Can You Record the Police in California? Your Constitutional Rights, the Law, and What to Do When Officers Try to Stop You

Can You Record the Police in California?

Yes. Recording police officers performing their duties in a public place – or from any location where you have a legal right to be – is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and explicitly by California Penal Code Section 148(g). Recording alone cannot be the basis for a stop, a detention, or an arrest. Officers who arrest you solely for filming are violating clearly established federal law and may not be entitled to qualified immunity. That arrest is a federal civil rights case.

Free case evaluation: (949) 474-1849  |  Available 24 hours  |  jerry@steeringlaw.com

Your Phone Is a Constitutional Right – And Officers Know It

In the age of smartphones, nearly every police encounter is a recorded event. Bystanders film traffic stops from the sidewalk. Residents document arrests from their own front porches. Protesters livestream crowd control in real time. Citizens capture what police reports later describe very differently.

This has changed police accountability in ways that forty years of civil rights litigation alone could not. Video evidence has exposed misconduct that would have been buried in a police report, exonerated innocent people facing fabricated resistance charges, and created the factual record that defeats qualified immunity defenses in federal court.

The question I hear constantly from clients is: Was I allowed to record? And when the officer told me to stop – did I have to?

The answer is clear. Yes, you have the right. No, you do not have to stop on a legal officer’s preference alone. But how you exercise that right – and what you do when an officer challenges it – can be the difference between capturing powerful evidence and spending the night in jail.

“Officers know the law protecting your right to record. When they arrest you for filming anyway, that is not a misunderstanding of the law. That is a violation of it – and a federal civil rights case.”

The Legal Foundation – Two Sources, Both Controlling

Your right to record police in California rests on two independent legal foundations. Either one, standing alone, is sufficient. Together, they create one of the clearest constitutional protections in police accountability law.

Foundation 1: The First Amendment

Courts have consistently held that recording matters of public interest – including police activity – is a form of protected expression under the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit, the controlling federal circuit for California, recognized this right in Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995), and the right has been repeatedly affirmed in subsequent cases.

In Sandoval v. County of San Diego, 985 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2021), the Ninth Circuit confirmed that there is a First Amendment right to observe and record police activity in public. The right exists regardless of whether you are a professional journalist. Your smartphone makes you the media within the meaning of the First Amendment.

Other circuits have reached the same conclusion – the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have all recognized the right to record police as a clearly established constitutional right. The breadth of this consensus is what defeats qualified immunity arguments: officers across the country have been on notice for years that arresting someone for filming is a constitutional violation.

Foundation 2: California Penal Code Section 148(g)

California has codified this protection by statute – and in 2023, strengthened it further. California Penal Code Section 148(g) states explicitly that photographing or making an audio or video recording of a public officer or peace officer while the officer is in a public place – or the person recording is in a place they have the right to be – does not, by itself, constitute:

• A violation of PC Section 148(a)(1) (resisting, delaying, or obstructing an officer)
• Reasonable suspicion to detain the person recording
• Probable cause to arrest the person recording

In 2023, the California Legislature reinforced this further by adding California Penal Code Section 69(b), which explicitly states that photographing or recording an executive officer in a public place does not, by itself, constitute a violation of PC Section 69 (resisting with force or threats). This codified in the felony statute what Section 148(g) had already established for the misdemeanor: recording is not a crime.

What the Law Means in Plain English The simple act of pointing your phone at a police officer performing their duties in a public place – and recording what you see – is not a crime. It cannot legally justify the officer stopping you. It cannot justify detaining you. It cannot justify arresting you.   If an officer tells you to stop recording and you do not, that refusal alone – without any physical interference, without approaching or obstructing – is protected conduct. Recording is speech. The First Amendment protects it.

Where You Can Record – and Where the Right Has Limits

Your right to record applies anywhere you have a legal right to be. The protected locations are broader than most people realize.

• Public sidewalks, streets, and parks. The clearest case. If you are lawfully on a public sidewalk and police activity is occurring within view, you have the right to record it.
• From inside your vehicle during a traffic stop. You are lawfully in a place you have a right to be. Recording the stop – including the officer’s conduct – is protected.
• From your own property. Your front porch, your driveway, through your window, or from your yard. If you have the right to be there, you have the right to record police activity visible from there.
• Protests, public gatherings, and public spaces. Recording police interaction with crowds and protesters is among the most clearly protected applications of the right.
• Outside government buildings. Police activity occurring in public areas adjacent to government buildings is generally recordable from public vantage points.

Where the right has limits: Areas where police have a legitimate safety perimeter may require you to maintain a greater distance. But distance is not elimination. You can record from where officers can lawfully direct you to stand. The right to record survives a reasonable distance order. It does not survive a complete prohibition.

