The Civic Node

DHS Says Recording or Following Law Enforcement 'Sure Sounds Like Obstruction of Justice'

5 min read

Original source

Summary

In a written statement provided to Reason, the Department of Homeland Security Office of Public Affairs said that recording or following federal law enforcement officers “sure sounds like obstruction of justice” — despite seven federal circuit courts having upheld the First Amendment right to record police. A Cato Institute report by David Bier documents dozens of incidents of federal immigration officers threatening, brandishing weapons against, or violently detaining people for following or recording them. Ciaramella concludes this is “one of the most direct public statements yet from DHS articulating a policy that treats following, recording, and revealing the identities of federal immigration officers as illegal activity.”

Key Points

  • DHS’s exact statement (attributed to unnamed spokesperson): “That sure sounds like obstruction of justice. Our brave ICE law enforcement face a more than 1150% increase in assaults against them. If you obstruct or assault our law enforcement, we will hunt you down and you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
  • Seven federal circuit courts have firmly upheld the First Amendment right to record police, subject only to reasonable time/place/manner restrictions
  • 5th Circuit (2017): “First Amendment principles, controlling authority, and persuasive precedent demonstrate that a First Amendment right to record the police does exist”
  • 10th Circuit (2022): Ruled a Colorado man had a clear First Amendment retaliation claim against an officer who prevented filming a traffic stop
  • 2nd Circuit (2023): First Amendment protects holding a sign warning drivers of police activity ahead
  • Houston v. Hill (1987): Brennan opinion struck down ordinance making it unlawful to oppose/interrupt a police officer; the foundational right-to-record-and-criticize-police precedent
  • Cato report by David Bier (Dec 2025): Documents dozens of incidents of ICE officer intimidation against observers; concludes amount of video evidence + DHS memos + leadership statements amounts to “an official, nationwide policy of intimidating and threatening people who attempt to observe and record [DHS] operations”
  • Federal prosecutions for “assaulting and impeding federal immigration officers” have been collapsing — sometimes grand juries declining to indict for lack of probable cause, sometimes US Attorney’s Offices dropping cases after reviewing evidence
  • ICE officers are masking faces, lacking visible ID, driving unmarked vehicles — the operational counterpart to the “obstruction” framing for those who try to document them

Newsletter Angles

  • The “sure sounds like” formulation is the analytical hook — DHS articulates a legal position with the qualifier of someone who knows it isn’t actually a legal position. That’s not a policy statement; it’s a threat dressed as a quote.
  • The “1150% increase in assaults” claim is the deflection — DHS responds to a question about citizen rights by citing officer-victimhood statistics. That’s a structural rhetorical move worth naming, not just one quote.
  • The seven-circuit consensus is the falsifiability test — the right to record federal law enforcement is not a contested or developing area of law. DHS is claiming the opposite of what the actual case law says, in plain English, on the record.
  • Connect to the Bovino “lied about the rock” detail — Bovino’s specific lie was about a use-of-force incident he claimed was provoked, contradicted by video. The DHS position threatens prosecution of the people whose videos contradict officer claims. Same pattern, different layer.
  • The “ICE prosecutions collapsing” detail is the structural counter-pressure — federal prosecutors are running into evidentiary failures so frequently that grand juries decline to indict. That’s the rule-of-law system pushing back on the DHS framing in real time.

Entities Mentioned

Concepts Mentioned

Quotes

“That sure sounds like obstruction of justice. Our brave ICE law enforcement face a more than 1150% increase in assaults against them. If you obstruct or assault our law enforcement, we will hunt you down and you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.” — DHS Office of Public Affairs

“Observing, following, and recording law enforcement are unambiguously protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. They are not obstruction of justice. The right to record helps guarantee justice by ensuring accountability and an accurate record of events.” — David Bier, Cato Institute

“The right to record publicly visible law enforcement activity is a core First Amendment right. It creates an independent record of what officers are doing, and it is no accident that some of the most high-profile cases of misconduct have involved video recordings. The burning question is why ICE officers feel the need to hide who they are and what they do from the public — masking their faces, lacking visible ID, driving unmarked vehicles, and now attacking those who document their activities.” — Scarlet Kim, ACLU

“The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.” — Justice William J. Brennan Jr., Houston v. Hill (1987)

Notes

Source is Reason — libertarian publication; not the wiki’s usual Guardian/PBS sources. The factual claims (DHS statement, the seven circuits, the case citations) are independently verifiable; the framing carries Reason’s libertarian valence which should be noted in any citation. The “1150% assault increase” figure is DHS’s own claim; Reason reproduces it without methodology challenge. For any article using that figure, methodology should be verified against DHS’s source data — large round-number claims of percentage increases without baseline disclosure are typically suspect.

Graph View

Backlinks