However, for future cases, there is a First Amendment right to record the police, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.On Turner's pre-handcuffing Fourth Amendment claim, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because there was reasonable suspicion to detain him.Turner filed suit against all three officers and the City of Fort Worth under 42 U. The district court granted each officers' motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity.
Most of the opinion deals with whether the district judge should have recused himself., filed 07/07/17).
Reversing the lower court which had found that recording police arrests was not, without more, an adequately expressive activity to garner First Amendment protection, the Third Circuit has explicitly found such activity to be protected; however, that right was not clearly established in the Circuit in 2013, requiring qualified immunity for the police officers who interfered with photographers. sections14-202.5(a) and (e), is reversed where the North Carolina statute impermissibly restricts lawful speech in violation of the First Amendment.
He filed a complaint with the NLRB, and an administrative law judge ruled in his favor, finding that the employer had wrongly fired Perez and violated employee rights to talk about union organization. Among other reasons, the appellate panel noted that the employer had tolerated profanity in the workplace for years.
While it said that the Facebook post was "vulgar and inappropriate," it was not beyond the protections of the National Labor Relations Act and Perez should not have been fired under the "totality of the circumstances." The Court did note that "this case seems to us to sit at the out-bounds of protected, union-related comments.", filed 02/16/17).
The district court disagreed and granted the defendants summary judgment.