The case arose when Simon Glik filmed Boston, Massachusetts, police officers from the bicycle unit making an arrest in a public park.

The Court ruled that the right to film the police carrying out their duties in public was "clearly established," and that Glik's actions did not violate state law.

However, the court also noted that the right to film public officials was subject to reasonable limitations with respect to the time, place and manner in which the recording was conducted.

This was the first case in which a United States Circuit Court of Appeals explicitly ruled that private citizens have a right to film police officers in public spaces.

[18] In a unanimous decision written by Judge Kermit Lipez, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held that the officers violated Glik's constitutional rights.

The court had "no trouble concluding that 'the state of the law at the time of the alleged violation gave the defendant[s] fair warning that [their] particular conduct was unconstitutional.

'"[25] The court noted that some constitution violations are "self-evident"[26] and the right to film police carrying out their duties in public was clearly established[27] a decade prior to Glik's arrest.

[32] Despite his victory in court, the case had negative repercussions for Glik, an attorney, who had difficulty obtaining employment as a prosecutor while criminal charges were pending against him.

In 2012, a Boston Police Department spokesperson stated that the officers involved in the case stood to face "discipline ranging from an oral reprimand to suspension".

[41] In 2000, in Smith v. City of Cumming, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the First Amendment protects the right of citizens to film the police.

[46] Additionally, the Fifth Circuit ruled in Turner v. Driver (2017) that while the officers were entitled to qualified immunity in that case, the First Amendment protects the right to record police, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.

[60] In an article for the Case Western Reserve Law Review, Gregory T. Frohman wrote that the court's ruling "seemingly laid down a nearly unfettered right for nonthreatening third-party recorders in public places".

[62] Matt Giffin, writing for the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, observed that the case "could play a significant role in solidifying the emerging consensus that citizens have a constitutional interest in monitoring the activities of police officers".

[63] Likewise, in an article for the Cardozo Law Review, Travis S. Triano noted that the Court's ruling emphasized that "Glik’s filming was found to fall well within the bounds of constitutional protections".

[65] For example, an article in the Harvard Law Review noted that the First Circuit's ruling in Glik was evidence of the court's willingness to protect a "vital First Amendment right", but that "the proliferation of body cameras may make civilians feel as if they no longer need to record officers in the field".

[66] Writing for the Florida Law Review, Caycee Hampton criticized the First Circuit for providing "no guidance for determining what situations constitute a 'public space' in which a citizen’s right to film government officials is safeguarded by the First Amendment", and absent such guidance, "citizens who choose to record law enforcement officials risk inviting the same Fourth Amendment violation confirmed in Glik".