Hey, there! Log in / Register
Somerville Police told people have the right to video them in public
By adamg on Tue, 12/09/2014 - 2:10pm
The ACLU of Massachusetts reports a Somerville District Court judge today dismissed a criminal complaint against a woman arrested for videoing police questioning teenagers in a playground.
In Ms. Jane's case, the Judge today dismissed the criminal complaint following argument by the ACLU of Massachusetts, agreeing that Ms. Jane had not committed the crime of interfering with the police. The ACLU of Massachusetts had also argued that the complaint should be dismissed because "interfering with police" is not a crime in Massachusetts and because criminalizing Ms. Jane's behavior would violate the First Amendment.
Neighborhoods:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
How many times
Do cops have to be told this by the courts?
How many dope slaps do the DAs need to tell the cops this?
This is a stupid waste of our resources - except for the part where an idiot Somerville cop got told.
Donate to this tax-deductable charity!
Another great example of how the ACLU of Massachusetts really does play an integral part in advocating for individual and community freedoms from investingating the recent pepper spray incident on a peaceful protester to ensuring we have a reasonable right to privacy in relation to our mobile phones. If you are looking for a charity to donate to that is tax-deductable, consider a contribution to the Mass ACLU. They rock.
Any recourse?
Does anyone know if this woman has any recourse against Somerville for the arrest? If so, what is the standard for success?
Recourse?
What part of criminal compaint dismissed do you not understand?
Slow Down There
The individual could bring a federal civil suit against the officer and department for violating her constitutional rights including First Amendment (videotaping public act) and Fourth Amendment (unlawful arrest). It is not my area of the law so I cannot really speak to possible merits or standards to prove etc but there is theoretical recourse. The dismissal of the criminal complaint against her would not prevent such a suit.
Relatively recent example from Bellingham: http://www.wcvb.com/news/police-accused-of-false-arrest-illegal-search-e...
Yeah but...
..."roadman" is probably just pissed that the cops didn't get to beat the individual senseless and then throw them in solitary. They're lucky the charges were dismissed...in his opinion probably.
You have it all wrong MatthewC
What pisses me off is the mentality of " criminal charges dropped is apparently not good enough - let's sue the officer and/or the City anyway because my "rights" were violated."
You got the charges dropped, and hopefully a message was sent to not only this officer (if I were a cop I sure wouldn't want to be reprimanded by a judge for a bad arrest) but to the entire Somerville police department. That should be sufficent.
Hi
Generally a person would counter sue not simply because "my rights" but also because being dragged through a legal process for no legitimate reason can be extremely troubling and costly to an individual.
It should have been sufficient, the first few times it happened
But it wasn't. This is not a new issue. It is not the first time a court has had to reaffirm our right to do this, even after the high profile cases we've had in recent history. By now either the police departments are have failed miserably to update their officers, or the officers are purposely harassing people anyway. Sometimes a lawsuit with big $$$ on the line is what it takes to get cities to pay attention.
She wasn't charged with the wiretap charge....
So it isn't really the same. And if the charge isn't real, why would the clerk/judge allow this to go to arraignment in the first place? If the charge doesn't fit probable cause, it should get bounced that day.
The court didn't buy that
Nice copsplaining, Pete. That the court fully dismissed the charges without even starting a trial says that they ain't buying it, either.
As the press release explains, police simply aren't allowed to find other excuses to criminalize what they have decided is a legal activity, just because they found a new excuse or "crime" to put it under.
Nice swirrlyignoramusing on your part too
I've seen people that have videotaped been charged and convicted with the resisting arrest charge more times than you've ever seen any arrest.
Also, an ACLU press release isn't really a legal decision.
And as I pointed out, charges get dropped before the arraignment, which means the initial clerk and judge thought (or should have thought) the initial charge was good enough.
So what?
Mind your temper. Nobody cares about your copspainations.
The courts have spoken loud and clear on this. It is your job to listen. Not make up more bully excuses and lies. Listen.
