Police Arrest Woman For Filming Them, Take Phone Out Of Her Bra, Claim That It Must Be Kept As 'Evidence'

from the that-won't-go-over-well dept

In the comments to our story last week about false arrests for filming police, someone pointed to yet another such story of a woman who was arrested for filming the police. Even worst, the police confiscated her phone -- which she had shoved into her bra -- and then have refused to return it, claiming that it's now "evidence" of a crime.

If there's any "good" news in this story, it's that the police chief immediately ordered an investigation into the officer who did this, and noted that it's legal to film police. Still, the details of what happened seem pretty crazy. As reported by the New Haven Independent (linked above):

“Stop filming right now!” Rubino ordered her.

“No this is my civil right,” she recalled saying. Gondola said she’s “always on all these news sites” reading about recent cases in which cops got in trouble for snatching cameras from citizens.

“Well, I have to right to review it,” Rubino allegedly told her.

Gondola claimed she remained “very quiet and calm” and “pressed play” to show him the video. “But I didn’t let him touch my phone.”

Rubino’s response, according to Gondola: “It’s evidence of a crime. You need to give it to me right now.”

Her response to his response: “I’m not giving you the phone.”

His next response: “If you don’t give me the phone, you’re getting arrested.”

So Gondola slipped the phone into her bra. Rubino “twisted my hand hard behind me and put the cuffs on me. Really tight. My wrists are black and blue,” she said.

Rubino next ordered a female officer to pat her down and commanded, “I want that phone out of her bra.” The woman removed the phone. Rubino “put it in his pocket,” Gondola said.

The article, written a few days later, notes that later on she demanded the phone back, and was once again told that it was "evidence" and that the only way she can get her phone back is to wait until she goes to court, and asks the judge to return the phone. At the very least, it sounds like she will be without her phone for well over a week. In these days, when phones are pretty central to a lot of people's lives, that can be a pretty big hardship... all for doing something perfectly legal: filming the police on duty.

Filed Under: filming, police

Two Men Sue Chicago Police; Claim They Were Abused And Falsely Charged For Filming Officers

from the shameful dept

In the past year, we applauded two Illinois courts for protecting every citizen's right to record on-duty police, and ruling that a law criminalizing the act is unconstitutional. We similarly pointed to Boston, where a court forced the city to pay someone they arrested for filming the cops. Of course, it's pretty concerning that this was ever in question to begin with—normally, the argument that "you don't need privacy unless you've got something to hide" is fallacious for a number of reasons, but that doesn't extend to people who are empowered and armed, ostensibly with the consent of the citizenry and on the condition that they follow their own strict code of behavior. The fact that there is a clear push to let officers operate without public scrutiny is intolerable on every level.

But, perhaps worse still, there is the fact that police don't always need a law to protect them from the public's lenses—they can just take matters into their own hands. There are plenty of examples of police harassing people who film them, often threatening to arrest them or going ahead and doing it. It's an intimidation tactic, and really just part of a much larger problem, which is that no matter how much a person is in the right (and how much they know it), the police have plenty of ways to make their life hell for a long time before they see justice, if they ever do. This appears to be the case in a recent Chicago lawsuit, where two men allege they were battered, strip-searched and falsely charged for filming a traffic accident caused by a police car.

Benjamin Perez and Bobby Milton sued Chicago and nine police officers in Federal Court.

The men say they were talking outside with some friends in an early morning in August 2011 when a friend rode by on a motorcycle, heading south on Chicago Avenue.

"At the same time, defendant Captain [Kevin Navarro] was driving a marked Chicago Police Department vehicle, an SUV, northbound on South Chicago Avenue in the wrong lane of traffic, heading northbound in the southbound lane," according to the complaint.

"Defendant Captain drove his police vehicle into plaintiffs' friend, who was traveling southbound on his motorcycle, causing plaintiffs' friend to suffer serious injury."

Numerous police officers arrived quickly.

"Defendant officers observed plaintiffs using their cell phones to record the collision scene, and immediately took plaintiff Perez's cell phone and placed handcuffs on him, taking him into custody even though Perez was not doing anything illegal," the complaint states.

