Boston Pays $170,000 To The Guy Police Arrested For Filming Them

from the don't-mess-with-the-first-amendment dept

Wed, Mar 28th 2012 10:14am — Mike Masnick

Last summer, we wrote about a huge ruling in an appeals court concerning a guy, Simon Glik, who was arrested by Boston police for filming them as they arrested someone else. The court not only found that the arrest was a clear violation of the 1st and 4th Amendments, but that since police should have known the arrest was bogus, following through with it was a civil rights violation for which they could be liable for damages. Because of that, the city has now paid Glik $170,000 to settle the case he filed against them. Not surprisingly, the Boston Police also indicate that they're working hard to make sure this doesn't happen again -- because it could get costly.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: boston, civil rights, first amendment, payment, simon glik

49 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2012 @ 10:18am

So the taxpayer loses and pays for the crimes of a police officer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2012 @ 11:10am
  
  Re:
  Don't worry I am sure those cops got a paid administrative leave...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2012 @ 11:58am
  
  Re:
  The taxpayer rarely "wins"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- weneedhelp (profile), 28 Mar 2012 @ 12:26pm
  
  Re:
  I am sure they have liability insurance that will cover it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2012 @ 12:36pm
    
    Re: Re:
    liability insurance premiums paid by whom?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DOlz, 28 Mar 2012 @ 3:00pm
  
  Re:
  Yes, but it does get the elected officials to take notice and start doing their jobs.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Paul Hobbs (profile), 28 Mar 2012 @ 4:16pm
  
  Re:
  Rather than being disappointed by this, rejoice! Think of it as the taxpayers paying for the system to do its job, and hopefully police will now think twice before arresting someone just for filming them.
  
  Better to pay one person $170,000 and prevent similar cases in the future than to have many folks being arrested because the cops got away with it once.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2012 @ 10:21am

Right on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
silverscarcat (profile), 28 Mar 2012 @ 10:22am

Serves them right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2012 @ 10:26am

Good for him.
It's about time the police actually had to police their own for this sort of crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 28 Mar 2012 @ 12:22pm
  
  Re: Good for him.
  There's no incentive to...
  
  It's great that this money is coming out of the budget but who is considering the next few steps at where the city is going to come up with this money?
  
  The officer wasn't fired.
  The prosecutors may have lost, but this will come out of taxes.
  
  And you still have no training in the law enforcement offices regarding this arrest.
  
  There are more losers here than anything.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
dave, 28 Mar 2012 @ 10:27am

The money should come out of the pockets of the arresting officers and their immediate supervisors, not the city itself. The city of Boston did not violate this man's rights, these people acting as 'police' did.

Hold police accountable for their actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JohnG (profile), 28 Mar 2012 @ 11:20am
  
  Re:
  and until the offenders have to pay themselves, they'll keep on offending
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Palmyra (profile), 28 Mar 2012 @ 11:35am
  
  Re:
  The city is most definitely at fault here. Its fault lies in not instructing the police on the law and the constitution in this type of situation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2012 @ 11:49am
    
    Re: Re:
    The taxpayers are not at fault, why should they bear the burden?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 28 Mar 2012 @ 12:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Because it's their government. The government is, remember, the citizens collectively. You cannot separate the taxpayers from the government, as the taxpayers are the government.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2012 @ 12:11pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Gee...
    If only there was some kind of law requiring training on the laws that they are reguired to enforce.
    
    If only the police department was required to train police officers on the constitution and the bill of rights.
    
    If only...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - AzureSky (profile), 28 Mar 2012 @ 3:30pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      if only there was some kind of law requiring our reps in federal govt to know about what they create and vote on laws for...could save alot of trouble to.....but thats about as likely as cops actually knowing the law rather then just guessing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - AzureSky (profile), 28 Mar 2012 @ 3:30pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      if only there was some kind of law requiring our reps in federal govt to know about what they create and vote on laws for...could save alot of trouble to.....but thats about as likely as cops actually knowing the law rather then just guessing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris ODonnell (profile), 28 Mar 2012 @ 10:30am

1. Film police
2. ????
3. Profit.

We now know what goes in #2 - get arrested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aaron T (profile), 28 Mar 2012 @ 10:31am

taxpayers on the hook
So the *taxpayers* are out $170K. Trying to figure out why the Boston PD has any real incentive to change... clearly bad publicity isn't enough to fix problems in Oakland or Los Angeles, so I don't see how a fine to a tax funded government entity would change things.

Now if there cops in question were held liable for their actions, that would seem to actually change things, but it seems highly unlikely that the DA would dare to prosecute them in todays political climate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 28 Mar 2012 @ 10:53am
  
  Re: taxpayers on the hook
  If the problem is fixed early, I'm happy to just stick the department with liability rather than the officers.
  
