On April 19, a federal magistrate ruled that Hamilton County sheriff’s deputies violated the First Amendment when they ordered two people to stop taking photos in the halls of the courthouse.

Vanessa Enoch and Avery Corbin, both African American, were reporting and researching the Tracie Hunter case in the Hamilton County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas. Both Plaintiffs attended the pretrial hearing on June 25, 2014 and were arrested for disorderly conduct for taking photos and recording in the hallway of the courthouse. Other individuals that were also taking photos and recording were not arrested. No evidence existed of the judge giving an order barring recording in the hallway.  The charges against Enoch and Corbin were eventually dismissed.

Corbin and Enoch sued the Sheriff’s Office, claiming their arrest and search and seizure of their iPads were a violation of their right to free speech because they occurred without a warrant or probable cause and in a racially discriminatory manner.

The Court applied a three-part test to determine if the Plaintiff’ First Amendment free speech rights have been violated:

  1. Whether the allegedly excluded speech is protected under the first amendment
  2. The nature of the forum in which the speech was to take place
  3. Whether the government’s exclusion is justified under the requisite standard.

While government entities may regulate the use of its public facilities, they cannot enforce rules that implicate First Amendment rights in a racially discriminatory manner. Limited public forums are limited to certain groups or dedicated solely to the discussion of certain subjects. Government regulation of free speech in this context must be reasonable and viewpoint neutral.

In this case, the court found that the speech was protected under the First Amendment because it protects the rights of both the media and the public to attend and share information about the conduct of trials and the hallways of the courthouse are a limited public forum. While the public has access to the hallways, they are not as open as a sidewalk or park, and judges can limit expressive activities. The court looked at whether any restrictions that were imposed were reasonable and applied in a non-discriminatory manner. The magistrate concluded Defendants had no probable cause to arrest Plaintiffs or confiscate their iPads and cellphones. Therefore, there was no evidence that the suppression of plaintiffs’ speech was reasonably related to enforcing the laws prohibiting disorderly conduct. Also, other individuals were present in the Courthouse hallways and were using recording devices and cellphones in the same manner but were not prohibited from doing so.

The court concluded Defendants violated Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights by detaining them and seizing their iPads.

Fishel Downey regularly provides training for law enforcement agencies to help prevent lawsuits. If you’re interested in scheduling a training session for your team, contact us today at 614.221.1216.