"Defendant officers placed Perez in the back of a police car and demanded that Perez show them how to delete the photographs he had taken with his cell phone.

"After plaintiff Perez was taken into custody, plaintiff Milton, who had also been using his cell phone to record the scene, was seated on his motorcycle, when defendant [Officers] Frahm and Hernandez approached him.

"Defendants Frahm and Hernandez grabbed plaintiff Milton, forced him off of his motorcycle, and threw him to the ground.

The suit continues, claiming that the men were taken to the police station and threatened with felony charges if they didn't help officers delete the recording, and one was strip-searched to check for "other cameras and recording devices" (because most people keep a spare iPhone taped to their inner thigh, of course). They are seeking damages for "false arrest, excessive force, unlawful search, conspiracy, false imprisonment, battery, and malicious prosecution".

Now, we don't have the officers' side of the story yet, but the allegations certainly look bad—and it's not hard to find plenty of instances of similar actions by the police. Assuming the complaint is even close to true, hopefully the court recognizes the affront to justice that this kind of police behavior represents, and joins the growing ranks of courts that are affirming the right to record the police and hold them accountable for their actions.

Filed Under: abuse, chicago, filming, police

Police Officer Fired Over Questionable Confrontation, Would Have Gone Unnoticed Without YouTube Video

from the filming-police-is-a-good-thing dept

In the last couple years we've had a bunch of stories about people arrested for filming police. While it seems that more and more courts are recognizing that such filming is protected activity, there have been a few bizarre moments, including famed appeals court judge Richard Posner complaining about how allowing such filming would mean that it would actually happen.

But, as we've seen over and over again, filming police is one of the few ways to prove abuse of police power. Back in the summer of 2007, a police officer named Salvatore Rivieri in Baltimore decided to use his position to harass some skateboarding kids in Baltimore's Inner Harbor area. As part of his harassment, he took one kid's skateboard after throwing him to the ground and screaming at him. The whole thing was videotaped by another kid... and it was uploaded to YouTube a few months later:
At the very end, you hear the officer starting to ask if he's being filmed -- and notes "if I find myself on...." Given his earlier harangue, it sure sounds like he's about to warn the other kids about putting the video online, though we don't know exactly what was said. Either way, the video went online (eventually, months after the incident) and it got quite a lot of attention.

As a result of the massive publicity storm from the video going up online, Rivieri was suspended (with pay) a few days after the video went up in early 2008. More than two years later, a disciplinary panel cleared Rivieri of the most serious charges ("using excessive and unnecessary force" and "uttering discourtesies") but guilty of failing to file a report about the incident or provide the kid with a "contact receipt." The board recommended a short suspension. Instead, the police commissioner fired Rivieri, arguing that "his ability to interact effectively with the citizens of Baltimore has been seriously compromised."

Last week, a Maryland state appeals court upheld the firing (pdf and embedded below -- thanks to Eric Goldman for alerting us to the story), agreeing that the commissioner had the right to fire Rivieri.

What's most interesting in all of this, however, is that none of this would have happened if the incident hadn't been filmed and subsequently posted online. In fact, absolutely nothing did happen for many months until the video was posted online. Rather than causing problems, this video seems to have done exactly what many defenders of filming police have said all along: helped to display and call attention to abuse of power by the police, in a way that not only punishes those who did the abuse, but also which will alert other law enforcement officials to obey the limits of their profession. Judge Posner may regret that police can be filmed, but it certainly seems like a good way to keep police from engaging in the kind of harassment that they have been able to get away with for years.

Filed Under: baltimore, filming, first amendment, police

Yet Another Story Of A Guy Arrested For Filming Police

from the when-will-they-learn dept

We've had a bunch of stories lately concerning people being arrested for filming or photographing the police while they're doing their job in public. This is pretty ridiculous, and thankfully courts have started to make it clear that this is a First Amendment violation. Of course, we also just had the story of the city of Boston having to pay $170,000 to one of the people it arrested for filming them. And yet, the message still hasn't reached the police, who seem to keep on arresting people for pointing a camera in their general direction.

