A Florida Man Was Arrested for Filming Marion County Sheriff's Deputies. Now He's Suing.
Numerous federal appeals courts have ruled that filming police is protected under the First Amendment, but police continue to illegally arrest people for it.

A Florida man has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit three years after a Marion County sheriff's deputy arrested him for filming officers from a public sidewalk.
In 2021, Marion County Sheriff's Deputy Neil Rosaci arrested George Nathansen and charged him with obstruction of justice for refusing to follow his orders to leave the scene of an investigation. However, body camera footage showed Nathansen standing at least 30 feet away on a public sidewalk before Rosaci walked over and handcuffed him.
In Nathansen's lawsuit, filed last Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, he alleges that Rosaci and the Marion County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) violated his Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights by falsely arresting and incarcerating him.
Numerous federal appeals courts have ruled that filming the police is protected under the First Amendment, but police around the country continue to illegally arrest people for it. The Justice Department released a report this month on pervasive civil rights violations by the Phoenix Police Department, including retaliating against citizens who were trying to record them. Earlier this year, Texas prosecutors dropped charges against a citizen journalist who was arrested, strip-searched, and jailed for filming police.
Nathansen's case is yet another example of police retaliation against someone for core First Amendment activities.
The incident began on July 24, 2021, when Rosaci arrived at the scene of a car crash. While deputies were talking to the two parties involved in the accident, Nathansen arrived and began filming with his cell phone. There are a growing number of self-styled "First Amendment auditors" around the country who record police interactions and post them online. (In response to alleged harassment, several states have passed dubious "buffer-zone" laws that criminalize being too close to a first responder.)
Rosaci's body camera footage, obtained by the Ocala Post, showed that Nathansen was filming near the deputies' cars when Rosaci first shooed him away and told him, "You can stand on the sidewalk over there."
A couple minutes later, Nathansen wandered over to a bench, away from the deputies, where several of the occupants of one of the cars involved in the crash were sitting. Rosaci returned and physically forced Nathansen back onto the sidewalk, warning him that if he interfered again he would be arrested. Nathansen has a disability that inhibits his ability to speak and requires him to use an artificial larynx.
Rosaci and another deputy at the scene mentioned that they'd seen Nathansen before. "He's the one that's trying to start that YouTube channel," the other deputy griped.
Nathansen milled around on the sidewalk, walking back a few steps and then taking another few steps toward the deputies before stopping.
"Sir, do not step back over here again," Rosaci said after Nathansen had stopped. "I'm telling you if you come back in our vicinity I will take you to jail. Step back, step back."
Nathansen did not step back, but instead motioned at the sidewalk. Rosaci walked up to him and handcuffed him.
Watch the full body camera video here:
Nathansen repeatedly asked for a supervisor at the scene, but was refused.
A month later, after the MCSO released the body camera footage, the local state's attorney dropped the charges against Nathansen, saying in a statement to the Ocala Post that, "After review of the body cam video, the actions of the defendant do not support prosecution of the charge."
Nathansen's lawsuit seeks compensatory damages and attorney fees.
The MCSO declined to comment on Nathansen's lawsuit.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Speaking of police, Seattle, Washington, long run by radical Marxists, has no started hiring illegals for their police department…….
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/illegal-immigrant-police-could-soon-fill-beleaguered-ranks-blue-city
We all knew this was coming.
A couple minutes later, Nathansen wandered over to a bench, away from the deputies, where several of the occupants of one of the cars involved in the crash were sitting.
That's where he messed up. Don't do that. Not while the cops are sorting things out.
Nathansen has a disability that inhibits his ability to speak and requires him to use an artificial larynx.
Does it inhibit his ability to hear and follow basic, reasonable instructions?
There are a growing number of self-styled "First Amendment auditors" around the country who record police interactions and post them online.
Thanks for not calling them "citizen journalists" like your retard coworkers do.
Why should someone follow instructions if the instructions are not lawful? Police aren’t gods who must be unquestioningly obeyed. They are public servants.
Dude, you're just being a mindless ACAB here.
They allowed him to film. They directed him to a place to do it.
