Slashdot Mirror
$125,000 Settlement Given To Man Arrested for Photographing NYPD
mpicpp sends word of a $125,000 settlement for a man who was arrested for photographing members of the New York Police Department. On June 14th, 2012, the man was sitting in his car when he saw three African-American youths being stopped and frisked by police officers. He began taking pictures of the encounter, and after the police were done, he advised the youths to get the officers' badge numbers next time. When the officers heard him, they pulled him violently from his car and arrested him under a charge of disorderly conduct. The police allegedly deleted the pictures from his phone (PDF). Rather than go to trial, the city's lawyers decided a settlement was the best course of action.
I get the civil settlement, but did the police not also commit a crime?
Right, because trial can set precedent and the city *really* doesn't want that.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
I'm sure some countries may be worse. But cmon this shouldn't happen in America. Because your TV shows have always portrayed the police as the opposite. The cops can be dickheads in Australia. But this is unheard of here for the most part.
Answer:
When either one does viciously illegal shit, they get away without punishment, and somebody else pays the fine!
Always lock your phone and set media to sync to the cloud (if you can afford the data...). It would have been really interesting to hear what the cops told the judge when they sought a warrant to unlock it.
Black people have had to deal with this in the States since well, always.
And now with the cops feeling all big and powerful with their military surplus toys, they are harassing white people, arresting them for no good reason and even physically harming them.
We will start to see changes now - I hope. Although, there are still too many (mostly old people) who still think the cops will not harm you if you do nothing wrong. The subject of the article did NOTHING wrong, but yet he was injured and arrested.
By the way, the President of the US is THE top of the Executive branch - meaning HE is in charge of ALL the police around the country - if I remember my high school civics correctly (yeah, I'm that old and it was back when education was about having an educated electorate and not training for McJobs).
Shame on you Obama. And Double shame for being a Black guy and NOT doing something.
Because we're not all James Bond?
if my watch is aimed in your direction and I'm not acting strange, (hell maybe I'm reading a book at the same time while the watch records) how would they know?
If you are only recording pictures in a public place then you're good (legally). If you surreptitiously record sound then you may run afoul of wiretapping laws. That there are no wires and you're not tapping anything makes no difference. Depends on your jurisdiction.
What I love is none of this 'terms kept confidential' nonsense that is so typical in court settlements.
The public has a right to know.
You do realize that settlements are basically private contracts right? Are you really saying that I must publicly disclose the terms of any private contract I am a party to, just because the "Public has a right to know"?
No, No, they don't have a right to know. I may allow you to use my intellectual property and by contract disclose it to you for your use, but that doesn't mean everybody in the world is now entitled to see everything.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
1. They should have refused to comply with the search on the grounds of unconstitutionality.
If the police insisted then they would be forced to make an arrest. Then the three should insist on using the legal representation, the representative will ask why they are under suspicion and force the police to obtain a proper warrant etc...
In reality though, as soon as they refuse to submit to the unconstitutional search, the police will either walk away or be forced to commit a serious infringement, which can be dealt with later.
2. They did not start recording the police themselves as soon as the police approached them. That way they have on record their refusal to agree to a warrantless search which renders any search before arrest unconstitutional, and if they make an arrest then they need to have a good reason - which the story implies they did not.
When you start recording you should say to your friend, or the officers if you are alone, "this is being uploaded automatically to my blog, so don't worry if they try to delete the video". If you are smart then your friend will reply "did you press the live upload button" and you will check and say "yeah, it is uploading now" - or something like that. That will put the pressure on the officers to behave themselves.
If you can afford it, then actually do set yourself up to upload the feed automatically, but the threat alone is likely to be enough.
Always remain calm and speak politely. Be nice. Be friendly. Do not use hostile body language. Do not scowl. You cannot scare the police, they are not old women walking down a dark alley. I know that blacks think that they can scare anybody with a dirty look, but honestly, the police LOVE IT when somebody becomes aggressive - because it will give them grounds for arrest. They are trained to deal with your aggression and you play into their hands when you become aggressive. THEY WANT YOU TO BECOME AGGRESSIVE SO THAT THEY CAN ARREST YOU, SO DONT DO IT!
