Appeals Court Says Prosecutors Who Issued Fake Subpoenas To Crime Victims Aren't Shielded By Absolute Immunity

from the dodging-one-court-to-get-reprimanded-by-two-others dept

For years, the Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office in Louisiana issued fake subpoenas to witnesses and crime victims. Unlike subpoenas used in ongoing prosecutions, these were used during the investigation process to compel targets to talk to law enforcement. They weren't signed by judges or issued by court clerks but they did state in bold letters across the top that "A FINE AND IMPRISONMENT MAY BE OPPOSED FOR FAILURE TO OBEY THIS NOTICE."

Recipients of these bogus subpoenas sued the DA's office. In early 2019, a federal court refused to grant absolute immunity to the DA's office for its use of fake subpoenas to compel cooperation from witnesses. The court pointed out that issuing its own subpoenas containing threats of imprisonment bypassed an entire branch of the government to give the DA's office power it was never supposed to have.

Allegations that the Individual Defendants purported to subpoena witnesses without court approval, therefore, describe more than a mere procedural error or expansion of authority. Rather, they describe the usurpation of the power of another branch of government.

The court stated that extending immunity would be a judicial blessing of this practice, rather than a deterrent against continued abuse by the DA's office.

The DA's office appealed. The Fifth Circuit Appeals Court took the case, but it seemed very unimpressed by the office's assertions. Here's how it responded during oral arguments earlier this year:

“Threat of incarceration with no valid premise?” Judge Jennifer Elrod said at one point during arguments. She later drew laughter from some in the audience when she said, “This argument is fascinating.”

“These are pretty serious assertions of authority they did not have,” said Judge Leslie Southwick, who heard arguments with Elrod and Judge Catharina Haynes.

The Appeals Court has released its ruling [PDF] and it will allow the lawsuit to proceed. The DA's office has now been denied immunity twice. Absolute immunity shields almost every action taken by prosecutors during court proceedings. But these fake subpoenas were sent to witnesses whom prosecutors seemingly had no interest in ever having testify in court. This key difference means prosecutors will have to face the state law claims brought by the plaintiffs.

Based upon the pleadings before us at this time, it could be concluded that Defendants’ creation and use of the fake subpoenas was not “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process,” but rather fell into the category of “those investigatory functions that do not relate to an advocate’s preparation for the initiation of a prosecution or for judicial proceedings.” See Hoog-Watson v. Guadalupe Cty., 591 F.3d 431, 438 (5th Cir. 2009)

[...]

Defendants were not attempting to control witness testimony during a break in judicial proceedings. Instead, they allegedly used fake subpoenas in an attempt to pressure crime victims and witnesses to meet with them privately at the Office and share information outside of court. Defendants never used the fake subpoenas to compel victims or witnesses to testify at trial. Such allegations are of investigative behavior that was not “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.”

Falling further outside the judicial process was the DA's office itself, which apparently felt the judicial system didn't need to be included in its subpoena efforts.

In using the fake subpoenas, Individual Defendants also allegedly intentionally avoided the judicial process that Louisiana law requires for obtaining subpoenas.

The case returns to the lower court where the DA's office will continue to face the state law claims it hoped it would be immune from. The Appeals Court doesn't say the office won't ultimately find some way to re-erect its absolute immunity shield, but at this point, it sees nothing on the record that says prosecutors should be excused from being held responsible for bypassing the judicial system to threaten crime victims and witnesses with jail time.

Filed Under: fake subpoenas, immunity, louisiana, orleans parish, prosecutors

Court To Prosecutors Who Sent Crime Victims Fake Subpoenas Threatening Them With Arrest: Pretty Sure Immunity Doesn't Cover That

from the DA:-pretty-sure-we-can-do-whatever-we-want-without-being-sued dept

A few years ago, The Lens exposed a super-shady tactic being used by Louisiana prosecutors. In an attempt to obtain a bit more compliance from witnesses in criminal cases, the Orleans Parish District Attorney's office started issuing fake subpoenas to witnesses that contained (an also-bogus) threat of imprisonment.

Rather than do it the legal way -- using office letterhead with no threat of incarceration -- the DA's office opted for a hard sell tactic that deliberately mislead citizens. The office claimed this was fine and that no one paid attention to the big, bold print promising jail time for not cooperating.