Got it, yet?
We pay you, we own you.
Got it?
You can't suck off of our tax money and bully and boss us around. See also: the constitution.
Ha!
You seem to be the one who has the temper. You probably don't pay taxes anyway, so I own you!
Chump.
Oh really?
My Coast Guard pay check is tax payer funded. I also pay federal income tax. So, while I agree that I own myself, you own no one. We are required to pay our taxes or go to jail. Got it?
It is really the same
It is really the same. The message from the courts has been loud and clear: don't arrest people who are simply filming you, not by misusing the wiretapping laws, not by claiming interference when none exists, and not for any other reason.
No it isn't the same.
If the person was illegally videotaping, they would be charged with it. It they weren't, but obstructing justice or resisting arrest which does happen regardless if some has a camera or not, then the appropriate charges are brought.
The officers made a decision that this person interfered in an arrest, so they charged her with it. Different than saying some illegally videotaped you in public.
(Obviously we are talking about this without seeing the actual report or decision, it could very well be a bogus charge)
Seriously
Seriously? This is a written medium, so I can't tell if you're saying that with a straight face.
See my story below....
Although I was there and know what happened. Officers made a decision to arrest, and the woman agreed to probation.
Different story
Yes, but your story below involves a woman who admitted to physically interfering, which doesn't appear to be true of the Somerville case, which is what I thought you were talking about... in which case please excuse the "did you say that with a straight face" comment.
I'm not sure what happened in Somerville.
But officers decided to charge the woman with "interfering with police" which isn't an actual crime. When you charge someone, you fill out a court complaint, and on that complaint you need to actually but the chapter and section, and a title "e.g. Assault and battery". So I'm wondering what the actual charge was. It wasn't illegal wiretapping apparently, which would make it different than the Gilk case.
I'm just wondering if it was something similar to what I described below, which also could have gotten dismissed depending in the judge.
You can stop "wondering"
You can stop "wondering" about it, Officer Nice, because there are other articles available for you to read that include more detail. I suggest the article that's on "wicked local," you'll easily find it if you simply do a Google News search for the defendant's name.
That article includes detail from the officer's own report, and his own report does not paint a flattering picture of your beloved Brother in Blue. The only explanation he could give for how her actions "interfered" with him is that he simply didn't like being recorded. It annoyed him, and his own irritation was distracting him. So basically, you're defending an officer for arresting someone simply because he was unable to control his own emotions and focus on his job. That's PATHETIC. It's wrong, you know it's wrong, and your stubborn insistence on defending him to the very end is a perfect example of why people don't trust the police. Even when you know your fellow officers are wrong, you defend them anyway. That's what's wrong with the police, the small number of officers that behave badly would not be such a serious problem if all the rest of you weren't always protecting them and siding with them instead of the citizens you have sworn to protect.
The clerk also agreed.
That there was probable cause for the charge. There is also no talk about how the actual charge was bogus, so I'm assuming that's a non issue as well.
If a cop is investigating a crime or doing something you obviously know nothing about, don't get too close. You've never done any of that, so your ignorance of criminal procedure and law is fine.
Hahaha
Yeah. Because when he called dispatch for the MGL chapter and section for "Contempt of Cop" they couldn't find it for him, so he went with "interfering with an arrest" because it sounded better.
So the judge was dumb enough to let it go through too?
Not how the process works. A clerk thought there was probable cause, a judge thought she didn't intend to interfere. Go to a court room some day and see how various judges rule on various cases and you won't be so surprised.
(Or fill out a court complaint and see how that process works)
Ok...
Perhaps the hyperbole was unnecessary on my part. However, being released and having the charges dropped when the authorities are blatantly in the wrong is not enough, especially when filming in public is legal and well within someone's rights.
Dismissed Is Not Enough
If you are wrongfully arrested, that is for something you can't even be arrested for, you deserve some serious compensation for the time, stress, effort, and possible danger you went through.
