Photographer's Bullshit Arrest By A Dallas Transit Cop Nets Him A $345,000 Settlement
from the get-out-your-checkbook,-Joe-Public dept
Dallas residents are now going to be $345,000 lighter thanks to the actions of one Dallas Area Rapid Transit cop. (via Reason)
DART officer Stephanie Branch decided the law was on her side when she demanded photographer Avi Adelman stop recording EMS personnel dealing with an apparent overdose. Officer Branch claimed Adelman's photography violated the medical privacy rights of the person being attended to, saying things about HIPAA (not at all relevant here) and "establishing a perimeter." Branch was in the wrong. She was violating DART policy by shutting Adelman down and she compounded this error by making twenty-three "false or misleading" statements in her report of the arrest.
Adelman spent 20 hours in jail after being charged with criminal trespassing. That charge was dropped and DART itself apologized to him for the actions of its "rogue" officer. Officer Branch escaped being held liable for violating Adelman's First Amendment rights as the right to record public employees in public areas wasn't clearly established in the Fifth Circuit until a year after Adelman's arrest.
His Fourth Amendment claim moved forward though and Officer Branch appealed the stripping of her qualified immunity on this count. Her appeal was rejected by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which found Branch's arrest of Adelman unreasonable. As the court pointed out, Branch's actions directly violated a DART policy issued two years before the 2016 incident. Branch tried to reclaim her immunity shield by claiming ignorance, but the court shot that down.
Branch’s mistake was not reasonable. She didn’t misinterpret an unclear policy or law; she simply failed to learn about DART’s updated policy. And “an officer can gain no Fourth Amendment advantage through a sloppy study of the laws [s]he is duty-bound to enforce.” Heien, 135 S. Ct. at 539–40.
It's good to see Adelman will be compensated for his violated rights, but this settlement comes courtesy of Branch's employer, which means Officer Branch really isn't being held responsible for violating the photographer's rights. When qualified immunity is stripped, another shield usually takes it place. Government employees generally benefit from indemnification, which ensures they won't personally be out any money no matter how often they lose lawsuits.
This indemnification helps plaintiffs, since it pretty much guarantees they'll get paid. But it doesn't result in greater accountability, as can be observed in multiple cities where law enforcement officers are costing residents millions of dollars every year, year after year. If there's no direct financial pain, officers who engage in abusive behavior aren't deterred from violating rights in the future.
Between DART policies and circuit precedent, no transit officer should make this same unreasonable mistake again. It's too bad taxpayers have to keep paying for these expensive learning experiences.
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: 4th amendment, avi adelman, dallas, dallas area rapid transit, dart, ems, false arrest, filming police, stephanie branch
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Sounds about right
Having been accosted by police for having the temerity to take a photo myself, and then having gone through their report about the 'incident', that sounds about right. And I wouldn't be surprised if it's about the average for any police report, if they were actually thoroughly checked instead of taken as gospel like they usually are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Punishment for the officer?
False arrest, no probable cause and 23 false statements in her report.
So her punishment for this was.......3 days suspension. That showed her!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
One bad apple spoils the bunch
Police departments and unions LOVE to claim that officers like this are just a few bad apples. But what they seem to have forgotten, is that the saying about bad apples refers to what happens if you don't throw out the few bad apples.
You end up with an entire load of nothing BUT bad apples.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Punishment for the officer?
A court concluding she made false or misleading statements makes her toxic in any case where she's the primary witness. Any time she testifies this will be wielded against her.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Punishment for the officer?
Yup. You or I commit 23 counts of filing a false police report, commit a federal felony (false arrest while in possession of a firearm) and aggravated assault while in possession of a firearm (you can't handcuff someone while making a false arrest without committing assault) and we'd be in prison for decades after being denied bail due to the heinous nature of our crimes.
Ever wondered what the constitutional protections for due process, freedom from cruel & unusual punishment and being innocent until proven guilty look like? Look no further than how a cop accused of wrongdoing is treated by other cops and the courts. It's only corruption because they reserve that treatment for their own, despite it being mandatory for EVERYONE.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Punishment for the officer?