Two weeks after The Lens exposed the practice, the lawsuits began flowing in. Some lawsuits sought copies of the fake subpoenas the office had issued. Others sued over the practice itself. Crime victims, who had been falsely threatened with being treated like criminals themselves, sued the DA. The problem with this is prosecutors are generally given absolute immunity which makes them nearly impervious to civil lawsuits.

Fortunately, a Louisiana federal court allowed the lawsuit to proceed, finding (on very narrow grounds) absolute immunity couldn't be stretched to cover every bit of this nasty, deceitful scheme.

This Court finds that granting the Individual Defendants absolute immunity for allegations of systematic fraud that bypassed a court meant to check powerful prosecutors would not protect the proper functioning of a district attorney’s office. It would instead grant prosecutors a license to bypass the most basic legal checks on their authority. The law does not grant prosecutors such a license.

The DA's office is still hoping to shut the lawsuit down. It appealed the lower court's decision, but it's not finding any receptive judges at the higher level. Again, the DA is pitching absolute immunity -- a complete, judicially-approved whitewashing of all its sins. This pitch did not perform well at the oral arguments.

It was unclear when the three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals would rule, but panel members sounded clearly skeptical as W. Raley Alford III, attorney for the prosecutors, made his case.

“Threat of incarceration with no valid premise?” Judge Jennifer Elrod said at one point during arguments. She later drew laughter from some in the audience when she said, “This argument is fascinating.”

“These are pretty serious assertions of authority they did not have,” said Judge Leslie Southwick, who heard arguments with Elrod and Judge Catharina Haynes.

Tough to retain immunity without a lawful premise. As for the DA, he's not willing to back down from his assertions the fake subpoenas were a net good for the community he inflicted them upon. DA Leon Cannizzaro was filled with compassion when he falsely threatened people with arrest for not complying with a fake subpoena.

Cannizzaro also has said the warrants are rarely used to arrest victims of domestic violence or sexual crimes.

What a guy. Material witness warrants were rarely used to further traumatize victims of trauma. For everyone else though, Cannizzaro was willing to jail crime victims until they talked.

The lead plaintiff said she was jailed after declining to pursue charges against a man who shattered her cellphone during a fight. Cannizzaro’s office responded to that part of the complaint by saying the woman was legally incarcerated after avoiding legitimate court-issued subpoenas.

Oh, okay. Given the office's routine deployment of fake subpoenas, it's a bit rich to accuse them of dodging the real ones. Also, someone refusing to press charges shouldn't be locked up until they decide to assist prosecutors in prosecuting a case the crime victim has no desire to see prosecuted.

Hopefully, the appeals court will uphold the lower court's decision and prevent the prosecutors from dodging accountability completely.

Filed Under: da, fake subpoenas, immunity, law enforcement, louisiana, orleans parish

Court Says Lawsuit Over Fake Subpoenas Issued By Louisiana DA's Office Can Proceed

from the fake-it-til-you-break-it dept

There's a very slim chance some New Orleans prosecutors might have to pay for their threats and lies. But a slim chance is better than none. The Orleans Parish DA's office was caught using fake subpoenas to coerce cooperation from witnesses and victims of crimes -- a practice it had engaged in for decades before being hit with multiple complaints and lawsuits.

Prosecutors sent out bogus subpoenas -- all bearing the threats of fines and imprisonment -- to hundreds of witnesses over the past several years. None of these were approved by courts overseeing ongoing prosecutions. None of the subpoenas were issued by the Clerk of Courts. The DA's office was simply cranking out fake subpoenas and hoping recipients would be too intimidated by the threat of jail time to question the veracity of the documents.

Lawsuits followed the public exposure of this underhanded tactic. One of the lawsuits, filed by a number of crime victims who'd been served the bogus subpoenas, has received the green light to proceed from a federal court in Louisiana. (h/t CJ Ciaramella)

Unfortunately, there's a ton of hurdles that need to be overcome by the plaintiffs. If you think qualified immunity shields too much official wrongdoing, just wait until you run up against absolute immunity, which tends to protect those operating above law enforcement's pay grade: prosecutors and judges.

Fortunately for the plaintiffs, the crap the DA's office pulled with its fake subpoenas is shady enough to strip away some of this protective layer. As the court notes in its opinion [PDF], the DA's office has never had the power to issue its own subpoenas. That it has been doing exactly this is a serious problem.

