California doesn't just tolerate recording police — the law explicitly protects it. Penal Code § 148(g) is one of the clearest statutory protections for police accountability in the country.
In most states, the right to record police derives from the First Amendment — a constitutional right courts have recognized but that requires ongoing litigation to enforce. California codified this right directly in the Penal Code. When the legislature added § 148(g), it sent a clear message: recording police in public is not obstruction, and it cannot be treated as a crime.
The statute provides that the mere recording of police activity, from a safe distance and without interfering with the performance of police duties, cannot by itself constitute the crime of obstructing or resisting a peace officer. This matters because police have historically arrested bystanders for recording under the obstruction statute — § 148(g) forecloses that tactic when the recording is peaceful and non-interfering.
The fact that a person takes a photograph or makes an audio or video recording of a public officer or peace officer, while the officer is in a public place or the person taking the photograph or making the recording is in a place he or she has a right to be, does not constitute, in and of itself, a violation of subdivision (a) [obstructing or resisting a peace officer], nor does it constitute reasonable suspicion to detain the person or probable cause to arrest the person.
Three things to notice in that text. First: "public place or a place he or she has a right to be." You don't have to be on a public sidewalk — you can be on your own property, in a public park, or anywhere you're legally entitled to be. Second: "does not constitute, in and of itself." The recording itself is not obstruction. Third: recording alone cannot justify detaining or arresting you — police cannot use "you were recording us" as a standalone justification for a stop.
You can film police making arrests, conducting traffic stops, using force, or engaging in any other activity in a public place. "Reasonable distance" is fact-specific, but courts have held that standing 15-30 feet away and recording is clearly protected. You don't need to be physically close to capture meaningful footage.
If police are on your property, in your front yard, or visible from your home, you can record them. The statute protects recording anywhere you have a right to be — including your own residence. You don't lose the right to document what happens on your own land.
The protection is for recording that does not interfere with police duties. If you physically block an officer, step between officers and a subject, shout commands, or otherwise obstruct operations — your recording does not immunize that conduct. Police can legally order you to step back, and you must comply.
Our free assessment helps you determine whether you may have a First Amendment claim. Takes a few minutes. No signup required.
Take the Free Assessment →California is a two-party (all-party) consent state for audio recordings of private conversations under Penal Code § 632. Recording police in public doesn't trigger this — police in public have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their official conduct. But recording private conversations without consent remains illegal.
Simon Glik openly recorded Boston police arresting a man on Boston Common. Officers arrested him for violating Massachusetts wiretapping law and related charges. The First Circuit Court of Appeals held that the First Amendment protects the right to record police performing their duties in public. The court recognized that recording is a form of gathering information about government activity — core First Amendment territory.
Although this is a federal case from another circuit, California courts have relied on Glik and its reasoning. The case's core holding — that recording police in public is constitutionally protected — applies with equal (and by statute, even stronger) force in California.
"The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles [of First Amendment protection]. Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting the free discussion of governmental affairs."
— First Circuit Court of Appeals, 2011Illinois sought to enforce its eavesdropping statute against people who recorded police in public. The Seventh Circuit blocked enforcement, holding that the statute violated the First Amendment as applied to recording police performing their public duties. The court recognized that audio recording is itself a form of protected speech and that the government cannot prohibit citizens from creating records of police conduct in public spaces.
California's statutory protection under § 148(g) makes this constitutional analysis largely academic for California residents — the legislature already granted the protection. But the federal circuit court decisions reinforce that this right exists independently of statute.
Two separate plaintiffs were arrested by Philadelphia police while recording arrests. The Third Circuit joined the First and Seventh Circuits in holding that the First Amendment protects recording police in public. The court noted that photography and audio/video recording are inherently expressive — they involve choices about what to capture, how to frame it, and what to communicate. Suppressing this recording suppresses an entire mode of political and social expression about the accountability of government.
Our free assessment helps determine whether your rights under California law or the First Amendment may have been violated. Takes a few minutes. No signup required.
Take the Free Assessment →