I, personally, wouldn't look for any amount that starts rallying cries of "Tort reform! Tort reform", but it would none the less be some serious cash.
Of course "charges dropped" is not enough.
You really think that if an officer, were to, say, arrest you for "parking with wipers not in down position," or some equally BS made up crime, handcuff you in front of your kids and the public, arrest you, causes you to miss a day of work and to have an arrest record, that simply dismissing the charges would be adequate to make you whole?
Seriously?
The courts job is to drop those charges before arraignment...
Which didn't happen here.
(If you were arrested for using your wipers illegally)
You are correct that it is
You are correct that it is the job of the court to act as a check on the powers of the police, but the point you seem to be missing here is that the arrest itself can act as a form of intimidation on the part of the police. Alsom it is definitely *against the law* for the police to knowingly arrest someone who is not disobeying the law. As such it would certainly make sense to me, especially since this particular complaint has been so thoroughly adjudicated at this point, for a civil court to award damages against the Somerville police department for a wrongful arrest here. There is certainly a precedent for that.
A message was sent? Dude,
A message was sent? Dude, that message was sent THREE YEARS AGO in Glik vs Conniffe. The cop already knew what she was doing was illegal, he arrested her anyway. Obviously simply "sending messages" really ISN'T sufficient, the officer and the department need to be punished otherwise they're going to keep arresting people for something they know is perfectly legal.
DB
You can legally record in public. You can't interfere with the police whether you are recording or not, and that is what allegedly happened here.
The ACLU says there is no such law
Could you clarify that there is by actually citing one?
The article didn't mention the specific charge.
And since the judge didn't dismiss it based on a made up crimes and the clerk had no problem processing the paperwork through the CJIS system without it coming back as nt being a real law, I assume that the stautatory nomenclature wasn't the issue here, but the intent was (according to a paraphrased judges quote from the wicked local article).
Like Bob mentions below, if you are arrested for aggressive window wiping, a clerk is going to drop the charge right away, because he isn't going to find that statute in the MGL.
But I'm going to guess he charge is MGL CH. 268 s.13b. The title is intimidation of a witness, but the elements include "willfully" "directly or indelicately" "harassing" " with the intent to impede, obstruct, delay, or "otherwise interfere" " an officer" during a "criminal investigation"
The judge decided the intent wasn't there, recording seems to have nothing to do with the judges decision.
Intimidating a Witness? yes he was
Honestly, I think the cop should be charged with "Intimidating a Witness" in this case. I was witnessing an incident, silently, respectfully, and at a safe distance. I did not speak unless the cop spoke to me, at which time i politely informed him of my intent to witness as a concerned neighbor.
The cop was detaining and questioning some individuals. I was watching and listening. He didn't like that.
This case has everything to do with the officer's discomfort at being filmed. He made it clear that he did not want to be filmed. However, once i made the decision to be a witness to the event i felt that it would be irresponsible to leave before the event was settled, for any and all parties concerned. The fact that the cop didn't want me there made me suspicious of HIS intent. Nevertheless, at no point did i interact with or even come within 15 feet of the cops doing the questioning.
The charge they brought was COMLAW 4 "Interfering with a police officer" It is a common law offense not a statutory crime.
He said he was interviewing a victim of an assault...
Ms Jane, please show us the video so we don't need to talk about it...
On the other hand...
I know this officer very well. He is one of the good guys. He has received honors for saving lives, and for going out of his way to resolve problems without an arrest. To paint him as someone who would ever abuse someone's rights is just wrong. Ms. Jane was never told she could not record. This is not a first amendment issue. However, her presence there did interfere with the police and it is a valid legal charge under Common Law. Because she was standing behind him it split his attention. I think it was the teens he was interviewing who were uncomfortable with the recording and since they were not being detained they left, aborting what might have been a fruitful interview had Ms. Jane not inserted herself into it. While the magistrate agreed there was probable cause, the judge apparently determined that it was not her intention to interfere. (A little disturbing that the officer was not called to share his side.) Where there is abuse of power the police should be held accountable. Where there is no sign of it, can we please just let them do their job of protecting and serving? That is why the majority of them became police men and women. Let's not frustrate their performance of the duty we hire them to do.
