In a nutshell, the plaintiff was recording an arrest on his cell phone and the cops didn't much appreciate it. So they arrested him for violation of the state's wiretap laws and siezed his cell phone. Ultimately, he sued them for a civil rights violation. The cops claimed immunity because, according to them, the right to record the cops is not a well-established right. The trial court disagreed and, on appeal, so did the Circuit Court, holding:

It is firmly established that the First Amendment's

aegis extends further than the text's proscription on laws
"abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," and encompasses

a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of

information. As the Supreme Court has observed, "the First
Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the
self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting
(1st Cir. 1986)))the stock of information from which members of the public may draw." First Nat'l Bank v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 783 (1978); see
also Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969) ("It is . . .
well established that the Constitution protects the right to
receive information and ideas."). An important corollary to this
interest in protecting the stock of public information is that
"[t]here is an undoubted right to gather news 'from any source by
means within the law.'" Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1, 11

(1978) (quoting Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 681-82 (1972)).

The full decision is here: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Glik.pdf