:
1756:Adam Bates,
1730:
1726:
1705:
1700:
1687:
1673:No. 16-10312
1666:
1662:
1641:
1624:
1619:
1611:
1607:
1599:
1595:
1587:
1583:
1575:
1571:
1558:
1550:
1546:
1525:
1520:
1512:
1495:
1490:
1477:
1460:
1455:
1448:Ars Technica
1435:
1429:
1421:
1408:
1399:
1378:
1373:
1361:
1357:
1336:
1328:
1324:
1317:Fla. L. Rev.
1315:Hampton, 63
1311:
1303:
1299:
1290:
1279:Fla. L. Rev.
1277:Hampton, 63
1273:
1266:Fla. L. Rev.
1261:
1247:Fla. L. Rev.
1242:
1238:
1226:
1222:
1215:Fla. L. Rev.
1213:Hampton, 63
1209:
1201:
1197:
1190:Fla. L. Rev.
1185:
1181:
1174:Fla. L. Rev.
1169:
1165:
1157:
1153:
1141:
1137:
1128:
1119:
1108:Fla. L. Rev.
1103:
1099:
1082:
1075:Fla. L. Rev.
1070:
1066:
1053:
1041:
1037:
1010:
1006:
1002:
990:
986:
982:
974:
970:
966:
953:
946:Fla. L. Rev.
937:
933:
926:Boston Globe
912:
900:
896:
876:
872:
866:
846:
842:
837:
833:
820:
809:
804:
783:
779:
763:
759:
753:
742:Fla. L. Rev.
737:
733:
729:
717:
709:
704:
689:
670:
661:
652:
637:
633:
627:
622:
616:
614:
607:
601:
597:
593:
589:
585:
582:law journals
559:
553:
551:
525:
516:
506:
489:
477:
469:
457:
449:
447:
442:
426:
417:
415:
406:
397:
385:
381:
373:
369:Kermit Lipez
366:
338:
315:civil rights
307:Sarah Wunsch
296:
281:
278:
247:
218:
180:held that a
168:
167:
166:
149:Laws applied
126:Kermit Lipez
90:Case history
51:
18:
1846:January 10,
1735:No. 14-4424
1352:274 (2011).
1192:at 1551–52.
724:183 (2013).
433:granted an
262:wiretapping
206:wiretapping
186:wiretapping
85:655 F.3d 78
74:Docket nos.
61:June 8 2011
2219:Categories
1566:at 533–34.
686:References
435:injunction
244:Background
1392:Geo. L.J.
696:talk page
515:ruled in
488:ruled in
2205:Archived
2202:About Me
2192:Archived
2156:Archived
2129:Archived
2103:Archived
2078:Archived
2052:Archived
2026:Archived
2000:Archived
1974:Archived
1948:Archived
1926:Archived
1904:Archived
1840:Archived
1815:Archived
1789:Archived
1771:Newsweek
1763:Archived
1738:Archived
1710:Archived
1676:Archived
1646:Archived
1629:Archived
1530:Archived
1500:Archived
1465:Archived
1440:Archived
1413:Archived
1383:Archived
1341:Archived
1319:at 1556.
1268:at 1555.
1176:at 1551.
1087:Archived
1018:Archived
948:at 1549.
917:Archived
881:Archived
851:Archived
788:Archived
768:Archived
692:Bluebook
439:Illinois
141:Majority
82:Citation
1695:at 532.
1485:at 274.
1368:at 349.
1285:at 183.
1233:at 349.
1148:at 349.
1114:at 349.
1061:at 490.
1048:at 490.
1032:at 349.
961:at 489.
748:at 183.
720:, 2013
598:Alvarez
511:of the
332:. The
318:lawsuit
309:of the
229:damages
103:Holding
77:10-1764
66:Decided
2110:, 128
1390:, 100
1129:Appeal
676:appeal
538:appeal
460:, the
452:, the
254:Boston
198:Boston
172:, 655
128:, and
58:Argued
2163:, 57
2136:, 63
2085:, 63
2059:, 34
2007:, 33
1981:, 64
1955:, 33
1717:, 64
1653:, 64
1537:, 64
1507:, 64
1348:, 80
993:, 91
887:, 45
857:, 45
824:, 57
774:, 45
740:, 63
712:, 33
644:Notes
322:First
264:law.
190:First
38:Court
2153:Laws
1848:2019
1362:Glik
1329:Glik
1304:Glik
1262:Glik
1243:Glik
1227:Glik
1202:Glik
1186:Glik
1170:Glik
1158:Glik
1142:Glik
1104:Glik
1071:Glik
1042:Glik
1007:Glik
987:Glik
971:Glik
938:Glik
901:Glik
838:Glik
822:Laws
780:Glik
634:Glik
623:Glik
596:and
594:Glik
558:and
443:Glik
427:Glik
418:Glik
359:The
324:and
271:The
231:and
214:sued
192:and
174:F.3d
795:51
526:not
476:in
468:in
2221::
2033:,
1838:.
1821:,
1795:,
1769:,
1749:^
1733:,
1671:,
1636:,
1446:,
1254:^
1126:,
1013:,
924:,
347:.
208:,
200:,
157:,
124:,
2037:.
1850:.
977:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.