Search

NPPA files Amicus Brief Supporting Right to Photograph and Record Police in Public

June 2nd, 2014 by and tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

The NPPA filed an Amicus Brief today in a federal civil rights lawsuit involving an Austin, Texas man, who says that police violated his constitutional right to photograph and/or film police in a public setting.

In his complaint Antonio Francis Buehler alleged that he was arrested on a number of occasions while recording Austin Police officers performing their official duties in public places. As a result of these incidents Buehler formed the Peaceful Streets Project, a group which routinely videotapes police officers in the city.

Buehler filed suit against the Austin Police Department and several police officers for violations of his civil rights. The defendants in the lawsuit then moved to dismiss the suit, and claimed “qualified immunity,” which protects government officials from being the subjects of lawsuits unless they have violated a clearly established constitutional right.

“The NPPA chose to file an amicus brief so early in this case because of the extraordinary and incredulous claim by the Austin Police Department that ‘the Fifth Circuit does not recognize photographing/videotaping police officers as a constitutional right,'” said NPPA Advocacy Chair Alicia Calzada.

The brief counters the police department’s argument that the “First Amendment right to videotape law enforcement is not a cognizable claim,” as being incorrect as a matter of law and also because it frames the issue far too narrowly.  Rather, the constitutional right to film police officers while on duty has been well established for decades through numerous constitutional decisions that protect the “coextensive” rights of journalists and members of the public to gather information and to hold government officials accountable for their actions, as the First Circuit Court of Appeals held in the 2011 case of Glik v. Cunniffe. In Glik, a citizen was arrested after using his cell phone to photograph Boston police officers he believed were using excessive force in effectuating an arrest. After his charges were dismissed, Glik filed a civil action against the Boston Police Department and won because the First Circuit observed that a citizen’s right to film police officers on duty is a “basic, vital, and well-established liberty protected by the First Amendment.”

Several other cases have affirmed that the right to film police officers while on duty is clear and unambiguous, thus further weakening the Austin Police Department’s dubious claim. Most recently, the First Circuit reaffirmed this principle, denying qualified immunity in a case that involved videotaping police during a traffic stop in the case of Gericke v Begin. The court in Gericke explained that some constitutional principles are self-evident and do not need to have a case directly on point.

The United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has also affirmed this right in  multiple Statements of Interest, explaining that over eighty years of precedent, going back to the 1931 case of Near v. Minnesota, stand for the proposition that “government action intended to prevent the dissemination of information critical of government officials, including police officers, constitutes an invalid prior restraint on the exercise of First Amendment rights.”

The law is also clear that these constitutional protections apply as much to individuals as they do the institutional press, something the NPPA has consistently noted. “NPPA has always fought to uphold the right to photograph and record in public for everyone,” said NPPA Generasl Counsel Mickey H. Osterreicher. “While the press may not have any greater right of access than the public, they have no less right either and the last thing we want is for the government to be the arbiter of who is entitled to ‘Free Speech’ or ‘Free Press’ First Amendment protection,” he added.

The amicus brief was drafted pro bono by attorneys Robert Corn-Revere, Ronald London, and Alison B. Schary, with the law firm of Davis Wright Tremaine, who have generously supported this and other NPPA efforts to promote and uphold the right to take pictures in public. Corn-Revere, London and Schary were recipients of the 2013 NPPA Kenneth P. McLaughlin Award of Merit for their efforts in support of the First Amendment.

 

 

 

 

Posted in Austin Police, Boston Police, cell phone cameras, Department of Justice, DOJ, First Amendment, First Amendment rights, Glik v Cunniffe, law, Lawsuit, Legal, Newsgathering, photographers, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism, Police, Recording, Recording Police, Simon Glik, Texas | No Comments »

NPPA General Counsel Speaks on Photojournalism Issues at National Press Club

June 28th, 2012 by Advocacy Intern and tagged , , , , ,

Mickey H. Osterreicher, general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA), spoke at the National Press Club (NPC) in Washington, D.C. on June 27, 2012 where he warned NPC members of ongoing issues concerning copyright infringement and the assault on the right to photograph in public places.