JJ sent over a ridiculous story from Philadelphia where a Temple student was arrested for photographing the police, which he actually did as part of his photojournalism class, where he had a "night-photography" assignment. When he saw the police pull someone over near where he lived, he went over with his camera and started taking pictures. What happened next seems positively ridiculous:

As Van Kuyk tells it, he grabbed his camera and began taking photos of the occurrence. After being told to move away from the scene, Van Kuyk distanced himself but continued to take photos, he said. However, an officer soon after demanded Van Kuyk to stop taking photos, he said.

“He was pushing me, and I kept taking pictures and he didn’t like it, and he…got real aggressive and threw me to the ground,” Van Kuyk said.

When his girlfriend, Meghan Feighan, tried to pick up the camera, she was arrested and held for nearly 18 hours, he said. Van Kuyk was arrested and held for nearly 24 hours.

The National Press Photographers Association sent a letter to the police commissioner decrying this behavior, noting that just a few months ago, the commissioner, Charles Ramsey, had actually sent out a memo to police officers, reminding them that they can be "photographed, videotaped or audibly recorded" when in public.

Unfortunately, that hasn't stopped the prosecution of these two individuals from moving forward. The girlfriend agreed to "settle" her case, paying $200 and agreeing to 12 hours of community service, for daring to pick up her boyfriend's camera after he'd been shoved to the ground. However, Van Kuyk is still facing charges -- including one potential felony charge for "hindering apprehension." One hopes that the court here agrees with the appeals court in Boston. Either that, or the prosecutors in Philly learn about the $170,000 Boston just had to pay out...

Filed Under: filming, first amendment, free speech, journalism, philadelphia, photography, police, punishment

SOPA: A Bad Cop's Best Friend

from the doing-55-in-a-54-on-the-information-superhighway dept

In ever-increasing numbers, law enforcement is finding itself on the receiving end of the camera. Every low-end cellphone comes equipped with a still camera at the very least, and most have the ability to capture video. With a large percentage of the population equipped to document their interactions with law enforcement, hundreds of taped encounters have surfaced, most of them capturing policemen behaving badly.

Several law enforcement officials have turned a bad situation even worse, trying to suppress these recorded encounters by abusing wiretap laws or flat-out seizing recording equipment and destroying the evidence. Despite the knowledge that any interaction could be recorded, many members of the law enforcement community continue to abuse their power. Ken at Popehat gives a brief explanation why:

A certain segment of law enforcement has always viewed the use of force against citizens not as an ugly necessity in extreme circumstances but as a perquisite of the job. Those cops are not going to change their spots just because everyone's got an iPhone. So now we have pushback.

Cops arrest people for filming police conduct - whether it's out in public or from the photographer's own lawn. Cops profess not to recognize cameras and pretend they are potential weapons, sending the not-too-subtle message that pointing a camera might get your ass shot. When they think they can get away with it, they destroy cameras wholesale. Prosecutors back the cops up: they prosecute citizens for things like "wiretapping" or "disorderly conduct" when they record encounters with cops (even - or perhaps especially - angry and abusive cops), and they abuse governmental power in an effort to keep government-created recordings secret.

All this adds up to an impunity that grants those with power even more power. These recordings are often the only evidence a citizen can produce, should a situation turn ugly, and the only record of the event not directly under law enforcement control. Officials have found it way too easy to suppress, destroy or "misplace" damning footage captured by police cameras. It's much harder for them to do this with a citizen's recording, especially once it's made its way to the wide-open internet. But that won't stop them from trying. The times have changed, and so have the methods:

Did you think that the New Professionals would be content arresting photographers in the street? Hell, no. If we've gone digital, so have they. And they know how to work the system. Google reports:

"We received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove YouTube videos of police brutality, which we did not remove. Separately, we received requests from a different local law enforcement agency for removal of videos allegedly defaming law enforcement officials. We did not comply with those requests, which we have categorized in this Report as defamation requests."