Wait --
Standing behind a cop is interfering with him now?
Depends on the charge and circumstances.
A few years ago I was on a call for a shoplifter downtown, where a person stole some items and threatened the clerk, when officers stopped him, a woman came right between officers and the suspect with a cellphone cam telling everyone she had the right to be there and to videotape. After numerous attempts by police to get the woman out of the way, the suspect actually pushed the woman out of the way and took off running ( officers had to divert their attention from the suspect who was actually armed with a taser, and focus in the woman who was yelling at officers to leave the man alone and to stop harassing him).
In the end the suspect was caught, and the woman was charged with resisting arrest (the only charge that is written to describe what happened). She pled out, but if you took her version of things, or if the suspect didn't escape, was she still within her rights to videotape? How close does she need to be? Should she be able to legally ignore officers requests to step back?
These are all factors in cases like these, and just because a case is dismissed doesn't mean there is a false arrest.
Well, obviously....
With the facts as you describe them, she was physically interfering with with the arrest, not simply filming; that case has nothing to do with filming in that her behavior would be actionable even if no camera were present;
The "resisting arrest" charge is odd, though -- I thought courts always tossed the circular "resisting arrest" charge if there wasn't another charge to justify the arrest. With the facts as you describe them, she clearly participated in a felony by helping the felon to evade capture; I'm sure there are plenty of charges that would stick.
Not a felony.
But how close does she have to come before officers have the right to charge her?
Somewhere between...
Somewhere between standing at a distance and filming, which is unambiguously legal, and actually physically blocking or shoving one of the officers, which is, among other things, assault and battery, lies the line....
Exactly right.
The arrest I was talking about, the woman never touched anyone. She was yelling and being disorderly, and was close to an officer who was looking through stolen merchandise yelling at him while filming.
I'm sure other judges would have dismissed the charge as well. Does it make it a false arrest? (My case wasn't an arrest, she was summonsed)
So...
...her film could be used as evidence of her interference.
Actually the judge wanted to know why her phone wasn't siezed..
She either erased what she had taken, or hadn't filmed in the first place, so it wasn't even a factor. I can't remember the specifics on that one but I do remember the judge asking that specific question.
I was on a federal gun case once where the arrest (illegal possession that turned into federal gun charges) was filmed by people on the sidewalk. The defense attorney wanted to know why peoples phones weren't seized that had videotaped it. One witness had actually given her tape to the police, and the defense attorney stated that everyone at the scene should have been stopped and had their cell phones taken (since her videotape didn't show the actual gun, just the fight leading up to the arrest which condemned the suspect).
It is false arrest
As she was arrested for breaking a law THAT DOES NOT EXIST in Massachusetts.
I have no doubt
That a lot of these morons who are so focused on recording get in the way and interfere with the cops trying to do their jobs. I also have no doubt that some of these cops really don't like being recorded and use their position to try to stick it to the person doing the recording.
Jeez, Rob O
Are you some kind of lawyer or somethin'?
Section 1983
You're correct, you can sue under Section 1983 of Federal Code. .. for denial of civil rights ... and win money .. which they hear...
I bet he understands it just fine.
"What part of criminal compaint (sic) dismissed do you not understand?"
I bet he understands it just fine. I'd imagine Rob O is talking about the obvious civil rights violation of arresting someone who was arrested for completely invalid reasons.
I think Rob O was asking if
I think Rob O was asking if she can sue for wrongful arrest.
You're not listening
The question wasn't about getting the charges dismissed, it was about getting damages for violations of her civil rights. What part of that do YOU not understand?
