Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins


United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit Nos. 19-1586, 19-1640 PROJECT VERITAS ACTION FUND, Plaintiff, Appellee / Cross-Appellant, v. RACHAEL S. ROLLINS, in her official capacity as District Attorney for Suffolk County, Defendant, Appellant / Cross-Appellee. No. 19-1629 K. ERIC MARTIN & RENÉ PÉREZ, Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. RACHAEL S. ROLLINS, in her official capacity as District Attorney for Suffolk County, Defendant, Appellant, WILLIAM G. GROSS, in his official capacity as Police Commissioner for the City of Boston, Defendant. APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge] Before Barron, Circuit Judge, Souter,* Associate Justice, and Selya, Circuit Judge. Eric A. Haskell, Assistant Attorney General of Massachusetts, with whom Maura Healey, Attorney General of Massachusetts, was on brief, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee Rachael S. Rollins. Benjamin T. Barr, with whom Steve Klein and Statecraft PLLC were on brief, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant Project Veritas. Jessie J. Rossman, with whom Matthew R. Segal, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Massachusetts, Inc., William D. Dalsen, and Proskauer Rose LLP were on brief, for Appellees K. Eric Martin and René Pérez. Adam Schwartz and Sophia Cope on brief for Electronic Frontier Foundation, amicus curiae. Bruce D. Brown, Katie Townsend, Josh R. Moore, Shannon A. Jankowski, Dan Krockmalnic, David Bralow, Kurt Wimmer, Covington & Burling LLP, Joshua N. Pila, James Cregan, Tonda F. Rush, Mickey H. Osterreicher, Robert A. Bertsche, Prince Lobel Tye LLP, David McCraw, Elizabeth C. Koch, Ballard Spahr LLP, D. Victoria Baranetsky, Bruce W. Sanford, Mark I. Bailen, and Baker & Hostetler LLP on brief for The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press; The American Society of Magazine Editors; Boston Globe Media Partners, LLC; First Look Media Works, Inc.; The Media Institute; Meredith Corporation; MPA - The Association of Magazine Media; National Freedom of Information Coalition; National Newspaper Association; National Press Photographers Association; New England First Amendment Coalition; The New York Times Company; Politico, LLC; Reveal from the Center for Investigative Reporting; Society of Environmental Journalists; Society of Professional Journalists; and Tully Center for Free Speech, amici curiae. Oren N. Nimni and Lauren A. Sampson on brief for Lawyers for Civil Rights, Center for Constitutional Rights, and LatinoJustice PRLDEF, amici curiae. Nicolas Y. Riley and Robert D. Friedman on brief for Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, amicus curiae. * Hon. David H. Souter, Associate Justice (Ret.) of the Supreme Court of the United States, sitting by designation. December 15, 2020 BARRON, Circuit Judge. Massachusetts, like other states concerned about the threat to privacy that commercially available electronic eavesdropping devices pose, makes it a crime to record another person's words secretly and without consent. But, unlike other concerned states, Massachusetts does not recognize any exceptions based on whether that person has an expectation of privacy in what is recorded. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99 ("Section 99"). As a result, Massachusetts makes it as much a crime for a civic-minded observer to use a smartphone to record from a safe distance ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals