LGIT director tells Worcester County staff how to handle First Amendment "audits"

Matt Peter, executive director of the Local Government Insurance Trust, told Worcester County employees that self‑styled First Amendment auditors—individuals who film government employees in public spaces—have become more frequent in Maryland and can create legal and reputational risks for local governments.

Peter described auditors as varied in appearance and motive and said their activity has increased over the past four to five years. "I think it's a lot about money," he said, explaining that some creators post videos to attract donations or ad revenue. He urged staff to treat auditors as a foreseeable part of public work and to use policies and training to reduce disruption.

Why it matters: auditors' videos can produce sustained public attention. Peter described cases in which confrontations escalated to arrests and later litigation, and said officers who detain or arrest auditors risk triggering federal claims. He advised that county staff not assume audits are harmless pranks: "once you come out into the world, that's it. You can be caught on camera," he said, noting that courts have treated audiovisual newsgathering as protected speech in many contexts.

Legal context and limits Peter summarized legal principles staff should expect auditors to invoke. He identified the First Amendment as the primary protection auditors cite and said courts have allowed recording of law enforcement in public. He cautioned that the legal thresholds for detention and arrest—"reasonable, articulable suspicion" and probable cause—remain applicable to officers called to audit scenes and that Maryland is not a stop‑and‑identify state, so officers cannot compel identification absent statutory authority.

Peter noted unresolved questions in the law: whether conducting a First Amendment audit qualifies as "lawful business" on government property for purposes of trespass removal has not been definitively decided by courts. He said agencies should treat those uncertainties conservatively and avoid physical contact or attempts to detain auditors.

Practical steps recommended to staff - Identify and post clear signage marking nonpublic or staff‑only areas and position signs at eye level so they are visible when doors are closed or counters are propped open. - Set a physical buffer at public counters (similar to banks) so visitors cannot stand directly over a person making payments or viewing private documents. - Train front‑facing employees to pause, breathe and respond briefly; answer routine, job‑related questions but decline to engage in legal debates about the First Amendment or to disclose unnecessary personal information. - Use a discreet code word (Peter suggested an innocuous word such as "bananas") to alert a supervisor that immediate assistance is needed without signaling distress to the person being filmed. - Do not touch, push or attempt to physically remove an auditor; such contact can be treated as an unlawful touching under Maryland law and may expose the county to liability. - If staff record an auditor on personal devices during work time, treat that recording as potentially producible under a Maryland Public Information Act request and do not delete it when an auditor asserts such a request. - If staff feel unsafe or the situation meets ordinary grounds for calling police, call law enforcement; officers commonly will remain on scene to provide security even when they cannot detain an auditor.

Peter also discouraged deliberate attempts to "frustrate" auditors (for example, by playing copyrighted music to prevent monetization), noting that skilled creators can often remove background audio and that escalation risks creating the very confrontation staff are trying to avoid.

Examples and consequences cited Peter recounted several widely posted audit videos from other Maryland localities and one in Charlestown, Rhode Island, where an auditor was arrested after property owners asked him to stop filming; Peter said the auditor later returned and a confrontation with a mayor escalated. He attributed a reported settlement figure of about $65,000 in one unrelated detention case to illustrate potential financial exposure, and described how staff names and contact details embedded in videos can generate thousands of follow‑up calls and emails for small local offices.

Ending Peter offered a repeat session of the class later the same day and encouraged staff to attend training so they know how to respond calmly, protect confidential information and preserve evidence of interactions when appropriate.