Boston pays $170k to settle cell phone recording lawsuit

By Timothy B. Lee | arstechnica.com

The City of Boston has agreed to pay Simon Glik $170,000 in damages and legal fees to settle a civil rights lawsuit. Glik was arrested in 2007 on Boston Common for using his cell phone to record the arrest of another man. Police then arrested Glik, too, and charged him under the strict Massachusetts wiretapping statute. They eventually dropped the charges, but with the help of the Massachusetts ACLU, Glik filed a civil lawsuit against the city for false arrest.

Last year, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit unanimously ruled that Glik had a "clearly established" First Amendment right to record the actions of public officials on a public sidewalk. Boston finally admitted it had made a mistake earlier this year, and Boston taxpayers will now be paying for the screw-up.

"The law had been clear for years that openly recording a video is not a crime," Glik said in a statement. "It's sad that it takes so much for police to learn the laws they were supposed to know in the first place. I hope Boston police officers will never again arrest someone for openly recording their public actions."

Glik claims that officers in Boston's Internal Affairs Division made fun of him when he filed his original complaint with the police department; he says they suggested he'd be better off filing a civil lawsuit instead. They probably aren't laughing today.

The Massachusetts ACLU says that the City of Boston has changed its practices since Glik filed his lawsuit. The city "developed a training video based on facts similar to the Glik case, instructing police officers not to arrest people who openly record what they are doing in public."

An Massachusetts ACLU spokesman tells Ars that Glik himself will receive $50,000 of the money; the rest will go to cover the costs of his legal case.

We've also sought a comment from the City of Boston and will update our story if they respond.

Eugene verdict clarifies legal protections for protesters who turn video cameras on police

Sunday, January 29, 2012 Bryan Denson, The Oregonian

State law permits protesters to record police in public places. But courts
have made few rulings on what officers can do with the recording devices
they seize from people during arrests.

The rules of engagement became clearer in Eugene's U.S. District Court
last week, when a civil jury determined that a city police sergeant
violated an environmental activist's constitutional protections against
illegal search and seizure during a 2009 leafletting campaign outside a
bank.

The eight-person panel determined that Sgt. Bill Solesbee arrested
environmentalist Josh Schlossberg without probable cause and used
excessive force. But it was Solesbee's next act that sent legal minds
across Oregon into hyperdrive: He seized the environmentalist's video
camera without a warrant.

That's the electronic equivalent of police walking off with several file
cabinets of private papers without benefit of a judge's signature, said
Lauren Regan, Schlossberg's lawyer.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin ruled in a pretrial hearing in the
Eugene case that Solesbee violated Schlossberg's Fourth Amendment rights
by searching the contents of his camera without a warrant. That ruling
marked the first time that a federal court in Oregon weighed in on
warrantless seizures of digital devices.

"Across the country right now, legal scholars and lawyers are just eating
it up," Regan said of the ruling, "because it's actually a solid statement
of the right to privacy in the age of technology."

Outdated laws

The American Civil Liberties Union has pressed Congress in recent years to
give more protections to people from searches and seizures of their cell
phones, laptops and other digital devices, said David Fidanque, the ACLU's
executive director in Oregon. The last time Congress updated electronic
privacy protections was 1986.

Oregon's law on intercepting communications was enacted in 1973, decades
before the digital age. Fidanque said the statute gives little protection
when, say, a teacher confiscates a student's cell phone and begins rifling
through text messages and photos, although he thinks the Constitution does
offer protections.

"The decision in the Eugene case strengthens the federal constitutional
protections in a lot of other situations as well," he said. "Ideally we
would like Congress to act -- and state legislatures to act -- to
eliminate any confusion."

The Eugene case began on March 13, 2009, when Schlossberg and another
activist set up a table outside an Umpqua Bank in downtown Eugene. There
they began handing leaflets to passersby.

The leaflets reported that the bank's chairman of the board, Allyn Ford,
owned Roseburg Forest Products and that the company sprayed toxic
herbicides on its forestlands. The papers alleged that the herbicides
drifted onto residential property miles away, contaminating the land and
health of unwitting families.

Before setting up the leafletting station, Schlossberg had met with two
lawyers, including Regan, director of the Civil Liberties Defense Center
in Eugene. Regan advised him not to block the sidewalk or the bank's entry
and, if questioned by police, to videotape the exchange.

Schlossberg was approached by one police officer, who warned him they had
gotten complaints about the leafletting. But after a polite chat, she told
him, "You're fine."

Then came Sgt. Solesbee, who told the environmentalist he had to move
along. Schlossberg told the sergeant that his lawyer had advised him that
he was engaged in lawful activity. Then he watched Solesbee walk into the
bank. Schlossberg began packing up his things to leave.

Solesbee told Schlossberg he needed a permit to set up a table in front of
the bank and accused him of blocking pedestrian traffic. Then he asked,
"Are you taping me?"

As the two men argued over whether Schlossberg had notified him he was
shooting video, the sergeant pointed at the camera and said, "Gimme that.
That's evidence."