Sec. 1983
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
It would be a vanity suit, because her damages are nominal, and there are qualified immunity issues that will protect the officers. To get the chief in his official capacity, she'll need to show a pattern/practice/lack of training of which the Somerville higher-ups were aware. However, it is perfectly settled first amendment law in the 1st Circuit, that citizens may film the police in public.
why was she filming the
why was she filming the police in this situation? "Because she can" is not a good answer
It's the only answer she needs
Videography is not a crime.
Actually, it is
I admit I have no clue why she was recording the police, but the First Amendment doesn't require you to provide a reason.
As a federal appeals court ruled in the Glik case (man arrested for videoing Boston Police making an arrest on the Common), the public has a right to video police in public places as long as they are not interfering with whatever it is the police are doing (so you can record, but don't try to get between a cop and a person he's arresting).
crossing the line
So adam when does videotaping the police cross the line into interfering with them doing their job?
What would someone get charged with since there's no "interfering with the police" statute in ma?
frankly, it's the perfect
frankly, it's the perfect answer.
Sure it is.
Sure it is.
It's a great answer.
It's a great answer. As this case so clearly demonstrates, rights, like muscles, tend to wither if they aren't exercised frequently.
It's the only answer she
It's the only answer she needs. If you don't like it that's just too bad.
It's called the Bill of
It's called the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Needs FOR GOOD REASON!
The defendant, Wenzday Jane,
is the owner of Metro Pedal Power, a bicycle-powered delivery service.
Do you happen to know how long ago this incident happened? The ACLU press release doesn't say.
I was trying to figure that out
Somerville seems to have brought on or brought in (or put out in public) some poorly trained or, at least, poorly urban-oriented police officers this summer. I'm betting this may be one of those guys.
Wow, what a baseless, factless conclusion.
So with nothing more than an ACLU press release, which I suspect reflects the ACLU position, and perhaps not the actual specifics of the decision - what EXACTLY did the judge say? And since she was not changed with recording, I'd suspect the judge didn't need to tell the police the conclusion the ACLU asserts. (See the many arguments above) - you've decided that the arresting officers must be crappy, newbie officers?
New officers may be eager, but I suspect coming right out of academy, they may be freshest on the law, but I don't KNOW or make an assertion on this case because we don't have a report or the judges decision. Instead, what I do have are pictures of Somerville officers doing their job protecting the public a la
http://www.universalhub.com/2014/rescue-high-seas-somerville?nocache=1
So maybe they make mistakes but I am not willing to tar them wih such insulting conclusions when the evidence I see is that they are trying to do their job helping to keep people safe.
One cop did a good job
So all cops shouldn't be questioned. Ever. No matter what.
Right.
If you took logic classes and paid for them, they should refund your money.
Note that an ordinary citizen is also assisting in that rescue.
In the meantime, there were a few incidents last summer where Somerville cops were suddenly making things up to harass grownup citizens, and a bunch of us compared notes and contacted the city and handled it in an adult fashion. Seems to me like they let a new batch of cops loose on the streets without proper training or orientation to their environment, and it also appears that people complaining to the city and the mayor resulted in some sort of appropriate response because the nonsense stopped.
These are public servants who work for all of us, not Gods to be worshiped without question. Read some history on why our Constitution has so many stipulations about the limits of police and state power for more information.
Jeebus, this is getting expensive
It seems like hiring the court system to teach "intro to Constitutional Law" to the BPD cost us, the taxpayers in Boston, $170,000 plus legal fees. I assume this is going to be similarly expensive for Somerville. Isn't there a cheaper way to provide this training?
You think that's bad
NYC has a BUDGET of somewhere around 20 MILLION DOLLARS for police misconduct.
Two sides to every story...
How about posting the complaint or the judge's decision rather than simply relying on the ACLU's press release? What are the details?
What part of "summary judgement"
= judge tossed it without further action because it was stupid an illegal don't you get?
Actually the judge ruled in her intent, not the illegality of
The crime..
You made that part up.