Citizen Report No. 1675979780 - 805854678

This Case Involves:

Deprivation of Rights 

By ordering passenger to stop livestreaming a recording of a traffic stop

By attempting to seize passenger's camera

Facts of the Case from the lawsuit filing

IV. FACTS

15. On or about 29 November [Dijon]Mr. [Dijon] Sharpe was the passenger in a vehicle that was pulled over by law enforcement in Greenville, North Carolina (the “Greenville incident”).

16. During the traffic stop, Mr. Sharpe was forced by law enforcement to exit the vehicle, whereupon he was tased, choked, and severely beaten by the responding officers. Mr. Sharpe was then charged with two counts of violating N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-223 (misdemeanor resisting a public officer) and one count of violating N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-34.7(C)(1) (felony assault inflicting physical injury on a law enforcement officer).

17. All charges against Mr. Sharpe relating to the Greenville incident were dismissed by the District Attorney.

18. Mr. Sharpe’s experience during the Greenville incident spurred him to become a civic activist promoting greater accountability for law enforcement. Mr. Sharpe also took precautions to ensure any future interactions he had with law enforcement would be recorded for protection.

19. On or about 9 October 2018, Mr. Sharpe was again the passenger in a vehicle pulled over by law enforcement.

20. The Defendant Police Department’s officers, Officer Ellis and Officer Helms, conducted the traffic stop.

21. While the driver and Mr. Sharpe waited for police to first approach the vehicle, the driver called an unidentified party on his mobile phone so the party was aware the vehicle had been pulled over by police. Case 4:19-cv-00157-D Document 1 Filed 11/03/19 Page 4 of 9 -5-

22. At the same time, Mr. Sharpe turned on the video recording function of his smartphone and began livestreaming – broadcasting in real-time – via Facebook Live to his Facebook account.

23. Mr. Sharpe’s original Facebook Live video can be accessed by the Court directly at https://www.facebook.com/d.r.sharpe/videos/2251012878304654/. In addition, a certified transcript of the Facebook Live video is attached hereto as Plaintiff’s Exhibit A.

24. During the interaction with Officer Helms at approximately the [04:44] mark in the video, Mr. Sharpe declined to provide his name when asked. Exhibit A, pp. 8-9.

25. The officers later return to their patrol car, presumably to run the driver’s license and write up the resulting citations.

26. During this period Mr. Sharpe notes his practice of recording his interactions with law enforcement, stating at the [08:52] mark “I’m recording every time we get stopped.” Id., p. 14.

27. Near the [11:42] mark of the video, Officer Helms returns to the vehicle and asks Mr. Sharpe “What have we got? Facebook Live, cous[in]?” Id., p. 17.

28. Mr. Sharpe responds in the affirmative, at which point Officer Helms abruptly reaches into the vehicle and attempts to grab Mr. Sharpe’s phone, and later pulls on both Mr. Sharpe’s seatbelt and Mr. Sharpe’s shirt in a further attempt to seize the phone. Id.

29. During this assault on Mr. Sharpe, Officer Helms claims “We ain’t gonna do Facebook Live, because that’s an officer safety issue.” Id.

30. Separately, after Officer Ellis issued citations to the driver, he stated near the [12:40] mark of the video “Facebook Live … we’re not gonna have, okay, because that lets everybody y’all follow on Facebook that we’re out here … It lets everybody know where y’all are at. We’re not gonna have that.” Id., pp. 19-20. Case 4:19-cv-00157-D Document 1 Filed 11/03/19 Page 5 of 9 -6-

31. Officer Ellis continued at [12:50]: “If you were recording, that is just fine … We record, too. So in the future, if you’re on Facebook Live, your phone is gonna be taken from you[.] … And if you don’t want to give up your phone, you’ll go to jail.” Id., p. 20.

32. Later, Officer Ellis later repeated at [13:16]: “[Y]ou can record on your phone … but Facebook Live is not gonna happen.” Id., p. 21.

33. At the time of these interactions, Officer Helms was acting under color of law.

34. At the time of these interactions, Officer Ellis was acting under color of law.

Sharpe filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit alleging his First Amendment rights were violated by the officers’ actions and the PD’s policy to prohibit live streaming. The claims encompassed the Town of Winterville.  

35. [The Lawsuit asserts that t]he] physical attack by Officer Helms, and threat of future arrest by Officer Ellis, deprived Mr. Sharpe of his rights protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, including his right to record police in the public performance of their duties and to broadcast such recordings in real-time.

36. [The Lawsuit further asserts that] Mr. Sharpe is entitled to record any future public interactions he has with law enforcement and to broadcast such interactions via Facebook Live or another livestreaming platform, and Mr. Sharpe is protected by the First Amendment to do so without having his phone confiscated or him being jailed.

U.S. District Court Ruling:

[T]he U.S. District Court granted summary judgment to the officers, department and town based on the pleadings. The court concluded no circuit had previously found a passenger had a right to live stream a traffic stop. Additionally, the Fourth Circuit had not even decided a passenger had a right to record, let alone live stream a stop. 

Sharpe appealed to a 3-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit. In briefing and oral argument, his attorney said other circuits’ decisions that found a right to record traffic stops supported finding a right to live stream them. He contended a generalized statement regarding officer safety did not override Sharpe’s First Amendment right. Live streaming served a strong public and governmental interest in deterring police misconduct. It would also keep officers safer by deterring conduct against them which would be captured on video. 

Sharpe’s First Amendment crusade drew significant attention from civil liberties and press advocates. Seven amicus briefs were filed in support of his claims.   

Holding of the United States Court of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit

2/7/2023 - The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that a North Carolina town’s policy that allegedly banned video live-streaming police during traffic stops was in violation of the First Amendment. 

The appeals court vacated the district court’s order, ruling that if such policy exists that bans video live-streaming, it does violate the First Amendment. The ruling said that live-streaming police encounters provides information the same way recording police officers does.

“Recording police encounters creates information that contributes to discussion about governmental affairs,” the ruling said. “So too does livestreaming disseminate that information, often creating its own record. We thus hold that livestreaming a police traffic stop is speech protected by the First Amendment.” 

“It was not clearly established that Officer Helms’s actions violated Sharpe’s First Amendment rights and so he is protected by qualified immunity.”