Allegations that the Individual Defendants purported to subpoena witnesses without court approval, therefore, describe more than a mere procedural error or expansion of authority. Rather, they describe the usurpation of the power of another branch of government.

"Ends justifies the means" is rarely a successful defense. But that's what the DA's office has offered. The judge rejects it:

Furthermore, that the alleged activity by the Individual Defendants took place as a means to a prosecutorial end is not dispositive of the issue. Under that logic, virtually all activity engaged in by a prosecutor would be absolutely immune from civil liability.

And with that, one layer of immunity disappears.

This Court finds that granting the Individual Defendants absolute immunity for allegations of systematic fraud that bypassed a court meant to check powerful prosecutors would not protect the proper functioning of a district attorney’s office. It would instead grant prosecutors a license to bypass the most basic legal checks on their authority. The law does not grant prosecutors such a license.

Unfortunately, the prosecutors are covered by absolute immunity for threatening witnesses with arrest to ensure they gave testimony or attended hearings. As screwed up as this sounds, victims of crimes can be thrown in jail to make sure prosecutors can speak to them. Totally legal. All just part of our judicial sympathy for zealous prosecutions. Threatening someone with jail time in person is perfectly fine. It's only the use of fake paperwork -- and bypassing the court system -- that's not protected.

Although the distinction is an admittedly fine one, threatening to imprison a witness to compel cooperation in a criminal prosecution while possessing the lawful means to follow through on that threat is not the same as manufacturing documents in violation of the lawful process for obtaining court-approved subpoenas for witnesses. Threatening witnesses—particularly verbally—with imprisonment to further witness cooperation in an active criminal prosecution seems to this Court to fall into the category of “pursuing a criminal prosecution” as an “advocate for the state.” Holding that such conduct fell outside the protections of absolute immunity would, in fact, potentially subject prosecutors to civil liability for exercising authority they lawfully possess under the law of Louisiana and many other states.

Just as unfortunately, the same behavior the court found couldn't be protected by absolute immunity can be shielded by qualified immunity, at least as far as the plaintiffs' violation of due process claims.

Plaintiffs’ allegations that prosecutors manufactured “subpoenas,” deliberately side-stepping judicial oversight of the subpoena process, appears to this Court to represent a breed of official misconduct. Claims that the practice was not only condoned but directed by top prosecutors and the DA himself only make the allegations more disturbing. This Court believes that Plaintiffs’ claims sufficiently shock the conscience such that they allege a constitutional violation.

Nevertheless, the Individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on these claims. Plaintiffs fail to cite to any case law suggesting that the Defendants’ violated a clearly established right of Plaintiffs.

The court clearly thinks the manufacture of subpoenas is reprehensible, but can't find precedent to make it stick. And since it can't craft a bright line itself, prosecutors can continue to abuse subpoenas until a higher court decides enough abuse is enough.

A few more claims survive the layers of protective immunity. Four plaintiffs are able to show at this point that the DA's office also fudged the truth on "material witness" warrant affidavits. A few plaintiffs can also move ahead with First Amendment claims -- allegations that the combination of fake subpoenas and actual material witness arrest warrants resulted in compelled speech: testimony extracted by prosecutors using these tools as leverage. Those claims will move forward along with the narrowed allegations of abuse of process the court said can't be shielded by absolute immunity.

It's a very limited win for some of the plaintiffs. And it's not even a real victory yet. This opinion allows certain claims to move forward and removes a little immunity. It gives the plaintiffs a small chance to hold some of the Orleans Parish DA's Office personally responsible for abusing the court system and the public's trust for decades.

Filed Under: fake subpoenas, louisiana, new orleans, orleans parish da, prosecutors

Appeals Court Says Law Criminalizing Threats To Sue Or Complain About Police Officers Is Unconstitutional

from the real-concern-is-these-gov't-employees-thought-it-was-ok-to-do-this dept

A few months ago, we wrote about (YET ANOTHER) terrible law Louisiana has on the books. Like its other terrible laws, this one is abused by law enforcement. The law itself -- which forbids the "intimidation" of public officials -- has already been ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge.

This law is wielded by officers and prosecutors to ring people up for "intimidating" cops by doing things like threatening to sue or file complaints. The wording lends itself to this. It criminalizes anything that might "influence" a public official's "conduct." No doubt threats of lawsuits or complaints have some effect on officers and how they behave and react. The most noticeable effect isn't on the public officials. It's the addition of a charge specifically related to what a citizen says to a law enforcement officer if they're unhappy with the way they're being treated.