The public has the right to know what their government is up to whether you are involved or not. Don't you think so?
I would say that if the public does not have a right to know, then the government or the departments under it do not have the right to settle lawsuits- whether you are involved or not.
I'm going to go WAAAAY out on a limb here and speculate that these bullying asshole police officers weren't tech-savvy enough to know how to permanently delete stuff from a cell phone. Most likely, a simple FAT file system undeletion utility could have brought back all those pictures, or at least most of them. Does anyone know if the victim here did anything to try to get those photos undeleted?
vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
Contracts between a private individual and a government entity are not protected by any such privacy considerations. The public has a vested interest, and a right, to scrutinize their government's conduct and to know why it's tax money is being paid to a private individual.
What I love is none of this 'terms kept confidential' nonsense that is so typical in court settlements.
The public has a right to know.
You do realize that settlements are basically private contracts right? Are you really saying that I must publicly disclose the terms of any private contract I am a party to, just because the "Public has a right to know"?
No, No, they don't have a right to know. I may allow you to use my intellectual property and by contract disclose it to you for your use, but that doesn't mean everybody in the world is now entitled to see everything.
When a crime is involved (such as unlawful arrest, harassment, theft of property, etc. the cops engaged in), the public has a right to know.
When one of the parties IS the state or one of its many agencies, the public has a right to know.
When the public courts handle a case on the matter, criminal or not, for however long, the public has a right to know regardless of whether the case is settled by the court of by the parties outside of the court.
You do realize that settlements are basically private contracts right? Are you really saying that I must publicly disclose the terms of any private contract I am a party to, just because the "Public has a right to know"?
No, No, they don't have a right to know. I may allow you to use my intellectual property and by contract disclose it to you for your use, but that doesn't mean everybody in the world is now entitled to see everything.
If one of the entities is a government, the public DOES have the right to know, since it's public funds that are being used to settle.
1) the story had named the officers. As it is, one has to go to the PDF of the complaint to find the names of the cops. 2) the story said whether any of them were disciplined in any way over this incident, 3) they were prosecuted for it, but at a minimum their pay should be docked for the cost of the settlement.
" Are you really saying that I must publicly disclose the terms of any private contract I am a party to, just because the "Public has a right to know""
Yes, because court actions are taken as legal precedent that gets studied for generations to come and cited whenever relevant cases arise. If we start keeping legal settlements secret, a huge chunk of case law drops out of the historical record.
That's why settlements like this need to come directly out of the police budget. That's still the taxpayer's pocket, but taken from an amount already earmarked for police work. Let them be forced to prioritize, denominating the settlement charge in terms of pot busts foregone next year.
An "out of court" settlement is not a legal precedent, beyond the fact the city settled. No lawyer is going to provide a brief that claims "Well because they settled before, they need to settle with my client too."
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Out of court = Not public record
Court ordered Settlement = Public record
File a Freedom of Information request if you think this should be public.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Then file a freedom of information request. Even government has reasons to keep things private, such settlements included.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Leave that rat infested city of filth. The cops are above the law.
The politicians are above the law.
The laws are written so you can't win and only if you have millions can you fight the city and take it to it's knees.
I left years ago and it's still the same filthy shit hole I left in the 80's
I only need to know in broad terms what they are doing, not the specific details. There are things I am not entitled to know about government and how they interact with other individuals. So I don't agree with your premise.
IF you think you have a right to know, file a Freedom of Information Act request for the information. See what they will give you.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
America will not have faith in big government until cops who do things like this, lose their jobs because of unexcused absenses due to their felony prison sentences. Who is preventing these prosecutions? Are Repubs giving extra criminal powers to police, in order to increase scepticism of govt?
unless the arresting officers are put in prison or executed nothing will change. the more power you have over normal people the bigger the consequences of abusing that power.
FUCK MOHAMMAD!!
No thanks. I don't swing that way....
