Skip to main content

You Have the Right to Record Law Enforcement Officers — Including at the Border


Like many people who live in San Diego, Christian Ramirez, a community organizer and human rights advocate, frequently crosses into Mexico to visit family members. One June afternoon, Mr. Ramirez witnessed male U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers at the San Ysidro Port of Entry inspecting and patting down female travelers, in contravention of agency policy. Concerned that the officers were abusing their authority, Mr. Ramirez took a dozen or so photographs on his cell phone. While doing so, he was standing outside on the United States side of the border and recording publicly visible law enforcement activity — which is protected by the First Amendment. Yet federal officials aggressively accosted Mr. Ramirez, forcibly took his cell phone, and deleted his photographs — effectively interfering with Mr. Ramirez’s constitutional right to record.

The right to record is critical for holding law enforcement, especially CBP officials, accountable for abuses at the border. Recording and documenting interactions with federal law enforcement officers are especially critical tools for over-policed, hyper-surveilled border communities. CBP is the largest law enforcement agency in the United States, and it is also one of the deadliest: Over the past 12 years, more than 200 people have died in encounters with CBP officials, including U.S. Border Patrol agents. For years, CBP tried to prevent the public from documenting the agency’s abuses at and near U.S. land ports of entry. CBP officials would threaten, harass, and assail people who took photographs or recordings of law enforcement activity in public view in outdoor and unrestricted areas near the border.

The ACLU has put a stop to that.

In September 2020, we achieved a landmark settlement in our long-running First Amendment lawsuit, Askins et al. v. DHS et al. In Askins, we represented Mr. Ramirez and Ray Askins, an environmental advocate who CBP officials accosted at the Calexico Port of Entry when he tried to take photographs of idling vehicles in the port’s secondary inspection area. CBP insisted that the First Amendment right to photograph and record matters of public interest exposed to public view from outdoor and otherwise unrestricted areas did not apply to any place the federal government unilaterally designated as “the border.” As a result of our lawsuit, the federal government was forced to concede that there is no border exception to this First Amendment right.

Our settlement has strengthened several protections that will help ensure people who live in border communities or frequently travel across U.S. land ports of entry will be able to fully exercise their right to record:

First, the settlement maintains that U.S. government officials cannot interfere with people’s First Amendment rights to “make and retain photographs, video recordings, or other recordings” of law enforcement activity from a “Publicly Accessible Area at any land port of entry in the United States.” A “Publicly Accessible Area” is defined as “an outdoor area at a land port of entry where a member of the public is permitted to be regardless of whether they intend to cross the United States border.” The settlement thus protects the public’s right to take photographs and other recordings from publicly accessible areas at all land ports of entry in the United States (but not at airports).

Second, the settlement prohibits U.S. government officials from requiring members of the public to obtain prior authorization to record and document at the border. This means members of the general public have a right to record and capture law enforcement abuses they might see at a land port of entry in real time, without worrying about needing the government’s prior consent.

Third, the settlement states that U.S. government officials can’t “unlawfully seize, delete, destroy, alter, or otherwise inhibit any individual’s access to photographs, video recordings, or other recordings taken from a Publicly Accessible Area at any land port of entry in the United States.”

Fourth, the settlement makes clear that taking photographs, video recordings, or other recordings from a Publicly Accessible Area at any land port of entry in the U.S. is not unlawful activity.

Fifth, the settlement does allow U.S. government officials to restrict photography or other recordings in “Restricted Access Areas.” A “Restricted Access Area” is defined as “any area within a land port of entry’s boundaries that is used regularly by the Department of Homeland Security … to process or inspect individuals or vehicles crossing an international border.” This means that U.S. government officials may restrict photography or recording at certain points of inspection, inside port buildings, or in other areas delineated as “restricted access.”

The Askins settlement represents a significant victory in safeguarding the long-established First Amendment right to photograph and record law enforcement — which, in turn, is essential to ensuring that law enforcement officials are held accountable for civil rights violations and other misconduct, including along our borders.

If you believe your First Amendment rights have been violated under similar circumstances, please share your story with us by completing the intake form below:

https://action.aclu.org/webform/help-us-hold-cbp-officials-accountable

What you can do:
Congress: Divest from ICE and CBP
Send your message
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Supreme Court Declined a Protestors' Rights Case. Here's What You Need to Know.

The Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case, Mckesson v. Doe , that could have affirmed that the First Amendment protects protest organizers from being held liable for illegal actions committed by others present that organizers did not direct or intend. The high court’s decision to not hear the case at this time left in place an opinion by the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, that said a protest organizer could be liable for the independent, violent actions of others based on nothing more than a showing of negligence. Across the country, many people have expressed concern about how the Supreme Court’s decision not to review, or hear, the case at this stage could impact the right to protest. The ACLU, which asked the court to take up the case, breaks down what the court’s denial of review means. What Happened in Mckesson v. Doe? The case, Mckesson v. Doe , was brought by a police officer against DeRay Mckesson , a prominent civil rights activi...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Young Singaporean's Guide to Saving & Investing on a Small Salary (2025 Edition)

The Young Singaporean’s Guide to Saving and Investing on a Small Salary Introduction Living in Singapore can feel overwhelming when you’re just starting your career. Rents are high, kopi prices keep rising, and saving on a monthly salary of $2,500–$3,000 might seem impossible. Yet, many young Singaporeans have proven that with the right habits, even a small income can grow into long-term financial security. The key is to start early, be consistent, and leverage the tools available to you — especially CPF, robo-advisors, and smart budgeting. This guide breaks down practical steps you can take to save and invest, even if you’re earning on the lower side. 💰 1. Start with the Basics: Budgeting the 50/30/20 Way If you’re earning $2,800 a month (a common starting salary for many graduates), here’s how the 50/30/20 rule can be applied in Singapore: 50% Needs ($1,400) – rent, transport (MRT/Grab), phone bills, meals. 30% Want...
Post a Comment
Read more

Documents Reveal Confusion and Lack of Training in Texas Execution

As Texas seeks to execute Carl Buntion today and Melissa Lucio next week, it is worth reflecting on the grave and irreversible failures that occurred when the state executed Quintin Jones on May 19, 2021. For the first time in its history — and in violation of a federal court’s directive and the Texas Administrative Code — Texas excluded the media from witnessing the state’s execution of Quintin Jones. In the months that followed, Texas executed two additional people without providing any assurance that the underlying dysfunction causing errors at Mr. Jones’ execution were addressed. This is particularly concerning given that Texas has executed far more people than any other state and has botched numerous executions. The First Amendment guarantees the public and the press have a right to observe executions. Media access to executions is a critical form of public oversight as the government exerts its power to end a human life. Consistent with Texas policy, two reporters travelled t...
Post a Comment
Read more