|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Civil & Human Rights : Crime & Police : Government Secrecy : Prisons : UCIMC |
|
Cops have to pay $41k for stopping man from videoing them. |
Current rating: 0 |
by Boing-Boing (via Sascha Meinrath)
Email: sascha (nospam) ucimc.org (verified) |
29 Aug 2005
|
Given the extreme similarity to the local case against VEYA, this story is highly relevant to the Chambana Community. In a nutshell:
Plaintiff Allen E. Robinson has sued the defendants, Pennsylvania State Troopers Patrick V. Fetterman, John Rigney, and Gregg Riek, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He claims that the defendants violated his constitutional right under the First Amendment to free speech and his constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment to be secure against an unreasonable seizure. Specifically, he alleges he was falsely arrested, subjected to excessive force, and maliciously prosecuted. |
From: http://www.boingboing.net/2005/08/26/cops_have_to_pay_41k.html
Friday, August 26, 2005
Cops have to pay $41k for stopping man from videoing them.
Last month a federal judge awarded $35,000 in compensatory and $6000 in punitive damages to a man state troopers arrested for video taping them.
Given the Utah rave case and the Oakland police stop reported today, this seems like an important decision because it makes it clear that citizens are free to video law enforcement in action.
The ruling finds violations of the plaintiff's first and fourth amendment rights. It states "The activities of the police, like those of other public officials, are subject to public scrutiny...Videotaping is a legitimate means of gathering information for public dissemination and can often provide cogent evidence, as it did in this case. In sum, there can be no doubt that the free speech clause of the Constitution protected Robinson as he videotaped the defendants on October 23, 2002....Moreover, to the extent that the troopers were restraining Robinson from making any future videotapes and from publicizing or publishing what he had filmed, the defendants' conduct clearly amounted to an unlawful prior restraint upon his protected speech....We find that defendants are liable under § 1983 for violating Robinson's Fourth Amendment right to be protected from an unlawful seizure..."
PDF Link:
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D0847P.pdf |
This work is in the public domain |
