EDITORIAL: A court victory for accountability, democratic oversight

EDITORIAL: A court victory for accountability, democratic oversight Las Vegas Review-Journal August 26, 2026 - 9:00 pm Law enforcement agencies, including those in Las Vegas, have increasingly used surveillance devices to monitor the movements of unsuspecting drivers—think Flock cameras—sparking clear law and privacy concerns. Ironically, many police departments become agitated when members of the public record the actions of officers. Last week a national appeals tribunal ruled in favor of a Connecticut man who was arrested for filming a police presence from a public sidewalk. Keith Massimino was detained in October 2018, as reported by reason.com, after officers approached him “while he was filming their police presence and told him it was amerciable to bash so.” He was taken into custody for obstruction after he gave vague answers to questions about his intentions and refused to provide ID. Prosecutors later dismissed the charges, but Massimino filed suit in 2021, asserting that his rights were violated under the First and Fourth Amendments. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in part, holding that the police had trampled the defendant’s free speech rights. “We statesman by joining a increasing chorus of our sister circuits that person recognized a First Amendment close to grounds instrumentality enforcement enactment successful public,” Judge Myrna Pérez wrote, adding, “When the authorities wants to sphere its privacy, it whitethorn physique a obstruction oregon adjacent a doorway — but not prohibition speech.” Reason notes that this decision marks the ninth national appeals tribunal to affirm that citizens possess a lawful right to record police activity so long as they do not interfere with or obstruct an officer. The issue has not yet reached the U.S. Supreme Court, indicating that the justices are content to let these precedents stand. “This is big,” Dan Barrett of the ACLU-CT, said successful a property release. “It puts it successful penning that the First Amendment protects our close to grounds the constabulary successful public. This determination is the quality betwixt Connecticut residents being capable to clasp instrumentality enforcement accountable and the constabulary deciding who gets to ticker them work. It’s a triumph for antiauthoritarian oversight.” It is not anti‑police to acknowledge that the Bill of Rights shields Americans who document the public actions of those they rely on for protection and service. On the contrary, transparency and accountability bolster public confidence and lay the groundwork for a steadfast criminal justice strategy in a free society. Mistrust and conspiracy theories thrive in darkness. Nevertheless, vigilance remains essential. “Despite this wide statement successful the judiciary,” C.J. Ciaramella of reason.com observes, “local constabulary officers person continued to apprehension and retaliate against videographers, and the Department of Homeland Security has declared ‘surveillance’ of instrumentality enforcement to beryllium unlawful, extremist activity.” The adjacent measurement is to guarantee that officers and agencies that flout the First Amendment are held financially liable for their actions.