Reyes v. The City of New York

Background

SeanPaul Reyes, described in the opinion as an independent journalist, records encounters with police and posts edited videos on social-media platforms. He challenged two NYPD procedures that prohibited members of the public from photographing or recording police activity inside department facilities. The procedures directed officers to order a person to stop recording, order the person to leave if the recording continued, and take enforcement action under trespass laws if the person refused to leave.

Reyes was arrested after recording at the NYPD’s 61st Precinct in April 2023 and again after attempting to record at the 75th Precinct in June 2023. The first prosecution was declined; the opinion states that the prosecution arising from the June arrest was pending when the motion was decided. Reyes sought a preliminary injunction, which is a temporary court order intended to prevent continuing harm before a final decision on the case. He asked the court to stop the NYPD from enforcing the procedures and to require removal of signs stating the recording ban.

Younger Abstention

The City argued that the court should refrain from deciding the motion because Reyes had an ongoing state criminal prosecution. The court rejected that argument. It reasoned that Reyes was not asking the federal court to stop the state prosecution, declare the state criminal charges invalid, or bar enforcement of the statutes underlying those charges. He was instead seeking an order governing the NYPD’s future enforcement of its internal procedures. Because a federal ruling on the procedures would not bind the state court handling the criminal prosecution, the court found that the requested injunction would not effectively interfere with that prosecution.

First Amendment Claim

The court held that recording police officers performing their official duties in public is protected by the First Amendment. It then applied the public-forum doctrine, a framework for evaluating speech restrictions on government property. The court determined that NYPD precinct lobbies are not designated public forums opened for general expressive activity. At most, the court treated them as limited public forums, where the government may impose restrictions on the form or manner of expression if those restrictions are reasonable and viewpoint neutral.

The court found that the NYPD had identified legitimate privacy, safety, and security concerns. Recording in lobbies could capture victims, witnesses, confidential informants, restricted areas, security codes, prisoners, firearms-storage areas, and sensitive information. The court concluded that Reyes had not sufficiently refuted the City’s showing that an outright prohibition on recording was reasonable at this stage. It also found no indication that the procedure discriminated based on viewpoint. Thus, the court found that Reyes had not shown a substantial likelihood of success on his First Amendment challenge.

New York Right-to-Record Laws

The court reached a different conclusion under the New York State Right to Record Act and the New York City Right to Record Act. The state law gives a person not under arrest or in law-enforcement custody the right to record law-enforcement activity and keep control of the recording and recording equipment, subject to exceptions for physical interference and certain crimes involving obstruction of governmental administration. The city law similarly permits recording police activities, subject to exceptions including physical interference with a lawful police function and other lawful restrictions.

The court found that the statutes’ language was clear and did not exclude police precinct lobbies. The City did not dispute that officers interacting with civilians in a precinct are performing law-enforcement or police activities. The City also did not identify a statutory exception covering the NYPD’s complete ban on recording. The court therefore found that Reyes was likely to succeed on his claims under both Right to Record Acts.

Other Preliminary-Injunction Factors

The court found that Reyes made a strong showing of irreparable harm, meaning harm that cannot adequately be repaired with money. Without an injunction, he faced a choice between recording police activity as part of his reporting and risking another arrest. The court also found that the balance of the parties’ interests and the public interest favored an injunction. Although the City showed that recording could create privacy, safety, and security concerns, the court concluded that those concerns did not outweigh the protections adopted in the state and city laws for transparency and accountability in law enforcement.

Because the Right to Record Act claims were sufficient to support preliminary relief, the court declined to analyze Reyes’s claim under the Citywide Administrative Procedure Act.

Disposition

The court granted Reyes’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The City was enjoined from enforcing the NYPD procedures in police precinct lobbies except to the extent enforcement is consistent with the New York State and New York City Right to Record Acts. The City was also required to remove signs inconsistent with the order. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion from the docket.