Executive Summary

Why this case matters

Peace v. Carter is another important Southern District of Ohio decision recognizing First Amendment protection for recording police while the Sixth Circuit itself has not yet squarely resolved the broader public right-to-record question. It also illustrates the interaction among recording, public-forum restrictions, criminal-trespass law, probable cause, and retaliatory arrest.

Curtis Peace, an Ohio State University alumnus, arrived at OSU’s South Oval during a protest concerning Israel and Gaza. The protesters had already begun removing an encampment after police directed them to do so. According to Peace’s complaint, officers told the group to disperse but did not tell him to leave the campus or South Oval.

Peace moved approximately 150 feet away from the original encampment and began filming an OSU police “arrest squad.” About twenty minutes after he arrived on campus, Lieutenant Alan Horujko allegedly directed officers to arrest Peace for criminal trespass.

The criminal charge was later dismissed unconditionally. Peace then sued OSU President Walter Carter and several university police officials. The district court dismissed many claims—including Peace’s prior-restraint theory—but allowed the Fourth Amendment false-arrest claim, an as-applied First Amendment challenge, and a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim to proceed against Lt. Horujko and Deputy Chiefs Dennis Jeffrey and Eric Whiteside in their individual capacities.

Core holding

At the pleading stage, the court found no basis to hold as a matter of law that Peace’s alleged filming of OSU police on the South Oval was unprotected. His allegations that he had complied with the dispersal direction, moved roughly 150 feet away, and was merely filming officers were sufficient to allow the First Amendment claims to proceed.

The April 25, 2024 Campus Protest

On the morning of April 25, 2024, protesters gathered on OSU’s South Oval to criticize Israel’s actions in Gaza and OSU’s relationship with Israel. Some protesters erected camping equipment.

At approximately 9:30 a.m., OSU police ordered the camping equipment removed. According to Peace’s complaint, protesters complied.

Peace, who had graduated from OSU in 2021, arrived at approximately 9:57 a.m. By that point, the encampment was being dismantled and was removed within minutes.

Deputy Chief Whiteside then informed the protesters that OSU considered their gathering a continuation of an event that violated the University Space Rules because tents had previously been erected. The protesters were told to disperse.

Peace alleged that neither Whiteside nor any other officer told him he had to leave the South Oval or the OSU campus entirely.

After dispersing, Peace moved approximately 150 feet south of the original encampment site and began filming a group of OSU officers described as an “arrest squad” under Lt. Horujko’s command.

At approximately 10:17 a.m., while Peace was filming, Horujko allegedly ordered officers to arrest him for criminal trespassing. Peace remained in custody for the rest of the day and was released on bond that evening.

Procedural posture

The opinion decided a motion to dismiss. The court accepted Peace’s well-pleaded factual allegations as true. It did not make final factual findings about what occurred on the South Oval.

The Right to Record Police

The court expressly acknowledged that neither the Supreme Court nor the Sixth Circuit had determined whether the public enjoys a First Amendment right to record police activities in public places.

It nevertheless relied on Freeman v. Spoljaric and the substantial body of appellate authority from other circuits recognizing such a right.

The court agreed with Freeman that the First Amendment protects the public’s right to film police and other government agents, subject to reasonable restrictions.

Defendants argued that Peace’s conduct was not protected because there is no First Amendment right to establish an encampment on public property. The court rejected that argument as mismatched to the pleaded facts. Peace alleged that he had not established an encampment, had complied with the dispersal direction, had moved about 150 feet away, and was filming police when arrested.

Doctrinal rule

As persuasive district-court authority within the Sixth Circuit, Peace treats non-interfering filming of police in a public setting as protected First Amendment activity, subject to reasonable restrictions.

Public-Forum and University-Space Rules

The case also involved OSU’s University Space Rules, which regulate use of university property and permit reasonable time, place, and manner limitations designed to protect university operations.

The district court explained that a First Amendment challenge requires consideration of whether the activity is protected, the nature of the forum, and whether the government restriction satisfies the constitutional standard applicable to that forum.