So, now law enforcement agencies are trying to clean up their image via some sort of DMCA bastardization. They certainly have no moral reason to be doing this and the legality of the action seems suspect. Obviously the normal intimidation factor is removed completely when delivered via e-form and Google has correctly decided to ignore these requests. But this isn't as far as it goes. Intimidation is very much still part of the plan, as evidenced by the other requests:

Note that Google records not just take-down demands (including categories for executive and police demands premised on "national security" and "criticism," among others), but demands for user identifying information.

I can't think of a single good reason why law enforcement would need identifying information of someone who posted a recording of police brutality, but I can think of several reasons why they shouldn't have it. But what if someone were to, I don't know, enact legislation that gave the government (including all of its various outlying entities) greater control over the internet? Ken spells it all out:

So: bear in mind, when you consider measures like SOPA, that giving the government increased power over internet posts and increased ability to seek out user information may not just impact talking about music and movies - it might impact our ability to talk about, and document, police misconduct. Think the police would never seek to abuse such power? Then you're a damned fool.

We already know that, if passed, SOPA will be abused to hell and back by the RIAA and MPAA. ICE has already shown that it's willing to abuse SOPA's granted powers even before SOPA is enacted. By writing this into law, the government is granting itself the power to remake the internet in its own image, stifling dissent and ridding its brand new toy of anything unflattering. The internet will no longer be an "information superhighway" but rather a series of tollbooths and checkpoints manned by those easily corrupted by power.

Filed Under: filming, pipa, police, protect ip, sopa

Man Facing 75 Years In Jail For Recording The Police; Illinois Assistant AG Says No Right To Record Police

from the insanity dept

Following on the news of a court in Massachusetts stating, clearly, that arresting someone for recording the police is a 1st Amendment violation, you'd hope that we'd start hearing fewer such stories. And yet, as Nick Burns alerts us (followed by a few more of you), over in Illinois, a guy named Michael Allison appears to be facing 75 years in prison for recording the police. Similar to other cases, the police charged him with illegal eavesdropping under an Illinois state law -- in this case, five felony counts, each of which could get 15 years in prison. Even worse, the Illinois Assistant Attorney General is arguing that there is no such thing as a right to film the police. Shouldn't there be a rule that if you're totally ignorant of basic Constitutional rights, you don't get to be Attorney General of anything? The Allison case is particularly nasty. It seems clear that it's a vindictive response to the fact that Allison challenged a fine he got for working on unregistered cars on his mother's property. As happens all too often in these types of cases, the prosecutors have been offering Allison plea bargain deals, and I'd imagine they'll keep doing that as public pressure gets stronger. It's the only way to save face against a ridiculous prosecution. Allison is refusing to accept any plea deal.

Also, if you watch the video above, it really shows the kind of chilling effects these arrests have. In the middle of the video, the news reporter comes across some law enforcement officials and asks them some questions, but the station's lawyers refuse to let the reporter play the audio on air... because it might violate the very same law on which the reporter is reporting. Later on, they do show some law enforcement officials -- including the Assistant AG mentioned above -- but only because they believe there's an exception to the law for journalists "at public hearings."

The ruling in Massachusetts doesn't directly apply here, as these are different circuits, but that doesn't mean the court can't or won't pay attention, and I'm sure Allison's lawyers will highlight the Glik ruling in court. Hopefully, the Illinois court finds the logic compelling.

Filed Under: arrests, chilling effects, eavesdropping, filming, illinois, michael allison, police

Appeals Court: Arresting Guy For Filming Cops Was A Clear Violation Of Both 1st & 4th Amendments

from the huge-victory-for-free-speech dept

We've had a lot of stories this year about police arresting people for filming them. It's become quite a trend. Even worse, a couple weeks ago, we wrote about a police officer in Massachusetts, Michael Sedergren, who is trying to get criminal wiretapping charges brought against a woman who filmed some police officers beating a guy. This officer claims that the woman violated Massachusetts anti-wiretapping law, a common claim from police in such situations.

