First Amendment Auditors

Extracted Attributes

• Legal Basis

  First Amendment to the United States Constitution

• Revenue Model

  Social media ad revenue and viewer donations

• Common Targets

  Government buildings, police stations, libraries, and public employees

• Core Objective

  Testing constitutional rights, specifically the right to record in public

• Primary Origin

  United States

• Pejorative Label

  Frauditors

• Primary Distribution Platform

  YouTube

Timeline

• The U.S. Supreme Court case Grayned v. City of Rockford clarifies time, place, and manner restrictions often cited in auditor cases. (Source: Wikipedia)

  1972-06-26

• The trend of recording public workers in governmental buildings begins to rise significantly. (Source: First Amendment auditors raise issues for counties)

  2014-01-01

• Auditors operating under the account FoulMouth Veteran visit the Brazos County sheriff's office. (Source: First Amendment auditors raise issues for counties)

  2021-01-01

• Christopher J. Cordova of Denver Metro Audits is convicted on two counts in the District of Colorado. (Source: United States v. Christopher J. Cordova)

  2022-01-01

• The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals rules in Irizarry v. Yehia that there is a clearly established First Amendment right to film police. (Source: Wikipedia)

  2022-07-11

• The All-In Podcast predicts a significant rise in citizen journalism and the auditing of government spending. (Source: All-In's 2026 Predictions)

  2026-01-01

First Amendment audit

First Amendment auditing is a primarily American social movement that involves photographing or filming in a public space. It is often categorized by its practitioners, known as auditors, as activism and citizen journalism that tests constitutional rights—in particular the right to photograph and video record in a public space, a right normally covered by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Auditors have tended to film or photograph government buildings, equipment, and access control points, as well as any personnel present. Auditors have argued that the movement promotes transparency and open government. Critics have argued that audits are typically confrontational, and have criticized some tactics as forms of intimidation and harassment. Many opponents of the tactics and legal theories of auditors refer to auditors as "frauditors". The practice is predominantly an American concept, since the First Amendment is a part of United States law, but it has also been seen in other countries, including Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Russia.

Web Search Results

• First Amendment “Audits”: What Are They and How Do You ...

  First Amendment audits have become a significant source of income for auditors. Auditors get paid by posting their videos online, primarily on YouTube, where they request and receive donations from “subscribers” to help fund their “work.” The more inflamed the interaction, the more views they get and the more money they make. To make matters worse, auditors compete with each other for views and money, which further incentivizes them to engage in highly confrontational behavior to provoke an even greater negative response from town officials and employees. All of these interactions are video recorded, and the worst of them have been viewed tens or even hundreds of thousands of times. [...] There are several things municipalities can do to prepare for a First Amendment audit. First, and most importantly, municipalities should train their officials and employees on how to engage with a First Amendment auditor, and what to do during a First Amendment audit. Municipalities should consider designating one or two people who are more comfortable dealing with these auditors and being filmed, so that if an auditor shows up, the designated person can be called to interact with them. In addition, municipalities should clearly mark which areas of municipal buildings are not public areas. Mark the doors or cordoned areas “employee only” or “this area is not open to the public.” Ensure that any confidential or non-public information is never visible from public areas. Computer screens [...] Recently, towns across New Hampshire (and the country) have begun experiencing a new, unsettling type of encounter with members of the public that has increasingly caused confusion, irritation, and even court battles and the resulting payment of money damages. This interaction is called the “First Amendment audit.” First Amendment audits are an American social and political movement that usually involves filming from a public space. A First Amendment audit occurs when individuals “exercise” their First Amendment right to video record in public spaces like town halls, libraries, police stations, and parking lots. “Auditors” will wander around, either individually or in groups, filming, provoking employees and officials, and interfering with employees’ ability to conduct town business. The

• [PDF] Best Practices in the Event You Encounter an Auditor

  7225 Parkway Drive, Hanover, MD 21076 · Phone 443.561.1700 · TF 800.673.8231 · www.lgit.org First Amendment Audits – Part 2 Best Practices in the Event You Encounter an Auditor The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects our right to free speech. The free speech protections afforded by the First Amendment are broad and, with very few exceptions, include the ability to create video recordings of public employees or private citizens on public property. First Amendment auditors are individuals that make videos of their encounters with public employees and officials. Auditors will typically enter public property, camera in hand, and start filming and asking questions without identifying themselves or explaining why they are there. In most instances, the auditor is essentially testing [...] In most instances, the auditor is essentially testing to see whether the employees will respect his or her First Amendment rights to enter and film a public space. Auditors typically engage in behavior or make statements that are designed to provoke a reaction that could be viewed as a violation of the auditor’s First Amendment rights. While it certainly may be uncomfortable for public employees and officials to be recorded without their permission, it is important that they act with diplomacy and show respect to the auditor. Most First Amendment auditors are trying to provoke an altercation. The video of the altercation will then be posted on YouTube and may serve as the basis of an eventual lawsuit. If the auditor cannot provoke a confrontation, he or she will eventually leave. Below