At the motion-to-dismiss stage, defendants challenged only whether Peace’s filming constituted protected activity. They did not establish that the forum analysis or university rules necessarily defeated his claim.

Operational lesson

Public universities may regulate use of campus property, but officers should distinguish a person participating in prohibited encampment activity from a person who has complied with a dispersal direction and is separately observing or recording police from another location.

Criminal Trespass and Probable Cause

Peace was arrested for criminal trespass under Ohio law. The defendants argued that officers had probable cause because Peace had been told to leave the area and remained nearby.

The court found Peace had plausibly alleged otherwise. Under his version of events, officers instructed protesters to disperse from the encampment but never revoked Peace’s general privilege to remain on the OSU campus or South Oval.

Peace further alleged that he complied with the dispersal order and moved approximately 150 feet away before being arrested while filming officers.

The court therefore declined to find probable cause as a matter of law and allowed his Fourth Amendment false-arrest claim to proceed against Horujko, Jeffrey, and Whiteside.

Trespass distinction

On public property, an order to leave a particular activity or location is not necessarily identical to a clear revocation of permission to remain anywhere on the property. Officers should make the scope of a trespass or dispersal direction explicit.

First Amendment Retaliatory Arrest

Peace also alleged that his arrest was retaliation for protected First Amendment activity.

A retaliatory-arrest claim ordinarily requires protected activity, adverse action sufficient to chill a person of ordinary firmness, retaliatory motivation, and generally the absence of probable cause.

Because the court had already concluded that Peace plausibly alleged protected filming and plausibly alleged a lack of probable cause for criminal trespass, it allowed the retaliatory-arrest claim to proceed.

Retaliation result

The motion to dismiss was denied as to Peace’s First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim against Lt. Horujko and Deputy Chiefs Jeffrey and Whiteside in their individual capacities.

What Peace Does—and Does Not—Establish

Important limits

Peace is a district-court decision and is not binding Sixth Circuit precedent.
The court expressly acknowledged that neither the Supreme Court nor Sixth Circuit had squarely resolved the general public right to record police.
The opinion decided a motion to dismiss and accepted Peace’s allegations as true.
The case does not establish final liability against any defendant.
The court did not hold that university space rules are categorically unconstitutional.
The court dismissed Peace’s prior-restraint theory; the surviving First Amendment claim was an as-applied challenge based on the alleged arrest for filming after he had dispersed from the encampment area.
The recording occurred on the South Oval after Peace allegedly complied with a dispersal direction and moved about 150 feet away.
The false-arrest analysis depended on Peace’s allegation that no officer clearly ordered him to leave the campus or South Oval altogether.
The decision should be used as persuasive Sixth Circuit-area authority alongside Freeman, Grady, and any later Sixth Circuit decisions.

Agency Guidance

1. Make dispersal orders preciseSpecify whether people must leave an encampment, a defined zone, the entire property, or another clearly identified area.

2. Distinguish recording from prohibited conductA person who complied with an order and then records from another lawful location should not automatically be treated as continuing the earlier violation.

3. Identify the forumUniversity property can contain different forum types. Determine the function and status of the particular location before restricting expressive activity.

4. Document revocation of privilegeIf officers intend to invoke criminal trespass, clearly document when, where, and how the person’s privilege to remain was revoked.

5. Preserve an independent probable-cause basisBefore arresting someone who is filming, identify the objective facts supporting the offense separately from the protected recording.

6. Avoid viewpoint-based escalationRecording officers or criticizing agency conduct should not become the reason for an arrest otherwise unsupported by probable cause.

7. Train campus police on protest transitionsAn unlawful encampment may end while protected observation, filming, assembly, or speech continues elsewhere on campus.

8. Keep precedential status clearPeace is persuasive district-court authority, not a Sixth Circuit holding that the right to record is clearly established circuit-wide.

Primary Sources and Further Reading

Southern District of Ohio opinion: Peace v. Carter, 817 F. Supp. 3d 650 (S.D. Ohio 2025).

Related Southern District of Ohio authority: Freeman v. Spoljaric.

Related Sixth Circuit authority: Grady v. Cratsenburg.