Travis Seals was the recipient of one of these bogus charges as the result of him informing an officer he was going to file "lawful complaints" during his arrest for unknown charges. (The opinion only says "conduct not specifically reflected in the record.") He verbally objected to the arrest, which apparently led to the application of pepper spray and Seals' announcement of the pending filing of complaints.

The lower court said the law was unconstitutional. Even though Seals was never officially charged by the DA, the DA still chose to fight for the bad law in court. And again, it's the state appealing the lower court's ruling. The state tried to get the case tossed for lack of standing, saying it had promised not to use that law against Seals in the future. The court disagrees, using a couple of footnotes (p. 5) to explain why this promise isn't really worth the PDF it's printed on before ruling on the law itself. It also points out the state has brought this charge in circumstances like these against 150 people, so it's not as though it's restraining itself for abusing a bad, broadly-written law.

And it is incredibly broad, as the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court points out in its opinion [PDF]. (h/t Volokh Conspiracy)

The statute criminalizes “public intimidation,” defined as “the use of violence force, or threats upon [a specified list of persons, including any public officer or public employee] with the intent to influence his conduct in relation to his position, employment, or duty.” (Emphasis added.) On its face, the statute is extremely broad. The definition of “threat” generally encompasses any “statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.” That definition easily covers threats to call your lawyer if the police unlawfully search your house or to complain to a DMV manager if your paperwork is processed wrongly.

The appeals court notes that, even if it accepts the conclusion of state court rulings, which create a requirement that such "threats" or "intimidation" produce a "corrupting effect" (bribery is one example), that still doesn't make the law Constitutional. (Also: state law rulings aren't considered precedent by federal appeals courts.)

Accordingly, we assume, but only for purposes of this appeal, that Section 14:122 requires a corrupt intent, defined as the intent to obtain something that the speaker is not entitled to as a matter of right.

Yet we can narrow Section 14:122 no further. According to the state, we should construe the statute to apply only to true threats, i.e. “a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence” toward specific persons. There are several reasons why we cannot do so. First, the definition of “threat” is broader than true threats: any “statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.” Second, the reporter’s comments to Section 14:122 provide that the statute “should include threats of harm or injury to the character of the person threatened as well as actual or threatened physical violence.” Thus, the section is not “readily susceptible” to such a limiting construction.

The third reason is the biggest -- and it's supplied by Louisiana's government itself.

As plaintiffs note, the Louisiana Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of a defendant who violated Section 14:122 by threatening “to sue” an officer and “get [his] job” if the officer arrested him. See State v. Mouton, 129 So. 3d 49, 54, 59 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2013). Plainly, such a threat suggests no violence—indeed, the threat appears to be a plan to take perfectly lawful actions. Accordingly, we cannot construe Section 14:122 to apply only to true threats of violence.

The law is so broadly written it criminalizes protected speech.

[T]he statute reaches both true threats—such as “don’t arrest me or I’ll hit you”—and threats to take wholly lawful actions—such as “don’t arrest me or I’ll sue you.” In both those examples, the speaker may be legally subject to arrest and is trying to influence a police officer in the course of his duties.

The court points out it's not impossible to craft a law targeting speech against public officials. Content-based restrictions can be Constitutional, but they have to be extremely narrowly-crafted. This law isn't, and its attendant abuse shows just how broadly written it is. When even stating you're going to run for office against a government official if they pass legislation you don't like (an example used in the ruling) can be construed as criminal under the law, there's zero chance it can survive a Constitutional challenge.

Section 14:122 could encompass an innocuous threat to complain to a DMV manager for slow service or a serious threat to organize lawsuits and demonstrations unless the police lower their weapons. And each kind of threat is constitutionally protected…. Section 14:122 undermines that freedom and thus is unconstitutional.

The Appeals Court hammers this point home twice in the same ruling.

A fortiori, Section 14:122 is not a time, place, and manner restriction. And not only does it encompass unprotected content, it reaches far beyond those constitutional limitations to target threats to complain to a school principal if one gets a bad grade, threats to run against an incumbent unless he votes your way on a bill, or threats to call the media if the police point a gun at you. Those kinds of threats are part of the core First Amendment rights “by which we distinguish [our] free nation from a police state.” Thus, insofar as it criminalizes “threats,” Section 14:122 is unconstitutionally overbroad.

