Police Officer Threatens To Run Over Protester for Filming on the Sidewalk
The city of Allentown has spent more than $2 million settling excessive force claims, and yet the police still crack down on civilians exercising their constitutional rights.

As longtime Reason readers are aware, police officers often don't like to be filmed by the public.
Recently, an officer in Pennsylvania got so fed up with being recorded that he drove his car on the sidewalk and threatened to run over a civilian, for the offense of filming on public property.
Courts have broadly held that civilians may legally record the police, so long as they don't physically interfere with officers doing their job. Even so, some officers chafe at the extra scrutiny: In recent years, officers have played copyrighted music in an attempt to keep the videos from being shared online. While underhanded, this is at least a relative improvement over the alternative, when officers would simply grab the phones from people's hands and arrest or pepper-spray them.
Between 2015 and 2021, the city of Allentown, Pennsylvania, paid out more than $2 million to settle 14 cases of excessive force by the police. Some of those cases involved police hostility to civilians doing nothing more than filming.
In October 2014, Allentown police arrested a college student, punching and tasing him in the process, for not providing his name even after they had taken his ID; they then arrested Eli Heckman, who was recording the arrest nearby, and smashed his phone. The city later settled with each of them, paying the student $95,000 and paying Heckman $45,000.
Unfortunately, it seems Allentown's police haven't learned their lesson.
Phil Rishel started recording Allentown officers with his cell phone as a form of protest in 2023, often while standing on the sidewalk outside the precinct. Things came to a head one day in March 2024, as Rishel filmed near the parking garage. In a video Rishel shot that day, an officer—later identified as Dean Flyte—can be seen walking out to the sidewalk and, without speaking, ostentatiously orienting himself toward a posted sign that reads, "Private Property, No Trespassing," before going back into the parking garage.
"That's a nice sign," Rishel snarks. "Too bad it doesn't apply to the public sidewalk."
This apparently did not sit well: Minutes later, Flyte gets into his police cruiser and leaves the parking garage near where Rishel is filming—even cutting a turn too sharply and sideswiping the building in the process. In the video, Rishel howls with laughter, but Flyte then drives onto the sidewalk, bearing down on Rishel while blaring his siren. Rishel backs up but keeps filming; even when Flyte reaches a pole and can't keep going, he goes to the trouble of backing up and driving around the obstruction and back onto the sidewalk so he can continue his pursuit.
Flyte later exited the vehicle and went inside the precinct, returning with a supervisor, Sergeant Christopher Stephenson. Flyte threatened to arrest Rishel for loitering if he kept recording, and Stephenson agreed, saying Rishel's "antics are well known."
When Rishel returned the following day, Stephenson confronted him again. "I warned you yesterday not to come back and do this shit," he says on video. Rishel says he's protesting on a public sidewalk, to which Stephenson replies, "You're not protesting, you're being a nuisance….One person isn't a protest." He later adds, "You're not saying anything, you're not doing anything; filming is not a First Amendment right" and "is not observed by Pennsylvania law" as a protected form of speech.
This is nonsense: In 2017, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals held in Fields v. City of Philadelphia that "under the First Amendment's right of access to
information the public has the commensurate right to record—photograph, film, or audio record—police officers conducting official police activity in public areas." That case involved the Philadelphia Police Department, whose "official policies," the court noted, "recognized that '[p]rivate individuals have a First Amendment right to observe and record police officers engaged in the public discharge of their duties.'"
Besides, no police officer has the authority to decide what does and does not constitute a protest—if he did, it would render the First Amendment meaningless, as any officer could just say a protest didn't count.
Still, Stephenson cited Rishel for disorderly conduct and loitering—though it's hard to imagine anything more disorderly than driving onto a sidewalk and blaring a siren while threatening to run somebody down in your car.
