ACLU Settles Lawsuits Against Philadelphia Over Retaliation for Filming Cops
Months after a landmark federal appeals court ruling that recording police in public is protected by the First Amendment, the Pennsylvania chapter of the ACLU has settled two lawsuits against the city of Philadelphia filed by two activists claiming police retaliated against them for filming officers.
December 05, 2017 at 03:30 PM
8 minute read
Months after a landmark federal appeals court ruling that recording police in public is protected by the First Amendment, the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has settled two lawsuits against the city of Philadelphia filed by two activists claiming police retaliated against them for filming officers.
The ACLU announced the settlements Tuesday, noting that the two cases, filed by a police watchdog group member and a Temple University student, were part of a series of five lawsuits brought against the city by the ACLU on behalf of people who were arrested, cited, or restrained by Philadelphia police for photographing or video recording them on the job.
The city agreed to pay plaintiffs Amanda Geraci and Rick Fields a combined settlement of $250,000, including attorney fees, according to the ACLU.
“The best tool for police accountability available today is the smartphone in someone's pocket,” Molly Tack-Hooper, staff attorney at the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said in a statement Tuesday. “We're grateful to our clients for enduring years of litigation to protect this vital First Amendment freedom.”
Mike Dunn, deputy communications director for the city of Philadelphia, said the settlement was in the best interest of the city.
“Since 2012 the Police Department has had a directive that establishes clear guidelines for allowing members of the public to record officers while discharging their official duties,” Dunn said in an email. “The Police Department's policy was initiated after the Department of Justice opined on the issue, and five years before the Third Circuit recognized this right.”
He added, “The recent settlement of two lawsuits with the ACLU was in the best interests of the city, despite the fact that the department has had this policy in place since 2012.”
Geraci, the watchdog group member, alleged she was pinned against a pillar by a police officer after she tried to film the arrest of a protester at a 2012 anti-fracking demonstration outside of the Philadelphia Convention Center.
Temple student Fields was a sophomore in 2013 when he photographed police breaking up a house party across the street. An officer allegedly noticed him taking the photo and asked him whether he “like[d] taking pictures of grown men.”
After refusing to leave, Fields was arrested, his phone was confiscated, and he received a citation for obstructing a public passageway. The charges were dismissed when the officer did not appear at a court hearing.
In July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit overturned a district court ruling that had dismissed Geraci and Fields' claims despite an acknowledgement in the Philadelphia Police Department's own policy prohibiting officer retaliation against First Amendment-protected activities.
“We ask much of our police,” Third Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro wrote in the court's opinion. “They can be our shelter from the storm. Yet officers are public officials carrying out public functions, and the First Amendment requires them to bear bystanders recording their actions. This is vital to promote the access that fosters free discussion of governmental actions, especially when that discussion benefits not only citizens but the officers themselves.”
The ruling covers photographing, filming and audio recording, but there are limits to when recording can be done.
“We do not say that all recording is protected or desirable. The right to record police is not absolute,” Ambro added, noting that there are restrictions if, for example, the recording interferes with an investigation or exposes a confidential informant.
Despite the limits, the decision was a significant victory for police reform advocates in a time when calls for law enforcement accountability have been continuously mounting. The settlements too will likely give momentum to the reform cause.
“We hope that these cases will serve as a warning to any other police force that retaliates against people who record officers as they carry out their duties,” Reggie Shuford, executive director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said in Tuesday's statement. “There are consequences for violating people's constitutional rights.”
Months after a landmark federal appeals court ruling that recording police in public is protected by the First Amendment, the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has settled two lawsuits against the city of Philadelphia filed by two activists claiming police retaliated against them for filming officers.
The ACLU announced the settlements Tuesday, noting that the two cases, filed by a police watchdog group member and a Temple University student, were part of a series of five lawsuits brought against the city by the ACLU on behalf of people who were arrested, cited, or restrained by Philadelphia police for photographing or video recording them on the job.
The city agreed to pay plaintiffs Amanda Geraci and Rick Fields a combined settlement of $250,000, including attorney fees, according to the ACLU.
“The best tool for police accountability available today is the smartphone in someone's pocket,” Molly Tack-Hooper, staff attorney at the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said in a statement Tuesday. “We're grateful to our clients for enduring years of litigation to protect this vital First Amendment freedom.”
Mike Dunn, deputy communications director for the city of Philadelphia, said the settlement was in the best interest of the city.
“Since 2012 the Police Department has had a directive that establishes clear guidelines for allowing members of the public to record officers while discharging their official duties,” Dunn said in an email. “The Police Department's policy was initiated after the Department of Justice opined on the issue, and five years before the Third Circuit recognized this right.”
He added, “The recent settlement of two lawsuits with the ACLU was in the best interests of the city, despite the fact that the department has had this policy in place since 2012.”
Geraci, the watchdog group member, alleged she was pinned against a pillar by a police officer after she tried to film the arrest of a protester at a 2012 anti-fracking demonstration outside of the Philadelphia Convention Center.
Temple student Fields was a sophomore in 2013 when he photographed police breaking up a house party across the street. An officer allegedly noticed him taking the photo and asked him whether he “like[d] taking pictures of grown men.”
After refusing to leave, Fields was arrested, his phone was confiscated, and he received a citation for obstructing a public passageway. The charges were dismissed when the officer did not appear at a court hearing.
In July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit overturned a district court ruling that had dismissed Geraci and Fields' claims despite an acknowledgement in the Philadelphia Police Department's own policy prohibiting officer retaliation against First Amendment-protected activities.
“We ask much of our police,” Third Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro wrote in the court's opinion. “They can be our shelter from the storm. Yet officers are public officials carrying out public functions, and the First Amendment requires them to bear bystanders recording their actions. This is vital to promote the access that fosters free discussion of governmental actions, especially when that discussion benefits not only citizens but the officers themselves.”
The ruling covers photographing, filming and audio recording, but there are limits to when recording can be done.
“We do not say that all recording is protected or desirable. The right to record police is not absolute,” Ambro added, noting that there are restrictions if, for example, the recording interferes with an investigation or exposes a confidential informant.
Despite the limits, the decision was a significant victory for police reform advocates in a time when calls for law enforcement accountability have been continuously mounting. The settlements too will likely give momentum to the reform cause.
“We hope that these cases will serve as a warning to any other police force that retaliates against people who record officers as they carry out their duties,” Reggie Shuford, executive director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said in Tuesday's statement. “There are consequences for violating people's constitutional rights.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPhila. Med Mal Lawyers In for Busy Year as Court Adjusts for Filing Boom
3 minute read'Recover, Reflect, Retool and Retry': Lessons From Women Atop Pa. Legal Community
3 minute readEDPA's New Chief Judge Plans to Advance Efforts to Combat Threats to Judiciary
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250