The law may have to be rewritten. But for right now it at least can't be used the way it was in this case or several others involving Louisiana law enforcement.

Filed Under: 5th circuit, complaints, free speech, louisiana, police, travis seals

Louisiana Law Enforcement Has Been Abusing An Unconstitutional Law To Arrest People For Trying To File Complaints

from the very-convenient-knowledge-of-the-law dept

Police officers aren't legal experts. No court expects them to know the intricacies of the laws they're paid to enforce. Close enough is good enough when it comes to pretextual stops, street-level friskings, and other assorted Constitutional skirtings.

But no one but a cop would know the ins and outs of stupid laws left on the books by careless legislators or how to wield them like weapons against those who dare to start hassling The Man. Got a criminal defamation law still laying around? Why not use it to arrest and charge critics gathering a few too many eyeballs to their personal blogs. Any number of charges, from disorderly conduct to "assaulting an officer" can be made to cover "contempt of cop" arrests. And every stupid "Blue Lives Matter" law has been abused at least once, with the oversensitive cops of New Orleans leading the way.

Given that two-thirds of the links above direct you to Louisiana law enforcement officers and officials, it should come as no surprise Louisiana officers are using another bad law to bring criminal charges against people who aren't absolutely enthralled with their law enforcement experience. (via The Watch)

On April 30, 2015, William Aubin Jr. was at home with his wife in Livingston Parish, Louisiana when a patrol car from the sheriff’s office pulled onto his street. The deputy, William Durkin, was there to investigate a reckless driving complaint. Aubin wasn’t involved in the incident but he knew about it and went outside of his home to speak with Durkin. During a vulgar and combative conversation, according to Aubin, Durkin repeatedly called Aubin a “pussy.”

“I’m calling your supervisor,” Aubin said. “I’m gonna get you fired.” Aubin took out his cell phone, called the sheriff’s department, and started walking back towards his house. But before he made it inside, Durkin arrested him. The charge: intimidation of a public official — a felony that in Louisiana carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.

This isn't the first time the law's been used to charge someone for attempting to file a complaint. Michael Stein of In Justice Today points out the same charge was leveled against Travis Seals, an arrestee seeking to file a complaint after he was pepper sprayed despite already being handcuffed. Seals got another charge added to his docket: public intimidation.

In both cases, the state DA showed up in court to defend the use of the law to charge citizens looking to file complaints.This law should have been tossed in the legislative trash last year when a federal judge had this to say about it:

In a September 2017 ruling, Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana pilloried the application of the statute in the Aubin case. “The right to criticize the police without risk of arrest distinguishes a democracy from a police state,” he wrote.

The same thing happened in the Seals case. Another federal judge took a look at the law and found it egregiously unconstitutional, considering it could be deployed to arrest people complaining about cops, filing lawsuits against government officials, or voting for the "wrong" public officials.

Anything a public employee could possibly takes offense to can be construed as "intimidation." ANYTHING.

In August 2017, the ACLU condemned the statute after it was used in the case of a Northern Louisiana man who raised his middle finger to a state trooper.

Despite the law's clear lack of constitutionality, the state District Attorney continues to fight for the law's continued existence. So do law enforcement officials. Sheriff Ard -- a defendant in the Aubin lawsuit -- claimed the law was necessary to prevent "threats" from "influencing the behavior of police officers." Seems like better training and better officers would take care of this problem -- especially when the "threat" consists of curse words, extended fingers, and filing complaints.

Despite the legal challenges, the law lingers. It will continue to be abused until it's rewritten or stricken. State prosecutors have already shown their willingness to treat these as criminal violations, rather than law enforcement abusing the law and their position to shut down criticism of police officers.

Filed Under: arrests, complaints, intimidation, intimidation of a public official, louisiana, police

There Are Several Good Reasons To End Entertainment Industry Subsidies, But Blasphemy Isn't One Of Them

from the free-speech-doesn't-work-that-way dept

There are a lot of arguments to be made against subsidizing movie/TV studios. The best argument is this: the payouts to visiting studios rarely pay off for local taxpayers. Politicians love the side benefits -- rubbing elbows with producers, actors, and other studio personnel -- but there's nothing to be gained financially by paying a studio to film in your town. In one case, a city was promised 3,600 additional jobs. In reality, only 200 jobs materialized, all but 14 of those temporary construction work.