California’s Two-Party Consent Law Does Not Apply to Police in Public

California Penal Code Section 632 generally requires all parties to consent to the recording of a confidential communication – a conversation in which the parties have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy. This law does not apply to recording police officers in public.

Officers performing their duties in public have no reasonable expectation of privacy in those actions. Their conduct is public, governmental, and subject to public accountability. Recording a traffic stop, a use-of-force incident, or an arrest in public is not the interception of a confidential communication – it is documentation of a public act by a public official.

What You Can Do and What Police Cannot Do – Quick Reference

The law is clear. Here is the practical summary.

You CAN	Police CANNOT
Record from a safe distance (10-15 feet from active situations)	Order you to stop recording solely because they dislike being filmed
Record from inside your vehicle during a traffic stop	Detain you based solely on the fact that you are recording
Record from your own property – front porch, driveway, or through a window	Arrest you based solely on the fact that you are recording
Continue recording even if an officer asks you to stop (absent a lawful order)	Confiscate your phone without a warrant (Riley v. California, 2014)
State that you are exercising your First Amendment rights	Search your phone’s contents without a warrant (Riley v. California, 2014)
Refuse to unlock your phone or consent to a search	Demand you unlock your device without proper legal authority
Livestream or auto-backup to cloud storage in real time	Delete your recordings or photos – this is destruction of evidence
Request body camera footage through a CPRA request	Impose content-based restrictions on what you can record

Every item in the Police Cannot column, if violated, is a potential civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. An arrest solely for recording is a false arrest. A phone seizure without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment. Deletion of your recording is destruction of evidence. These are not abstract legal principles – they are federal civil rights violations that my firm litigates. See our false arrest page and excessive force page for the full framework.

The Critical Line – Recording vs. Interfering

The right to record does not include the right to physically interfere with police performing their duties. California Penal Code Section 148(a)(1) prohibits willfully resisting, delaying, or obstructing an officer. Recording alone is explicitly excluded from this statute by Section 148(g). But certain conduct during a recording encounter can cross the line.

Conduct That May Constitute Interference

• Standing so close to an active arrest or use-of-force situation that officers cannot safely maneuver
• Refusing a specific, safety-based order to step back – as opposed to a general order to stop recording
• Physically touching officers, their equipment, or their subjects during the recording
• Using lights or flashes that impair officers’ vision during an active confrontation
• Blocking officers’ physical access to a suspect or crime scene

Conduct That Is Protected

• Recording from a safe distance – courts have generally found 10 to 15 feet reasonable for non-active situations
• Holding your phone visibly and continuously recording
• Verbally stating that you are exercising your First Amendment rights when questioned
• Continuing to record after an officer asks you to stop, as long as you are not physically interfering

The practical principle: distance and non-interference. Officers cannot turn a distance order – ‘step back’ – into a prohibition on recording. They can establish a safety perimeter. They cannot use that perimeter as a pretext to prevent documentation of their conduct.

What the Courts Have Said – Albanese v. City of Oroville

The clearest recent example from California federal courts is Albanese v. City of Oroville, No. 2:22-cv-1131-KJN (E.D. Cal. 2022). The plaintiff was recording officers from approximately 20 feet away – behind a hedge – when he was arrested for obstruction under PC 148(a).

The court denied the motion to dismiss. The court held that California law does not permit arrest for obstruction solely because a person records law enforcement officers. The court further found that the law protecting this right was clearly established, meaning officers who violated it could not invoke qualified immunity to escape civil liability.

What Albanese Confirms First: Recording alone cannot legally justify an obstruction arrest. Officers cannot bootstrap a recording into a PC 148(a) charge by claiming the act of filming constituted obstruction.   Second: The law protecting this right is clearly established under qualified immunity analysis. Officers who arrest someone for recording – without genuine interference – can be held personally liable under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.   Third: Albanese adds to existing Ninth Circuit and California case law. The right to record has been clearly established for decades.

If You Were Arrested for Recording Police – You May Have a Civil Rights Case

An arrest made solely because you were filming police is a false arrest – a violation of your Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure. If the arrest was also in retaliation for your exercise of First Amendment rights, you have a separate First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. These are not mutually exclusive – and together they constitute a strong civil rights case.

The Contempt of Cop connection: Officers who arrest people for recording them are executing a Contempt of Cop arrest – using the criminal justice system to punish protected conduct. The arrest for recording is typically accompanied by a PC 148(a)(1) or PC 69 charge. Both of those charges are legally indefensible as applied to pure recording conduct, and – if challenged and defeated – leave the officer fully exposed to civil liability.

See my detailed breakdown of the Contempt of Cop mechanism at steeringlaw.com, and the specific analysis of PC 148(a)(1) at steeringlaw.com.