“It’s vital for citizens and journalists to know their rights when taking pictures or recording in public places. It’s even more crucial that police departments have appropriate policies and continuously train their officers regarding those rights,” Osterreicher said following the speech.

Osterreicher, who spoke to the NPC last January on a similar topic paid particular attention to the increasing prevalence of police interfering with the rights of the public and the media to photograph in public places.  He noted that there have been a growing number of arrests of citizens and photographers who take pictures, particularly those who have documented activist gatherings such as the Occupy protests.

Osterreicher attributed the increase in these incidents to the widespread proliferation of cameras and smartphones, which make it possible for anyone to photograph and record matters of public concern and then provide that material to the rest of the world via the Internet.  He said that police nationwide have shown a reluctance to allow such documentation, and have often responded with hostility and threats of arrest.

“I think it’s the culture of the police,” Osterreicher said.  “Their idea of serve and protect often means protecting people  and other officers from having their pictures taken.”

The NPPA has come to the defense of many of these photographers, both professional and amateur, because of its belief that government officials should never be left to determine what is or is not a newsworthy picture or story. The organization urges offending police departments to drop charges and to adopt policies that do not interfere with the public’s right to photograph.

Osterreicher talked about training sessions he has held with several police departments on how to interact with the press,  his work with the Chicago Police and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press during the NATO Summit and his preparations for the upcoming national political conventions.

He said he offers this service whenever he writes to police departments that have had incidents with photographers. “People ask me ‘Why do you write so many letters?'” Osterreicher said. “Well, the answer is that it’s cheaper than bringing a lawsuit.  It’s cheaper for everyone, but as the police so often say ‘we can do this the easy way or the hard way,’ I think that a letter is the easy way but in some recently filed lawsuits NPPA has provided support against those departments and officers who blatantly violated our members’ constitutional rights.”

Osterreicher also spoke about instances in which police have taken cameras and phones and deleted photos or compelled the person who took the photos to do so.  He reminded members of the NPC that under no circumstances do officers have the right to delete or destroy photographs or video.

Osterreicher said that he is hopeful that incidents like these decline once police are educated and trained regarding the rights of the press and public to photograph and record.

“The police aren’t going anywhere.  The media isn’t going anywhere.  We need to find a way to do our jobs without interference.”

 

Posted in Access, Assault on Photographers, Attack Photographers, Cameras, cell phone cameras, Chicago Police, First Amendment, First Amendment rights, law, Lawsuit, Legal, National Press Photographers Association, News Photography, Newsgathering, NPPA, Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Wall Street Arrests, photographers, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism, Police, Public Photography, Recording, Recording Police, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, video cameras | No Comments »

Journalism Groups Protest Prosecution of Photojournalist

March 27th, 2012 by Mickey Osterreicher

Today the Northern California Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists sent a letter to the Santa Cruz DA stating they are “deeply concerned by your office’s decision to prosecute Bradley Stuart Allen, a longtime San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center (Indybay) contributor, as well as by assertions from your office that: (1) a reporter may be prosecuted for conspiracy simply by providing coverage of a newsworthy event and (2) Indybay is not a bona fide news organization.”  Mr. Allen was charged with felony conspiracy along with vandalism and tresspassing for his coverage of an “Occupy” demonstration late last year.  

On March 12, 2012 the NPPA along with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press sent a letter brief to the court seeking  that the charges against him be dismissed in the interest of justice. In the alternative the letter asked for the court to exercise leniency in addressing those offenses. The groups also asserted that because newsgathering is constitutionally protected, the court should carefully weigh the public interest in obtaining information against arguably lesser government interests.

After a hearing last week the judge dismissed the felony vandalism charge, finding that  prosecutors did not meet their burden of presenting sufficient evidence but refused to dismiss  the felony conspiracy and two misdemeanor trespassing charges against him.

The letter sent today by SPJ concluded by saying, “it is wholly inappropriate, and indeed unconstitutional, for a public prosecutor to single out representatives of a disfavored news organization for prosecution. That a photojournalist from The Santa Cruz Sentinel was able to enter the occupied building and report from it without also being subjected to charges brings this abuse into even sharper relief” and strongly urged the DA “to reconsider whether to proceed with this aggressive and dangerous targeting of the independent press.”

