A federal judge last month upheld a man’s convictions for videotaping a Littleton office of the U.S. Social Security Administration without permission, despite his claim that he was trying to “stress test the First Amendment.”

Christopher J. Cordova was convicted of two misdemeanor counts of failure to obey official signs and illegal photography of federal property. He received a sentence of 15 days in jail, two years of probation and a $3,000 fine.

Cordova argued on appeal that his recording was “part of his journalistic expression” and the regulation against video recording was an improper restriction of free speech.

But in an order dated October 15U.S. District Court Judge Nina Y. Wang noted that any restrictions within the Social Security Administration’s office need only be reasonable. Moreover, she believed that the ban on recording served a legitimate purpose.

“While the defendant claims that the ‘deed of registration is silent and non-disruptive’, this general contention is belied by its conduct in this case, which he did causing disruption in the SSA office,” Wang wrote, “distracting the security guards and requiring the arrival of additional security guards and police officers, not to mention causing a commotion that was likely to be distracting and could have been of concern to SSA employees and employers. .”

Cordova and several others arrived at the Social Security office on Southpark Lane on August 2, 2022. Cordova used a camera to record in the lobby for about three hours. Security personnel later claimed that the group “states that it was their constitutional right to film in government buildings.”

Thinking I’m”Auditors of the First Amendment“— those recording in public spaces to test their freedom of speech — security staff told the group they could stay in the entrance but not record inside the office itself, where customers interacted with Social Security staff and and -disclosed personally identifiable information. signage also warned against video recording.

Auditors reportedly called law enforcement officers “tyrants” and threatened to sue. The elderly customers “reported feeling intimidated and threatened by the auditors,” an officer wrote. Eventually, Cordova walked into the Social Security office and an officer arrested him. The other auditors were reportedly “acclaimed and seemed to have gotten what they wanted,” another officer wrote.

Federal prosecutors charged Cordova, alleging that he “believed that YouTube’s fame and money outweighed the privacy rights of Social Security Administration clients.” They also claimed that Cordova earned $11,000 from his YouTube channel in the months after he posted the video of his encounter.

For his part, Cordova explained to Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty that he was “trying to create case law in the state of Colorado” and “stress testing the First Amendment.” She has also been compared to Rosa Parks.

Hegarty found Cordova guilty on both counts.

In part, Hegarty rejected Cordova’s argument that the Social Security office, where customers waited to speak with employees, was a “lobby” where the recording was permitted for news purposes. He noted that the office is where the Social Security Administration “conducted its primary business.”

“It is clear, based on the regulation, the signage at the SSA entrance, the instructions given by law enforcement officers, and Mr. Cordova’s understanding of the law that he had a fair knowledge of the law and that his conduct in filming beyond the interior window. doors was punishable,” Hegarty wrote in March 2023. “While I respect his right to challenge the law and test his constitutional rights to their limit, he is wrong in this case.”

Wang, the district judge, rejected all of Cordova’s arguments on appeal. She disagreed that the registration ban was too broad because it applied only to premises occupied by federal agencies.

“And despite the defendant’s suggestion that the properties covered by the regulation cannot have a common purpose, their common purpose is simple: to conduct the business of the federal government,” Wang wrote.

She also disputed the contention that Hegarty improperly convicted Cordova based on Cordova’s post-trial arrest in Colorado Springs for similar conduct at a government building. Although prosecutors asked for a harsher sentence given Cordova’s repeated behavior, Wang found no evidence that Hegarty considered Cordova’s arrest when sentencing him.

The case is United States v. Cordova.