  If, somehow this were to go far enough as to stop potential officers from becoming officers, then we end up with a different problem.
  
  Sure I am willing to stick the liability to individual officers AND the department, if real bodily harm or death occurs.
  
  As it is, the department, now, seems to be doing the right thing to prevent this from happening.
  
  Even though not binding on many other police departments, it may be a signal to them to better train their officers as well.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - weneedhelp (profile), 28 Mar 2012 @ 11:10am
    
    Re: Re: taxpayers on the hook
    "Sure I am willing to stick the liability to individual officers AND the department, if real bodily harm or death occurs."
    
    So violating someones rights, and false imprisonment, because there was no bodily injury is not cause for punishment?
    
    I always see this:
    "Not surprisingly, the Boston Police also indicate that they're working hard to make sure this doesn't happen again -- because it could get costly." - Not because it is the right thing to do.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike42 (profile), 28 Mar 2012 @ 11:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re: taxpayers on the hook
      The "Corporate Mentality" has overridden any sense of ethics or morality. "Nothing personal. It's just business."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DannyB (profile), 28 Mar 2012 @ 1:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: taxpayers on the hook
      I didn't say no punishment. But not something that could end a career or financially ruin someone.
      
      Yeah an arrest and violating the guy's rights is terrible. And I'm glad he won. I would be horrified if he lost. But it sounds like the department is fixing the problem.
      
      And the really bad officers who break the law in ways that result in bodily harm, yes they should be severely punished. Also, I do think officers should be held to a higher standard.
      
      > Not because it is the right thing to do.
      
      If the financial penalty fixes it, that's better than nothing.
      
      Hopefully the penalty was just the wake up call to make them recognize that it is the right thing to do.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DCX2, 28 Mar 2012 @ 10:36am

Go after their pension
Instead of putting the taxpayers on the hook for $170k, why not penalize the pensions of every single person involved who allowed this to happen, from the officers on up through the DA that allowed the charges to go to trial.

Punish them in a way that will impact them and watch how fast they change their attitude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2012 @ 12:38pm
  
  Re: Go after their pension
  Better idea...
  
  Split the 170K evenly amongst every OTHER police department employee.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
FSK, 28 Mar 2012 @ 10:43am

Who Pays The Fine?
The fine isn't paid by the policemen who broke the law. It's paid by the general tax fund. It's paid by the other taxpayers.

It's pointless to sue the government, when a government employee does something wrong. The fine isn't paid by the people who broke the law. It's paid by the other taxpayers.

There's no incentive for police and bureaucrats to obey the law. Even when they do get caught doing something wrong, the fine is paid by the general tax fund, and not the people who broke the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2012 @ 10:53am
  
  Re: Who Pays The Fine?
  The problem is that police departments have Internal Affairs Divisions that are SUPPOSED to investigate and reprimand officers that act outside of the law. Often times they simply go through the motions and simply pass a "Move along. Nothing to see here." sort of action in an effort to "protect their own". If these officers cost the city enough money it will force the Internal Affairs Divisions to actually DO THEIR JOB instead of white-washing the misconduct of officers that abuse their power.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
vastrightwing, 28 Mar 2012 @ 10:51am

Boston police over zealous
Don't worry Boston has plenty of money to pay out for their mis-deeds. It was privy to the Big Dig, worth over 15 billion of your tax dollars. The police also love asserting their force with hoax devices. Now the city is raising its public transportation costs, so I say only $170K? Not even a drop in the bucket!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2012 @ 11:05am

Re: Go after their pension
Doing that may inspire higher ups to do cover ups of their underlings' actions to avoid punishment. Now, if they hit a small, select group (like the cop(s) who did the arrest), that's a different story...That solution still has problems, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DCX2, 28 Mar 2012 @ 12:53pm
  
  Re: Re: Go after their pension
  If a superior engages in a cover-up, they lose their entire pension. Period. They should also face prison time.
  
  If someone blows the whistle on such a superior, the whistle-blower should receive the entire pension.
  
  How's that for incentive?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Niall (profile), 29 Mar 2012 @ 5:49am
    
    Re: Re: Re: Go after their pension
    You'll just have the entire force trying to trip up and backstab their superiors, instead of actually doing their real work.
    
    Also, why should a whistle-blower benefit /that/ much? What about the city coffers, those wronged by the superior, those wronged by crime in general, or so on?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2012 @ 11:29am

So what disciplinary action was taken...
...against the public servants who knowingly and falsely arrested an innocent man?