The Guilty Plea Trap – Do Not Accept a Plea to the Recording Arrest Charges If you were arrested for recording police and charged with PC 148 or PC 69, do not accept a plea without first consulting a civil rights attorney.   Under the Heck v. Humphrey doctrine, a guilty plea to a resisting arrest charge can permanently bar your civil rights lawsuit for the underlying false arrest and First Amendment retaliation. Just making it go away with a misdemeanor plea can make the civil rights case go away too – permanently.   These two cases – the criminal defense and the civil rights lawsuit – must be planned together from the beginning. My firm handles both.

If Police Take Your Phone or Delete Your Recording

The Fourth Amendment protects you from unreasonable searches and seizures. In Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), the Supreme Court held unanimously that police must obtain a warrant before searching the digital contents of a cell phone. The Court was explicit: cell phones contain the privacies of life and require full Fourth Amendment protection.

In practice, this means:

• No warrant, no phone search. An officer cannot search through your phone’s photos, messages, or content during an arrest or detention without a warrant. State clearly that you do not consent to any search.
• Phone seizure requires either a warrant or exigent circumstances. Officers can potentially seize a phone as evidence if they have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime – but they cannot search it without a warrant. Your recording of their misconduct is not evidence of your crime.
• Deletion of your recording is destruction of evidence. An officer who deletes your recording has destroyed evidence of potential government misconduct. This supports both a civil rights claim and a spoliation argument in litigation.
• Livestreaming and cloud backup protect your footage. If you are livestreaming or automatically backing up to cloud storage, your footage may survive even if your physical phone is seized. Setting up automatic cloud backup before you are ever in a position where you might record police is one of the most practical evidence-preservation steps available.

If your phone is seized or your recording deleted, document exactly what happened immediately: the officer’s name and badge number, what they said, what they did with the phone, and the exact sequence of events. Write it down within hours. That contemporaneous account is evidence.

Why Your Recording Can Win a Civil Rights Case

I have litigated police misconduct cases for forty years. Here is what video evidence does in court that nothing else can.

It Contradicts the Police Report

Police reports are written after the fact, with knowledge of what needs to be justified. They describe the officer’s conduct as reasonable and the civilian’s conduct as threatening or resistant – regardless of what actually happened. Video shows what actually occurred: the distance, the words spoken, who moved first, where the hands were, what level of force was used, and when. In case after case, body camera and citizen recordings have directly contradicted what the police report said happened.

It Defeats Qualified Immunity

Qualified immunity protects officers from civil liability unless they violated a clearly established constitutional right. Video establishes precisely what the officer did and what the circumstances were – eliminating the ambiguity that officers rely on when asserting qualified immunity. When video shows an officer using force against an obviously compliant subject, it is far harder to argue that a reasonable officer in the same situation would not have known the conduct was unconstitutional. See my analysis of qualified immunity for the full framework.

It Exposes False Resistance Charges

When officers charge someone with obstruction or resisting arrest to cover an arrest made for recording, video often shows exactly what happened – a person standing at a distance, filming. Nothing more. That footage, combined with PC Section 148(g) and Ninth Circuit clearly established law, dismantles the prosecution and builds the Section 1983 case simultaneously. See the full analysis in my blog on how police use resistance charges to justify excessive force.

It Establishes Monell Patterns

Video does not just win individual cases – it reveals institutional patterns. When multiple recordings show officers from the same department using the same tactics to stop bystanders from filming, those recordings support a Monell claim against the department for a policy or custom of First Amendment retaliation. The individual case becomes the predicate for institutional accountability.

Arrested or Harassed for Recording Police in Southern California? (949) 474-1849 – Available 24 Hours a Day Free Case Evaluation – No Fee Unless We Recover jerry@steeringlaw.com  |  steeringlaw.com/free-case-evaluation Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering  |  4063 Birch Street, Suite 100  |  Newport Beach, CA 92660 Suing the Police in Southern California Since 1984

What to Do When an Officer Tries to Stop You From Recording

This is a situation that requires calm, clear thinking. How you respond determines both your immediate safety and the quality of the evidence you are capturing.

• Stay calm. Do not escalate. An officer who is violating your rights by ordering you to stop filming is doing exactly what I have spent forty years suing police for. Your response in the moment should be calm and clear – not aggressive. The confrontation you want happens in federal court, not on the street.
• State your rights clearly and once. Say: ‘I am exercising my First Amendment right to record police performing their duties in public. California Penal Code Section 148(g) protects my right to record.’ Say it once, calmly, and continue recording.
• Comply with specific distance orders – continue recording. If ordered to step back for a legitimate safety reason, step back. Do not stop recording. Complying with a distance order does not mean surrendering the recording.
• Keep your hands visible. Hold your phone where the officer can see it is a phone. Avoid reaching toward your body suddenly or making movements that could be misinterpreted.
• Do not physically resist if you are arrested. If an officer arrests you for recording – which is an unlawful arrest – comply physically. Do not resist. The unlawful arrest becomes your civil rights case. Physical resistance becomes an additional charge that complicates everything.
• Do not consent to a phone search or unlock your device. State clearly: ‘I do not consent to a search of my phone.’ This preserves your Fourth Amendment challenge to any subsequent search.

