I don't think this case was at all about the legality of recording the police, as the headline proclaims. The defendant was never charged with illegally recording the police, or with anything at all.
The conclusion, in fact, gives the police officers qualified immunity from the plaintiff's claim of First and Fourth Amendment violations. The "further proceedings" on the Fourth Amendment claim is what was found for the plaintiff, but I didn't read the whole opinion to know what that means.
It's scary that some of the comments in this thread are from people who would read an opinion like this -- or read the HN headline -- and take it to heart in terms of their own actions. That's just dumb. Look at all the precedents that are cited in the opinion -- it's not a simple case, and, indeed, there were dissents from the majority opinion.
That's the headline because that is the most significant part of the opinion due to the precedent it sets. It establishes, for the Fifth Circuit, the right to record the police. Previously, as stated in the opinion, this right was not clearly established.
The conclusion, in fact, gives the police officers qualified immunity from the plaintiff's claim of First and Fourth Amendment violations. The "further proceedings" on the Fourth Amendment claim is what was found for the plaintiff, but I didn't read the whole opinion to know what that means.
It's scary that some of the comments in this thread are from people who would read an opinion like this -- or read the HN headline -- and take it to heart in terms of their own actions. That's just dumb. Look at all the precedents that are cited in the opinion -- it's not a simple case, and, indeed, there were dissents from the majority opinion.
Be careful out there.