$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.

Comments

idgi

[Anonymous Coward]

I get the civil settlement, but did the police not also commit a crime?

Re:idgi

[penguinoid]

Some crimes don't get prosecuted if the victim refuses to press charges. This may be because the victim can forgive it, or because without his testimony there would be no case.

On the other hand: Hey everyone, did you know that photographing police officers can be worth over a hundred grand? Everyone could use an extra $125,000, photograph your local policemen today!

Re: idgi

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of how messed up this is for a minute. The police deleted the pictures from his phone. They tampered with evidence by gaining unauthorized access to his phone. The power we allow law enforcement nowadays, we are all at the mercy of moody people with guns who can peer into and modify your personal belongings. Oh also the law is not on your side on this, I'm glad the dude decided to "forgive" them.

precedent

[roc97007]

Right, because trial can set precedent and the city *really* doesn't want that.

Re:precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

what's missing from the summary is that the cops involved are being sued in six other federal cases... this was not a single case.

These particular cops are used to f.ck you left,right and center and they don't care about your rights.

Re:precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

... and they don't care about your rights.

My what?

Re:precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

Rights: You know... your right to remain silent (unless told to "start talking", or forced to talk with torture), your right to attorney (after they get done with you), your right for a fair trial (unless charged with the espionage act, thrown into gitmo, or blown up by drone strike), etc. You have plenty of rights*. You live in the land of the free and home of the brave!

*some exceptions apply. Void where prohibited by law (aka constitutional free zones) or where simply inconvenient (e.g. NSA, TSA, etc).

Re:precedent

[Frobnicator]

Right, because trial can set precedent and the city *really* doesn't want that.

Precedent is only part of the story.

A settlement comes with the clause that they do not admit to any guilt. If the courts get involved, and a guilty verdict comes down, it also comes down with the "under color of law" modifier. That comes with a year in prison at the lowest tier. If there was bodily injury if weapons were used or threat of weapons was used, it jumps to a ten year prison term. The third tier, which triggers if the acts result in death, threat of death, or if they include kidnapping (which false arrests can qualify under), attempt to kidnap, sexual abuse or its attempt, the punishment can grow to life in prison.

It doesn't matter what their original violation was, those are additional bonus punishments of up to a year, a decade, or life in jail.

They will fight in the courts right up until the court decides they are no longer immune. The moment the immunity is broken they will do anything to take a non-guilt settlement.

LEOs (both as individuals and as departments) will do all they can to avoid an actual guilty verdict when their own acts are done under color of law. They will try to get any other deal or settlement they can rather then spend time in the prisons they helped create.

Re:precedent

[Wrath0fb0b]

There's already binding precedent in the Circuit that covers NYS.

Tunick v. Safir, 228 F.3d 135, 137 (2d Cir. 2000)
loom v. Levy, 159 F.3d 1345 (2d Cir. 1998).

I'm not sure what another case would prove -- the appellate courts are loath to repeat themselves.

how are cops like bank executives?

[bouldin]

Answer:
When either one does viciously illegal shit, they get away without punishment, and somebody else pays the fine!

Re:how are cops like bank executives?

[Michael Woodhams]

From TFA:

“Now we’re going to give you what you deserve for meddling in our business and when we finish with you, you can sue the city for $5 million and get rich, we don’t care,” Lt. Dennis Ferber said, according to the suit filed in Brooklyn Federal Court.

It appears the police followed exactly your logic. However if that statement is substantiated, Ferber's boss would be seriously derelict in their duty if they didn't fire him for this. He's publicly stated that he doesn't care about knowingly causing a multi-million dollar liability for his employer. IANAL, but I expect that should these cops not get punished and pull a similar stunt again, the city would open themselves up for greater punitive damages, as they'd let employees with a known track record of rights abuse continue working where they were likely to abuse again.

It would be good to see criminal proceedings, but I doubt it will happen.

Always lock your phone!

[HaeMaker]

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.

Re:Always lock your phone!

[Anonymous Coward]

>"It would have been really interesting to hear what the cops told the judge when they sought a warrant to unlock it."

The same thing they tell every judge. "See you on the golf course this Sunday!"

The three made some mistakes

[mtthwbrnd]

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!

Re:The three made some mistakes

[YrWrstNtmr]

I take it you've never been Black, right?

And you've also never heard of 'Stop and Frisk'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

Re:The three made some mistakes

[lpevey]

As far as the Black/not Black thing....you may think it is deeply offensive/racist. Others may look at it as getting shot or not getting shot.

I agree with this. Some cops are just the bullying sort. That inherent tendency seems to be what draws some people to the professionsion, so there is a much higher percentage of psychopaths among cops than in the general population. But the way they go about harassing different people varies by race. For black people, it tends to be more rampant, more obvious and more physical. Anyone who lives ina large urban area has probably witnessed an incident firsthand. It is reality.

That is not to say that many [probably most] cops are not bullies to other people when they can be. They definitely are. The post above is right when they say cops are often just looking for people to get aggressive and give them an excuse. It is more challenging to them when people are defiant but very polite. And part of that response is cultural.

I have lived in Bed-Stuy for many years. Why I live here is a long story. Suffice to say I like it here. For those who don't know, this is an area of NYC that has historically had a relatively high crime rate. Most of the residents on my block are black. I am white. It gives me an interesting perspective. It is difficult to explain the psychological effects of police profiling to someone who has never witnessed it.

