Rules Targeting Certain Groups Are Constitutionally Prohibited
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
DAYTON – The ACLU of Ohio has delivered a letter to the Montgomery County Board of Commissioners, laying out numerous problems with the county’s proposed Courthouse Square speech regulations.
“These regulations specifically target the Occupy Dayton movement,” said ACLU of Ohio Legal Director James Hardiman. “Residents were able to express their political views for years without incident. Now the Occupy movement shows up and suddenly the rules need to be changed? Our laws cannot be altered for the purpose of silencing one specific group.”
Montgomery County’s proposed regulations would require permits for all Courthouse Square activities. However, the regulations fail to explain what, if any, official criteria the County will use for approving or denying these permits.
Additionally, the regulations would make Courthouse Square off-limits to the public from midnight to 6 a.m. The ban does not differentiate between protestors and pedestrians. As a result, though it may be aimed at occupiers, it would create problems for late-night residents simply looking for a place to sit down and hold a conversation.
“At best, these proposed regulations are sloppy and rife with constitutional conflicts,” said Hardiman. “At worst, they are a series of schemes designed to take away a specific group’s right to assemble.”
“Courthouse Square has a long history as a central location in Dayton where residents gather to express their views. Rather than limit free speech, officials should foster civic engagement,” concluded Hardiman. “We urge the Montgomery County Board of Commissioners to respect everyone’s First Amendment rights and impose as few restrictions on their constituents as possible.”
The Montgomery County Commissioners will meet on Tuesday, December 6th at 1:30 p.m. to vote on the proposed regulations.
ACLU Blasts Sign Ban, Issues Second Letter Asking City to Set Clear and Constitutional Rules for Public Demonstrations
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
TOLEDO, OH- Following up on complaints from the Occupy Toledo movement about unclear city permit rules, The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio has delivered a letter to the Toledo law director. The letter calls on the city to clearly define when permits are required for public demonstrations, how to apply for those permits and the criteria the city uses to approve or deny requests.
The letter also criticizes Toledo City Council’s decision to ban all signs from their chambers, and challenges the city to show more respect for the First Amendment.
“Toledo City Council had an opportunity to pass clear, consistent rules while also expanding free speech rights,” said ACLU of Ohio Staff Counsel Carrie Davis of the sign issue. “Instead they chose a path that is both disrespectful and patronizing to the voters they serve.”
“There must also be clear, consistent permit rules," continued Davis. “But this is an issue that cannot simply be banned-away by city council. Decisions about permits for public demonstrations must be made by the rule of law, not at the whim of current city leaders, who seem intent on restraining free speech whenever possible.”
This is the second time in one month that citizen complaints have prompted the ACLU to send a letter to the city of Toledo. The first letter came after two people attempted to enter the council chambers with protest signs and were arrested, despite the fact that the city had no official sign policy. Council’s response to the letter was to pass legislation formally banning all signs from their chambers.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
BOSTON -- The following statement about today's hearing in Suffolk Superior Court, in which Judge Frances McIntyre kept in place a temporary restraining order to protect the Occupy Boston camp at Dewey Square until issuing a written decision on or before Dec. 15, may be attributed to Howard Cooper, an attorney from Todd & Weld, who filed the suit as a cooperating attorney with the National Lawyers Guild-Massachusetts Chapter and the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts.
"The Occupy Boston encampment in Dewey Square is a uniquely expressive response to the problems we face as a society today. At a time when many feel that our government is broken, the protesters have set up a small community to demonstrate how people can associate together in a more democratic, egalitarian and just way. In deciding to go to Court, the protesters have sought protection from interference with their efforts to communicate their message."
The following statement may be attributed to Urszula Masny-Latos, Executive Director of the NLG, Massachusetts Chapter:
"If the main issue that the City of Boston has regarding Occupy Boston is 'safety,' then the City should work with Occupy and create an acceptable and workable plan for addressing all health and safety-related issues, rather than seeking the ultimate closure of the Dewey Square encampment."
The following statement may be attributed to Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts:
"We are pleased that Judge McIntyre has clearly recognized the civil liberties issues at stake and is being thoughtful and deliberative about this important and novel situation in Boston. With the temporary restraining order now in place until the judge issues a written decision on or before Dec. 15, we hope that city officials will agree to work with Occupy Boston to address any health or public safety concerns in a way that allows this historic exercise of freedom of speech, the right to petition, and freedom of assembly to continue."
The ACLU of Massachusetts and National Lawyers Guild-Massachusetts Chapter, through attorney Howard Cooper of Todd & Weld, filed a motion for the temporary restraining order granted last month, seeking to head off the possibility that Occupy demonstrators would be forcibly removed, as they have been in other cities.
For more information about the ACLU of Massachusetts' work on behalf of Occupy Boston, go to:
http://aclum.org/occupy
Police Violated the Free Speech Rights of Margaret Schucker, 57, Who Required a Chair to Participate in Protest, By Arresting Her For Refusing to Move Her Chair Away from Protest Area
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
RALEIGH – The American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation (ACLU-NCLF) announced today that it is providing legal representation to Margaret Schucker, a 57-year-old disabled Raleigh resident whose right to free speech was violated when police arrested her on Oct. 27 for refusing to move her chair, which she required because of back problems, away from the Occupy Raleigh demonstration in which she was participating.
