State of Louisiana DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20. 80x 94005 BATON ROUGE 70804-9005 NOV 05 2014 OPINION 14-0080 Jaws D. "Boor" Cao, 17-offcers-Local and Municipal La. RS.95:321, 509, Mr. K.P. Gibson ‘An elcid Chie of Poe has the legal author olor est the ie Geveral pub from bringing auclovideo recoring Sevices ito the Chief of Police police department, inciuding the lobby or waiting areas. Under the Fist Crowley Police Department ‘Amendment, however, the Chief should consider whether safety, P.O. Box 436 ‘SecuTy or privacy cotceme warrant the contemplated rescions of the publ’s right to gather information on government actives, Crowley, LA 70527-0436 Dear Chief Gibson: As the elected Chief of Police for the City of Crowley you have requested an opinion of the Attorney General as to whether the Chief of Police, with the Mayor's approval, has the authority to limit or restrict the general public from bringing audio/video recording devices into the police department, including the lobby or waiting areas. The City of Crowley is a political subdivision of the State of Louisiana operating under and governed by the provisions of the Lawrason Act, La. R.S. 33:321 ef seg. The officers of every Lawrason Act municipality are the Mayor, Board of Aldermen, Chief of Police, Tax Collector and Clerk, See La. R.S. 33:381(A). The Mayor is the chief executive officer. See La. R.S. 33:362(B). The Board of Aldermen exercises the legislative powers within the municipality. See La. R.S. 33:362(A)(1). The Chief of Police is responsible for law enforcement in the municipality, enforcement of all ordinances and state laws in the municipality, and all other duties required by ordinance. See La. RS. 33:423(A) ‘The Mayor has the authority to supervise and direct the administration and operation of all municipal departments, offices and agencies, with the exception of a police department with an elected Chief of Police. See La. R.S. 33:404(A). It has been the opinion of this office that the Mayor has the administrative authority to limit access to municipal buildings based on safety concerns. See La. Atty. Gen. Op. Nos. 12-0021 and 09-0288, It has also been the opinion of this office that an elected Chief of Police has the inherent authority to operate, control and administer his office, office equipment and office personnel. See La. Atty. Gen. Op. Nos. 13-002, 09-0013, 02-56, and 98-483. Our office has further opined that an elected Chief of Police has the final authority overOPINION 14-0080, K.P. Gibson Page 2 those decisions regarding the security of the police department, See La. Atty. Gen. Op. No. 09-0288 and Cogswell v. Town of Logansport, 321 So.2d 774, 779 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1975) You state that the members of the general public are bringing audio/video recording devices into the police department premises, making recordings and posting the recordings on the intemet. The recordings are of private citizens who are sitting in the lobby area of the police department waiting to speak !o members of the police department. These private citizens may be victims of crimes, witnesses to crimes or have information necessary to solve crimes. You explained that allowing the general public to bring recording devices into the police department is disruptive to the operation and the security of the police department. You indicated that the Mayor is in agreement that the general public should be limited or restricted from bringing audio/video recording devices into the police department premises. However, any decision with respect to the operation and security of the police department premises is an integral part of the authority of the Chief of Police and would not require the approval of the Mayor. Based on the inherent authority of the Chief of Police and prior opinions of this office, an elected Chief of Police has the authority to make decisions conceming the operation and security of the police department. This authority would include prohibiting the general public from bringing audio/video recording devices into the police department, including the lobby or waiting areas. Therefore, it is the opinion of this office that the elected Chief of Police of the City of Crowley has the legal authority to limit or restrict the general public from bringing audio/video recording devices into police department, including the lobby or waiting areas This authority, however, should be exercised with the First Amendment rights of citizens to gather information about government activities. The Federal courts have held that “the Constitution protects the right of individuals to videotape police officers performing their duties in public.” Gericke v. Begin, 753 F.3d 1, 7 (1 Cir. 2014); iting Giik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 82 (1st Cir.2011). The Gericke panel of the Federal First Circuit, observed further that “[rleasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to film may be imposed when the circumstances justify them. See Glik, 655 F. 3d at 84 (the exercise of the right to film may be subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions); ACLU of Ill. V. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 607 (7 Cir.2012) (reasonable orders to maintain safety and control, which have incidental effects on an individua’s exercise of the First Amendment right to record, may be permissible).” Gericke, 753 F.3d at 7-8. In light of these competing concerns, the federal courts have developed a two part test for right of access claims under the First Amendment. "First, the court must determine whether a right of access attaches to the government proceeding or activity by considering 1) ‘whether the place and process have historically been open to the press and general public’ and 2) ‘whether public access plays a significant positive role‘OPINION 14-0090, KP. Gibson 3 in the functioning of the particular process in question.’ ... Second, if the court determines that a qualified right applies, the government may overcome that right only by demonstrating ‘an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.’ Leigh v. Salazar, 677 F.3d 892, 898 (9 Cir. 2012); quoting Press-Enterprise Co. V. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 8-9, 106 S.Ct. 2735, 92 L. Ed.2d 1 (1986). We would therefore caution you, as Chief of Police, and the town government, as custodian of the public facilities involved, to consider whether safety, security, and privacy concems warrant in your estimation the restrictions being contemplated. We hope that this opinion adequately addresses the legal issues you have raised. If our office can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. With best regards, JAMES D. “BUDDY” CALDWELL ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: alakurs> g Madeline S. Carbonette Assistant Attorney General JDC:MSC;jr