On a recent Shabbat, my synagogue experienced something that more synagogues may eventually have to deal with: a so-called “First Amendment auditor.” Toward the end of Shabbat services, an average-looking middle-aged man appeared on the public sidewalk about 40 feet from our synagogue. He set up a tripod, attached his phone and began filming our building. A congregant noticed him and alerted our security guard, who went outside with our Facilities Operations Manager to see what was going on. They quickly learned that he wasn’t interested in explaining himself. He said only that he was there to film the building, that he was on public property and that he had a constitutional right to do so. Interestingly, he seemed more interested in asking our guard why he carried a firearm and who he worked for.

Over the next hour and a half, the man moved to several locations around the synagogue, always remaining on public property. He filmed the building, but he also filmed congregants and their vehicles as people left services. He never threatened anyone and never attempted to enter the property, but his presence understandably made people uncomfortable. That raised the larger question: what should a synagogue actually do in this situation?

First Amendment auditors are individuals who film police, government facilities, businesses and, increasingly, houses of worship to see how people react. Some consider themselves civil-rights activists. Others appear far more interested in provoking a confrontation that can later become online content and, in some cases, generate revenue. There is no evidence that First Amendment auditors as a group are an organized antisemitic or extremist movement. The ADL has noted that while some auditors have harassed synagogues, antisemitism is not a routine part of most auditing activity.

That does not mean a synagogue should dismiss someone who spends an hour or more photographing its building, entrances, security personnel, congregants and vehicles. The problem is that we do not know someone’s intentions merely because he tells us he is conducting a First Amendment audit. Someone engaged in legally protected photography and someone conducting hostile surveillance may initially look very similar. The job of synagogue security is not to guess at motive, but to observe behavior and respond appropriately.

One of the first things security personnel need to understand is the distinction between public and private property. Someone standing on a public sidewalk generally has broad rights to photograph what he can lawfully see from there. A synagogue, however, is private property. Calling yourself a First Amendment auditor does not give you the right to walk onto synagogue grounds, wander around the building, test doors or refuse a lawful request to leave. If the person remains on public property, makes no threats and does not interfere with synagogue operations, observation is usually better than confrontation. If he crosses onto private property, attempts to access restricted areas, tests doors, threatens people or refuses to leave, the situation has changed.

Perhaps the most important lesson is not to take the bait. Security guards, volunteers and congregants should not get drawn into arguments about constitutional rights, demand identification without authority, or answer questions about cameras, guards, firearms, patrols, access procedures or building occupancy. They should not touch the person or his equipment, and they certainly should not send a group of congregants outside to confront him. If interaction is necessary, it can be brief: “I can’t discuss our security procedures. Please remain off synagogue property.” Then disengage.

That matters because, for some auditors, the confrontation is the product. An angry guard or congregant arguing on camera may be exactly what they came looking for. Remaining calm does not mean ignoring the person. It means continuing to observe while refusing to provide the confrontation or information he may be trying to obtain.

Security personnel should also focus on behavior rather than labels. An individual openly filming from a sidewalk is one thing. Someone repeatedly appearing at services, photographing security equipment, following congregants, trying door handles, asking detailed questions about security procedures, entering private property, leaving objects behind or making threats is something very different. Those actions matter regardless of whether the person calls himself an auditor, journalist, photographer or activist.

The same approach should guide communication with police. Rather than simply saying, “There is a suspicious auditor outside our synagogue,” provide the facts. An unidentified individual has been filming the synagogue for 90 minutes. He has moved around the property. He has photographed congregants and vehicles. He has questioned security personnel. He has not entered the property and has made no threats. That gives law enforcement something useful to evaluate. A weapon, threat, assault or attempted forced entry is obviously a 911 call, while other prolonged or unusual activity can be reported through the non-emergency number so local police are at least aware of what is happening.

Even when no crime occurs, the incident should be documented. Record the time, location, physical description, behavior, statements, duration and vehicle information if safely available, and preserve relevant security-camera footage. If appropriate, that information can also be shared with local police and Jewish community security partners. One person filming one synagogue may mean very little, but the same individual appearing at several Jewish institutions becomes much more significant.

Documentation should not turn into pursuit. Once the person leaves, volunteers or staff should not follow him down the street simply to obtain a license plate or figure out where he is going. The responsibility of synagogue security is to protect the synagogue and its congregants, not to chase someone around town and potentially create the very confrontation everyone was trying to avoid.

The larger lesson is that synagogues should have a plan before this happens. The first time a Rabbi, guard, volunteer or facilities manager considers how to respond to someone filming the building should not be while that person is already standing outside with a camera. Decide in advance who speaks for the synagogue, make sure guards understand the distinction between public and private property, establish when police should be notified, determine how incidents will be documented and shared, and remind congregants not to take matters into their own hands.

Jewish institutions have every reason today to take unusual activity around our buildings seriously. But vigilance does not require treating every uncomfortable situation as an attack. Good security requires judgment, restraint and the ability to distinguish between something unusual and something genuinely threatening. In many cases, the best response is straightforward: observe what is happening, do not provoke the person, protect the property line, protect the congregation, document the incident and escalate based on behavior rather than assumptions.