RECORD AWAY – JUST DON’T GET IN THE WAY

June 23rd, 2026

The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the 1^st Amendment Right to Record Cops

The Michigan Court of Appeals recently affirmed the conviction of a so-called “1^st Amendment Auditor” who got too close for comfort with some state troopers during a traffic stop in the Upper Peninsula. The court held that ,while citizens have a constitutional right to record police, that right does not excuse ignoring reasonable safety commands during a traffic stop.

The Case

In November 2022, Garrett Van Net, a/k/a the “auditor” spotted a traffic stop on a dark highway and pulled over to film the events Michigan State Police (MSP) Troopers Tardiff and LaMarche were engaged in a stop and dealing with the driver and passenger of a truck with a defective headlight: that’s when Van Net approached them while recording on his phone.

Trooper Tardiff directed Van Net to stop when he was about 20-30 feet away. Van Net ignored this and advanced to within a few feet of the troopers. He then activated his phone’s flash, shining it directly at the officer’s face. Despite repeated commands to move back and turn off the flash, Van Net continued challenging the officer’s authority. His actions forced the lead trooper (who happened to be a trainee) to abandon his duties and it prolonged the stop.

The Court’s Reasoning

The court explicitly recognized the First Amendment right to film police in public spaces. However, it emphasized that this right is “not unlimited” and is “subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.”

Crucially, officers never told Van Net to stop filming. They only directed him to maintain a safe distance and turn off his flash—commands that the court deemed reasonable given the dark conditions, highway traffic, and officer safety concerns. Traffic stops are “especially fraught with danger to police officers,” the court noted, and safety concerns justify preventative actions.

The court rejected Van Net’s arguments that the obstruction statute was overbroad or vague. The statute requires physical interference, not mere speech, and Van Net’s physical encroachment formed the basis for his conviction. Van Net wasn’t arrested for filming. He was arrested for physically refusing to follow lawful orders.

Key Takeaway

It is constitutional and allowable to record police activity, but keep some things in mind:

Stay back. If an officer tells you to maintain distance, do it. You can still film from a reasonable distance.
Don’t physically interfere. Walking toward the scene, blocking access, or shining lights in officers’ faces crosses the line from filming to obstruction
The right to film doesn’t mean the right to ignore. You can record and still be expected to follow reasonable safety commands.
Traffic stops are high-risk situations. Courts give officers more leeway to control the scene because traffic stops are dangerous. Dark highways, passing cars, and unknown occupants all create real safety risks.

The First Amendment protects recording police, but it does not give individuals “carte blanche to ignore police commands aimed at securing or maintaining scene safety.” Citizens may film, but they must comply with reasonable, content-neutral commands about where they can stand and how they conduct themselves during a traffic stop.

Record away; just don’t get in the way.