Small example: If I take the subway home, I get off the train, there is an officer there. Watching. You don't see this on the Upper East Side. No big deal, right? This is great. Well, maybe for me. I give a small smile when I walk by. He or she smiles back. This officer doesn't really make me feel safer. If anything, they make me feel more likely to witness an altercation. But, at least I know how not to get a bad reaction out of them.

Most other residents don't smile. What in their knowledge of or history with the police would make them want to smile? They are suspicous of the police. This fear/suspicion/distrust shows on their faces. The response they get from the police: A nasty look that says more than I can explain. It says not to make one wrong move. It says I have complete power over you. Just a couple of years ago, it said it was completely legal for me to stop you and frisk you at any time, and if you resist--and I hope you do--I will throw you against the wall with all the strength I have. If you think a look can't say that, come pay a visit to Bed-Stuy. If police made me feel that way, how would I respond? I don't know.

The police bother and annoy me, too, but in a very different way that is not comparable. At least four or five different times when I was just walking down the street near my apartment, a cop car has pulled up slowly beside me, rolled down his window (it has always been a man, never a woman cop), and asked me what I was doing in the neighborhood. Like I'm a lost puppy or something. Too stupid to know I shouldn't be here. Most cops on this beat know me by now, I guess, but when there's a new guy, this can happen. I explain that I live here. I explain that I'm in a hurry. They proceed to inform me about how dangerous the area is. I nod. Thanks. Appreciate it. See you around. Hold on, they say. They drag on the conversation. This is not about helping me. This is about their power trip mindset.

Now, from all of this, you must think I live in a third world country. This is how cops treat it. But I am a fan of statistics. Some facts: Statistically, Bed-Stuy is only slightly less safe than the Upper East Side. Who would have thought? And in all the years I have lived here, no one has ever, ever given me a hard time about anything--except the police. I walk by, people nod, say hello.

The way policy treat black people is different. The way the police see black neighborhoods is different. That is just the reality.

Re:Spilling over to white people

[NotSanguine]

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.

Bzzt! Wrong. Thanks for playing. The POTUS is the head of the Executive Branch of the *Federal Government.* He's also the Commander-in-chief of the US armed forces. He is in charge of the Department of Justice (the FBI, the ATF, etc.) and the Army, Navy, etc.

He is not in any chain of command the includes local or state police forces. The closest he *could* come to that is to federalize the National Guard (which is equivalent to a state militia), which has been done from time to time (notably in Arkansas to block the state government from halting enforcement of the Brown v. Board of Education decision).

The POTUS cannot legally give orders to local or state police, which are civilian organizations answerable to the municipal and state governments that raise and fund them, and not the Federal government. The only tools that the Federal government has to affect local police is litigation and withholding federal grants to police organizations. You'll note that this author of the linked article is decidedly not a fan of Federal power over police.

As such, your appeal to authority:

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

falls short. Please try again.

Re:NOT CONFIDENTIAL!! YAY!!

[apraetor]

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.

Re:NOT CONFIDENTIAL!! YAY!!

[sexconker]

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.

Re:We need cops to turn their guns

[cbiltcliffe]

FUCK MOHAMMAD!!

No thanks. I don't swing that way....

Re:Leave New York

[cdrudge]

Exactly. Leave New York and go somewhere safe and free and rights are respected. I'd suggest somewhere in the safe Midwest, close to a major city so that you have services and activities that are of interest, but not too close so that you are under the actual jurisdiction of the big city's police department. I hear the St. Louis area is nice and quite. Maybe Ferguson?

It's not a New York City problem or even a big city problem, it's a law enforcement problem.

Once again!!!

[Rigel47]

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."

Re:Spilling over to white people

[NotSanguine]

WTF is with all you idiots bitching about Obama's vacations. Reagan only played eight rounds of golf? Well gee, I guess Obama should be more hard working, like Reagan, right?

Reagan: 335 vacation days in 8 years = 41 days per year Obama: 129 vacation days in 5.5 years = 23 days per year. (shit...I get more vacation days than that)

Yep, Obama...what a slacker. He also took fewer days than either GW Bush or GHW Bush (but more than Clinton).

Don't bother. These guys have learned their lessons from the G.W. Bush Administration:

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actorsand you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

our friends are very busy out there creating new realities. They don't have time for that "fact" stuff.

Four easy steps 2 begin to fix broken system

[WaffleMonster]

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.

Re:Spilling over to white people

[Lord Kano]

I agree, that the only thing that's new is that the police are now treating middle and upper income white people they they have always treated poor whites and minorities.

The President is the head of the Executive branch of government, he is sometimes called the "Chief Law Enforcement Officer in The United States" but he has no authority to direct local police in any way.

He can instruct the FBI to carry out his directives because they are a part of the Department of Justice which is an Executive Branch agency.

LK

Re:Spilling over to white people

[silfen]

And now with the cops feeling all big and powerful...

Nothing much has changed. Cops in the US have been killing about 400 people/year for decades, almost all of them people who attack them, threaten others, or suspects who run away from them. All of those are (generally speaking) legal justifications for the use of deadly force (of course, details matter).

We will start to see changes now - I hope

No, we will not, because the majority of people prefer it that way. If you look at polls, people more concerned about being hurt by criminals than they are about being hurt by police.

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

The president is only head of the federal government. Police is mostly local and state matter, and policies are set at the local and state level. Police operates the way it does either because local communities like it that way, or because local communities are too stupid to change it.

Don't hold your breath for any changes.

Re:That's awesome! Taxpayers get fucked!

[NormalVisual]

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.