Schlossberg's lawyer said the sergeant then charged the activist, roughly
grabbed for his camera and wrenched his arm behind his back. Schlossberg
was thrown to the ground, where his head struck the pavement, and felt the
sergeant's knee on his neck, Regan said.

Solesbee seized Schlossberg's camera and arrested him. He was jailed for
five hours on charges of resisting arrest and intercepting communications.
Prosecutors later dismissed the charges.

New police policy

Schlossberg complained about his treatment to the Eugene Police
Department. His accusations were investigated by the department's internal
affairs section and reviewed by an independent police auditor before
reaching the desk of Chief Pete Kerns, who in late 2009 determined
Solesbee hadn't violated department policy.

"I think all of his actions were within policy," Kerns said this week.

The chief said court rulings between the time of Schlossberg's arrest and
today changed his department's policy. Now, he said, Eugene police are
discouraged from arresting people for the same offense.

"The state of the law concerning that particular crime has changed," he said.

The Eugene jury last Monday awarded Schlossberg $4,083 for injuries
suffered as a result of Solesbee's excessive force and $1,500 for pain and
suffering. The city also will pay about $200,000 for Schlossberg's legal
fees, Regan said.

Kerns said the city was still deciding whether to appeal the verdict.

The damages were small, Regan said, but the jury's determinations were big
because they held Solesbee accountable for his actions and protected
Schlossberg's right to tape the encounter. She remains baffled by the
police department's position on the incident.

"Not only did a federal judge just spank them on the issue of this illegal
search and seizure," she said, "Solesbee to this day still believes he's
right."

Support Richmond Anarchist Jeremy!

Sept. 9, 2011 Anarchist News

On September 2nd, Richmond Anarchist Jeremy Hawthorne was arrested at the
end of a night of Copwatching by the VCU and Richmond Police. He has since
been charged with Felony Destruction of State Property worth more than
1,000 for allegedly cutting the tires on VCU cop cars and other vehicles.
Here is an update on his case. More information about that night and
arrest can be found online at www.wingnutrva.org

To update on Jeremy’s predicament with the VCU Police:

After the arraignment on the morning of Tuesday, September 6th (to which
several people from the city showed up in solidarity), Jeremy was released
on a $5000 noncommittal bond, and a court case was set for September 27th,
at 11 AM. We encourage anyone and everyone who takes umbrage with not only
VCU Police, but all police everywhere, to show up to this and any
subsequent court cases Jeremy might have to endure. These charges are
publicly about a few car tires, but privately there is a deeper trend of
police oppression at work. We believe that this trend must be brought to
light, and must be talked about openly among all communities in this city,
not just those with an anarchist message.

Jeremy is currently exploring other avenues of legal help, and has a
couple good leads, but unfortunately a good lawyer for a serious charge is
almost never cheap. Jeremy has requested any form of support that
interested or sympathetic parties might be willing to donate, be it
spreading the word about the case in your home town, sending a kind word
or relavent literature to the Wingnut, and of course monetary donations
towards legal fees would be greatly appreciated as well (we have a
convenient Paypal button on the website… if you tell us exactly where you
want your donation to be used, we will make sure it is allocated
accordingly.)

Post Copwatch Field Trip to Lockup Proves to be No Fun At All

September 3, 2011 by Wingnut Anarchist Collective

After a long and relatively uneventful night of doing Copwatch for first
fridays on Broad Street, S and I were ready to make the trek back to the
Wingnut to review the footage acquired over the course of the night. It
had been an evening of very large groups of very bored pigs, standing in
groups of up to ten up and down Broad St., most likely very upset that
there were no younger folks of color to push around to pass the time on a
Friday night. After a humorous impromptu interview with the 4th precinct
commander, Mike Strawder, S and I had made it back to our bikes, parked in
front of the New York Pizza restaurant. S had unlocked his bike, and as I
bent to unlock my bike, I felt handcuffs close over my left wrist as
another pair of hands closed around my right arm. I looked up, and there
were at least 15 VCU and Richmond police officers surrounding S and I, and
I was promptly told that I was under arrest and that I had a felony
warrant out on my head, though they were not, at that moment, very
forthcoming about what I the warrant was for. S jumped to his feet and
immediately had his camera trained on the officers and myself, and watched
as they moved me to an alley “where no one could see me”. My pockets were
searched, my knife confiscated, and my bag taken from me as two undercover
agents kept their video cameras trained on me throughout the ordeal.

Soon, a VCU paddywagon pulled up, and I was shuffled away to the VCU
police station, under the impression that I would be going to jail for
whatever it was they thought it necessary to charge me with. After my
arrival, a detective and a police officer sat me down in a waiting room,
took my picture a few times, and shot the shit with other passing officers
while a large, sloth-like pig played a game of Bejeweled on an office
computer across the room, intermittently taking long sips from what was
probably the largest Big Gulp I had ever seen. After a few minutes of
wishing that I could take a nap, or at least know my reason for being
there, I was carted even deeper into the bowels of the VCU cop shop, and
finally was able to shed some light on the current predicament. The
detective informed me that on August 23rd someone matching my description
(someone with tattoos, a hat, and a bike….. in Richmond, during Best
Friends Day) had slashed an undetermined amount of tires belonging to, I’m
guessing, VCU. Though confused about the situation, I spoke to the
magistrate via some technological doohickey, and was told that I would be
taken to processing, and then released on a $5000 unsecured bond. I was
also told that my bike, hat, and knife would be held as evidence until the
investigation was over with. The officers involved used their wily charms
to try and talk about the Wingnut and Copwatch, and allowed me to call S
to come and pick up my bag.

