Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Boston Pays Out $170,000 To Man Arrested For Recording Police

Posted by Soulskill on from the better-than-a-strongly-worded-letter dept.

Ian Lamont writes "The City of Boston has reached a $170,000 settlement with Simon Glik, who was arrested by Boston Police in 2007 after using his mobile phone to record police arresting another man on Boston Common. Police claimed that Glik had violated state wiretapping laws, but later dropped the charges and admitted the officers were wrong to arrest him. Glik had brought a lawsuit against the city (aided by the ACLU) because he claimed his civil rights were violated. According to today's ACLU statement: 'As part of the settlement, Glik agreed to withdraw his appeal to the Community Ombudsman Oversight Panel. He had complained about the Internal Affairs Division's investigation of his complaint and the way they treated him. IAD officers made fun of Glik for filing the complaint, telling him his only remedy was filing a civil lawsuit. After the City spent years in court defending the officers' arrest of Glik as constitutional and reasonable, IAD reversed course after the First Circuit ruling and disciplined two of the officers for using "unreasonable judgment" in arresting Glik.'"

10 of 270 comments (clear)

  1. I just wish... by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...that a precedent had been set in by court instead of by settlement. When one party (in this case, the government) is forced by the court to do something, it tends to have more legal weight behind it than when the party instead voluntarily takes an action.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:I just wish... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At least this will encourage others to file similar suits, though. There's more than 1 way to skin a cat.

    2. Re:I just wish... by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But the price was not high enough for every officer on the line to get the message. They pay more for your average car crash involving a city vehicle.

      Add three more zeros to the end of that number and this practice of arresting photographers ceases everywhere in the country overnight.

      The court ruling helps. but not enough. It was only the First Circuit. We went years with GPS tracking sans warrant being legal in one circuit and illegal in another before the SCOTUS stepped in.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:I just wish... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But the price was not high enough for every officer on the line to get the message. They pay more for your average car crash involving a city vehicle.

      Add three more zeros to the end of that number and this practice of arresting photographers ceases everywhere in the country overnight.

      How about firing everyone up the chain of command who supported them.
      Taxpayers pay for those fines, but taking away their jobs and pensions is more appropriate - after all when the police abuse their powers it generally ruins the lives of the people they do it. Turn about is fair play.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  2. Re:Ridiculous amount. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For 5 years of hassle to a citizen's effort to keep the government honest? I think it's a bargain compared to the payments we give out to politicians. Compare this to the millions that CEOs receive? A rounding error. This number is too small, not too large.

  3. Re:Ridiculous amount. by yodleboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ridiculous for falsely arresting someone, then dragging it through the courts for years? Anyway, it says it paid damages AND legal fees. What do you want to bet that 5 years of legal fees are about $160,000? The city got of easy.

  4. Re:Ridiculous amount. by wurp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not ridiculous. He was arrested, then spent years in court trying to get the police to do the right thing. What should he have done instead? Stopped when the time he invested became ridiculous? Then they would never change their behavior, and our rights would be even worse off than they are.

  5. Re:lose-lose by Sique · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let it be a lesson to those people electing someone on a "tough on crime" ticket (which in turn means: free reign for the police to do as it likes.) They pay with their tax money for their mistake.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  6. Whoa, back up a minute. by Dancing+Propeller+He · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So until, the police and Internal Affairs get caught breaking the law, the law on the books isn't actually followed by the exact people who should know the law? Vigilante justice from within the police system is not a good culture to have brewing. Shouldn't anyone within the policing system that breaks the law or supports breaking the law be fired? Seems to be a conflict of interest to me.

  7. Re:When it comes down to it people want $ not just by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The taxpayers are also the voters. They deserve to pay until they take notice and send a message to their government.