If she made those statements in court, that's 23 FELONY counts she committed. But she's a cop so it wouldn't further the cause of justice to punish her like one of the peasants would be for the same offense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
-Branch's actions directly violated a DART policy issued two years before the 2016 incident. Branch tried to reclaim her immunity shield by claiming ignorance
Cops to citizens: "Ignorance of the law is not an excuse!"
Cops to judge: "Ignorance of the law is an excuse!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Sounds about right
Police lie like crazy. If I was a judge, I'd take the criminal's word over that of the police. It's probably far more truthful.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Punishment for the officer?
It's sickening how these corrupt police flat out LIE, LIE, LIE taking away our rights. The rare times they are caught, they end up protected, mainly because of the UNIONS. ALWAYS record them to help protect yourself. If you can do online, so it's saved online, hopefully, that way they don't try erasing the evidence as they do like to do that also.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
In fact, if generally does the police officers hard to really know the laws. It's better for them to be clueless. They can arrest you with their goto B.S. charges they like to use and arrest you. It doesn't matter to them if/when the charges get thrown out. They've wasted your time and nothing will happen to them. You've been cuffed, Fingerprinted and thrown into a cell for hours. That makes them happy. They got you. Doesn't matter if you get set free.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
i would contest it..
Contest that I should be the one to Pay her fines and fees...
I didnt hire her..
I didnt retest/re-educate her when she came back..
I didnt make up the Rules she was supposed to know..
then the City just changes where the money is gained..HIGHER PRICED TICKETS..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
To be fair, this is not a real policeman: think "mall cop" or small-town speeding-ticket deputy. DART runs buses and commuter-rail. It is a joint-cities government agency, but nobody's choice for front-lIne service in the eternal War on Crime....more the war on not-EXTREMELY-violent nuisances in semi-public business space.
Private security guards shouldn't misbehave violently any more than cops should, of course.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Punishment for the officer?
Need to tweak a few words there for accuracy.
Ever wondered what the constitutional protections for due process, freedom from punishment and being innocent, period look like? Look no further than how a cop accused of wrongdoing is treated by other cops and the courts.
They aren't shielded from 'cruel and unusual' punishments, they're shielded from any punishments, and with no punishments there really is no such thing as a guilty verdict.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Good perks if you can get them
It's good to see Adelman will be compensated for his violated rights, but this settlement comes courtesy of Branch's employer, which means Officer Branch really isn't being held responsible for violating the photographer's rights. When qualified immunity is stripped, another shield usually takes it place. Government employees generally benefit from indemnification, which ensures they won't personally be out any money no matter how often they lose lawsuits.
Ah the joys of working for a government agency, where badges double as 'Get out of any punishment free' cards and concepts like 'personal responsibility' simply do not apply since someone else is always picking up the check.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Waste of City Money for a total loser
How can Avi even be taken serious? This guy is a complete and total loser. I say this because I have known him personally for many years and have witnessed him extort small businesses for a long time. He provoked the Dart officer and he is now getting compensated for it. The loser has not had a real job in decades and has his wife working odd jobs and temp jobs all over the city while he stays home finding ways to extort the next person. I hope his attorney takes most of the settlement. Bad money never lasts. I hope we never hear of him ever again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Waste of City Money for a total loser
Sounds like someone’s super jelly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
'How dare you MAKE me violate the law/policy!'
Given the 'provocation' in this case was 'provoking' a DART officer into violating DART policy and lying multiple times in the process you'll have to excuse me if I give the appropriate level of credibility to the rest of your claims about how 'terrible' a person they are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
$345,000?
I think I might start hanging around cops with a camera.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Waste of City Money for a total loser
If you are 'provoked' by someone standing off in the distance going about their lawful business - the problem is you.
So, instead of blaming the victim here, get your law enforcement under control.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That 'not real' police officer still could shoot you in the face and get away with it. Probably even get a commendation.
DART cops certainly aren't private security - which, since they are still personally liable for their actions, are much more polite and restrained.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Punishment for the officer?
No it won't. 3/4ths the time the defense attorney won't know about it at all and the rest of the time the prosecutor will convince the judge that its inadmissable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: i would contest it..