After the incident: Document the officer’s name, badge number, and unit immediately. Write down the exact sequence of events while your memory is fresh. Note any witnesses. Check whether your footage was backed up to cloud storage. Then call a civil rights attorney – and see our complete guide.

The Six-Month Deadline – If You Were Arrested for Recording If you were arrested for recording police in California and want to pursue a civil rights claim against the city, county, or public agency, you must file a government tort claim under California Government Code Section 911.2 within six months of the incident.   Miss this deadline and your state law claims are permanently barred. Federal Section 1983 claims have a two-year statute of limitations, but the six-month government claim is the trap that destroys most cases before they are ever filed.   Do not wait to see how the criminal case resolves. The civil deadline runs regardless of the criminal proceedings. Call a civil rights attorney immediately.

Getting the Official Footage – Body Camera and CPRA Requests

Your recording is powerful. But you may also have the right to obtain official body camera and dashcam footage through the California Public Records Act (CPRA).

Under California Government Code Sections 832.7 and 832.8, and California Penal Code Section 832.18, law enforcement agencies are required to make available to the public recordings of critical incidents – including officer-involved shootings and uses of force causing death or serious bodily injury – subject to limited exceptions for active criminal investigations.

The critical caveat: body camera footage is often overwritten after 30 to 90 days without a preservation hold. The moment you are involved in or witness a use-of-force incident, your attorney should immediately send a spoliation letter demanding preservation of all footage. CPRA requests should follow – but preservation comes first.

Agencies may delay release if disclosure would substantially interfere with an active criminal or administrative investigation. Courts have held that when footage is released, agencies must provide sufficient context to allow the public to fully understand what occurred – not just seconds surrounding the critical moment.

Serving Southern California – First Amendment Retaliation Cases

My firm handles First Amendment retaliation claims – arrests made in response to protected recording activity – throughout Southern California: Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, San Diego County, Ventura County, and Kern County.

Officers in every one of these jurisdictions have attempted to stop people from recording. In many cases, those attempts were followed by bogus PC 148 or PC 69 charges. In cases I have handled, those charges were defeated and the officers held civilly accountable. See our case results for what these cases look like when pursued to conclusion.

Frequently Asked Questions – Recording Police in California

Your Smartphone Is One of the Most Powerful Accountability Tools We Have – Use It

In forty years of civil rights litigation, I have seen what video evidence does to a police misconduct case. It contradicts the police report. It defeats qualified immunity. It exposes false resistance charges. It builds institutional Monell claims that go beyond the individual officer to the department that trained and protected them.

California law is clear. You have the right to record. Officers who arrest you for exercising it are violating clearly established federal law. That violation is a civil rights case.

But your right only protects you if you know how to exercise it – calmly, at a distance, without physical interference – and if you act quickly enough when it is violated to preserve the civil claim.

Fight back. Vindication is the goal.

Call for a Free Case Evaluation – Available 24 Hours (949) 474-1849 jerry@steeringlaw.com  |  steeringlaw.com/free-case-evaluation Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering 4063 Birch Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Suing the Police in Southern California Since 1984

About the Author – Jerry L. Steering

Jerry L. Steering is a civil rights attorney and police misconduct specialist who has been suing the police in California since 1984. His practice covers First Amendment retaliation, false arrest for recording police, excessive force, malicious prosecution, and Section 1983 civil rights violations throughout Southern California. Notable results include a $2.9 million settlement against the City of Anaheim, a $1.3 million settlement against Riverside County, and an $800,000 jury verdict against Garden Grove. He has appeared on NBC Dateline with Lester Holt and ABC Good Morning America with Diane Sawyer. View Attorney Profile

Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering  |  4063 Birch Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660  |  (949) 474-1849  |  Available 24 Hours  |  jerry@steeringlaw.com

Legal citations and primary sources:

• California Penal Code Section 148(g) – Recording police does not constitute obstruction  |  leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
• California Penal Code Section 69(b) (2023) – Recording does not constitute resisting executive officer  |  leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
• California Penal Code Section 632 – Two-party consent; does not apply to police in public  |  leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
• 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 – Federal civil rights statute  |  law.cornell.edu
• California Government Code Sections 832.7-832.8 – Body camera footage disclosure  |  leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
• California Government Code Section 911.2 – Six-month government tort claim deadline  |  leginfo.legislature.ca.gov