Allen’s next court appearance is scheduled for March 29.

Posted in Bradley Allen, condemned, First Amendment, First Amendment rights, law, Legal, National Press Photographers Association, News Photography, Newsgathering, NPPA, Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Wall Street Arrests, photographers, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Santa Cruz, Vandalism | No Comments »

NPPA Objects to Interference With & Detention of Journalists by Chicago PD

March 19th, 2012 by Mickey Osterreicher

The NPPA sent a letter to Chicago Superintendent of Police, Garry F. McCarthy, objecting to the interference with and detention of two (2) Chicago journalists and requested that the incident be fully investigated. WGN reporter Dan Ponce and WMAQ photographer Donte Williams, were standing on a public sidewalk outside a hospital while covering the fatal shooting of a six-year-old girl.

According to reports and video recorded at the scene a Chicago police officer (identified by nametag as Ward, 010 District, Ogden) is heard using profanity as he orders journalists who were standing on a public sidewalk to move across the street. He is also heard to say “your first amendment rights can be terminated if you create a scene.” When asked how they were creating a scene he responded, “your presence is creating a scene,” when in fact there was no “scene” until this officer created one by issuing an unlawful order.

In a statement released yesterday, the Chicago Police Department said that “members were attempting to protect and respect both the grieving family members of the child, and the memory of the child herself during a very stressful time for all parties involved.” The Mission Statement and Core Values of the Chicago Police Department states (among other things) that it “is committed to protect the lives, property, and rights of all people, to maintain order, and to enforce the law impartially.”

In its letter “NPPA asserts that your officers failed to uphold any of those values. Furthermore, it is neither a police officer’s duty or right to decide what is appropriate news coverage of any story. So long as news personnel are in a public forum and not violating any ordinances they have a right to gather news unfettered by the personal feelings or opinions of law enforcement. Anything less may be considered a form of prior restraint or censorship.”

NPPA also expressed its concern that the apparent lack of discipline and training of CPD officers will result in further incidents during the upcoming NATO Summit meeting in May.

A copy of the letter was also sent to the Hon. Rahm Emmanuel, Mayor, City of Chicago, Frank Whittaker, General Manager, WMAQ-TV and Greg Caputo, News Director, WGN-TV

Posted in Access, Chicago, Chicago Police, detained, First Amendment, First Amendment rights, Fourth Amendment, Fourth Amendment rights, Illinois, law, Legal, National Press Photographers Association, News Photography, Newsgathering, NPPA, photographers, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism, Police, Public Photography, Recording, Recording Police, Search and Seizure, video cameras, WGN, WMAQ | 4 Comments »

NPPA & REPORTERS COMMITTEE SEEK DISMISSAL OF CHARGES AGAINST PHOTOJOURNALIST COVERING OCCUPY PROTEST

March 12th, 2012 by Mickey Osterreicher and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

DURHAM, NC — The National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) and The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (Reporters Committee) filed a joint “Letter Brief” seeking the dismissal of charges against Bradley Stuart Allen in The People of the State of California v. Becky Ann Johnson et al, Case No. F22194. The brief asserts that Mr. Allen, who is a photojournalist and NPPA member, should not be criminally prosecuted for trespass, vandalism and conspiracy. He was charged after his photographic coverage of an Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protest in Santa Cruz, California last year.

Noting that the First Amendment’s guarantee of press freedom is meaningless if journalists do not possess a concomitant right to gather the news, the brief states that –  while the allegedly violated statutes may serve important government interests, they cannot be exempt from First Amendment protection. Application of these laws in the prosecution of a journalist engaged in the constitutionally protected act of newsgathering demands careful balancing of these competing interests.

“While journalists may sometimes violate the letter of the law in order to obtain information of public concern, we believe it is extremely important for the court to also consider when such action occurs in the spirit and exercise of First Amendment rights,” said Sean D. Elliot, NPPA president. “Review of visual reportage subject to criminal penalties without that balance unfairly burdens newsgathering at its most critical need of protection,” he added.

This is just the most recent case where journalists have been interfered with and arrested while covering OWS protests throughout the country. In almost every case, those charges — ranging from disorderly conduct and obstruction of governmental administration to trespass — have been dismissed or the defendant journalists have been acquitted.”

