Two weeks ago
the NYPD
sent officers a memo reminding them that “members of the public
are legally allowed to record police interactions.” In
fact, “intentional interference such as blocking or
obstructing cameras or ordering the person to cease constitutes
censorship and also violates the First Amendment.” The memo
said cops may take action against camera-wielding civilians only if
they “interfere with police operations.” The directive sounds
similar to one
issued by Washington, D.C., Police Chief Cathy Lanier two years
ago. If you are wondering why such reminders are considered
necessary, it is because of incidents like this, described in a
federal lawsuit filed last year by Brooklyn resident Dick
George:
On or about June 14, 2012, at approximately 6:00
p.m., Plaintiff was sitting in his motor vehicle and parked at
or near the intersection of Ocean Avenue and Albemarle Road,
Brooklyn, New York, when he observed Lt. [Dennis] Ferber, Sgt.
[Patrick] Golden and PO [Stacey] Robinson exit their unmarked
police vehicle and approach three young, black youths congregated
on the sidewalk and immediately begin to frisk and search them.Plaintiff took photographs of this encounter between the
defendant police officers and the three youths with his cellular
telephone.As the defendant police officers were returning to their
vehicle, Plaintiff commented to one of the youths that “in
situations like that, next time make sure and ask to see a badge
number or some identification from the police,” or words to that
effect.Having apparently heard what Plaintiff had said, Lt. Ferber
retorted, “What did he just say to them, get our badge
number…let’s go get him,” or words to that effect.The defendant police officers then entered their police vehicle
and began following Plaintiff’s vehicle.
After stopping George’s car, the cops roughed him up, handcuffed
him, and took him to the precinct house, where he was
strip-searched, locked in a cell, and charged with disorderly
conduct. When he got his cellphone back after being released with a
desk appearance ticket, he found that the photos of the
stop-and-frisk encounter had been deleted.
According to George’s complaint, the cops repeatedly told him he
was getting what he deserved for “being an activist.” Ferber
allegedly said something like: “Now we are going to give you what
you deserve for meddling in our business and when we finish with
you, you can sue the city for $5,000,000 and get rich. We don’t
care.”
That estimate was off by a factor of 40. The New York Daily
News
reported on Monday that the city agreed to settle George’s
lawsuit for $125,000. “After a thorough review of the case facts,”
a lawyer for the city said, “it was in the best interest of all to
resolve this matter without costly litigation and trial.”
The officers, of course, are not on the hook for any of that
money, which will instead come out of taxpayers’ pockets. And
judging from the comments reported by George, the prospect of
litigation does not deter this sort of unlawful bullying. The
problem was not that the cops didn’t realize they were violating
George’s rights; it was that they did not care, because they did
not expect to suffer any negative consequences as a result—for good
reason, according to the lawsuit:
The supervisory staff of the NYPD has consistently failed to
investigate allegations such as those contained herein and to
discipline officers who have violated NYPD guidelines. The
investigation of these incidents by central office and/or
supervisory staff reflects a bias in favor of uniformed officers.
Furthermore, officers and staff who are known to have violated an
individual’s civil rights in one command are often transferred by
NYPD to another command rather than be disciplined, demoted or
fired by the NYPD.
The cost of settling lawsuits like George’s helps explain the
recent NYPD memo. But reminding cops that they are supposed to
respect people’s constitutional rights will not accomplish much
unless they suffer personally for violating them. Since
courts have ruled that cops do not receive qualified immunity
in cases like this (because the right to record them is well
established), officers can theoretically find themselves owing
damages to the people they victimize. But the usual practice in
settling cases is to drop claims against individual cops along with
claims against the city and the police department. Maybe it is time
to reconsider that practice. The threat of financial ruin would be
harder to laugh off than the threat of taxpayer-funded damages.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1odKUjd
via IFTTT