You be the Judge: Videotape

If you are interested in politics, this may interest you.

Plaintiff regularly attended local borough council meetings.  He set up a videotape recorder in the back of the room, where it would not interfere with the meetings. 

When the mayor asked him to turn off the machine, plaintiff refused.  The mayor ordered the police to arrest plaintiff and remove him from the meeting.

Plaintiff filed suit alleging a violation of his constitutional rights under the federal Civil Rights Act.  The trial court ruled for the municipality, holding there was no constitutional right to videotape public proceedings and that plaintiff's rights were protected by his ability to have a stenographer at the meeting.

The Appellate Division agreed and affirmed the trial court decision.

Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

YOU BE THE JUDGE:  Can a member of the public videotape public meetings of a town council?

The Supreme Court did not consider plaintiff's constitutional claims.  But it reversed, finding there is a common law right to videotape a public meeting, subject to reasonable restrictions.

The Supreme Court noted that important and basic common law principles require open government proceedings.  This includes the need to document what occurs at such meetings.  Video cameras present distinct advantages over other recording devices and are no more disruptive than pen and paper or audio recording devices. 

The municipality had no formal guidelines on the right to videotape at the time of plaintiff's arrest.  Therefore, in prohibiting plaintiff from exercising his common law right to videotape, the municipality had not acted in a neutral or reasonable manner.