First Amendment audit
[1][2] Auditors have tended to film or photograph government buildings, equipment, and access control points, as well as any personnel present.
[4] The practice is predominantly a US concept (since the First Amendment is a part of US law), but it has also been seen in other countries, including Australia, the United Kingdom,[5][6] Canada, and Russia.
Frequently, local law enforcement is called and the auditor is sometimes reported as a suspicious person and are often also identified as having been on private property.
[14] In a 2019 Fox News article, one auditor stated that the goal of an audit is to "put yourself in places where you know chances are the cops are going to be called.
[3] Auditors have been detained, arrested, assaulted, had camera equipment confiscated, weapons aimed at them, their homes raided by a SWAT team, and have been shot while video recording in a public place.
[24][25] For example, a document sponsored by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) states that the use of a recording device alone is not grounds for arrest, unless other laws are violated.
[27] They argue that auditing raises awareness of police misconduct and pressures government agencies to train their employees to respect First Amendment rights.
[10] Auditing has been controversial due to the tactics auditors have used in attempting to elicit potential reactions from police officers and private citizens alike.
[28][29] Some auditors yell insults, derogatory language, and vulgarities at police officers who attempt to stop them from recording and insist on identification.
"[42] Following this ruling, the right to film police performing their duties in public is now expressly recognized under the First Amendment in at least the 32 states covered by the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th, and 11th Circuit Federal Courts of Appeal.
In the Cordova case that agency is the Social Security Administration, which had sole authority to establish the time, place and manner of the conditions of use.
[40][59] The United States Supreme Court case of Grayned v. City of Rockford (1972) clarifies and defines the parameters of time, place, and manner restrictions[60] and is often cited when removing First Amendment auditors who are in violation of its guidelines.
[61][62] According to a guide published by the IACP, "verbal criticism and derisive comments made by recording parties or others from a location that has no direct impact on police operations or safety are not actionable by themselves.
"[59] An auditor in San Antonio was prosecuted and convicted of disorderly conduct after an audit where he "chased, jostled and shouted insults at three officers on duty".
The recent case of Craig Hendry v. Vermillion County (Indiana) resulted in Mr. Hendry, a First Amendment Auditor on YouTube, being sentenced to 548 days in jail for encouraging his YouTube subscribers to call, email and otherwise electronically harass governmental agencies in Vermillion County, Indiana.
