Lawyer arrested for videoing arrest on Tremont Street files civil-rights suit against Boston
Simon Glik, who wound up arrested when he used his cell phone to video a drug bust on Tremont Street along the Common in 2007, yesterday filed suit in US District Court, alleging his First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by police.
Glik was also charged with "aiding escape" of a prisoner and disturbing the peace. All the charges against Glik were dismissed in court - including the charge of violating the wiretapping law, which he says was meant to cover secret taping of private conversations, not public recording of events out in the open, such as an arrest on the Common near Tremont Street.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Good, maybe this horrible
Good, maybe this horrible "creative interpretation" of the law will finally be stuck down.
On duty cops, or persons in public have no expected right to privacy while in public, including recordings.
unnacountable BPD will learn in court and taxpayers will pay $$
These cases get thrown out all the time.
one case was thrown out... but will the second one
Clearly the BPD's "case" against innocent bystander Simon Glik got thrown out. The DA dropped one charge because even the DA couldn't responsibly argue it. The other two charges were "thrown out" by the judge.
A reasonable person would say the BPD didn't do a good job obtaining valid evidence and/or arrested Simon Glik on trumped up charges.
I'm not a Constitutional lawyer so I don't know if the weight of Glick's evidence makes a compelling case of civil rights violations, including violation of his first and fourth amendment rights. I can say this, all the evidence in the criminal complaint points to an unjustified arrest by the BPD of Glik, who committed no crime and who was simply an observer of a police arrest in public.
If Glik broke no laws and was arrested either because of a wrong-minded policy (wiretapping in public) or becuase the police want to discourage oversight of public arrests, even thought the public is well within its Constitutional rights to do so, wouldn't you hope Glik wins the suit and BPD is forced to confront it's policies that are unconstitutional and violate the rights of citizens conducting themselves within the bounds of the law?
compare and contrast
"The officers, James Pitts and David Toner, were disciplined with written reprimands for violating the department's policy on professionalism and the exercise of discretion, said Sgt. Deanna Nollette, a department spokeswoman. Officers are trained to know that the public is entitled to observe and document their actions, she said. "Not only do we train them on that, we tell them to expect that's going to be occurring," she said."
Can you imagine anyone from Boston Police saying that?
Can you imagine Boston Police having a policy on "professionalism" or "exercise of discretion"?
multiple officers suspended every month in fact Brett. Just because you don't see it in the paper doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
but not wrongly charging an inncent bystander for watching with
the crime of "aiding escape" of a prisoner, disturbing the peace, and violating the wiretapping law.
Two words come to mind, police state.
Show us were in this case, the officers are suspended. Or where the BPD says the officer were disciplined with written reprimands for violating the department's policy on professionalism and the exercise of discretion or acknowledges BPDs willful abuse of arresting people for filming their arrests in public.
All the charges against Glik were dismissed in court.
Adam can you post the affidavits and police reports when they're made public?
If Commissioner Davis is trying to right the ship there's no indication it's getting better.
Just because the case was dismissed doesn't mean he was innocent. The "lawyer" was a clerk of some court right? I wouldn't be suprised if this clerk couldn't get a ADA job, realized he wasn't going to go anywhere in the legal world, got a break for a first time offense and then sued the same system that never gave him a shot in the first place.
until proven guilty in a court of law.
The charges were tossed. What charges?
Why were they tossed? Because, as the defendant alleged, police violated his his First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
You're probably ok with that. You should just admit it that the Constitution means nothing to you.
What an embarrassment for the BPD, violating the bystanders Constitutional rights, three of them at once! Bravo BPD. When will the BPD learn that they are not "the law" but rather sworn to uphold it (not abuse it) and people's rights in the process? T
There is no legal principle in doubt that can explain why the BPD continues to arrest people using their cell phones to videotape in public places. The is an institutional practice and must end; it is not the case of a "few bad apples", it is policy.
Arresting Glik for "aiding escape" of a prisoner is a question I will hold judgment on until I read the brief/police incident report. Maybe the police were justified, maybe not. Did he grab one of the officers and trip the other while the suspect fled?
Same goes with "disturbing the peace". Let's face it. That's a effing joke. The police should have more self-respect than to toss that in.
A case of out of control over-controlling police violating people's rights IE a few bad apples or BPD officers showing good judgment and good police work? You decide. Maybe we should run a poll after people have a chance to read the material.
I wasn't talking about
I wasn't talking about innocent or guilt on your criminal record. Just like if this civil suit gets dismissed, it doesn't mean the police didn't violate this mans civil rights.
You can't prove it
It's not physically impossible that all of the officers suspended each month are actually phantom police officers that don't really exist; made-up names, enrolled in the academy to artificially inflate the ranks - and provide some leeway for the brass when they need to trim their budget without actually reducing the number of cops on the street. Neither you nor I were there when these fake officers were or weren't enrolled, so we can't say for certain. I'm just saying it's something to consider. It's not always as simple as you make it sound.
the not entirely implausable alternative explanation
you can't disprove because you weren't there. Good one.
I do know for a fact that several Boston Police officers get suspended every month. That's the difference.
Know for a fact?
I don't know why I'm bothering to play "someone is wrong on the Internet", but:
Do you seriously not understand the fallacy here? You're claiming credibility by stating that You Know a fact which you provide no sources for, and which you yourself only post under anonymity?
How the hell did you pass the entrance exam? I'm not saying you're stupid; I'm just saying you're doing the kind of thing that stupid people do.
My nomination for
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "I'm not saying you're stupid; I'm just saying you're doing the kind of thing that stupid people do."
Brett - I can't give you
Brett - I can't give you statistics on how well it's followed, but the BPD does indeed have a that details a code of ethics. So, there you go.
How many times have the
How many times have the police enforced this creative interpretation to the law in no cop brutailty cases (in other words, how many times have the police arrested people for making cell phone recordings in public when police were not in the picture). I bet its close to zero. During the championship parades plenty of people recorded using audio the passing champion teams, to name just one instance.
Boston cops, with their fearless daddy/leader Menino leading by example, feel that the laws are only for others to follow and they can arrest people for pointing out their incompetence or law breaking.
They may have a code of professionalism, but they surely don't follow it. They spend all their energy lobbying pappy Menino to protect their crossing guard details and letting them off easy when they break the law.