A local New Hampshire police department agreed Thursday to pay a woman who was arrested and charged with wiretapping $57,000 to settle her civil rights lawsuit. The deal comes a week after a federal appeals court ruled that the public has a "First Amendment" right to film cops.

The plaintiff in the case, Carla Gericke, was arrested on wiretapping allegations in 2010 for filming her friend being pulled over by the Weare Police Department during a late-night traffic stop. Although Gericke was never brought to trial, she sued, alleging that her arrest constituted retaliatory prosecution in breach of her constitutional rights. The department, without admitting wrongdoing, settled Thursday in a move that the woman's attorney speculated would deter future police "retaliation."

Further Reading Court upholds “First Amendment” right to film police

"Unfortunately, sometimes, the only thing that changes entrenched behaviors is if it becomes too costly to continue those behaviors," attorney Seth Hipple said. “This settlement helps to make it clear that government agencies that choose to retaliate against videographers will pay for their retaliation in dollars and cents. We are confident that this settlement will help to make arrests of videographers a thing of the past."

The First US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled (PDF) in Gericke's case last week that she was "exercising a clearly established First Amendment right when she attempted to film the traffic stop in the absence of a police order to stop filming or leave the area."

That decision was among several nationwide that are gutting laws barring the recording of police as they perform their duties. However, some states, like Massachusetts, outlaw the secret audio recording of police. A woman accused of secretly turning on the audio recording feature of her mobile phone while she was being arrested was charged with wiretapping last month.

The appeals court in Gericke's case had sent the case back to trial despite its First Amendment ruling. The settlement, however, avoids a trial.

Before the settlement, the appeals court had kept alive the possibility of a trial because New Hampshire law forbids the recording of police if the authorities order people to disperse for legitimate safety concerns. A trial could have determined whether the woman was being disruptive and whether police feared for their safety because the driver of the vehicle that was pulled over said he had a firearm, the appeals court wrote.

The woman was following a friend to his house when an officer pulled him over. From about 30 feet away, after getting out of her car, she announced she was going to audio-record the stop, according to the record. Ironically, her video camera malfunctioned, and she was unable to capture anything. She returned to her car, according to the opinion.

In a footnote, the court said that the malfunction was irrelevant: "We agree that Gericke's First Amendment right does not depend on whether her attempt to videotape was frustrated by a technical malfunction. There is no dispute that she took out the camera in order to record the traffic stop."

Another officer arrived at the scene and demanded to know where her camera was. She refused to say. She also declined to provide her license and registration. She was arrested for disobeying a police officer, obstructing a government official, and "unlawful interception of oral communications."