About the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA)

The NPPA is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the advancement of visual journalism in its creation, editing and distribution. Since 1946, NPPA has vigorously promoted freedom of the press in all its forms, especially as that freedom relates to visual journalism.

For more information, contact Mickey H. Osterreicher at 716.566.1484 or go to www.nppa.org. You can also follow us on Twitter @nppa.

Posted in Access, Bradley Allen, Conspiracy, First Amendment, First Amendment rights, Interest of Justice, law, Legal, National Press Photographers Association, News Photography, Newsgathering, NPPA, Occupy Wall Street Arrests, photographers, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism, Police, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Santa Cruz, Vandalism | 3 Comments »

Judge Dismisses All Charges Against R.I.T. Student Photojournalist Covering Occupy Rochester Protest

January 12th, 2012 by Mickey Osterreicher

Inside an almost packed courtroom, Supervising City Court Judge, the Hon. Teresa D. Johnson issued her Decision in the People v Acuff, et al.  All charges against 28 defendants were dismissed without prejudice.  Those defendants, except for one, had been part of an Occupy Rochester protest. The lone journalist was my client, 20 year-old R.I.T. photojournalism student Jonathan Foster. Mr. Foster is also a student member of the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) which is why I had been asked to represent him.

Mr. Foster was charged with trespass (New York State CPL § 140.05) and for violating the Rochester Municipal Code (§79 -2- c. Remaining after park closing hours) on the night of October 29, 2011. From videotape evidence and a witness statement, it appears that Mr. Foster was on a public sidewalk at the time of his arrest although the accusatory instrument, based upon information and belief, stated he was in Washington Square Park shortly after its 11.p.m. closing time. His assigned story and photos were published 5 days later by the weekly R.I.T. Reporter in print and online at http://reportermag.com/article/11-04-2011/occupy-rochester-leads-to-arrests.

Before we ever got to court I had written letters to the Rochester Police Department, the District Attorney and the Mayor. All requested the same thing – dismiss the charges against Jonathan as had been done in so many other cities around the country where journalists were caught up and arrested along with protesters. All the letters were ignored.

In the letters I argued (to no avail) “that although not unlimited, the media enjoys a broad right under the First Amendment to photograph in public places such as streets and sidewalks. These rights are rooted in the First Amendment’s strong protection of speech within ‘public forums,’ the most commonly recognized examples of which include streets, sidewalks, and public parks.”

I was surprised that the police and prosecutors were unmoved. Months before this incident, I had met with Rochester Police Chief, James M. Sheppard, in order to help his department draft improved police-press guidelines after Emily Good (also one of the defendants in this case) had been arrested in June and charged with obstruction of governmental administration as she videotaped a traffic stop from the front lawn of her house. Her charges were dropped but not until the video had gone viral and the case became nationally publicized.

Jonathan and I had been in court together twice before. On November 17, 2011, I appeared on his behalf and filed a motion to dismiss. On that occasion he came with his parents who had driven five hours from Pennsylvania to support their son. The ADA offered and ACD (Adjournment Contemplating Dismissal). That would have meant that after 6 months and a few hours of community service the charges would have been automatically dismissed. We rejected that offer because Jonathan had already performed a community service by taking an publishing the photos but more importantly, since the OWS movement is unlikely to go away anytime soon, I worried that Jonathan would find himself back covering another demonstration, with its risk of another arrest. If that happened these original charges could be reinstated along with the new ones. It’s what’s known as getting jammed-up.

Instead I filed a 21 page motion to dismiss, arguing first that the information forming the basis for the arrest was defective in that “every element of the offense charged and the defendant’s commission thereof must be established by ‘non-hearsay allegations of the factual part of the information and/or of any supporting depositions.” Almost two months later the court agreed, finding that Chief Sheppard (did I mention that he was there that night, made a number of arrests, had his picture taken by Jonathan and signed the accusatory instrument against all the defendants?)  “does not sufficiently allege non-hearsay factual allegations establishing every element of trespass.”

