
Recording ICE Isn’t ‘Violence’ – It’s a Constitutionally Protected Act of Journalism
Pressing Issues
01/09/2026
While Caitlin Callenson and Daniel Suitor are hardly household names, they played pivotal roles in one of the most important free-speech stories of our time.
They were among the handful of bystanders who recorded the unprovoked and tragic ICE killing of Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old Minneapolis mother of three, on Wednesday. And though they may not have realized it at the time, filming acts of official violence against the public has helped expose our government’s most sordid corruption and even inspired progressive movements and activism.
The First Amendment broadly protects everyone’s right to record government officials in public. Throughout U.S. history, abusive leaders have inflicted acts of violence against people of color, protesters and anyone who challenges their authority. The violence is not new, but our ability to document it every day is.
These very disturbing videos are engines of accountability. They tell a truthful story of what happened to Good — countering the deceitful account the White House is peddling to news media and anyone else who will listen. The bystander videos from the scene conclusively debunk the Trump administration’s attempts to justify the shooting and portray Good as a domestic terrorist seeking to harm ICE officers.
The videos also expose the brutality at the core of this administration. And they’ll likely be a big part of any legitimate investigation of the ICE shooter who took Good’s life. (Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ro Khanna are leading efforts in Congress to see that he’s arrested and prosecuted).
Act of journalism ≠ act of violence
Those recording tense encounters between officers and the public are modern-day heroes. These are brave acts at a time when journalists of every type are being targeted by law enforcement and discredited by many in power.
The ubiquity of smartphones has spawned legions of bystander journalists like Callenson, Frazier, Orta and Santana. They may not think of themselves as reporters, but they make news simply by witnessing, recording and sharing newsworthy events. It’s an act that’s become so commonplace that few think twice about recording moments of interest or conflict as they unfold on the streets.
Numerous courts have found that the First Amendment protects an individual’s right to record provided filming does not physically interfere with law-enforcement operations. In 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decided in Glik v. Cunniffe that private individuals have a clearly established right to film police officers performing their duties in public spaces. The “videotaping of public officials is an exercise of First Amendment liberties,” reads the decision.
In 2018, the Ninth Circuit decision in Adkins v. Department of Homeland Security involved the Customs and Border Protection arrest of two people for taking pictures of what the photographers believed were unlawful searches by authorities. “The First Amendment protects the right to photograph and record matters of public interest,” reads the decision. “The government’s ability to regulate speech in a traditional public forum, such as a street, sidewalk, or park, is ‘sharply circumscribed.’”
Despite the many rulings, this right to record continues to face challenges across the country.
On June 14, 2025, police officers arrested journalist Mario Guevara as he was recording a protest against the Trump administration in the Atlanta area. He was charged with misdemeanor violations that were dropped within days. Regardless, ICE officers took him into custody, where he remained for nearly four months — often in solitary confinement — before he was deported to his native El Salvador.
In subsequent immigration-court proceedings, ICE argued that Guevara should have remained in detention specifically for livestreaming its enforcement activities. ICE characterized his acts of journalism as a danger to their agents. Similar cases have proliferated since Guevara’s deportation, echoing the federal government’s effort to frame First Amendment-protected filming as criminal.