GRAND RAPIDS, MI - A federal lawsuit filed last week by a man claiming police violated his constitutional rights raises questions about when citizens can and can't film police, and whether officers can order them to delete video.

James King, 23, alleges his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated during a 2014 arrest carried out by an FBI special agent and a Grand Rapids police detective, both of whom were undercover and working as part of a joint fugitive task force. King, who was acquitted of criminal charges, was not the home invasion suspect police were seeking. He says he was beaten, falsely arrested and maliciously prosecuted.

Bystanders with cell phone cameras in hand converged along the sidewalk as King struggled with the officers and was detained.

A uniformed officer who responded to the altercation told at least two bystanders to put their cameras away and delete their videos for the safety of the undercover officers, according to the lawsuit and dash cam video released by King's attorney.

"Delete it. Delete it. It's for the safety of the officers," the officer is heard saying on the video.

In recent years, cell phone video has become a common tool in proving or disproving allegations of police misconduct, but citizens might not know their rights when filming.

Experts say generally speaking, it is legal for citizens to photograph and film a police officer doing his or her job in public, as long as the citizen isn't committing a crime or interfering with the officer's work.

The video is the person's property. If he or she declines an officer's request to delete it, the footage cannot be seized without a warrant.

"If the officers truly think that's evidence they need on the phone, they could seize and search it within the bounds of Fourth Amendment law," said Tonya Krause-Phelan, a professor at Western Michigan University Cooley Law School.

Michael J. Steinberg, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, said police are free to ask members of the public to delete videos, but if the person declines, it would be "unconstitutional for the police to penalize a person for exercising his or her First Amendment rights."

"Merely filming a police officer in public is not a crime," he said.

Steinberg recommends that citizens politely remind officers of their rights if they're told to stop filming. The ACLU has a phone app that stores video on the organization's server when the user is finished recording.

Several federal circuit courts have ruled that the First Amendment affords citizens the right to film police in public, but Michigan courts and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit have yet to address the issue.

"If there are no binding cases, then there's the slew of cases that serve as persuasive authority," Steinberg said.

However, the issue becomes more complicated - pitting officer safety against citizens' First Amendment rights - when police are filmed while working undercover.

Police departments can argue that recording undercover cops interferes with investigations and jeopardizes their safety, Krause-Phelan said.

She noted that some undercover operations can require months or even years of investigation. If a citizen posts a cell phone video online before officers have outed themselves to the suspect, it may increase the likelihood that the citizen is seen as interfering with their work.

Anecdotally, Krause-Phelan has heard of departments beginning to train officers on how to react when citizens film them at a scene.

Citizen rights when filming police is an issue Krause-Phelan said she's asked about more frequently these days.

"I think we're going to continue to see more of these types of lawsuits or issues raised," she said.

Angie Jackson covers crime and breaking news for MLive. Email her at ajackso3@mlive.com, and follow her on Twitter.