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
There is no such thing as a "private contract". A contract, by nature, is an agreement that the state will enforce. State actions are not private. If two people make an agreement and will never disclose that agreement to anyone else under any circumstances, then a court will never see it, and it is in no meaningful way a contract.
Of course that only goes double when one of the parties is a government agency. Nothing a government agency does is private.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
So guilt does not apply. It is to determine responsibility, not guilt. There is a major legal difference, and trials proceed differently. Hence you can have OJ Simpson found innocent of a murder, but civilly responsible for causing wrongful death of the same individual.
Over 1000 times $125,000 is over $1 Billion. ....
Fiscal penalties can work
They're ruined.
Civil rights violations are a federal crime.
The taxpayer is on the hook for CRIMES committed by cops.
From Gen. Alexander's willful and wanton (and unpersecuted) perjury on down to cops killing and chilling there is NO accountability in this country if you're on of "the good guys."
Combine this with the fact that police are much more likely to arrest black people and I think we just found a way to address the systemic poverty of black Americans...
No, No, they don't have a right to know.
I have to disagree. If you do business with the government, you lose some of the privacy that you would have in a private transaction. Secrecy in government is just too tempting to abuse.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
1. Nationally require body cameras always rolling while on-duty. Knowing you won't get away with unprofessional behavior = priceless.
2. Total national outlaw of plea deals because coercion is morally indefensible. This is supposed to be the "land of the free" not North Korea.
3. Total ban on performance/incentive structures having effect of perverting justice. This includes linkages between career status/advancement and prosecution rates and officer ticketing/arrest quotas.
4. Total ban on mandatory minimum sentencing.
Why would a government body have any right to privacy at all?
For other cases, I would say the cutoff point is the public courts. If you can come to an agreement privately, fine. But as soon as the courts are involved AT ALL, it becomes a public matter. They are, after all, PUBLIC courts.
No. When they violate the public trust, they have no right to keep it a secret.
But Mohammad does!
advising people of their rights is totally disorderly conduct.
There ought to be a law where any citizen can force a prosecutor to prosecute people that are suspect of committing a crime. Any prosecutor that gets too much cases where this law has to be effected should be subject of a research into his true loyalty. I wonder what party would dare to come up with a federal law to make this happen....
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
I think it needs to come directly out of the affected officers' pockets, in the form of an individual professional liability insurance policy similar to what doctors carry. Make that coverage a condition for employment in a law enforcement capacity. If the cop does his job right, his premiums stay low. If he screws up too much, his premiums will get so high that he can't continue to work in that field, or won't be able to find an insurer to cover him. No insurance, no job. A side benefit is that as the percentage of claims that get paid out rises, the cost is spread over the entire profession, which gives cops a financial incentive to keep their own in line.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
As long as the cash is not coming out of their pockets, why should they? The taxpayers don't have visibility to these expenses. The Mayor is the one that should be all over this. It's his budget this money will come from. He would have to raise property taxes to cover lawsuits. The Mayor is the publicly elected official that can be booted if taxes go too high. The Mayor can turn the screws on the Chief of Police to minimize these incidents. Basically, all municipalities would need to publicize what % of their law enforcement budget goes to cover lawsuits and how that relates to the national averages.
Police should be able to do whatever they damn well please, with no accountability. Right?
History of unfair treatment of African Americans by police.
Recently history: Ferguson, Rodney King, Mark Duggan, Trayvon Martin.
I don't really know. It may be the same things happen to other races, but there is less of a media event made from it.
Why would a government body have any right to privacy at all?
Do you *really* mean this? Think about the kinds of things City governments know about you, you want it to all be public information? You want them to publish the names and addresses of everybody who applied for a business license or is behind on their water bills? Filed a police complaint, got put into collections? How about those who live in cities that tax income, you want to make who's paying taxes and their SSN's public data?
I don't think you've thought this all though very far.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Any contract the government is involved with needs to be open for public inspection. It is how we know about graft, kickbacks, cronyism and so on.
