You will be given a definition of a task first, then some input of the task.
In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.

Fields v. City of Philadelphia 
  
 Rick Fields 
  
 The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania and co-counsel filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a Temple undergraduate student who was arrested for photographing on-duty Philadelphia police officers. This is the fourth in a series of ACLU-PA lawsuits aimed at stopping the Philadelphia Police Department’s illegal practice of arresting citizens in retaliation for observing or recording the police performing their duties. According to the lawsuit, this practice is routine, despite a September 2011 memo from PPD Commissioner Charles Ramsey reminding officers that individuals have a First Amendment right to photograph and record them. 
  
 (click to enlarge) 
  
 In December 2015, the city moved for partial summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss all claims against the city and the First Amendment retaliation, illegal search, and malicious prosecution claims against Officer Sisca. On February 19, 2016, Judge Kearney granted summary judgment to the defendants on the First Amendment claims. He ruled that civilians have no First Amendment right to record the police unless they are doing so for the purpose of criticizing the police The ACLU appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. 
  
 On July 7, 2017, the court issued an opinion that read, in part, "Every Circuit Court of Appeals to address this issue (First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh) has held that there is a First Amendment right to record police activity in public.... Today we join this growing consensus. Simply put, the First Amendment protects the act of photographing, filming, or otherwise recording police officers conducting their official duties in public." 
  
 This lawsuit is part of a series aimed at stopping Philadelphia police officers' unlawful practice of arresting citizens in retaliation for observing the police performing their duties. To learn more about other police practice cases, visit: aclupa.org/copwatch 
  
 Press Releases 
  
 Legal Documents ||||| PostTV talked to the International Union of Police Associations and the National Press Photographers Association about civilians' rights when it comes to filming law enforcement. Here's what you should know. (The Washington Post) 
  
 In recent years, lower federal courts have generally held that the First Amendment protects a right to videorecord (and photograph) in public places, especially when one is recording public servants such as the police. 
  
 Because recording events that you observe in public places is important to be able to speak effectively about what you observe, courts held, the First Amendment protects such recording. (By analogy, spending money on speech is likewise protected by the First Amendment, because such spending is important to be able to speak effectively; likewise, associating with others for expressive purposes is protected by the First Amendment, because such association is important to be able to speak effectively.) Some restrictions on such recording may be constitutional, but simply prohibiting the recording because the person is recording the police can’t be constitutional. This is the view of all the precedential federal appellate decisions that have considered the issue. (The Supreme Court hasn’t expressly considered this question.) 
  
 But Friday’s federal trial court decision in Fields v. City of Philadelphia takes a different, narrower approach: There is no constitutional right to videorecord police, the court says, when the act of recording is unaccompanied by “challenge or criticism” of the police conduct. (The court doesn’t decide whether there would be such a right if the challenge or criticism were present.) Therefore, the court held, simply “photograph[ing] approximately twenty police officers standing outside a home hosting a party” and “carr[ying] a camera” to a public protest to videotape “interaction between police and civilians during civil disobedience or protests” wasn’t protected by the First Amendment. 
  
 [interstitial_link url="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/02/05/a-new-report-shows-the-limits-of-police-body-cameras/"]A new report shows the limits of police body cameras[/interstitial_link] 
  
 I don’t think that’s right, though. Whether one is physically speaking (to challenge or criticize the police or to praise them or to say something else) is relevant to whether one is engaged in expression. But it’s not relevant to whether one is gathering information, and the First Amendment protects silent gathering of information (at least by recording in public) for possible future publication as much as it protects loud gathering of information. 
  
 Your being able to spend money to express your views is protected even when you don’t say anything while writing the check (since your plan is to use the funds to support speech that takes place later). Your being able to associate with others for expressive purposes, for instance by signing a membership form or paying your membership dues, is protected even when you aren’t actually challenging or criticizing anyone while associating (since your plan is for your association to facilitate speech that takes place later). The same should be true of your recording events in public places. 
  
 In any event, the trial court expressly noted its disagreement with the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st Circuit and 9th Circuit decisions (and I think the result is inconsistent with other circuit decisions, too). I’m told there’ll be an appeal of the decision, and I expect the 3rd Circuit will reverse. 
  
 Thanks to Benjamin Picker and Colin Starger for the pointer. 
  
 UPDATE: I originally said that I hoped that there would be an appeal, but I’ve now been told that one is indeed planned. |||||
Output:
Unless you're actively challenging or criticizing the police, don't whip out your cellphone to record them. That's the ruling of a US District Court in Pennsylvania in a joint lawsuit covering two cases in Philadelphia, the PhillyVoice reports. The complaint—which the ACLU of Pennsylvania says is the fourth suit in a series designed to curb the Philly PD's "illegal practice of arresting citizens in retaliation for observing or recording the police performing their duties"—is in the names of Amanda Geraci and Richard Fields, who sued the city for infringing on their First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights. In the case of Geraci, IDed by the ABA Journal as a "trained legal observer," she was at a 2012 fracking protest and says she was physically restrained and prevented from recording an arrest. Fields says he was handcuffed, put in a police van, and stripped of his cellphone and searched after he recorded what he thought was a "great picture" of 20 cops outside a 2013 Temple University house party. The District Court on Friday did allow the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claims regarding excessive force (Geraci) and false arrest and unreasonable search (Fields). Their First Amendment rights were another story, with the court deciding citizens can't record police actions unless they engage in what's called "expressive conduct"—they tell the cops why they want to capture certain images or moments, per the ABA Journal. "Absent any authority from the Supreme Court or our Court of Appeals, we decline to create a new First Amendment right for citizens to photograph officers when they have no expressive purpose such as challenging police actions," the decision reads. Eugene Volokh takes issue in the Washington Post with the ruling, noting precedents set in lower federal courts for this type of recording and that what Geraci and Fields were doing was silently "gathering" information, which he says is as constitutional as "loud" gathering of information. An appeal is reportedly in the works, Volokh says. (Video got this professor fired.)