Hey, there! Log in / Register

Left joins right to try to overturn state law barring secret recording of police in public places

The ACLU of Massachusetts today filed a federal suit against Boston Police and the Suffolk County District Attorney Dan Conley on behalf of two activists who say a state law that bans the secret recording of oral communications even in a public place violates their First Amendment rights.

Their lawsuit, filed in US District Court in Boston, joins a similar suit against Conley filed in March by a right-wing activist who claims he wants to do a report on how landlords treat students in Boston. State Attorney General Maura Healey, representing Conley, is fighting the suit.

At issue in both suits is the state wiretapping law, which bars the recording of conversations without the consent of the people being recorded.

In the ACLU lawsuit, K. Eric Martin of Jamaica Plain and Rene Perez of Roxbury say that while Boston Police have acknowledged people can record officers publicly, there are times when secret recording is vital - and protected under the First Amendment.

It is the only way that individuals who are too afraid to openly record police officers can exercise their constitutionally protected rights, and it is a critical tool to gather accurate information about official government activity.

Neither is suing over specific incidents, but say that's only because they don't want to risk arrest and prosecution - and they say they have had bad experiences with cops in the past - and that Boston and MBTA police and the DA's office have gone after people who have recorded them.

Martin, who says he is a civil-rights activist and has been a member of Boston Cop Watch,

[H]as wanted to secretly record BPD police officers performing their duties in public about once a month, and he wants to do so in the future.

However, he has not done so, and will continue to refrain from doing so, because he is afraid that he will get arrested or prosecuted for violating Section 99 [the section of state law barring private recording of discussions].

For instance, Mr. Martin wants to secretly record BPD police officers performing their public duties when he is alone because he does not feel safe openly recording police officers in such instances.

Although he believes that open recording can be a powerful tool in a crowd, he is scared to openly record a police officer when there is no one else around due to potential retaliation.

Mr. Martin was frightened by the April 2015 video of a BPD officer waving what appeared at the time to be a real gun in the face of a civilian who was openly recording the police officer’s activities.

The complaint continues:

In December 2011, Mr. Martin was participating in and photographing the Occupy Boston political demonstrations. A BPD police officer shoved him to the ground, yelled at him to stop taking pictures and instructed Mr. Martin that he was under arrest for taking his picture. It was only after a supervisor ultimately intervened that Mr. Martin was told he was free to go.

Based on his experiences, Mr. Martin does not feel safe openly recording police officers when he is alone. But for his fear of being arrested or prosecuted for violating Section 99, he would have secretly recorded such encounters with the police in the past and would do so in the future.

Perez, also a civil-rights activist, says he grew up in Texas learning to fear the police.

Mr. Pérez has wanted to secretly record BPD police officers performing their duties in public on numerous occasions, and he wants to do so in the future.

However, he has not done so, and will continue to refrain from doing so, because he is afraid that he will be arrested or prosecuted for violating Section 99.

For instance, Mr. Pérez wants to secretly record BPD police officers during traffic stops when he is alone because he does not feel safe doing so openly. ...

Mr. Pérez has also been pulled over several times in Boston. While these experiences have been different from those in Texas, he has still been afraid because he knows things can go badly very quickly.

Mr. Pérez is afraid to openly record these interactions because has learned that openly recording a BPD police officer can trigger a hostile response that threatens his physical safety.

For example, Mr. Pérez was openly recording a protest against the Syrian invasion on the street outside of Secretary of State John Kerry’s house several years ago. The demonstration had ended, and Mr. Pérez continued to openly record a police officer’s interactions with the remaining protesters.

A BPD police officer became incensed when he noticed that Mr. Pérez was recording. He got in Mr. Pérez’s face, screamed at him and grabbed his recording device. This terrified Mr. Pérez.

Neighborhoods: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon Complete complaint109.7 KB


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Why are so many of these "activists" from JP?

I actually grew up in JP. And I respect and appreciate the Boston Police.

I was priced out of JP eventually. (Probably by these "activists").

up
Voting closed 0

Why is the sky blue.

Why are so many anons just drive-by whiners?

up
Voting closed 0

Because that is what these "activists" want to change - the fact that many officers either lie about the law making it legal to record them, or pretend not to know about it, or try to muddle the waters by shouting "I do not consent to this video".

As the police are fond of telling us - if you aren't doing anything bad, you have nothing to fear. If the police are on the up and up, they shouldn't worry about being filmed, secretly or not.

It's possible to respect the good cops *and* want to protect yourself from the bad, whose existence is well documented at this point (luckily boston seems to have less of the bad than some cities, but it's certainly not zero)

up
Voting closed 0

Boston has a lot more bad apples than people think! I have seen it in the police department, courts and throughout other city and state departments.

up
Voting closed 0

I'm sure these "activists," your dog whistle term for minorities, are the ones who priced you out of JP. Probably wasn't the yuppie invasion, gentrification, or doctors and nurses working in Longwood with the scratch to pay $500,000 for an 800 sq ft condo in an old triple decker. Nah....was these pro-bono "activists"....you should go down to the Lucy Parsons center with some signs and give 'em a piece of your mind.

Very glad your gone...How's Brockton?

up
Voting closed 0

The ACLU scares me more than the BPD.

up
Voting closed 0

I mean, explain using evidence?

