Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the First‑amendment‑audits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Worcester County staff briefed on handling First Amendment auditors
Summary
Local Government Insurance Trust executive director Matt Peter told Worcester County employees how to recognize and limit risk when so-called First Amendment auditors film on government property, recommending signage, limited engagement and staff training to reduce litigation and reputational harm.
Matt Peter, executive director of the Local Government Insurance Trust, gave a nearly 75-minute training to Worcester County staff on how to recognize and respond to so‑called First Amendment auditors who videotape government employees and property.
Peter said the auditors — people who film interactions in and around government buildings and publish the videos online — present a mixture of free‑speech questions and practical risk for local governments. “I still just don't get it,” Peter said. “I don't understand really what motivates people to do any of this beyond money.”
The training focused on what activities the First Amendment protects, where government may lawfully limit access, and how staff and law enforcement should avoid converting an audit into a constitutional‑rights claim that can lead to costly litigation. Peter advised clearer signage for nonpublic areas, simple staff rules for disengaging from provocative questions, and limited supervisor intervention when front‑line employees are handling an auditor calmly.
Why it matters: Peter cautioned that interactions with auditors can escalate into incidents that generate large settlements or judgments. He said courts treat videotaping as a form of information gathering protected by the First Amendment, but that public forums, limited public forums (like a meeting room opened for public comment) and nonpublic forums (back offices or authorized‑staff areas) carry different rules about where recording and access are permitted.
Peter recommended administrative steps to reduce risk: mark and sign nonpublic areas (for example, staff‑only zones behind counters), place signs so they remain visible when doors are propped open, and design waiting areas so members of the public must remain at a reasonable distance from counters during transactions. He described practical staff tactics — breathe, do not engage with provocative questions (for example, questions about salary or personal matters), do not physically touch or detain auditors, and call law enforcement when staff feel unsafe.
On law enforcement response, Peter said Maryland is generally not a stop‑and‑identify state and that officers need reasonable articulable suspicion to detain someone and probable cause to arrest. He described examples from other jurisdictions where officers who detained an auditor without legal grounds exposed the agency to six‑figure liability claims; he cited “article 16‑303 of the Colorado code” as an example raised in one video of a detained auditor who later pursued a claim.
Peter also reviewed downstream consequences: published audit videos can embed staff names and contact information, attracting large numbers of calls and emails for days or weeks after an incident. He urged staff to protect confidential information during an audit (turn away computer screens, cover files) and to avoid creating or posting their own recordings that could later be subject to a Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA) request.
He gave examples of auditor behavior (working alone or in teams, dressing inconspicuously or in costume, filming license plates in public parking, following employees through public areas) and suggested workplace design and signage that make clear where the public may go and where private workspaces begin. For interactions that are purely job‑related (for example, a parks and recreation employee helping someone register for camp), staff should answer job‑related questions; for irrelevant or provocative questions they should disengage politely.
Peter closed by urging a limited, common‑sense approach: do not antagonize auditors, avoid physical contact or blocking egress, notify supervisors using prearranged signals if immediate help is needed, and rely on law enforcement to handle situations that become disruptive or dangerous. He reiterated, “I do not need your permission to film you,” to illustrate the point that public filming is broadly protected but can still create legal and reputational risk for agencies.
Looking ahead, Peter recommended that county managers review signage and queueing arrangements, provide short staff trainings on a consistent response, and coordinate with local law enforcement on expectations for on‑scene handling of auditors. He left staff with operational guidance rather than a single legal fix: reduce the chance an employee will be the one person whose negative reaction becomes an online incident.