The dismissal motion also argued that the charges against Mr. Foster should be dismissed “in the furtherance of justice.” Pursuant to CPL §170.40, “an accusatory instrument . . . may be dismissed in the interest of justice . . . when, even though there may be no basis for dismissal as a matter of law . . . [where] such dismissal is required as a matter of judicial discretion by the existence of some compelling factor, consideration or circumstance clearly demonstrating that conviction or prosecution of the defendant upon such accusatory instrument or count would constitute or result in injustice.” In Jonathan’s case there were many such factors, the first of which was that that at the time of the alleged incident he was not there to protest but as a journalist covering a story of public interest. The United States Constitution has long protected the right to a free and robust press. The ability to gather and disseminate news is abridged when the government, under color of law, interferes with and arrests journalists reporting on issues of public concern.

Another factor to be considered in a motion to dismiss in the interest of justice is the “character and condition of the defendant.” Here Jonathan had much to commend him. He is in his junior year with a 3.43 GPA, attending R.I.T. on a presidential scholarship and a member of the honors program. He is an Eagle Scout. He has never been in trouble with the law, has never been arrested or charged with any crime before the instant matter. His first pictures were published in the Reporter Magazine in October 2009 and he has worked for the Reporter Magazine regularly since October 2010. In October 2011 he became a staff reporter/photographer.

Additionally, Mr. Foster was wearing (go to link to see a photo of his arrest) a sky blue shirt from his school magazine over his raincoat with large block letters spelling “REPORTER” on the front and he identified himself as such at the time of his arrest. He was also taking pictures with a professional Nikon camera, lens and flash unit, whereby any reasonable person should have observed and known that he was a journalist covering a news story.

In the meantime the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle printed an editorial on November 23, 2011 The headline read “Uphold First Amendment rights” and went on to state that Jonathan’s “prosecution could have a chilling effect on First Amendment rights to freedom of the press. District Attorney Mike Green should reconsider.” He didn’t.

In another appearance on December 14, 2011, I made those arguments orally along with more than a dozen other attorneys representing various defendants. The judge listened and then reserved her decision. Until Today.

But today the Judge never reached those issues and denied dismissal on those grounds because then she would have had to dismiss “with prejudice,” which, means that Monroe County would be precluded from re-filing the charges. Remember the second sentence of this story? “All charges against 28 defendants were dismissed without prejudice.” Pursuant to today’s decision, that means should police or prosecutors decide to re-file any of these charges the “complaints and supporting depositions [ ] must establish non-hearsay allegations with respect to each individual defendant.” (emphasis added)

As a photojournalism student Jonathan says that this incident proved a valuable if not difficult lesson for someone just starting out. Let’s hope it is a “teachable moment” for the police, prosecutors and the courts as well.

 

Posted in First Amendment, First Amendment rights, Interest of Justice, law, Legal, Motion to Dismiss, National Press Photographers Association, News Photography, Newsgathering, NPPA, Occupy Rochester, Occupy Wall Street, photographers, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism, Police, Public Forum, Public Photography, R.I.T., Rochester Police, Student, students, trespass, Without Prejudice | No Comments »

New Developments in the Ongoing Assault on the Right to Photograph/Record in Public

January 12th, 2012 by Mickey Osterreicher

January 10, 2012 might not be a day that any real headlines were made but in the ongoing assault on the right to photograph/record in public, events took place in two separate cases that may mark the start of a change in how this issue is viewed by the courts and police. First, in the United States District Court for The District Of Maryland, the Department of Justice filed an 18 page ““Statement of Interest of The United States” ” Sharp v. Baltimore City Police, et al.

According to the complaint, filed by the ACLU of Maryland in August 2011, “this is a civil rights action challenging as unconstitutional the Baltimore City Police Department’s warrantless arrest and detention of plaintiff Christopher Sharp, as well as the seizure and destruction of Mr. Sharp’s property, premised upon Mr. Sharp’s exercise of his rights under the federal and Maryland constitutions to document the conduct of City police officers performing their public duties in a public place.”

That complaint which was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City Maryland and later removed to federal court stems from an incident in which Christopher Sharp videotaped police using excessive force to effectuate the arrest of a female friend while they were in the Pimlico Race Course Clubhouse at the 2010 Preakness Stakes. Video taken of the beating by another observer can be found on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWF3Ddr7vdc.