After a short ordeal with fingerprinting, signing documents, and getting
even more pictures taken at the processing station, I found myself right
back out onto the streets of Richmond, dazed and slightly weirded out by
the strange turn of events that had taken place over the course of the
night. My court date is on Tuesday the 6th, at 9 A.M., so you can be sure
that there will be plenty of updates regarding the case as it progresses.
If anyone might happen to have contact with a decent (and cheap) lawyer in
town who is friendly towards Anarchists, you can contact the house at
804-303-5449, or through the website.

First Circuit Court Rules Videotaping Cops Is Protected By First Amendment

Ground-Breaking Victory For the Common Man: First Circuit Court Rules Videotaping Cops Is Protected By First Amendment

Mac Slavo September 2nd, 2011 SHTFplan.com

Whip out those cell phones and video cameras – we have great news!

It’s official, and the message to public servants is clear – Americans’ right to video record police while they are executing their duties in a public venue fits comfortably within first amendment activity:

Hear ye, hear ye!!

The First Circuit Court of Appeals–the highest federal court for New England just below the U.S. Supreme Court–last Friday handed down a ground-breaking decision defending our right to videotape the police and other public officials as they engage in their official duties…

…

On Friday, the First Circuit agreed. In a decision that reads like an ode to the First Amendment as key to both liberty and democracy, the court wrote:

“The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles [of protected First Amendment activity]. Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting the free discussion of governmental affairs.”

…

“Basic First Amendment principles, along with case law from this and other circuits, answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative.”

The Court further stated that such protections should have been clear to the police all along, noting that the right to videotape police carrying out their duties in a public forum is “fundamental and virtually self-evident”

…

“The public’s right of access to information is coextensive with that of the press.”

“Moreover, changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw,” the Court continued. “The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew, and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.”

Source: Boston.com

It’s possible that the case, or a case of a similar nature, will make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court eventually, but we are hard pressed to find a legitimate argument to the contrary, and thus believe that the Supreme Court would uphold the decision of the lower First Circuit Court of Appeals.

Of course, public officials, namely those who are themselves breaking the law and violating the rights of others, will continue to attempt to intimidate the general public – but only for a bit longer. Take, for example, the case of Michael Allison, who faces life in prison on multiple counts of wiretapping in Illinois for recording law enforcement officers in public. The Illinois Attorney General continues, at least as of this writing, to pursue the case after Allison refused a plea bargain that would have left him with no jail time. Allison rebelliously responded to the plea offer by saying, “if we don’t fight for our freedoms here at home we’re all going to lose them.”

The First Circuit Court’s decision would override any decision by a State judge, as it falls under the umbrella of the US Constitution, so we have no doubt Allison’s charges will be dropped, or simply overruled by a Federal court if it comes to that.

Once it becomes broadly known that this decision has set a ground breaking precedent and that there can be no criminal liability, Americans all over the country will undoubtedly begin documenting law enforcement activity and making that documentation available on the internet for all to see.

An open society, and one that is legally protected from the threat of intimidation and unwarranted arrest for simply making a record of police activity, is a freer society and this recent decision from the First Circuit Court of Appeals helps to ensure that freedom.

This is true transparency in government, an example which should be carried on to the U.S. Congress, where it would be in the best interests of the people to have cameras and microphones in any and all meetings where legislation or negotiation is taking place.

Author: Mac Slavo
Date: September 2nd, 2011
Website: www.SHTFplan.com

July 22-24: 2nd INTERNATIONAL COPWATCH CONFERENCE in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

The 2nd International Copwatch Conference will take place in Winnipeg,
Manitoba, Canada on July 22, 23 and 24 of 2011.

http://conference.winnipegcopwatch.org/

The conference will include sessions of panel discussions, workshops, and video screenings that focus on particular aspects of policing. Some topics to be included are policing in the context of colonialism; policing and immigration; policing as a gendered and racialized practice; the fluidity of defining crime and criminality; keeping the police accountable; community alternatives to policing and practice of restorative justice models, and a range of other topics.

The diverse nature of this conference will allow copwatching groups and individuals from all over North America to share their particular experiences and knowledge of police in their communities, while contributing to a larger understanding of police in general and providing people with new creative tools and ideas to take back to their own communities.

Our goal is for this to be an event that people who have experienced police brutality can feel safe and comfortable attending. For many people who have experienced police misconduct and violence, the presence of law enforcement officials will make it an inaccessible event. For this reason this conference is open to anyone except law enforcement officials