Instead, he started actively interfering with what they were doing. They again asked him to stop, and returned him to a place to film. He then approached their - repeat their - scene again. NOTHING they said to him was unreasonable. He was being a jerk, trying to elicit this result. For clicks.
They were as patient as any cop should be. He kept testing their patience, and finally exhausted it. If anything, you should admire their restraint in not clubbing him.
This is a clear case of FAFO. Was it obstruction of justice? No. But if you think his civil action is going to go anywhere after watching that footage, you're wrong. If this had been a murder with crime scene tape up, it would have been the equivalent of repeatedly crossing it to try and take paparazzi photos.
Their requests were not unreasonable. He was unreasonable.
An idiot with a camera being unreasonable is not a crime.
A police officer using force on someone for failing to obey reasonable requests is.
The key word here is request. No one is under any obligation to comply with requests from the police. Lawful commands are a different matter. Problem is that police don’t see a difference.
Almost everything you’ve written here is actually false. Statutory and constitutional holdings do in fact state you have to comply with reasonable requests especially during active investigative scenes. This includes identification laws under reasonable suspicion.
Cops allowed him to film, but not interfere. Repeatedly.
And this is odd coming from someone who defended Capitol officers killing Babbitt under the guise of a blind shoot.
I didn’t say it was a crime. In fact, I expressly pointed that fact out.
You’re… kinda illiterate, aren’t you. I'm assuming you use voice-to-text to make your posts?
He’s a massive drunken idiot.
You can't have a police state without police.
Generally disruption of an active scene is not lawful. Try kicking evidence, tampering with witnesses, trying to free someone under arrest.
Lawful filming does not require interfering with an ongoing investigation dummy.
There is no reason he can't film away from those involved in a police interaction. Phones and recording devices don't stop working 5 feet away.
So clearly this man was in the wrong and they prosecuted him to the full extent of the law for his misdeeds ... oh wait, after sane people reviewed the evidence: the cops are wrong & all charges are dropped.
Can't have a police state without police.
Charges being dropped doesn't mean he was innocent dumdum. Just like the DoJ letting taxes lapse against Hunter doesn't mean he didn't commit tax fraud dumdum.
Of course. Police never make mistakes. Everyone they charge with something is guilty of course. It's only that pesky Consituation and Bill of Rights that gets on the way. If only we could get rid of that then police could make us all safe.
All charges were dropped against me when I asked for a Jury Trial,the 2 cops got away scot free,
Well now hold on, Belle - they decided that the charge of "obstruction of justice" was not warranted. I, for one, agree with that. I don't see what he was doing as "obstructing justices."
That doesn't mean that he was therefore justified in trampling all over an active police scene, trying to get clicks for his youtube page.
here here!
The copsuckers will always be with us, supporting and defending cops who murder and abuse their power. Interesting that even though the prosecutor found the cops to be in the wrong, you defend them.
More proof that good cops ride unicorns to work.
The only good cops are Capitol officers killing unarmed women.
prosecute the cop
Cops don't get prosecuted,the Department does,but he should be fired.
"Numerous federal appeals courts have ruled that filming police is protected under the First Amendment, but police continue to illegally arrest people for it."
That's all right.
The arrestee can then clean up financially when suing the city, the mayor, the chief of police, the cop's sergeant and the cop(s).
Cops in the story allowed him to film.
This type of misrepresentation hurts the libertarian side. The inability to understand freedom vs defending active interference.
This actually hurts libertarianism. Reason is notoriously bad about choosing which hills to die on.
I’m fully aware of 1st Amendment rights, and I believe in it. But you also need to understand that the evidence of the police is compromised when it is released to the public, and that can often be to the detriment of the victim. It’s a very gray area fundamentally. On one hand you need to keep cops accountable, but you also need to make sure there is not an online video that creates its own truth and makes justice unavailable.
QI for sure, the supremes haven’t found this to be against the constitution before
These Florida man stories just aren't as funny as they used to be.
Cops don't even know the laws anymore,none could,as there are so many in Corrupticut.
The officer should no longer be an officer.
I'd hate to be that cop when nothing happens to him.