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

Christopher J. Cordova was convicted of two misdemeanors for failing to comply with official signs and unlawfully photographing federal property. He received a sentence of 15 days in jail, two years’ probation and a fine of $3,000.

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

But in an Oct. 15 order, U.S. District Court Judge Nina Y. Wang noted any restrictions inside the Social Security Administration office only needed to be reasonable. Moreover, she believed the prohibition on recording served a legitimate purpose.

“While Defendant argues that ‘the act of recording is silent and non-disruptive,’ this blanket assertion is belied by his conduct in this case, which did cause disruption in the SSA office,” Wang wrote, “diverting the attention of security guards and requiring the arrival of additional security guards and police officers, not to mention causing a commotion that was likely distracting and may have been distressing to SSA employees and patrons.”

Cordova and a handful of others arrived at the Social Security office on Southpark Lane on Aug. 2, 2022. Cordova used a camera to record in the entryway for approximately three hours. Security personnel later alleged the group was “stating that it was their constitutional right to film inside government buildings.” 

Believing they were “First Amendment auditors” — those who record in public spaces to test their free speech rights — security personnel told the group they could remain in the entryway but could not record inside the office itself, where customers interacted with Social Security staff and disclosed their personal identifying information. Posted signage also warned against video recording.

The auditors allegedly called law enforcement officers “tyrants” and threatened to sue. Elderly customers allegedly “stated they felt intimidated and threatened by the auditors,” one officer wrote. Eventually, Cordova stepped into the Social Security office and an officer arrested him. The other auditors allegedly “cheered and appeared to have obtained what they wanted,” another officer wrote.

Federal prosecutors charged Cordova, alleging he “thought YouTube fame and money trumped the privacy rights of Social Security Administration customers.” They also claimed Cordova earned $11,000 from his YouTube channel in the months after posting 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 test the First Amendment.” He also compared himself 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 to employees, was a “lobby” in which recording was permissible for news purposes. He noted the office was where the Social Security Administration “conducted its primary business.”

“It is clear based on the regulation, the signage in the SSA entryway, the instructions given by law enforcement, and Mr. Cordova’s own understanding of the law that he had fair notice of the law and that his conduct in filming beyond the interior glass doors was punishable,” Hegarty wrote in March 2023. “Although I respect his right to challenge the law and test his constitutional rights to their outer limit, he is wrong in this instance.”

Wang, the district judge, rejected all of Cordova’s arguments on appeal. She disagreed the prohibition on recording was overly broad, as it applied only to spaces occupied by federal agencies.

“And despite Defendant’s suggestion that the properties covered by the regulation can share no common purpose, their shared purpose is simple: to conduct the business of the federal government,” Wang wrote.

She also disputed the claim that Hegarty improperly sentenced 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 in light of Cordova’s repeat conduct, Wang found no evidence that Hegarty considered Cordova’s arrest when handing down his sentence.

The case is United States v. Cordova.