Smith v. City of Cumming
Decision Date | 31 May 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 99-8199,99-8199 |
Citation | 212 F.3d 1332 |
Parties | (11th Cir. 2000) James Soloman SMITH, Jr., Barbara Smith, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF CUMMING, a Municipal Corporation, Earl A. Singletary, et al., Defendants- Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
(No. 97-01753-1-CV-JEC), Julie E. Carnes, Judge.
Before BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and ALARCON*, Senior Circuit Judge.
James and Barbara Smith filed suit against the City of Cumming, Georgia (the "City"), and its police chief, Earl Singletary, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the City police had harassed the Smiths, including a claim that Mr. Smith had been prevented from videotaping police actions in violation of Smith's First Amendment rights. They appeal from summary judgment granted to the City and Singletary and from the denial of the Smiths' motion to amend their complaint so as to name another City police chief, Ralph "Buck" Jones,1 as a defendant in the place of a defendant originally identified as "John Doe." We affirm.
As to the First Amendment claim under Section 1983, we agree with the Smiths that they had a First Amendment right, subject to reasonable time, manner and place restrictions, to photograph or videotape police conduct. The First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest. See Blackston v. Alabama, 30 F.3d 117, 120 (11th Cir.1994) ( ); Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 439 (9th Cir.1995) ( ); Iacobucci v. Boulter, No. CIV.A. 94-10531 (D.Mass, Mar. 26, 1997) (unpublished opinion) ( ); see also, United States v. Hastings, 695 F.2d 1278, 1281 (11th Cir.1983) ( )(citing Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 609, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978)); Lambert v. Polk County, 723 F.Supp. 128, 133 (S.D.Iowa 1989) (); Thompson v. City of Clio, 765 F.Supp. 1066, 1070-71 (M.D.Ala.1991) ( ); cf. Williamson v. Mills, 65 F.3d 155 (11th Cir.1995) ( ). Thus, the district court erred in concluding that there was no First Amendment right.
Nonetheless, under Section 1983, the Smiths must prove that the conduct complained of deprived them of "a right, privilege or immunity secured by the constitution or laws of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ctr. for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Irvine Co.
...Fund v. Wasden (9th Cir. 2018) 878 F.3d 1184, 1203 ; ACLU v. Alvarez (7th Cir. 2012) 679 F.3d 583, 595-597 ; Smith v. City of Cumming (11th Cir. 2000) 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 ; but see True Blue Auctions v. Foster (3rd Cir. 2013) 528 Fed.Appx. 190, 192-193 ; Jones v. Lakeview School Dist. (N.D.......
-
Redmond v. San Jose Police Dep't
...(holding that "the First Amendment protects the filming of government officials in public spaces."); see also Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000) ("The First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and ......
-
Coal. for Good Governance v. Kemp
...has recognized that the right to photograph or videotape is protected by the First Amendment. See, e.g. , Smith v. City of Cumming , 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000) (agreeing that the plaintiffs had a First Amendment right to photograph and videotape police conduct, subject to reasonab......
-
Project Veritas v. Ohio Election Comm'n
...(5th Cir. 2017) ; Gericke v. Begin , 753 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2014) ; Glik v. Cunniffe , 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) ; Smith v. City of Cumming , 212 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2000) ; Fordyce v. City of Seattle , 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995).The Supreme Court has also recognized protections for the d......
-
Constitutional Law - First Circuit protects right to record public officials discharging duties in public space - Glik v. Cunniffe.
...249 (2004) (distinguishing between right to gather information as "news" and gathering for other uses). Compare Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000) (recognizing right to record public officials on public property), and Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 439 ......
-
The 'weaponized' First Amendment at the Marble Palace and the Firing Line: Reaction and Progressive Advocacy Before the Roberts Court and Lower Federal Courts
...Union v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 589 (7th Cir. 2012); Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 85 (1st Cir. 2011); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000); Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678, 690 (5th Cir. 2017); Gericke v. Begin, 753 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2014); Fields v. ......
-
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY: TIME TO CHANGE THE MESSAGE.
...of Ill. v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 602-03 (7th Cir. 2012); Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 88 (1st Cir. 2011); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000); Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 438, 440 (9th Cir. (62) See Fields, 862 F.3d at 362; Turner, 848 F.3d at 687.......
-
QUALIFIED KNOWLEDGE: THE CASE FOR CONSIDERING ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE IN QUALIFIED IMMUNITY JURISPRUDENCE AS IT RELATES TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO RECORD.
...(citing Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011); ACLU of Ill. v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. (83.) Turner, 848 F.3d at 687 (citing Kelly, 622 F.3d at 248; Szymecki, 353 F. App'x at 853; McCormick v. City of Lawrence, ......