Segederin may have been better off if he'd waited a couple weeks for an appeals court ruling that came out Friday, because that ruling found that arresting someone for filming the police is a clear violation of both the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. How the case got to this point is a bit complex, but basically, a guy named Simon Glik saw some police arresting someone in Boston, and thought they were using excessive force. He took out his camera phone and began recording. The police saw that and told him to stop taking pictures. He told them he was recording them, and that he'd seen them punch the guy they were arresting. One officer asked him if the phone recorded audio as well and Glik told him it did. At that point, they arrested him, saying that recording audio was a violation of Massachusetts wiretap laws.

Even more ridiculous, they then had him charged not just with that, but also with disturbing the peace and "aiding in the escape of a prisoner." After realizing that last one didn't even pass the guffaw test, Massachusetts officials dropped that charge. A Boston court then dumped the other charges and Glik was free. However, he wanted to take things further, as he thought his treatment was against the law. He first filed a complaint with Boston Police Internal Affairs who promptly set about totally ignoring it. After they refused to investigate, Glik sued the officers who arrested him and the City of Boston in federal court for violating both his First and Fourth Amendment rights. The police officers filed for qualified immunity, which is designed to protect them from frivolous charges from people they arrest.

The district court rejected the officers' rights to qualified immunity, saying that their actions violated the First & Fourth Amendments. Before the rest of the case could go on, the officers appealed, and that brings us to Friday's ruling, which, once again, unequivocally states that recording police in public is protected under the First Amendment, and that the use of Massachusetts wiretapping laws to arrest Glik was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights as well. The ruling (pdf) is a fantastic and quick read and makes the point pretty clearly. Best of all, it not only says that it was a clear violation, but that the officers were basically full of it in suggesting that this was even in question. The court more or less slams the officers for pretending they had a valid excuse to harass a guy who filmed them arresting someone.

The 4th Amendment bit may not be as widely applicable, since it mainly focuses on the Massachusetts wiretapping law. Here, the court notes that the law only covers audio recording in secret. But there is no indication that Glik did any of his filming in secret. It found the officers' arguments that he could have been doing lots of things on his mobile phone completely uncompelling, stating that the "argument suffers from factual as well as legal flaws."

The full ruling is embedded below, but a few choice quotes:

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." Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1966). Moreover, as the Court has noted, "[f]reedom of expression has particular significance with respect to government because '[i]t is here that the state has a special incentive to repress opposition and often wields a more effective power of suppression.'" First Nat'l Bank, 435 U.S. at 777 n.11 (alteration in original) (quoting Thomas Emerson, Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment 9 (1966)). This is particularly true of law enforcement officials, who are granted substantial discretion that may be misused to deprive individuals of their liberties....

[....]

In our society, police officers are expected to endure significant burdens caused by citizens' exercise of their First Amendment rights. See City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 461 (1987) ("[T]he First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers."). Indeed, "[t]he freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state." Id. at 462-63. The same restraint demanded of law enforcement officers in the face of "provocative and challenging" speech, id. at 461 (quoting Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949)), must be expected when they are merely the subject of videotaping that memorializes, without impairing, their work in public spaces.

[....]

The presence of probable cause was not even arguable here. The allegations of the complaint establish that Glik was openly recording the police officers and that they were aware of his surveillance. For the reasons we have discussed, we see no basis in the law for a reasonable officer to conclude that such a conspicuous act of recording was "secret" merely because the officer did not have actual knowledge of whether audio was being recorded.

While this case isn't over yet, it's still a huge victory for those arrested by police for filming them in action. It suggests such people can bring charges against the police for civil rights violations in taking away their First Amendment rights. A tremendous ruling all around.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, 4th amendment, arrests, chilling effects, filming, free speech, massachusetts, police

Concord PD Hits For The Cycle: Lemonade Stand + Camera + Wiretap Law

from the and-yet-the-scorecard-shows-this-citizen-pitching-a-shutout dept

We've covered the overreach of law enforcement several times here at Techdirt. Whether it's cops objecting to being filmed, cops abusing wiretap laws to prosecute those who have filmed them or cops acting at the behest of their cities to shut down rogue lemonade stands, it's all been detailed here.