Ah, but if you live in Dallas it was your elected officials who hired her, mistrained her, and failed to supervise her.
You get to pay your share. Suck it up and vote more carefully next time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I think I might start hanging around cops with a camera.
Please do. That may be the only way to fix this.
If everybody does that, looking for their $345k, maybe they'll learn what the law is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I wish this were true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Sounds about right
The accused. Unless it's at a sentencing hearing, the person the judge is talking to is presumed innocent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Waste of City Money for a total loser
This guy is a complete and total loser. I say this because I have known him personally for many years and have witnessed him extort small businesses for a long time. He provoked the Dart officer and he is now getting compensated for it.
Extortion is a crime, as is witnessing a crime and not reporting it. Either prove your allegations or I'll think you're a liar.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Waste of City Money for a total loser
The "not reporting a crime" laws are really shaky in the US. There are a lot of "remaining silent" defenses, and "non-self incrimination defenses" that you could probably use to challenge them in court if it is required.
For example, reporting on someone else may incriminate you in a speeding or jaywalking offense. I know they exist still but I think people only get convicted through plea bargains or really shoddy lawyering since practically everything is outlawed in the US if you look hard enough.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: i would contest it..
But there is no
NONE OF THE ABOVE
Mark locations.. They are all stupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
My first thought exactly.
How is it that the very people charged with enforcing the law are the last ones legally expected to know anything about it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
(Then again, it didn't work in this case. Progress?)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: i would contest it..
You must live in a very strange place, where elected officials make statements along the lines of 'If elected, I promise to hire people who will ignore the law and cost the taxpayers enormous sums of money', such that voters can actually choose whether they want to vote for that outcome.
You get to pay your share.
This is also all sorts of rich, given that 'your share' implies that the guilty party is paying any of it, which does not seem to be the case. That's like someone else going out to eat and handing you the entire check as 'your share', despite the fact that you didn't order anything or had any real involvement in the choice to eat out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Waste of City Money for a total loser
Fair dues, but I call liar on "John Roberts." Either prove the allegations or get out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I think I might start hanging around cops with a camera.
Methinks that would only work if they were on the hook for the actual bill. As it is, it's We The People who pick up the tab.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
EXACTLY
...Some Jews still recall what heroism actually is.
Mazel tov!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: i would contest it..
Its the idea, that many people can pick up on Logic and lies..
The problem Iv seen is that as long as they get over 50% vote, it dont matter if the candidate Didnt get much of the TOTAL vote, as long as he got he most votes.. And if no one votes for either, then the incumbent still has the job..
Noooo, we dont want either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: i would contest it..
"Ah, but if you live in Dallas it was your elected officials who hired her, mistrained her, and failed to supervise her."\
You really think the Judge, Congressman, mayor, Did it??
Or the hired corp that IS' doing it??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I think I might start hanging around cops with a cam
That is why numbers is the remedy. Until the amount, in the aggregate, is sufficient to make voters hold their elected officials accountable, so that they hold agency management accountable, so that they hold direct supervisors accountable, so that they provide necessary training and consequences to officers on an ongoing basis, nothing will change. Unfortunately, police misconduct is not a determinative issue for very many voters.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: i would contest it..
For good or ill, we live in a democracy.
When the government does stupid and evil things, it's ultimately the responsibility of the voters who elected the government.
So expect, as a voter, to "pay your share" of the result.
Personally, I'm a big fan of rights that can't be taken away by majority vote.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nasty lies about Avi Adelman
Let's clear the stink created by so-called John Roberts comment
One so-called fact is so wrong as to show the balance of his statement to be pure unadulterated garbage, generated by severe jealousy and fed by pure ignorance.
Adelman's wife died almost two years ago due to pancreatic cancer. This is the link to the probate documents.
https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/DocumentViewer/Embedded/WMasRgoA8Y0Wi9Fb RUPV8upwKsP7nI8vLP0yLGzZ2fjiysz5fwZ2UCRbrs8NlAi1vlLi5L0RrQBt3dglDK7_Jw2?p=0
Feel better now, you lying piece of garbage?
[ link to this | view in thread ]