Then there's the argument against using public funding to prop up an out-of-town industry. If there are extra tax dollars around, they're better spent locally, where they'll do the most good. Subsidizing businesses is always problematic. It skews incentives and allows governments to play favorites using the public's money.

But the worst argument someone can make against subsidies is this one: subsidies should be content-based. Two members of the clergy and a state politician are bent out of shape because a subsidized TV series shoot resulted in the depiction of a historical figure in compromising positions.

The AMC series "Preacher" has portrayed Christ in a graphic sex scene that combines blasphemy with pornography.

The August 21 episode titled, "Dirty Little Secret," showed an actor playing the role of Jesus having sex with a married woman in an extended, graphic scene with explicit vocals. The director used shadows and silhouettes to soften the two figures as they engaged in various sexual positions, but these cinematic techniques did not disguise the pornography.

We have laws governing porn which are mostly hands-off, provided producers follow several regulations. We certainly don't have blasphemy laws, thanks to a separation of church and state. But never mind the legal details. This small collective of pearl-clutchers wants legislators to pull funding solely because the imagery in this episode may have offended some members of one religion.

We respectfully request that the Administration, and the Office of Louisiana Economic Development, reject all efforts by AMC to obtain tax credits for the series "Preacher" and the episode which blasphemed Christ. We call upon the Administration and the Louisiana Office of Economic Development to flatly reject this request for a $16.2 million tax refund check.

The op-ed notes the state of Louisiana has a law prohibiting the use of public money to fund pornography. That's all well and good, but just because the writers call the images that offended them porn doesn't make them porn. To buttress this argument with talk of blasphemy only adds to the problem, ensuring that any state legislators attempting to follow through on this dubious suggestion will engage in multiple constitutional violations.

That's not all. The authors of the op-ed -- which include state senator John Milkovich -- claim their views are universal, something that's more factually-incorrect than everything leading up to it.

Thus, the larger truth is that there is never a good time to reward production companies that trash our Louisiana values, mock our beliefs– and dishonor Christ.

The state should definitely reject the request for a $16.2 million subsidy by AMC. If AMC is so keen on shooting scenes in Louisiana (or any other state), it should pay its own way. But it shouldn't do it for any of the reasons suggested here. It should end the subsidy program completely, rather than risk looking like it's making content-based decisions about what type of speech it's willing to fund.

Filed Under: blasphemy, first amendment, louisiana, movies, preacher, subsidies, tv
Companies: amc

First Amendment Lawsuit Results In Louisiana Police Department Training Officers To Respect Citizens With Cameras

from the telling-them-something-they-already-know dept

Another police department has "learned" it has to respect the First Amendment rights of citizens. A settlement obtained by the ACLU as the result of a civil rights lawsuit will result in additional training that surely should be redundant at this point in time.

Training officers on First Amendment rights, including the public's right to photograph officers while performing their public duties, has been implemented at the Lafayette Police Department. The training was included in a settlement announced by the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana today.

The lawsuit [PDF] was brought by Chelline Carter, who had her camera warrantlessly seized and searched by Officer Shannon Brasseaux of the Lafayette PD. Carter had been called to a local drugstore because her son had just been arrested. After helping the officer find her son's ID card, Carter walked over to the vehicle her son had been placed in and took a photo of him.

Officer Brasseaux then took Carter's phone from her, claiming she had broken the law by taking pictures of "evidence" [?]. He then swiped her phone to open it, searched for the photo she had taken of her son, and deleted it.

Despite the officer's claim Carter had broken the law, she was free to go after Brasseaux had deleted the photo. Carter filed a complaint the next day. Multiple violations occurred here, but the settlement apparently contains no further instructions for officers to follow the Supreme Court's Riley decision. The rights violation took place in January 2017, three years after the Supreme Court declared warrants were required for cellphone searches.

Still, it's a good win on the First Amendment side, firmly establishing a right to record police in Louisiana. The settlement also will require the police to pay Carter's $12,000 in legal fees. Citizens of Lafayette should be righteously pissed Officer Shannon Brasseaux has dipped into their pockets to pay for his unwillingness to respect citizens' rights. It was a bullshit move and likely one Brasseaux has gotten away with before. If he hadn't, he probably wouldn't have attempted it during an arrest in which everything else had gone by the book.

Filed Under: cameras, first amendment, free speech, louisiana, police