green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 12×
93.7 score
G Cite
cited 6× by 5 distinct cases, 2005–2026 · 5 courts ·
…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.
at p. 1333
✓
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
(PS) Brown v. Roseville City School District
the first amendment protects the 25 right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a 26 right to record matters of public interest
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Sarah Molina v. Daniel Book
the first amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Hils v. Davis
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Keup v. Sarpy County
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Collins v. Barela
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
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Irizarry v. Yehia
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
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.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
James P. Crocker v. Deputy Sheriff Steven Eric Beatty
(6×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
the first amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Sharpe v. Winterville Police Department
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
videotaping
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Ray Askins v. Usdhs
the first amendment protects the right to gather information about askins v. dhs 17 what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Western Watersheds Project v. Michael
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.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Gilles v. Davis
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State of Tennessee v. George Harris Patterson, III
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Moises A. Quinteros-Orellana v. Deon T. Clay
See TIncher, 816 F. Supp. 3d at 968 (citing Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 352 (3d Cir. 2017); Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678, 689 (5th Cir. 2017); Gericke v. Begin, 753 F.3d 1 , 7–8 (1st Cir. 2014); ACLU of Ill. v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 , 595–96 (7th Cir. 2012); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000); Askins v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 899 F.3d 1035, 1044 (9th Cir. 2018); Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282, 1289 (10th Cir. 2022)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lana Patrick v. Pasco County Florida Tax Collector
“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.” Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Andrew Sheets v. Kelvin Jimenez
Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bradd Martin v. Wanda Hairston (in her individual capacity), Janet Blue (in her individual capacity), Paul Tine, and The City of Winston-Salem
See Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011); Frasier v. Evans, 992 F.3d 1003, 1021 (10th Cir. 2021); Sharpe v. Winterville Police Dep’t, 59 F.4th 674, 681 (4th Cir. 2023); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Donald Nicodemus v. City of South Bend
Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 82 (1st Cir. 2011); Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 , 359–60 (3d Cir. 2017); Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678, 690 (5th Cir. 2017); Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 439 (9th Cir. 1995); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
HOFFMAN v. DOMICO
In response, Plaintiff contends that he has a right under the First Amendment to “gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest.” Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Donald Nicodemus v. City of South Bend
Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 82 (1st Cir. 2011); Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 , 359–60 (3d Cir. 2017); Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678, 690 (5th Cir. 2017); Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 439 (9th Cir. 1995); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Metz v. State
(2×)
Here, the proposed charge cited to Smith for the proposition that “[t]he 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, subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.” Smith, 212 F3d at 1332.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Molina v. St. Louis, Missouri, City of
Id. (citing Glik v. Cunnife, 655 F.3d 78, 81 (1st Cir. 2011); Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353, 359 (3d Cir. 2017); ACLU of Ill. v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 597 (7th Cir. 2012); Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 439 (9th Cir. 1995); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000)). 5 Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104 (1972).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Project Veritas v. Michael Schmidt
(2×)
Against that backdrop, Wasden reasoned that of government officials in public spaces”); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000) (concluding that the First Amendment protects the right to visually “record matters of public interest”); Ness v. City of Bloomington, 11 F.4th 914 , 923 (8th Cir. 2021) (concluding that the “acts of taking photographs and recording videos are entitled to First Amendment protection”); Price v. Garland, 45 F.4th 1059 , 1071 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Patrick v. McGuire
See id. (analyzing whether the committee’s prohibition was a “time, place, and manner” restriction on expressive conduct);3 Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000) (stating the “First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property” and that this protection is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions); Crocker v. Beatty, 995 F.3d 1232, 1242 (11th Cir. 2021) (citations omitted) (“Smith’s reference to ‘reasonable time, manner and place restrictions’ . . . calls to mind either ‘a trad…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
USSERY v. HOUSTON COUNTY GEORGIA
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
The First Amendment protects an individual’s “right, subject to reasonable time, manner and place restrictions, to photograph or videotape police conduct.” Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Molina v. Michigan, State of
After noting that an individual has a First Amendment right “to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest,” id. at 1121 (quoting Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000)), the court evaluated the ordinance’s restriction in the context of a limited public forum by considering whether it was (1) reasonable; and (2) viewpoint neutral.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ghandour v. CITY OF MIAMI DADE
The Court notes there is a broad principle in this Circuit that citizens have a First Amendment right to photograph or record police, see Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000); but Plaintiff does not cite Smith, discuss this principle, or explain why it applies to this incident with obvious clarity (see generally Resp.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Reyes v. The City of New York
See Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 82 (1st Cir. 2011); Fields v. City of Phila., 862 F.3d 353, 359 (3d Cir. 2017); Sharpe v. Winterville Police Dep’t, 59 F.4th 674, 681 (4th Cir. 2023); Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678, 690 (5th Cir. 2017); ACLU of Ill. v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 597 (7th Cir. 2012)’ Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 439 (9th Cir. 1995); Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282, 1294 (10th Cir. 2022); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re S.J.
See Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282, 1290-1292 (10th Cir.2022); 9 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS Turner v. Driver, 848 F.3d 678, 689-690 (5th Cir.2017); Fields, 862 F.3d at 353 ; ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 596 (7th Cir.2012); Glik, 655 F.3d at 83 ; Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir.2000); Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 439 (9th Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Project Veritas v. Michael Schmidt
(2×)
Union of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 595 (7th Cir. 2012) (“The act of making an audio or visual recording is necessarily included within the First Amendment’s guarantee of speech and press rights.”); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000) (holding that “[t]he First Amendment protects the . . . right to record matters of public interest”). 18 PROJECT VERITAS V.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Clayton Hulbert v. Brian Pope
In fact, the circuits that recognized a right to film 16 USCA4 Appeal: 21-1608 Doc: 66 Filed: 06/14/2023 Pg: 17 of 22 explicitly noted that it “may be subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.” Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678, 690 (5th Cir. 2017) (quotation marks omitted); see Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353, 360 (3d Cir. 2017); ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 605 (7th Cir. 2012); Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 84 (1st Cir. 2011); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pitta v. Medeiros
Other courts that have recognized a right to record have framed it as “specifically, a right to record matters of public interest.” Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000); see also Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 439 (9th Cir. 1995) (acknowledging a “right to film matters of public interest”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Coleman v. City of South Fulton
In , the Eleventh Circuit established that individuals have “a First Amendment right, subject to reasonable time, manner and place restrictions, to photograph or videotape police conduct.” , 212 F.3d at 1333.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Freeman v. Spoljaric
Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 , 82–83 (1st Cir. 2011); Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353, 359 (3d Cir. 2017); Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678, 690 (5th Cir. 2017); ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 , 595–602 (7th Cir. 2012); Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 439 (9th Cir. 1995); Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282 , 1293–94 (10th Cir. 2022); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Metz v. Valenza (MAG+)
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held that there is a “First Amendment right, subject to reasonable time, manner and place restrictions, to photograph or videotape police conduct” and “to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest.” Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
PETA v. Josh Stein
Watersheds Project v. Michael, 869 F.3d 1189 , 1195–1196 (10th Cir. 2017); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
PETA v. Josh Stein
Watersheds Project v. Michael, 869 F.3d 1189 , 1195–1196 (10th Cir. 2017); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
PETA v. NC Farm Bureau
Watersheds Project v. Michael, 869 F.3d 1189 , 1195–1196 (10th Cir. 2017); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Metz v. Valenza (MAG+)
“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.” Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wilson v. Blackford
To be sure, “[t]he 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.” Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000) (citing Blackston v. Alabama, 30 F.3d 117, 120 (11th Cir. 1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams v. City of Athens
Instead, he cites to Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000) for the broad proposition that citizens have a First Amendment right “to photograph or videotape police conduct” in the Eleventh Circuit (Doc. 70 at 17, 23).8 The problem for Williams is that Smith did not apply with obvious clarity to the circumstances in question.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gordon Price v. Merrick Garland
See Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, 982 F.3d 813, 832 (1st Cir. 2020); Fields v. City of Phila., 862 F.3d 353, 355-56 (3d Cir. 2017); Turner v. Driver, 848 F.3d 678, 687-88 (5th Cir. 2017); Gericke v. Begin, 753 F.3d 1, 7-8 (1st Cir. 2014); Alvarez, 679 F.3d at 595-97; Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 , 82- 83 (1st Cir. 2011); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Benny v. The City of Long Beach
This Court notes, however, that the right to videotape is “not without limitations” and “may be subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.” Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 84 (1st Cir. 2011) (citing Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000)); see also Higginbotham v. City of New York, 105 F. Supp. 3d 369, 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (“All of the circuit courts that have [addressed the issue] . . . have concluded that the First Amendment protects the right to record police officers performing their duties in a public space, subject to reasonable time, plac…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gibson v. Goldston
See, e.g., Fields v. City of Phila., 862 F.3d 353 , 355–56 (3d Cir. 2017) (“[T]he First Amendment protects the act of photographing, filming, or otherwise recording police officers conducting their official duties in public.”); Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678 , 689–90 (5th Cir. 2017) (“We agree with every circuit that has ruled on this question . . . the First Amendment protects the right to record police.”); Gericke v. Begin, 753 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2014) (recognizing a “First Amendment right to film police activity carried out in public”); ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hassan v. City of Atlanta
Relevant here, “[c]itizens have ‘a First Amendment right, subject to reasonable time, manner and place restrictions, to photograph or videotape police conduct.’” , 557 F. App’x 857, 863 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting , 212 F.3d 1332 , 1333 (11th Cir. 2000)); , 212 F.3d at 1333 (holding that “[t]he 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”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sharpe v. Winterville Police Department
