Q&A: Why Keker's Ben Berkowitz is Representing Journalist Bryan Carmody Pro Bono
Keker, Van Nest & Peters partner Ben Berkowitz says it's a really alarming time for journalists in this country, which is why he's defending journalist Bryan Carmody, whose home office was the subject of a police raid earlier this month.
May 24, 2019 at 04:28 PM
4 minute read
Ben Berkowitz is taking on the San Francisco Police Department.
The Keker, Van Nest & Peters partner has picked up journalist Bryan Carmody's case against the city's police force pro bono. In February, the freelance journalist sold information to three local news stations on the circumstances surrounding the death of public defender Jeff Adachi, who collapsed in the home of a woman who was not his wife. The materials sold to the media organizations included a leaked police report. After refusing to name his source, the SFPD showed up at Carmody's apartment May 10 armed with a search warrant, sledgehammers and a battering ram. Carmody sat cuffed in his underwear for about six hours as the police department raided his apartment.
The Recorder caught up with Berkowitz, who shared what troubled him most about this case.
Why have you decided to defend Bryan Carmody?
The right of the press to investigate and report without fear of police intimidation is a fundamental principle of our democracy. I've agreed to represent Bryan pro bono, because the SFPD needs to know that our law firm and the legal community is standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Bryan. We're putting the SFPD on notice that we're ready to fight for Bryan against any criminal charges. One of the many things that offends me about what the SFPD has done in this case is that they picked on an everyday, individual journalist. They would not have dared to raid the San Francisco Chronicle, or break down their doors with sledgehammers. The SFPD needs to know that if they want to come after Bryan, we're here to defend him—and we'll win. The First Amendment and California law are crystal clear that you cannot raid a journalist home or arrest him because he received and reported on government documents. This is what journalists do every day. The SFPD's actions are an assault on the Free Press, and we are confident that they will be found unlawful in the courts.
Do you think there was unwarranted force used in the search of Carmody's home?
I can't think of any legitimate reason to bring a sledgehammer to his door or keep him in handcuffs for six hours while they searched his home and office. So, yes.
What's your next move in this case?
We're calling on the SFPD to review what happened here and to make sure it never happens again to another journalist. We think Chief of Police William Scott and the SFPD need to do a review of what went wrong here and assure the people of San Francisco that these mistakes won't be made again. There's a motion to quash the subpoena and to confirm that the SFPD has not copied the materials it illegally seized from Mr. Carmody including his reporting notebooks and computers. We think any of those copies should be returned to Mr. Carmody.
What impact do you think this case will have First Amendment rights of journalists?
We're living in a really troubling and alarming time for journalists in this country. We're witnessing daily assaults by people in power on the journalistic profession. What we want to achieve here is to make sure that one thing journalists never get used to is raids of their homes and offices by armed police officers looking to uncover confidential sources. We're deeply troubled by the San Francisco Police Department's decision to raid a journalist's home. The principle that's at stake here is one that's fundamental to our democracy. The press must be free to investigate and report without fear of police intimidation. That's the principle we're fighting for and the statement we're hoping to send to the San Francisco Police Department.
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 AllElon Musk Has a Lot More Than a 'Tornetta' Appeal to Resolve in Del. Court
5 minute readLawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
'The Hubris of Big Tech': Apple Hit With California Labor Lawsuit for Alleged Free Speech, Privacy Violations
AI Adoption, Data Center Building Boom Opening More Doors for Cybercriminals, Many of Them Teenagers
Trending Stories
- 1The Pusillanimous Press
- 2Contract Lifecycle Management Company ContractPodAi Unveils Leah Drive
- 3'Great News' for Businesses? Judge Halts Transparency Mandate
- 4Consilio Announces ‘Native AI Review,’ Expanding Its Gen AI E-Discovery Offerings
- 5Federal Judge Hits US With $227,000 Sanction for Discovery Misconduct
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