So far as I know, the ACLU has never framed anyone, nor have they extrajudicially executed anyone either. They also are not paid by the public through tax dollars.

up
Voting closed 0

Hate to burst your bubble, but officers pay taxes too. And in what instance has a BPD officer extrajudicially executed a person? The department has revamped itself after The Bombings and have had the restraint of a Franciscan Monk whenever these punks have threatened to shoot them. These ACLU activists are nothing more than meek, childish pranksters who don't understand that there is a human element to the job. Focus on the real issues....

up
Voting closed 0

I have a very good friend who, as a teenager, was subjected to considerable extrajudicial punishment by the BPD. He was innocent of any wrongdoing, as were his friends who received like treatment. There were no consequences to the cops. Are you okay with that?

These ACLU activists are nothing more than meek, childish pranksters who don't understand that there is a human element to the job.

And you're nothing but a cop-sucking snot-gobbling moron who either doesn't understand that the people who are abused by your idols are also human beings, or who flat-out doesn't care. To you, clearly, a cop can do no wrong. Whatever a cop chooses to do is right, and anyone they do it to? Automatically guilty and deserving of the cop's extrajudicial punishment.

Focus on the real issues....

Which are what, exactly? The deep and abiding tragedy of wooly-headed liberals who won't just SHUT UP and stop asking for cops to be held accountable?

You are a sad piece of work.

up
Voting closed 0

The off duty cop body slamming a 'jaywalker' for 'touching' his car and the responding officers refusing to take witness statements comes to mind.

BPD doesn't want body cameras, or people recording them, and covers up officer misconduct which would keep someone off the job unable to carry a duty weapon. But has no problem recording the shit out of citizens and denying them full licenses to carry.

When a department is loud and proud for a separate set of rules for themselves vs. the public they supposedly protect and serve it's obvious they have an unhealthy us vs. them mentality. Not healthy for community policing or public trust.

up
Voting closed 0

The same folks who talk about how scared they are of the ACLU are always, ALWAYS the ones who double down on "well it's my RIGHT to do this shitty thing with no repurcussions, because the Constitution says the government can't throw me in jail for it." Hate to be the bearer of bad news, slappy, but those "rights" are only that when the Supremes affirm that they are, which typical happens when an ACLU-backed case makes its way up there. The ACLU is as close to a non-partisan advocacy group as you'll ever find, and they're pretty much the only thing that stands between us and a total surveillance state.

As far as I can tell, the only reason why they don't have bipartisan support is that (a) most politicians on both sides hate them and (b) the NRA went on an unhinged rant about them not supporting 2nd amendment rights twenty years ago, and it's somehow filtered into the general conservative thought pool.

up
Voting closed 0

Repeal the wiretap law and police will wiretap you without a warrant. I thought the ACLU fought for privacy rights.

up
Voting closed 0

Recording in public is hardly the wiretapping you're talking about here.

And we're talking about public servants on duty, not private citizens.

up
Voting closed 0

That's fine with me, I got nothing that they would be interested in but imagine if we could record people without them knowing! Then people couldn't deny the truth!

up
Voting closed 0

Yeah man, we can see you're all about the transparently lived life. ◔_◔

up
Voting closed 0

They are public servants and this stops corrupt cops! I am a retired cop and don't agree with this to keep lying cops in check!

up
Voting closed 0

Let's keep these police officers honest!

up
Voting closed 0

Afterward go back, write up what happened and date the writing. Later, add more details. Keep a log or a chronicle of what happens. Even keep a log of what happens in social media.

up
Voting closed 0

Once I saw the 'Cop Watch' affiliation I knew exactly what was up. These aren't just concerned citizens, these are the folks with serious desire to get any cop in trouble. They conveniently left out the part where they want to provoke/harass the police before secretly recording them.

up
Voting closed 0

They're as crazy and dangerous as those "sovereign citizens" nuts.

Shame on the ACLU for associating their organization with them.

Shame! Shame! Shame!

up
Voting closed 0

Let me tell you something. I have seen plenty of police provoke and escalate situations as much as citizens or criminals do!

up
Voting closed 0

Except it's not the cop's sole reason for existing. These Cop Watch/Cop Block types intentionally go around setting the police up for failure. They create a situation that borders on illegal and start pushing the officer's buttons as soon as they arrive. Their hope is the stress causes a momentary bad judgement which results in Internet gold for them. They're not even targeting specific cops, any cop going down in flames is good enough for them. They're lean towards being a hate group.

up
Voting closed 0

Of the 14,000 homicides recorded last year, 80% were committed by someone the victim knew. Of the remaining 2800, between 1000 and 1200 of them were committed by law enforcement.

To recap: if you're going to be murdered by someone you don't know, the chances are just under 50% that it's going to be by a cop. (Much much higher chance if you're black, much lower if you're white, obvi) As an added bonus, they will almost certainly not face charges for the homicide, unless someone else happens to be taping it... which the MA law currently prohibits.

If I had to name the demographic that I'm the most terrified of, it ain't the gang-bangers at Bromley Heath. It's the men in blue.

up
Voting closed 0

If gang bangers and police are included in that same 20% (kill those they don't know), and police only kill a certain percentage who had, are in the act of, or did commit a crime, don't you think your internal risk assessment chart you made for yourself would make you more afraid of blacks? (assuming you don't commit crimes, and don't disobey the lawful order of a police officer)

You racist pig.

I'm assuming you count gang killings as people they "don't know"? Or are you just making things up?

Unless you are a criminal or mentally ill and don't take your medication, then I apologize. Or if you live in the Boston area, then you have a higher chance of getting killed by a gang member than you do from the police.

up
Voting closed 0

In public places? Is it because so many of them are getting in trouble? Take away the recording and it's your word against theirs!

up
Voting closed 0

Are you kidding me? If they do not want to be recorded doing their jobs in public then maybe they should change careers. Let's keep cops honest and accountable by recording them!

up
Voting closed 0