First Amendment Right to Film on Public University Campuses (at Least on Open Quads)

From Chief Judge Sarah Morrison (S.D. Ohio) yesterday in Peace v. Carter:

On the morning of April 25, 2024, protestors against Israel's actions in Gaza and OSU's involvement with Israel gathered at the South Oval (a space on OSU's campus in front of the student union) and set up camping equipment. At approximately 9:30 a.m., OSU police ordered that all camping equipment be removed from the South Oval and the protesters complied. Subsequently, OSU Police Division Deputy Chiefs Eric Whiteside and Dennis Jeffrey determined that the protest violated OSU's University Space Rules ("USR") because it was a continuation of an event that had improper tents. Later that evening, another group of protestors attempted to construct encampments on the South Oval….

Mr. Peace graduated from OSU in 2021. He arrived at the South Oval at approximately 9:57 a.m. on April 25, 2024, and joined with protestors who were expressing their criticism of OSU and Israel in a peaceful and nondisruptive manner. By the time he arrived, protesters had already begun to tear down the encampment; they finished within a few minutes of his arrival.

Within ten minutes of Mr. Peace's arrival, OSU police officers, including Deputy Chief Whiteside, approached the protesters with whom Mr. Peace was standing. While Mr. Peace filmed, Deputy Chief Whiteside told them that the University had determined that their protest was a continuation of an event that had violated the USR by having tents and that the protestors needed to disperse. At no point did Deputy Chief Whiteside tell them to leave the OSU campus or the South Oval. The protestors dispersed and people not involved in the protest continued to use the South Oval as normal.

Mr. Peace walked approximately 150 feet to the south of the original encampment site where he began filming an "arrest squad" of OSU officers under the command of Lt. Alan Horujko. Around 10:17 a.m., while Mr. Peace was filming, Lt. Horujko directed two members of the arrest squad to arrest Mr. Peace for criminal trespassing.

Mr. Peace was detained for the rest of the day, incarcerated, and released on bond that evening. He was charged with criminal trespassing in a complaint signed by Detective Susan Liu but the charge was later dismissed unconditionally.

Because of his arrest, Mr. Peace was fired from his job as a contractor for a delivery service and his application to work for another delivery service was denied….

The court allowed Peace's First Amendment claim to go forward:

 "[T]he First Amendment rights of speech and association extend to the campuses of state universities." Even though the Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit have not determined whether the public enjoys a First Amendment right to record police activities in public places, "[s]even circuit courts have held the public has some right to film police." Based on the body of persuasive authority, this Court "agree[d] that the First Amendment protects the public's right to film police and other government agents subject to reasonable restrictions."

Defendants provide no basis to find as a matter of law that Mr. Peace's alleged conduct filming OSU police officers on the South Oval does not enjoy First Amendment protection. Instead, they argue that "there is no First Amendment right to set up an encampment on public property." That is not what Mr. Peace alleges occurred.

He alleges that he was merely standing with the protestors at the morning encampment site. He claims that the original encampment was taken down shortly after his arrival and that he and the other protestors dispersed when ordered to do so by OSU police. He was standing 150 feet away from the original encampment site at the time of his arrest. While a second encampment was attempted later that evening, that second encampment did not begin until well after his arrest. Assuming these allegations are true, whether the First Amendment provides a right to set up encampments is immaterial to Mr. Peace's conduct….

And the court allowed Peace's wrongful arrest claim to go forward as well, concluding that Peace had adequately alleged that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him for trespass:

"In Ohio, an individual commits criminal trespass by '[k]nowingly enter[ing] or remain[ing] on the land or premises of another' absent 'privilege to do so.'" A "privilege" is "an immunity, license, or right conferred by law, bestowed by express or implied grant, arising out of status, position, office, or relationship, or growing out of necessity." Generally, a person has a privilege to enter and be upon the public areas of public property but a public official or agency that owns or controls public property can revoke that general privilege. Even so, in the context of public property, "a criminal trespass may be inappropriate where, subject to certain time, place, and manner of use restrictions, the defendant is lawfully exercising his or her First Amendment rights to free speech and peaceful assembly."

Defendants argue that the arresting OSU officers had probable cause to arrest Mr. Peace for criminal trespass because "(1) law enforcement officers asked [him] to vacate the area near the planned encampment site and (2) [he] was arrested thereafter while still in the area." But, according to the Amended Complaint, Deputy Chief Whiteside only told the protestors at the morning encampment site (including Mr. Peace) to "disperse" and "and did not at any time tell them they needed to leave the Ohio State Campus or the South Oval." Mr. Peace alleges he was arrested approximately 150 feet away from the encampment site and there are no allegations that OSU officers told him to leave after his dispersal from the morning encampment site. While the evidence may subsequently reveal Defendants' factual arguments, Mr. Peace has sufficiently pleaded facts suggesting that the OSU officers lacked probable cause to arrest him….

Edward Reilley Forman, Helen M. Robinson, John Spenceley Marshall, Madeline Jean Rettig, and Samuel Micah Schlein (Marshall & Forman LLC) represent plaintiff.

Comments

[Stupid Government Tricks]

I have my doubts about how peaceful and nondisruptive the protesters were, or Mr. Peace, if that really is his real name.

On the morning of April 25, 2024, protestors against Israel's actions in Gaza and OSU's involvement with Israel gathered at the South Oval (a space on OSU's campus in front of the student union) and set up camping equipment. At approximately 9:30 a.m., OSU police ordered that all camping equipment be removed from the South Oval and the protesters complied.

