Reyes v. City of New York
The New York Court of Appeals held that the State and New York City Right to Record Acts do not authorize recording inside police stationhouses, including publicly accessible precinct lobbies.
Executive Summary
Reyes answers a narrow but highly practical question for New York agencies: the State and New York City statutes protecting the right to record police do not extend into police stationhouses, even when the area being recorded is a lobby open to members of the public.
SeanPaul Reyes, a self-described independent journalist and First Amendment auditor, entered the publicly accessible lobby of the NYPD’s 61st Precinct in Brooklyn and began recording. Officers directed him to an NYPD policy prohibiting recording inside police facilities and repeatedly told him to stop recording or leave. After he refused, officers arrested him for trespass. The District Attorney later declined prosecution.
Reyes sued in federal court under the First Amendment and under New York State and New York City Right to Record Acts. The federal district court rejected his First Amendment theory at the preliminary-injunction stage but concluded he was likely to prevail under the statutes. The Second Circuit then certified the statutory question to New York’s highest court.
The New York Court of Appeals unanimously answered the question in the negative. Reading the statutory text, history, purpose, and consequences together, the court concluded that neither Right to Record Act was intended to override police-station restrictions and extend a statutory recording right into publicly accessible precinct lobbies.
New York Civil Rights Law § 79-p and New York City Administrative Code § 14-189 do not provide a statutory right to record law-enforcement activity inside a police stationhouse, including a lobby otherwise open to the public.
The 61st Precinct Encounter
Reyes entered the lobby of the NYPD’s 61st Precinct after receiving a tip that police were arresting people who recorded inside precinct lobbies.
He began recording with his cellphone. Within minutes, an officer approached and pointed Reyes to signage describing the NYPD policy prohibiting video recording inside police facilities.
Officers repeatedly directed Reyes either to stop recording or leave. Reyes continued recording and declined to leave.
Police arrested him for trespass under New York Penal Law § 140.05. He was detained for approximately six hours and released on a desk appearance ticket. The District Attorney subsequently declined to prosecute, and the charge was dismissed.
Reyes then challenged the NYPD policy in federal court, asserting both First Amendment and statutory right-to-record claims.
The lobby was publicly accessible, but it remained part of a functioning police stationhouse. The Court of Appeals rejected the premise that public access alone determined the scope of the statutory right.
New York’s Right to Record Acts
In 2020, both New York State and New York City enacted laws creating express protections for people who record law-enforcement activity.
New York Civil Rights Law § 79-p provides that a person who is not under arrest or in law-enforcement custody has the right to record law-enforcement activity and to maintain custody and control of the recording and recording equipment.
New York City Administrative Code § 14-189 contains a similar protection.
Both statutes also make clear that the right does not authorize a person to physically interfere with law-enforcement activity or an official and lawful police function.
The statutes, however, do not expressly say where the right may be exercised. That silence became the core interpretive issue in Reyes.
The statutes specified who may record, what may be recorded, and when the protection applies, but did not expressly define the locations in which the statutory right operates.
The Certified Question
The federal district court preliminarily enjoined the NYPD from enforcing its no-recording policy in publicly accessible stationhouse lobbies, reasoning that Reyes was likely to prevail under the State and City Right to Record Acts.
The City appealed. Rather than resolve an unsettled question of New York statutory law itself, the Second Circuit certified the issue to the New York Court of Appeals.
The certified question asked, in substance, whether either statute gives a person such as Reyes a right to video record law-enforcement activities inside public facilities—specifically, publicly accessible police-station lobbies—notwithstanding an NYPD policy forbidding recording inside its facilities.
The Court of Appeals reformulated the question slightly and answered it in the negative.
Why the Court Rejected a Statutory Lobby-Recording Right
The Court of Appeals began with statutory text. Because neither Right to Record Act expressly addressed location, the court found the statutes ambiguous concerning police stationhouses.
The court then considered legislative purpose and history. It concluded that the statutes were enacted against the background of public recording of police activity in settings such as streets, sidewalks, demonstrations, and other public encounters—not to create a broad statutory right to record inside operational police facilities.
The court also rejected a reading that would effectively eliminate a police department’s ability to manage activity inside its own stationhouses merely because the public is permitted to enter a lobby for police business.
A police-station lobby may be accessible to the public without becoming a location in which the New York State or City Right to Record Acts confer an affirmative statutory right to record.
Privacy, Investigative Information, and Facility Security
The Court of Appeals placed substantial weight on the interests present inside police stations that may not exist to the same degree on sidewalks and streets.
Police lobbies may contain crime victims, witnesses, suspects, family members, confidential conversations, and people seeking help in highly sensitive circumstances. Recording and immediate dissemination can expose those individuals to privacy harms.
The court also noted that recording inside stationhouses could reveal confidential investigative information and information relevant to law-enforcement operations and security.
Reyes argued that the NYPD could mitigate those risks by moving sensitive conversations into private areas. The court was not persuaded that the Legislature intended the statutes to impose that operational burden, particularly because the State law applies to police agencies throughout New York, including facilities with fewer resources.
A publicly accessible lobby is still an operational law-enforcement environment. Privacy, investigative integrity, employee functions, and security may justify controls that would be impermissible on a public sidewalk.
The Important Federal First Amendment Boundary
Reyes is a state statutory interpretation case. The New York Court of Appeals did not decide the scope of the federal First Amendment right to record inside police-station lobbies.
The federal district court had separately concluded, at the preliminary-injunction stage, that Reyes was unlikely to succeed on his First Amendment challenge to the NYPD policy. But that federal constitutional question was not the certified issue resolved by the New York Court of Appeals.
The distinction became even more important after the Second Circuit’s 2026 decision in Massimino v. Benoit. Massimino recognizes a First Amendment right to record publicly visible portions of a police station from a public sidewalk. Reyes, by contrast, concerns the application of New York statutes to recording inside the stationhouse.
The case does not hold that the federal First Amendment never protects recording in any police-station lobby. It holds that New York’s State and City Right to Record Acts do not themselves provide that right.
What Reyes Does—and Does Not—Establish
- The decision interprets New York State and New York City statutes; it is not a federal First Amendment holding.
- The statutory right to record does not extend inside police stationhouses, including publicly accessible lobbies.
- The case does not eliminate the recognized right to record police activity in traditional public settings.
- Public access to a police lobby does not, by itself, create a statutory recording right.
- The court relied in part on privacy, investigative-integrity, and security concerns associated with police facilities.
- The decision does not resolve every possible First Amendment challenge to every facility-specific recording restriction.
- The case should be distinguished from Massimino, which protects recording publicly visible police-station areas from a public sidewalk.
- Agencies outside New York must analyze their own statutes and controlling constitutional precedent.
Agency Guidance
Primary Sources and Further Reading
Authority note: This is a New York Court of Appeals statutory interpretation decision. It does not itself establish the scope of the federal First Amendment right to record inside police facilities.
This monograph is provided for training and general informational purposes. It is not legal advice and does not replace review of the complete opinion, current statutes, controlling federal and state authority, agency policy, or consultation with prosecutors and agency counsel.
© 2026 Shield Public Safety Training. All rights reserved. Reviewed September 7, 2026.