This journalist was arrested, strip searched and imprisoned for filming the police. Will he get justice?

Texas prosecutors last week dismissed criminal charges against a journalist who in 2021 was arrested, strip-searched and jailed for filming police. But his long legal battle has in some ways only just begun and demands once again that we examine the idea that real journalists are entitled to a different set of rights than the public.

That's because Justin Pulliam, the man in question, is a citizen journalist. He is not employed by a point of sale. Instead, he publishes his reports on his YouTube channel, Corruption Reportwhich, true to its name, is decidedly skeptical of state power and in favor of transparency.

The Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office (FBSCO) was reportedly upset by his audacity. In July 2021, Pulliam was kicked out of a press conference by police because they alleged he was not considered media, and in December that year he was arrested for filming the police during a mental health call, while stationed nearby. 130 feet from the interaction. Officer Taylor Rollins asked Pulliam to move back further, and he complied, although he continued to film the deputy speaking to other bystanders at the scene (none of whom were arrested).

It didn't end well for Pulliam, who was charged with obstructing police duties. (According to his complaint, Officer Ricky Rodriguez, who assisted in the arrest, told another prison officer that the ordeal would teach Pulliam a lesson “for fucking with us.”) In April 2023, a jury found was unable to reach a verdict in the case, with five jurors wanting to acquit and one urging to convict. It took law enforcement more than a year to decide not to pursue the case.

One wonders if the Fort Bend government is intelligently allocating resources to support public safety when it pursued a case because someone filmed it. But on a deeper level, it's worth asking whether law enforcement would have taken the case to court if Pulliam had worked for an official media outlet. I suppose not.

It's difficult to reconcile these two things. Journalism is, after all, the business of collecting information and reporting it to the public. This adventure is not exclusively available to people working full-time at a news-gathering organization, and the strength of the First Amendment should not depend on whether or not you are on a news outlet's payroll. Even if Pulliam doesn't consider himself a journalist at all – citizen or not – his right to film the public servants he pays with his taxes should remain intact. This should certainly not come at the expense of his freedom.

Whether or not he will be able to make his case to a jury in civil court remains to be seen. Last June, Judge David Hittner of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas allowed Pulliam's federal trial to proceed, refusing to grant the defendants qualified immunity, the legal doctrine that protects state and government actors locals of such claims if their alleged misconduct was not yet “clearly established” in the law.

“Individual Defendants assert no case law to support their proposition that an indictment precludes a claim for violation of the First Amendment,” wrote Hittner. “Indeed, based on the facts alleged in the complaint, it appears that Pulliam was singled out and arrested for exercising his First Amendment rights.”

Pulliam, however, is unclear. He will then have to convince the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which has considered a similar case in recent months: that of Priscilla Villarreal, the citizen journalist from Laredo, Texas, whom police arrested in 2017 using an obscure law criminalizing the solicitation of non-public information if there is “intent to obtain an advantage.” If that description sounds a lot like standard journalism—the pursuit of information that isn't yet public—that's because it is. But despite attracting strange bedfellows to his defense, Villarreal doesn't fare well in court.

Although his case is not identical to Pulliam's, they both raise very similar issues, particularly regarding the idea that a certain category of journalists should be granted more rights than others. “Villarreal and others present her as a martyr in the service of journalism,” wrote Justice Edith Jones, in her majority opinion, dismissed Villarreal's lawsuit and granted qualified immunity to the police. “It’s inappropriate,” according to Jones, because Villarreal, who posts his report on his popular Facebook page Lagordiloca, is not a “legitimate mainstream media outlet.” His right to freedom of expression suffers.