Finally, thanks to Reason's Hit & Run blog, we can finally bring you the Holy Trinity of excessive law enforcement: Cops + Cameras + Lemonade Stands! Reason's Mike Riggs has the details:

A Concord man giving away lemonade at a farmer's market was threatened with wiretapping charges last Saturday when he refused to stop filming a police officer and a fellow vendor. Garret Ean didn't have a permit to sell lemonade, which drew the ire of the president of the Concord Farmer's Market. Ean filmed the confrontation, and continued to film when a Concord cop showed up and threatened to arrest him for wiretapping.

Ironically, Ean wasn't even selling lemonade. He was giving it away to celebrate Lemonade Freedom Day. So, in response to him showing his solidarity with this cause, he is first hassled by Steve Blasdell, who is apparently in charge (or so he makes it appear) of the Concord Farmer's Market and makes various attempts to bluster Ean out of the area.

When this fails, Blasdell goes for the camera. Unfortunately for Blasdell, Ean remains in control. At that point the only reasonable response is... call the cops! Yes. Exactly. Someone as threatening as a skinny guy armed with a half-bag of plastic cups should be dealt with by professionals trained in the art of subduing skinny guys armed with plastic cups and (unfortunately for them), a printout of the state's wiretap law.

The cops show up and inform him that they "won't arrest him today." Well, god bless 'em. Still, a simple "this looks to be within your rights as a citizen" would be so much nicer than an open-ended threat. In between all the action, some kids take advantage of the free lemonade offer.



At what point, as either the self-appointed mayor of a certain street or as an employee of the city (read: taxpayers), do you find it necessary to curtail this sort of behavior? At what point does it seem like this would further relations between anyone involved? Is it impossible for some people to walk by something that strikes them oddly without feeling the need to enforce something?

There are probably no answers to these questions. I would imagine that the first two questions were never considered and the last question is largely rhetorical. But despite its rhetorical nature, we see answer after answer arriving, often captured on camera.

Filed Under: filming, lemonade stand, police

Police, Yet Again, Arrest Someone For Filming Them, Saying It's Obstruction Of Justice

from the sad dept

These stories are becoming all too common. The police in Suffolk County, New York (where I grew up, actually), arrested a freelance news photographer who was videotaping the conclusion of a police chase. The police told him to "go away," while letting others stay. The guy, Phil Datz, moved further away, and started filming again... at which point he was arrested and charged with obstruction. After realizing that they had no case (and after the story got some press attention), it was announced that charges would be dropped and that "officers will undergo media relations training." But it's pretty ridiculous that such training is needed in this day and age. There's simply no way that police should be on the street if they believe it's illegal to film them in public.

Filed Under: arrests, chilling effects, filming, obstruction of justice, police

How Should Law Enforcement Handle Being Filmed? Officer Lyons Provides The Perfect Example

from the let's-hope-this-is-the-beginning-of-a-new-trend dept

As Techdirt readers are aware, the general attitude of law enforcement tends to worsen quickly once the cameras come out. From holding citizens at gunpoint until they destroy their cameras to pressing charges against bystanders filming from their own property, hardly a week goes by without another uploaded video demonstrating that, for the most part, the easiest way to get on a cop's bad side is to whip out a phone or a camera.

Fortunately, there are exceptions. Reason Hit & Run directs our attention to Officer Matthew J. Lyons of the Oceanside, California police department. Lyons runs into a few issues that usually send other officers scrambling for their handguns and threats: an openly-carried weapon and a camera.

However, Lyons handles the situation in a professional, cordial manner, even as the person filming the encounter declines to show him any ID or provide a last name. Even better, he commends him for exercising his rights.

In just under three minutes, Lyons puts together a superb primer on how to handle interacting with the public, one that should be required viewing for law enforcement members everywhere.

Filed Under: filming, open carry, police, response