Surely they must have been fired and blacklisted from public service for life: there's no way people this brutal, this ignorant, this vicious, this absolutely clueless should be allowed to carry a gun and a badge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2012 @ 12:16pm
  
  Re: So what disciplinary action was taken...
  ROTFLMAO
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
STJ, 28 Mar 2012 @ 11:35am

Now I know where to go to get a few years worth of my salary in just a few months.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris, 29 Mar 2012 @ 6:56am
  
  Re:
  I don't know if it's pure profit STJ. Sadly I bet most of it just goes to pay his lawyer and other costs associated with the trial. What makes it so difficult is that you or I would have to spend this much money of front, and the outcome is far from guaranteed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2012 @ 12:07pm

And continuing the police/cities reign of corruption, a new tax is passed. People who collect over $1 in cash settlements from the Boston PD must pay 100% of said settlements to the city.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve R. (profile), 28 Mar 2012 @ 12:34pm

Here's Another One
"Las Vegas police agree to pay $100,000 to beaten videographer" from the Mar. 21, 2012 edition of Las Vegas Review Journal.

Las Vegas Review-Journal reports: "The Metropolitan Police Department has agreed to pay $100,000 to a Las Vegas man who said he was beaten by an officer as he shot video from his driveway. ... As Colling was driving away, he stopped his car, got out and approached Crooks. ... He ordered Crooks to stop filming, and when Crooks refused, Colling beat him, according to the lawsuit."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 28 Mar 2012 @ 1:04pm

Won't stop it..
The cops stil believe they have full right to stop anyone from photographing or videotaping them. They want to avoid another "Rodney King" incident by the simple expedient of making videotape of the incident not allowed in court.

I go to Boston now and then and I am very careful to avoid going anywhere near the cops. I don't photograph/videotape the cops, don't use drugs, don't steal, and yet I avoid them like the plague. Boston cops are not to be trusted. Part of the problem is they have to deal with such serious criminals that it's hard for them not to descend to the criminal level themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- F!, 28 Mar 2012 @ 5:45pm
  
  Re: Won't stop it..
  One of the ironies of the Rodney King debacle is that the thugs basically got away with it. That makes one wonder why cops today are so worried about being filmed, because even with that evidence against them they don't have much to fear.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DannyB (profile), 28 Mar 2012 @ 1:21pm

Video works both ways
The police who are not acting wrongly probably would LIKE to have video of their actions.

Maybe police departments should install cameras everywhere. On cars. On officers themselves. The good officers would find it reassuring. The bad officers would probably find another line of work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- F!, 28 Mar 2012 @ 5:54pm
  
  Re: Video works both ways
  I totally agree. A helmet-cam on every cop, which has time & date stamp, GPS cordinates, officer's name & badge number in the corner of the screen, streamed live to publicly accessible internet in hd. Also archived online no later than 24 hours later, in a database searchable by date, name, badge number, location, etc.
  
  In the case of stalking/initiating a surprise raid, live streaming could be disabled temporarily, but available in archives immediately following.
  
  This would protect the good cops and weed out the bad ones. Win-win.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chris, 29 Mar 2012 @ 7:08am
    
    Re: Re: Video works both ways
    Yes, and a lot of departments do stuff like this. But, does anybody recall a recent case where a defendant made a request for said video and suddenly it couldn't be found? Do you see the problem with leaving it up to the cops to do the taping? In particular case I believe the defendant was able to prove that the cops destroyed the evidence. The judge did his usually thing of reprimanding the cops but I don't think anyone was punished. That would require the defendant to file a civil case, and like I commented above, their is a huge financial risk in doing so for the average citizen which pretty much guarantee�s the legal system won't do it's job.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2012 @ 1:43pm

sucks for Boston taxpayers who have to pay for this. good thing I'm out in California where taxpayers don't have to pay for any idiotic things our State and local governments do...:sarcasm:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digitari, 28 Mar 2012 @ 4:27pm

RE Know the LAW
"the Union says we aint got to"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2012 @ 6:29pm

Sad to see tax payers go this way, but it also puts pressure on the police to change its way or have the laws changed so they can start doing it legally.

That 170K will come from somewhere and the entire force could be punished, the government pockets are not what they used to be and they don't have that kind of money anymore lying around, the little that is left is going to pet projects and others pockets, so I see this as positive, because I doubt the city will have the balls to increase taxes to make up for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Niall (profile), 29 Mar 2012 @ 5:54am
  
  Re:
  Short of banning the responsible officers from overtime of other perks, I can't think of many ways to punish them/their precinct that wouldn't hurt the public too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 29 Mar 2012 @ 12:16am

LOL
If the MPAA is looking for a new business model, I think they found it. Look at the profit on just a short film!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]