Liberties Union of IIL v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 595-97 (7th Cir. 2012) (“[a]udio recording”); Glik, 655 F.3d at 79-80, 82-83 (video recording on cell phone); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1332-33 (11th Cir. 2000) (videotaping); Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 438 (9th Cir. 1995) (same).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jacob Clark v. Bernadette Stone
See Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 , 84–86 (1st Cir. 2011) (finding a First Amendment right to film police officers performing their duties in public spaces); Gericke v. Begin, 753 F.3d 1 , 7–10 (1st Cir. 2014) (same); Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353, 359 (3rd Cir. 2017) (same); Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678 , 688–90 (5th Cir. 2017) (adopting Glik); ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 , 595–96 (7th Cir. 2012) (allowing the audio recording of the police in public spaces; Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000) (permitting the filming of police co…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hulbert v. Pope
Their qualified immunity argument is premised only on the first prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, that Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were not actually violated. 862 F.3d 353 , 355–56 (3d Cir. 2017) (“[T]he First Amendment protects the act of photographing, filming, or otherwise recording police officers conducting their official duties in public.”); Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678 , 689–90 (5th Cir. 2017) (“We agree with every circuit that has ruled on this question . . . the First Amendment protects the right to record police.”); Gericke v. Begin, 753 F.3d 1…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dyer v. Smith
The First Circuit acknowledges a right to record government officials engaged in their duties.’ Four other circuits recognize a 6 Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000) (finding “a right to record matters of public interest”); Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 439 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding a “right to film matters of public interest”). 7 See Glik, 655 F.3d at 83 (finding the right to film “government officials in public spaces”). 12 narrower right to record a subset of government officials: law enforcement officers.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins
See, e.g., Alvarez, 679 F.3d at 600 (finding that the challenged eavesdropping statute "burdens speech and press rights" because it "interferes with the gathering and dissemination of information about government officials performing their duties in public"); Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353, 359 (3d Cir. 2017) ("[R]ecording police activity in public falls squarely within the First Amendment right of access to information."); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000) (recognizing the First Amendment "right to gather information about what public officials do on…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Index Newspapers LLC v. United States Marshals Service
See Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 , 359–60 (3d Cir. 2017); Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678, 688 (5th Cir. 2017); Gericke v. Begin, 753 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2014); ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 600 (7th Cir. 2012); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James Soloman SMITH, Jr., Barbara Smith, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CITY OF CUMMING, a Municipal Corporation, Earl A. Singletary, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
v.
CITY OF CUMMING, a Municipal Corporation, Earl A. Singletary, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
99-8199.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
May 31, 2000.
Clifford Harold Hardwick, Hardwick & Associates, Roswell, GA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants., Kimberly Houston Ridley, Debra E. Le-Vorse, Freeman & Hawkins, Thomas G. Tidwell, Hawkins & Parnell, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Birch, Barkett, Alarcon.
Cited by 115 opinions | Published
Citer courts: E.D. North Carolina (1)
BARKETT, Circuit Judge:
James and Barbara Smith filed suit against the City of Cumming, Georgia (the “City”), and its police chief, Earl Single-tary, 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[*1333] 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) (finding that plaintiffs’ interest in filming public meetings is protected by the First Amendment); Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 439 (9th Cir.1995) (recognizing a “First Amendment right to film matters of public interest”); Iacobucci v. Boulter, No. CIV.A. 94-10531, 1997 WL 258494 (D.Mass, Mar. 26, 1997) (unpublished opinion) (finding that an independent reporter has a protected right under the First Amendment and state law to videotape public meetings); see also United States v. Hastings, 695 F.2d 1278, 1281 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that the press generally has no right to information superior to that of the general public) (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) (“[I]t is not just news organizations ... who have First Amendment rights to make and display videotapes of events.... ”); Thompson v. City of Clio, 765 F.Supp. 1066, 1070-71 (M.D.Ala.1991) (finding that city council’s ban on member’s attempt to record proceedings regulated conduct protected by the First Amendment); cf. Williamson v. Mills, 65 F.3d 155 (11th Cir.1995) (reversing district court’s grant of qualified immunity to a law enforcement officer who seized the film of and arrested a participant in a demonstration for photographing undercover officers). 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 United States.” Nail v. Community Action Agency of Calhoun County, 805 F.2d 1500, 1501 (11th Cir.1986). Although the Smiths have a right to videotape- police activities, they have not shown that the Defendants’ actions violated that right. We find no merit in the remaining arguments presented in this appeal. AFFIRMED.
1
. Jones and Singletary served together for several months as co-chiefs of police. Later, Singletary was chosen as chief, and when he left Cumming, Jones succeeded him as chief.