• First Amendment Audit Summary

  Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink, PC, 2022© What is a First Amendment Audit? A First Amendment “audit” is conducted by a member of the public and targets a government facility, employee, or event. In a typical First Amendment audit, the “auditor” records his or her encounter with a government employee through audio and/or video means (usually a cell phone). The intended purpose of the audit is to “test” the government’s response to these encounters to see if the government employee will violate the individual’s First Amendment rights. The encounter is then broadcast to the public, usually via social media. The government employee’s reaction to the encounter is the intended consequence, and the questions asked and the documents requested by the auditor are secondary to the audit process. [...] recent First Amendment audits have expanded to include the recording of other government employees on public property while employees are working. It is generally accepted that the First Amendment would apply in these circumstances based on court decisions finding that recording public employees and publishing these encounters are protected by free speech. What Can or Should a Public Employee Do? It is important that government employees understand that it is not illegal for members of the public to record their activities and encounters in public spaces during their work day. So, government employees should be careful in how they deal with auditors who may have constitutional rights to record their encounters with government employees. There is little to no expectation of privacy in a [...] There is little to no expectation of privacy in a government employee’s activities in public spaces while they are working. That does not mean, however, that the auditors can violate the law in their audit activities Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink, PC, 2022© (i.e., trespass into non-public spaces, become physically violent, or be unreasonably disruptive to an employee’s ability to serve other citizen needs). Government employees will rarely have any advanced notice that they are the subject of a First Amendment audit. These audits are often uncomfortable for the employee and can also be disruptive. The auditor will often try to provoke the employee into some action or statement that can be used to “fail” the government body in the audit. Tactics may include asking repeated questions and

• First Amendment audit

  ### The United States v. Christopher J. Cordova [edit] In the 2022 case of United States v. Cordova, First Amendment auditor Christopher J. Cordova, operating under the YouTube channel Denver Metro Audits, was convicted on two counts in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado in Denver. Judge Michael E. Hegarty heard the case. [...] By contrast, later cases have denied qualified immunity where prior circuit precedent had already established the right. In Irizarry v. Yehia (2022), another case brought by a First Amendment auditor, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "there is a First Amendment right to film the police performing their duties in public", concluding that the right was clearly established by 2019 (making qualified immunity unavailable). [...] Numerous court cases, most notably the case of Glik v. Cunniffe,[full citation needed] have also concluded that filming protections are subject to time, place, and manner restrictions, including in the majority of public buildings. Limitations include (but are not limited to) trespassing on public or private property, entering an established crime scene (whether marked or unmarked by crime scene tape or other methods), and materially interfering with police activities. The United States Supreme Court case of Grayned v. City of Rockford (1972) clarified and defined the parameters of time, place, and manner restrictions and is often cited when removing First Amendment auditors who violate its guidelines. Conversely, it is also cited in protecting First Amendment auditors who act within its

• First Amendment auditors raise issues for counties

  Grayson County Judge Bruce Dawsey said he thinks that was the first time a so-called First Amendment auditor visited the courthouse, leading to fear and confusion, but the trend of recording public workers – particularly police officers – in governmental buildings began about a decade ago. The auditors, who claim to be exercising their First Amendment rights, try to elicit a confrontation with the staff and then post the videos online, generating views and revenue from ads. [...] But most don’t wear ski masks or speak in fake accents. A retired assistant police chief, Dawsey encountered First Amendment auditors at the Sherman Police Department, where they would request information, but “most of the citizens who want to exercise their rights aren’t going to push it to quite that extreme,” Kerss said. In Brazos County, auditors who visited the sheriff’s office in 2021 posted the video to YouTube under the account “FoulMouth Veteran.” In the video, the auditors walk around outside the facility and inside the lobby before having a friendly conversation with several deputies in the parking lot. [...] “Some are a little more passive in exercising their rights. Others are really there to badger and try to create disruption, and some push the envelope,” said Thomas Kerss, Texas Association of Counties Law Enforcement & Simulator Consultants Supervisor who trains counties on how to handle First Amendment auditors. “They’re really selling their experiences on social media. The more views they get, the more hits or likes, the more ads they can sell.”