Obama administration says Constitution protects cell phone recordings

[noway2]

Here is a link to an article I came across this morning. I realize that we've discussed this topic several times in the past, but this is the first time the president has weighed in on the matter.
From the article:

The decision to come down on Sharp's side of the argument is particularly significant because the executive branch is ordinarily quick to defend the prerogatives of law enforcement. Although this specific incident involved city police officers, the same reasoning would presumably protect the right of citizens to record and disseminate videos on the conduct of officials in the FBI, DEA, and other federal law enforcement agencies.

The filing is the latest sign of an emerging consensus that the First Amendment protects the right to record the public conduct of government officials with a cell phone.

Also of interests is that elsewhere in the article, is that while the courts are claiming that people have the right to record police they seem also indicate it isn't the 1st amendment that is the basis for this right, though they don't say what it is.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[varob]

Video keeps all parties involved honest.

[Black Knight]

They were probably thinking of the "expectation of privacy". If you are in the public view or in ear shot you have no expectation of privacy. It seems to me that this is what they were thinking.

[mlr1m]

:SNIP:Also of interests is that elsewhere in the article, is that while the courts are claiming that people have the right to record police they seem also indicate it isn't the 1st amendment that is the basis for this right, though they don't say what it is.

I was taught when growing up that the fact something isn't mentioned in the Constitution was proof that it was an individual right. That the founding fathers originally listed only the powers we gave up to the government.
This is no longer an idea that is accepted or taught it seems.

Michael

[Doghandler]

...

Also of interests is that elsewhere in the article, is that while the courts are claiming that people have the right to record police they seem also indicate it isn't the 1st amendment that is the basis for this right, though they don't say what it is.

"the Obama Administration said in a Tuesday court filing. While the city's new training materials acknowledge that it's legal to record the actions of the police, they "do not explicitly acknowledge that private citizens' right to record the police derives from the First Amendment, nor do they provide clear and effective guidance to officers about the important First Amendment principle involved."

Bad writing! Fifteen yard penalty! Loss of rights! Loss of down! Sorry,

What I gather is that the Obama guys are mad at the city guys for not enumerating the 1st Amendment in their arument. Yes? No?