The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently ruled that individuals do not have the right to video record law enforcement activities inside the publicly accessible lobbies of police stationhouses. This decision affects the rights of citizens, including SeanPaul Reyes, who challenged the New York City Police Department's (NYPD) policy that prohibited such recordings. The court's ruling is significant as it clarifies the limits of the Right to Record laws in New York.
The case, Reyes v. City of New York, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under docket number 23-7640. The court's decision, issued on August 6, 2026, comes after a preliminary injunction was granted in favor of Reyes, allowing him to record inside police facilities. However, the Second Circuit's ruling vacated that injunction, stating that the New York Court of Appeals had determined that no such right exists under state law.
The parties involved in this case include SeanPaul Reyes, the plaintiff who sought to challenge the NYPD's policy, and the City of New York, the defendant. Reyes argued that the NYPD's prohibition on video recording violated his rights under both the First Amendment and New York's Right to Record laws. The case reached the Second Circuit after the district court granted a preliminary injunction on November 2, 2023, blocking the enforcement of the NYPD's policy.
The Second Circuit found that the key issue was whether New York's Right to Record laws granted individuals the right to video record law enforcement activities in police facilities. To resolve this question, the court certified the issue to the New York Court of Appeals, which accepted the question in September 2025. The New York Court of Appeals ultimately ruled that neither the New York Civil Rights Law nor the Administrative Code of the City of New York provided such a right.
The court ruled, "Does either N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 79–p or Administrative Code of the City of New York §§ 14–189 afford individuals such as plaintiff Reyes the right to video record law enforcement activities inside the publicly accessible lobbies of police stationhouses?" The court answered this question in the negative, effectively stating that the NYPD's policy was valid and enforceable.
As a result of this ruling, the Second Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction that had previously allowed Reyes to record inside police facilities. The court stated that the injunction was based on an incorrect interpretation of New York law. The judges on the panel included Circuit Judges Kearse, Raggi, and Kahn.
This ruling has significant implications for the rights of individuals wishing to record law enforcement activities in New York. It clarifies that the Right to Record laws do not extend to police facilities, potentially limiting the ability of citizens to document interactions with law enforcement in these spaces. The decision may discourage individuals from attempting to record police activities in the future, as they may now face legal repercussions for doing so.
The ruling may also set a precedent for similar cases in the future, as it establishes that police departments have the authority to enforce policies prohibiting video recording in their facilities. This could lead to further legal challenges as individuals seek to assert their rights to record police activities in other contexts.
Looking ahead, the case may not be entirely over for Reyes. While the Second Circuit has vacated the injunction, it has remanded the case for further proceedings. This means that there may still be opportunities for Reyes to pursue other claims, including potential constitutional arguments that were not addressed in this appeal. However, the court did not express any views on how these claims might be resolved.
Overall, the ruling in Reyes v. City of New York underscores the ongoing debate over the balance between public accountability and law enforcement policies. As technology continues to evolve, the rights of individuals to record public officials in the performance of their duties remain a critical issue in the legal landscape.