Can You Film Inside a Police Station Lobby? The Right to Record Police Explained

The general rule: recording police in public is protected

The federal appeals courts have built this right case by case:

• Ninth Circuit, Fordyce v. City of Seattle (1995): recognized a First Amendment right to film matters of public interest on public streets.
• Eleventh Circuit, Smith v. City of Cumming (2000): protected the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, including recording.
• First Circuit, Glik v. Cunniffe (2011): upheld the right to record police on Boston Common, subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.
• Seventh Circuit, ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez (2012): blocked enforcement of Illinois' eavesdropping law against people openly audio recording police in public.
• Third Circuit, Fields v. City of Philadelphia (2017) and Fifth Circuit, Turner v. Driver (2017): recognized the right to record police in public.
• Tenth Circuit, Irizarry v. Yehia (2022): held that the right to film police performing their duties in public was clearly established, in a case where an officer obstructed a journalist filming a traffic stop.
• Fourth Circuit, Sharpe v. Town of Winterville (2023): held that livestreaming a police traffic stop is protected speech, while noting that officers may still have legitimate safety interests.

The common thread is public places: streets, sidewalks, parks and other open spaces, where the public has traditionally been free to watch officials work.

Why a police station lobby is different

When people film on government property, courts use what is called forum analysis. Traditional public forums such as streets and parks get the strongest protection. Many government buildings, including offices, courthouses and police stations, are treated as nonpublic or limited forums. In those spaces, the government can usually set rules that are reasonable in light of the building's purpose and viewpoint neutral, meaning they do not target a particular message or speaker.

Police departments point to concrete reasons for lobby rules: victims of domestic violence or sexual assault come to report crimes, witnesses and informants may be present, undercover officers pass through, and security layouts are sensitive. Courts have taken those interests seriously.

The 2026 New York ruling: Reyes v. City of New York

New York passed state and city Right to Record Acts in 2020 (Civil Rights Law § 79-p and NYC Administrative Code § 14-189), giving people a statutory right to record police activity. The laws do not say where that right applies.

SeanPaul Reyes, a self-described independent journalist, recorded in the public lobby of an NYPD precinct in Brooklyn despite signs and warnings about the department's policy banning video recording in its facilities. He was arrested for trespass and held for about six hours; the charge was later dropped. He sued, and a federal district court granted a preliminary injunction based on the Right to Record laws, while finding him unlikely to succeed on his First Amendment claim under forum analysis at that stage. The Second Circuit asked New York's Court of Appeals to interpret the state and city laws.

On June 23, 2026, the Court of Appeals unanimously held that neither law gives a right to record police activity inside publicly accessible stationhouse lobbies. The court relied on the laws' legislative history, which focused on recording in public spaces such as streets and sidewalks, and on privacy and safety concerns for crime victims, witnesses and undercover officers. The Second Circuit later vacated the injunction.

The ruling is about New York's statutes. It does not decide the First Amendment question for the whole country, and other states' laws and courts may treat lobbies differently. But it is a clear signal of how courts are likely to approach stationhouse filming.

"First Amendment audits" and how they go wrong

Some people visit police stations, town halls and post offices specifically to film and test staff reactions, then post the videos online. These are often called "First Amendment audits." The legal risk usually does not come from holding a camera. It comes from what happens next:

• Trespass: if a lawful policy bans recording and you are told to stop or leave, refusing can lead to a trespass arrest, as in Reyes.
• Obstruction or interference: getting too close, blocking officers, or ignoring lawful orders at a scene can be charged separately, even where recording itself is protected.
• Restricted areas: going past the public counter or into secure areas is a different matter from standing in a lobby.
• Audio and wiretap laws: some states require all-party consent for recording private conversations. Open recording of police in public has generally been protected, but secret recording raises different issues.

Practical guide: filming police without getting arrested

1. Outdoors in public, you can generally record police doing their jobs. Keep a reasonable distance, do not interfere, and comply with lawful orders to move back.
2. Inside a station, look for posted rules. If you are told recording is not allowed, you can stop, or leave and record from the public sidewalk outside.
3. Do not hand over or unlock your phone just because you are asked. Officers generally need a warrant to search a phone's contents; the Supreme Court said so in Riley v. California (2014).
4. If you are arrested, stay calm, do not resist, and ask for a lawyer. Our guide to your rights at a police station covers what to say.
5. Need footage you did not record? Public records laws may let you request police or transit video; see our guide to FOIA requests for surveillance footage.

Sources

• Reyes v. City of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 03914 (N.Y. June 23, 2026)
• Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011); ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012); Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2000)
• Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2017); Turner v. Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017); Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282 (10th Cir. 2022); Sharpe v. Town of Winterville, 59 F.4th 674 (4th Cir. 2023)
• Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014)

This article is general legal information, not legal advice. StationLaws.com is an independent legal information website, not a law firm. Rules on recording differ by state and by building; consult a licensed attorney in your state about a specific situation.