Recording Law Enforcement.

There is no question citizens have the right to monitor law enforcement in the open. Physically interfering with policing is another issue.

When the government wants to preserve its privacy, it may build a fence or close a door—but not ban speech.

U.S. Circuit Judge Myrna Pérez

Massimino v. Benoit (2026)

With the deployment of Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) agents nationwide to finally enforce our border laws, the usual suspects have been screeching about not be allowed to “monitor” their activities. By “monitor,” they mean physically place themselves between an ICE agent and the suspect, block exits from facilities, etc. As I’ve explained to more than a few “legal experts” over my career in law enforcement, recording me with a camera is one thing. Getting close enough it’s threatening, that’s another.

While the Massimino case is a bit different from current events, it makes two relevant points. First, “the 2^nd Circuit Court of Appeals stated civilians have the right to monitor police, as long as they don’t physically interfere or obstruct an officer. Next, police retain qualified immunity, if their actions were seen as legal at the time, even if their acts are overruled later.”

In 2018 Keith Massimino recorded the outside of a police station in Waterbury CT. Officers approached, said it was illegal to do that, and they arrested him. Massimino was charged with obstruction, a case dismissed later.

In 2021, Massimino sued the officers and the city for violation of his 1^st and 4^th Amendment rights. “While the 2^nd Circuit upheld Massimino’s 1^st Amendment rights, it ruled the precedent was not established at the time, so the Waterbury officers retrained immunity. Also, Massimino’s behavior gave the officers probable cause to arrest, voiding his 4^th Amendment claim.”

I have no issue with people wanting to monitor open police activities. I’m on the street, I conduct my investigation publicly, be them traffic crashes, narcotics cases, burglary, robbery, or driving while intoxicated (DWI). However, once the “monitors” decide to get close, things change.

Years ago I pulled over a car driving the wrong way on a one-way street, classic clue of DWI. After the initial interview, I let the passenger go and started my investigation of the driver. The passenger approached with her phone, telling me she would record this. She was less than three feet away. I instructed her that was fine, but it would be from the sidewalk. She refused, I explained this was the only time she would be warned, or she would be arrested. She stood there and I approached with handcuffs in my hand. She got the idea and went to the sidewalk.

Recently a Facebook friend posted on how an ICE facility had established a “First Amendment Zone,” for protestors. It separated the rioters from ICE operations, but allowed them to scream, record, etc. In other words, protest.

The 1^st Amendment guarantees the right to protest. “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Rushing the agents, throwing items at them, standing in front of the gates or moving vehicles to threaten agents or interfere with law enforcement is not “petitioning the Government for redress of grievances.” It’s a crime.

Also a crime, doxing, “exposing private or identifying information on the Internet about an individual or group without the person’s or group’s consent, usually with malicious intent.” I’ve worked with undercover police in my time. They always cover their face to protect themselves and their families. With current ICE operations, the rioters are using face recognition software to identify agents. The only reason would be to threaten them or their families. Again, not a legitimate redress of grievance.

It’s not just rioters. Politicians are proposing laws to prohibit LEOs from covering their face, making doxing easy. Radicals (and some libertarians) are working to interfere with law enforcement.

Not to be forgotten, the 4^th Estate. Classic case is after the shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson MO. The metropolis of 18,000 citizens was flooded with reporters from across the nation.

One “journalist” decided it was in the public’s interest to know where Officer Wilson and his children lived. In the aftermath of the report, Officer Wilson and his family went into hiding. Worthy of a Pulitzer Prize their KSDK St. Louis.

There is no question LEO can be monitored in the public. However, there cannot be tolerance for threatening the agents or their families. When the Sheepdogs fear not only for their safety, but the wellbeing of their families, they will not do their jobs. Cops are out there to enforce the laws and establish order. Lose that, we have anarchy. And we can’t have a mob running our streets and country.

Originally published at A Cop’s Watch.