Sharp refused police requests to surrender his video as “evidence”, whereupon it is alleged that police “seized his cell phone, and detained him while one officer left the area with the phone. After the officers returned the phone, Mr. Sharp discovered that the officers had deleted video of the arrest and all other videos that had been stored on the device, including numerous videos of his young son and other personal events.”

“This litigation presents constitutional questions of great moment in this digital age: whether private citizens have a First Amendment right to record police officers in the public discharge of their duties, and whether officers violate citizens’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they seize and destroy such recordings without a warrant or due process. The United States urges this Court to answer both of those questions in the affirmative” the DOJ statement read in what is believed to be the first time it has weighed in on the issue of recording police. “The right to record police officers while performing duties in a public place, as well as the right to be protected from the warrantless seizure and destruction of those recordings, are not only required by the Constitution. They are consistent with our fundamental notions of liberty, promote the accountability of our governmental officers, and instill public confidence in the police officers who serve us daily.”

In the second case, Glik v Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) (denying qualified immunity to officer on arrestee’s First and Fourth Amendment claims), the Boston Police Department concluded an almost four (4) year internal investigation. In a letter to Mr. Glik, cell phone cinematographer Simon Glik, superintendent Kenneth Fong of the Boston Police Department’s Bureau of Professional Standards said that officers had shown “unreasonable judgment” by taking him into custody.

By way of background – while walking through Boston Commons in October 2007, Massachusetts criminal defense attorney, Simon Glik, observed three Boston police officers attempting to arrest a suspect. After hearing another bystander say “you are hurting him, stop” and being concerned that the police were using excessive force Glik began to record the incident on his cell phone camera from about ten feet away. Once the suspect was in handcuffs one of the officers told Glik “I think you have taken enough pictures.” When Glik continued to record another officer asked Glik if he was recording audio. When Glik said yes he was handcuffed and arrested by police. The charges were unlawful audio recording in violation of  Massachusetts’ wiretap law, disturbing the peace and aiding in the escape of a prisoner. After his arrest Glik filed a complaint with internal affairs regarding the incident. The Boston Police “did not investigate his complaint or initiate disciplinary action against the arresting officers.”

In February 2010, Glik, represented by the Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU, filed a civil right complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the three arresting officers as well as the City of Boston under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his First and Fourth Amendment rights. The complaint also alleges state-law claims under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 11I, as well as malicious prosecution.

The defendants moved to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted and because the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. At a motion hearing the district court denied the defendant’s motion, stating that “in the First Circuit . . . this First Amendment right to publicly record the activities of police officers on public business is established.”

In its decision the First Circuit reasoned that, given the facts in Glik, since “the qualified immunity doctrine ‘balances two important interests — the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably;’ ‘a reasonable defendant would have understood that his conduct violated the plaintiff[’s] constitutional rights.’”

The City of Boston appealed this ruling on behalf of its officers (See:  City’s Brief and  ACLU Brief; as well as two amicus briefs: Center for Constitutional Rights and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press).

Apparently following up on Glik’s initial 2007 complaint to police  “a department spokeswoman told the Boston Globe that the officers, John Cunniffee and Peter Savalis, now ‘face discipline ranging from an oral reprimand to suspension.’” Glik told the Globe, “As far as I knew, my complaint was summarily dismissed. . . . I was basically laughed out of the building,’’ Glik said. “From what I understand, it takes filing a federal lawsuit in order for internal affairs to review a complaint.’’

That lawsuit and the one in Sharp now move forward with new momentum. It will also be interesting to see what impact this has on the awaited decision in ACLU v Alvarez before the Seventh Circuit. Stay tuned!

Posted in Access, Baltimore Police, Boston Police, cell phone cameras, Christopher Sharp, confiscated, Department of Justice, DOJ, First Amendment, First Amendment rights, Fourth Amendment, Fourth Amendment rights, law, Legal, Maryland ACLU, Massachusetts ACLU, National Press Photographers Association, NPPA, photographers, Photographers' Rights, Police, Public Photography, Recording Police, Search and Seizure, Simon Glik | No Comments »

« Previous Entries