This week, Rishel filed a lawsuit against the city of Allentown, as well as Flyte and Stephenson in their individual capacities. (Flyte retired from the department in December 2024.) Rishel seeks declarative injunctions stating that civilians may record police from public property without harassment, as well as damages against all three defendants. He is being represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). "Citizens trying to hold police officers accountable should not be punished," FIRE attorney Zach Silver said in a statement. "Public officials, including police officers, must uphold the law and respect citizens' right to record police and to use harsh language, not bully them into silence."
Sadly, it seems the Allentown Police Department is sorely in need of reform. Earlier this year, a local TV station reported on allegations of corruption within the department, including theft by vice officers.
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
And we’re filming here in Allentown…
It will take a city going bankrupt from these lawsuits before the voters realize that law enforcement officers need to obey the law. Unfortunately ICE can't easily be sued.
I would guess a lot of voters already know the officers need to obey the law. The question is when will the officers understand.
Saying the police have to follow the law is anti-police, leftist propaganda. If you insist police follow the law, the terrorists win.
I guess the former POTUS ordering the intel community to fabricate a pretense for impeaching his successor is too local
No, but it is completely batshit crazy.
Easily? Near impossible, unless your name is Bivens.
Sounds like both sides are utterly useless cunts.
Probably. But the side with the legal monopoly on lethal force needs to be held to the higher standard.
But only one side pretends that they are upholding the law. If you trust the police to follow the law, you are a fool.
Many local police departments should be shut down, with their law enforcement responsibilities transferred to counties directed by elected sheriff's. It's not perfect but it works better than current local police departments allowed to run amok barely supervised at all by weak mayor's and city councils.
Better: private security provided by insurance companies.
Even less accountable fake police would make it worse.
Is that why some liberals chose private security?
Less accountable? ROTFLMAO
With private security, the "bad apples" can be sued individually and be held personally accountable, as well as their employers. Furthermore, market competition would ensure the the worst actors (individuals and firms) don't get hired and/or don't stay in business long.
Contrast that to our current system where bad actors are
neververy rarely held accountable because of Qualified Immunity. And when the firms that hire these bad actors (i.e. local police departments) are held accountable, the taxpayers pay the bill not the Police Departments. Elected police officials may sometimes suffer come reelection time, but rarely held to any actual account. And that doesn't even include the Police Unions' protecting bad actors.Sheriff's departments have an even higher rate of officer involved violent incidents against civilians. What you need is more training and more manpower and fewer police unions. Police unions allow bad officers to escape accountability. Derek Chauvin would never have killed George Floyd if he had been off the streets like the Minneapolis PD wanted. Instead, a government union protected him which led to all of the violence of 2020.
FIFY
I'm sure AT will excuse what the officer did. He always does.
Yea, I'm kinda over the ACAB antics.
Go ahead and crack their skulls.
Officer Flyte would appear to be guilty of assault with a deadly weapon.
Yes, if the protestor had done that to him, he'd be buried under the jail.
Flyte retired from the department in December 2024
And changed his name to Mohammed and was deported back to Europe where vehiclicular attacks are part of their cultural rights?
Stop filming me violating your civil rights, you damned hippie !
Doesn't this cop know you can get a ticket for driving on the sidewalk?
He was protesting; the dash cam was on. Filming in a public space.
QI
Protesting doesn't excuse illegal behavior. If it did, the January 6ers wouldn't have been charged.
Only two million of tax payer money to intimidate who knows how many?
Dirt cheap.
The government should not be in the business of intimidating citizens who are not breaking the law. If someone is breaking the law, by all means lock them up after a trial by jury but if they're breaking no laws, nothing can be done; even about annoying people.
"...officers have played copyrighted music in an attempt to keep the videos from being shared online."
Courts have ruled that shining flashlights into camera lenses in order to ruin the video is a First Amendment violation. It seems logical that playing the copyrighted music would also be ruled to be a violation.
Ah, but see if Youtube blocks your video and prevents people from seeing it, then there's no public outrage. Controlling that is the most important part.