Mr. Peace graduated from OSU in 2021. He arrived at the South Oval at approximately 9:57 a.m. on April 25, 2024, and joined with protestors who were expressing their criticism of OSU and Israel in a peaceful and nondisruptive manner. By the time he arrived, protesters had already begun to tear down the encampment; they finished within a few minutes of his arrival.

Especially when he came back three years after graduation to join the mostly peaceful protest which had already been told to tear down their illegal and nondisruptive encampment. I really really doubt it was all that peaceful.

[LISAFdn]

You may be correct about the ultimate outcome, but you misunderstood the court's role at this point in the proceeding. In deciding a motion to dismiss under FRCivP 12(b)(6), the court is obligated to accept the plaintiff's allegations as true and to determine whether those allegations of fact state a claim.

The court determined that if Mr. Peace's claims were true, they would establish that he was arrested without probable cause to believe that he had committed a crime. Judge Morrison said as much: "While the evidence may subsequently reveal Defendants' factual arguments, Mr. Peace has sufficiently pleaded facts suggesting that the OSU officers lacked probable cause to arrest him."

Everything Mr. Peace alleged in his complaint may be utterly false. The time for the defendants to prove that will come later in the proceeding.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Thanks. I had known that, except I didn't realize it was a motion to dismiss. Read it too fast, maybe when my brain coughed at "Mr Peace".

[John F. Carr]

This case shows why layers are overly verbose. If you say "stop" the person will
claim that stopping for a second and resuming is in full compliance with the order. So lawyers say "cease and desist." The campus police need to be taught to use more words. "Leave campus immediately by the most direct route at the highest possible speed and do not return without permission from the Committee on Expulsion."

[Josh R]

I thought the First Amendment permitted the police to require the encampments to be taken down, not to remove people from the campus.

[John F. Carr]

He can't be expelled from campus solely for recording police or saying "From the river to the sea!" He was hanging out at a forbidden encampment when the possibly vague order was given. The order could have been much broader: get out (off campus) and stay out (off campus)! Innocent bystanders belonging to the school community could have the no-trespass order rescinded. A kinder and gentler version of Kill them all and let God sort them out.

[Josh R]

I'm still dubious that the police can order people off campus (let alone ordering them to stay off campus) rather than limiting the order to taking down the encampment and dispersing (as Peace did).

[Drewski]

I think you're right, although to be precise I don't think they can order people to remain off-campus as part of a protest dispersal order. They can designate a route leading off-campus for dispersal, and they can certainly order a person to leave campus for unprotected activity. Homeless people and beggars are removed from campuses pretty frequently.

Police have sufficient institutional knowledge to know how to order protests to disperse from specific areas or along specific routes. Campus police departments in particular were implemented on the notion that they would be particularly trained on and aware of issues common to colleges, such as managing protests. OSU has no excuse for winging it, and should settle this case, fire Whiteside, and investigate what happened to the money they're supposed to spend on training for this sort of thing. I bet it's a lot of money.

[wvattorney13]

According to this ruling it would seem that if anyone is ever ordered to leave public property, he could simply press record on his phone and have a 1A right to stay.

I take his argument that an order to "disperse" without more is not sufficient notice of how far away he has to go and that this particular charge should not result in a successful conviction. But the ruling seems wide open.

[Josh R]

The more I think about it, I doubt the police can issue any dispersion order in this case because the prohibition was on encampments, not presence. In another case where presence is not allowed (e.g., at certain hours), then you have to leave.

But in either case, I'm not following how recording the event has an impact on the analysis.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"According to this ruling it would seem that if anyone is ever ordered to leave public property, he could simply press record on his phone and have a 1A right to stay."

It sounds like that's sometimes the case under Ohio law, according to the case they cited (Cleveland v. Dickerson)

[Longtobefree]

How about this one?
"We will begin pistol practice in 10 minutes. Take what action you deem appropriate."

[y81]

Yeah, they should have done that on January 6. Although hopefully killing one of the protestors will discourage future demonstrators in that venue.

[Allan77]

This case is a strong reminder that recording and sharing what happens in public spaces is closely tied to free expression. Just like journalists or bystanders filming events on a university campus, everyday people today often use their phones and social platforms such as Instagram to document what they see in real time. Videos, stories, and live clips have become modern tools for public awareness, helping others stay informed about protests, campus activity, and community issues. In that sense, filming isn’t just a technical action—it’s part of how people communicate, report, and participate in conversations that matter.

The same idea of control and privacy carries over to how users consume Instagram content. Not everyone wants their views tracked or their activity shown while checking stories. That’s why platforms like Hikaye İzleme have become popular, offering a smoother and more discreet browsing experience. With features that let users quickly search profiles and Hikaye İzleme'de Gizli Hikayeleri Görüntüleyin , the platform gives people the freedom to stay informed without leaving digital footprints. It’s a practical option for those who prefer quiet access while keeping their personal activity private.

Beyond privacy, these tools also improve convenience. Instead of switching accounts, dealing with app restrictions, or being interrupted by notifications, users can focus only on the stories they want to see. This makes browsing faster and less distracting, especially for people who regularly follow multiple public profiles. Whether someone is checking updates, monitoring trends, or simply exploring content casually, a lightweight viewer can make the whole process feel more streamlined and user-friendly.

Storyindir complements this approach by providing another reliable way to explore stories outside the main app environment. Its clean interface and quick loading design help visitors instantly access content, and as an Instagram Hikaye Görüntüleme Aracı , it simplifies both viewing and managing stories in one place. Together, Hikaye İzleme and Storyindir offer flexible, private, and efficient solutions for anyone who wants more control over how they interact with Instagram stories.