Or do you think it is proper for my uncle bill, who is also the mayor of our town to insert bonuses and so on into my contract with the city for looking pretty on the sidewalk.
Of course you would be completely clueless of that happening if the contract was hidden and secret
Mod points, my kingdom for some mod points.
There are things that need to be kept private too.
I'm not arguing that disclosure of contract terms for building roads, buildings and conducting other city business shouldn't be public, only that there is a subset of that information that needs to be kept private. A court settlement might fall in that category.
Before you go and say *everything* needs to be public, think about what you are saying. There is no way that the city should be compelled to disclose the contents of say it's employee files, or if it has a water utility department, who is delinquent on their bills or what the customer may have agreed to repay and how. You don't need to know who's paying their local income taxes (in places where they are collected). Obviously, not *everything* is subject to disclosure.
BTW, kickbacks usually are NOT in contracts, and cronyism should be readily apparent by who's doing the work. Disclosure doesn't really fix these issues.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
No, No, they don't have a right to know.
I have to disagree. If you do business with the government, you lose some of the privacy that you would have in a private transaction. Secrecy in government is just too tempting to abuse.
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm all for disclosure of contracts let by the city for city business. I'm saying that there are things which are NOT subject to disclosure. City employee discipline records, utility bills, income tax receipts and a whole host of things fall into this category. Out of court settlements where "do not discuss publicly" clauses are in effect seem to be one of those things.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
There is no such thing as a "private contract". A contract, by nature, is an agreement that the state will enforce.
That is not even close to being true. If I have a contract with you that I break, it's NOT the state that files the lawsuit to enforce the contract, it's you. The function of the state is to make sure the litigation process is fair, but it's not in their wheel house to do the actual enforcement of contracts between two other parties. They have no standing, no vested interest in such contracts.
Now if I loose in court, then you have the legal right to demand that the judgment be collected, and have the right to request help from the state to secure a civil judgement, but it's still up to you to see that it is enforced. If you don't take me to court, or don't try and collect, the state doesn't care and won't take it upon themselves to enforce the contract or collect the debt.
The state doesn't enforce contracts between two parties (Unless one of the parties is the government).
So there ARE private contracts. And the state is not involved in them.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I asked why the *GOVERNMENT* would have a right to privacy, not why *I* would.
If they are dealing with you, a private party, there are and should be limits on what is public information. If you have an employment contract with the City, some information about you the city has is not public and should not be public.
So, I'm saying that there are limits on what can be made "public" information. This also means that not all government activity is going to be in the public domain. There is information that must be protected. I.E. the government should be able to keep secretes in some cases. Contracts with private parties can be one of these cases.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
There are apps which upload photos to the cloud immediately, and do the same for video.
The first time cops run up against someone who does this, the "deleting the evidence" tactic is going to backfire spectacularly - in the UK it would come under "perverting the course of justice" and "destroying evidence".
Right now cops threaten photographers because they know that no evidence means they'll get away with it. This position is going to change dramatically in the next couple of years.
If *I* am the other party, it is not reasonable to forbid *ME* from voluntarily disclosing the information. Mine would be the only legitimate privacy interest.
The government itself has none.
This is a case that should have cost Millions to settle. And there are at least a couple of Police officers that should not be receiving their pay or their pensions after they trampled all over the Laws they took an oath to protect. Some Municipalities have laws against taking officer's photos or filming them while they are performing their duty. Ocean City Maryland has such an ordinance. I was taking pictures of a sunset there and some officers were making an arrest between me and the sunset that I hadn't noticed. But they noticed me. I had to delete the photos that had them in them, or I had two options provided. Go to the Police station and be booked for breaking the ordinance, or give them my camera. I was trying to go to a family dinner, so I deleted the offending photos.
I'll trade you some for a horse
If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
Every once in a while I read a post here that starts out as normal but after a moment of thought, actually hits pretty damned hard. I am glad that your post is moderated +5. It definitely deserves it. Very insightful. I especially liked the part about the incentive to keep other cops in line. Very interesting idea there.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen