CYIL vol. 16 (2025)

LENKA SCHEU, ANŽELIKA BANEVIČIENĖ Police officers may argue that bystanders filming too closely hinder their ability to perform their duties. 103 The authors of the videos about police actions might be motivated by a desire for a high number of likes or views, and they may use provocative tactics against police officers, such as aggressive or disruptive behaviour. For example, standing in an officer’s way or placing equipment between an officer and the subject of police activity can easily be considered obstruction of justice. 104 In one U.S. case, the court ruled that the drone’s effective trespassing onto an active crime scene interfered with the police investigation. 105 In such situations, the police can request that the recording be stopped or that the individual move a certain distance away. ‘Bystander videos taken from a reasonable distance are considered “less of a hindrance to legitimate police activity.”’ 106 However, some authors argue that these interference with police action arguments ‘can also be used as a pretext to prevent transparency, particularly in cases where police actions may be questionable or controversial.’ 107 For example, in Lithuania, the police often prevent filming without explanation, especially in sensitive or controversial situations. In the criminal case No. 2K-179-976/2023 of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the convicted person stated that the police officer forbade witnesses from observing his arrest and prevented them from filming. The police officer threatened to detain them and write an administrative violation report if they did not stop filming. The officers wrote an administrative violation report for one of the witnesses for observing the arrest and asking the officers why they were torturing a person. 108 To prevent such misconduct, safeguards should be built into the laws. For example, the safe distance could be indicated. Police may argue that bystanders filming might compromise sensitive investigations 109 or disrupt essential operations. 110 This is particularly true if the officers are acting undercover. Recording them may even compromise the officer’s safety. The fear of being recorded might deter people from seeking help from or giving critically important information to the police. 111 For these situations, the officers can impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions to prevent the conduct. 112 However, restrictions on recording must be carefully balanced with the need for public oversight. Courts have been cautious in giving police broad discretion to prevent recordings. 113 104 McCULLOUGH, K. (2014), Changing the culture of unconstitutional interference: Proposal for nationwide implementation of model policy and training procedures protecting the right to photograph and record on-duty police, Lewis & Clark Law Review , 18(2), 543–[ii], p. 553. 105 Rivera v. Foley, No. 3:14-cv-00196 (VLB), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35639 (D. Conn. 23 Mar. 2015). 106 Higginbotham v. City of New York, 105 F. Supp. 3d 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). 107 CHAUDHARY, N. (2024), The concept and review of right to record police, Nyaayshastra Law Review , 4(2), 1–13, p. 2. 108 Supreme Court of Lithuania, Decision in criminal case No 2K-179-976/2023, 7 June 2023. 109 CHAUDHARY, N. (2024), The concept and review of right to record police, Nyaayshastra Law Review , 4(2), 1–13, p. 2. 110 Ibid., p. 6. 111 COLEMAN, A. J., & JANES, K. M. (2021), Caught on tape: Establishing the right of third-party bystanders to secretly record the police, Virginia Law Review Online , 107, 166–192, p. 177. 112 Ibid. 113 CHAUDHARY, N. (2024), The concept and review of right to record police, Nyaayshastra Law Review , 4(2), 1–13, p. 6. 103 CHAUDHARY, N. (2024), The concept and review of right to record police, Nyaayshastra Law Review , 4(2), 1–13, p. 2.

172