Schucker was sitting in a chair while protesting Oct. 27 on the public sidewalk along Morgan Street outside the North Carolina State Capitol, where protestors were forced to move after being expelled from the Capitol grounds. Police ordered Schucker to move her chair from the sidewalk and relocate back away from the street, to a bench on the Capitol grounds, where protestors were not allowed to demonstrate. Schucker, who was wearing a blue and white handicapped permit on her chest, told the police that she had back problems and needed the chair to participate in the demonstration. She was not blocking traffic on the sidewalk and had made sure to leave at least three feet of space for passersby, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. When she refused to move her chair, Schucker was arrested for second-degree trespassing.
“I wanted to exercise my free speech rights on the same terms as my fellow demonstrators,” Schucker said. “The only difference was that, because of my chronic lower back pain, I couldn’t stand while demonstrating and had to use a chair. As a disabled person, I have always been very aware that the sidewalk must be kept clear so that everyone may pass. If I had moved to the bench on the Capitol grounds, as the police suggested, I would have been removed from the view of passersby with whom we were trying to engage.”
Schucker is being represented by ACLU-NCLF Cooperating Attorney Scott Holmes, of the Durham law firm of Brock, Payne & Meece, as well as by Katy Parker, Legal Director of ACLU-NCLF.
“It’s disgraceful that Ms. Schucker was arrested simply because she was a disabled person trying to exercise her constitutional right to free speech,” said Katy Parker, Legal Director for the ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation. “By ordering her to move away from her fellow demonstrators and their intended targets to an area that demonstrators had previously been banned from using, the police essentially prohibited Margaret from participating in the demonstration, as is her right. She should not have been discriminated against for requiring a chair to participate, especially since she was in no way blocking the sidewalk.”
The ACLU of North Carolina is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to preserving and expanding the guarantees of individual liberty found in the United States Constitution, the North Carolina Constitution, and related federal and state civil rights laws. With more than 7,000 members and supporters throughout the state and an office located in Raleigh, the organization achieves its mission through advocacy, public education, community outreach, and when necessary, litigation. For more information, please visit www.acluofnc.org.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
In a letter sent today to Mayor Michael Bloomberg and NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly, the New York Civil Liberties Union objected to the Police Department’s mistreatment of journalists covering Occupy Wall Street protests.
The letter expresses concerns about the “media blackout” the NYPD imposed during last week’s forced eviction of Zuccotti Park, which effectively prevented firsthand reporting of the incident. It urges Mayor Bloomberg to convene a meeting with the NYPD, media outlets and the NYCLU to discuss the Police Department’s mistreatment of the press. The NYCLU’s letter was sent in conjunction with a similar letter from several major media organizations.
“The NYPD must respect freedom of the press – a core democratic principle,” NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman said. “The NYPD’s actions – abusing and arresting reporters, and enforcing a media blackout of the park eviction – raise grave concerns. Given Mayor Bloomberg’s repeated expressions of support for the First Amendment, we have no doubt he will take action to address these issues.”
The NYCLU has documented numerous accounts in which journalists were arrested, threatened with arrest and subjected to physical force by police officers while seeking to cover the eviction. In one incident, a journalist was struck with a police baton, bruising his arm and damaging his camera’s lens. Another reporter reported being struck on the shoulder with a baton immediately after identifying herself as a journalist to a police officer. In another incident, a reporter had his NYPD-issued press credential yanked from his neck for attempting to cover the eviction.
In addition to these and other incidents, the city reportedly closed off airspace over Zuccotti Park to prevent news helicopters from documenting the police raid.
“It’s clear the NYPD aggressively blocked reporters from covering the eviction, which was a news event of national interest,” said Christopher Dunn, the NYCU’s associate legal director. “The Department’s behavior showed a disturbing disregard for the First Amendment. We expect Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Kelly to take immediate steps to ensure that police officers respect the freedom of the press.”
The letter from media organizations was signed by representatives of the National Press Photographers Association, the Associated Press, Reuters, the Daily News, the New York Post, Dow Jones & Company, WCBS-TV, WNBC-TV, NBC Universal and the New York Press Photographers Association.
The letters are available on the NYCLU’s website: www.nyclu.org/news/nyclu-major-media-organizations-criticize-nypd’s-mi...
Following Heavy-Handed Crackdowns in Other Cities, ACLU and National Lawyers Guild Sought Protection for Rights of Free Speech, Assembly, Petition, and Association in Boston
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
BOSTON -- Judge Frances A. McIntyre today granted a temporary restraining order to prevent the City of Boston or Boston Police from taking any action to remove the tents or other belongings of Occupy Boston demonstrators at Dewey Square in the downtown financial district. The order appears to be one of the first times that the rights of Occupy demonstrators have been protected proactively, and applies unless there is a fire, medical emergency, or outbreak of violence. McIntyre set a further hearing on a preliminary injunction for Dec. 1, unless the city appeals or enters an order for removal, and ordered the city and the protesters to enter mediation, over objections from city attorneys.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts and National Lawyers Guild-Massachusetts Chapter, through attorney Howard Cooper of Todd & Weld, filed a motion for the order yesterday, seeking to head off the possibility that Occupy demonstrators would be forcibly removed, as they have been in Portland, Ore., Oakland, Calif., New York, and other cities.
"Freedom of speech, association, assembly and the right to petition won a victory in court today," said Carol Rose, ACLU of Massachusetts executive director. "It is vital that Boston show the rest of the nation--even the world--how to respond appropriately when people rise up to petition their government for a change in direction."
The suit, filed in Superior Court, sought a Declaration from the Court recognizing the right to peaceful protest and assembly under the U.S. Constitution and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, as well as an injunction to prevent police from staging another night-time raid, such as the one that began Oct. 10, 2011 and continued into the early morning hours of Oct. 11, when the Boston Police conducted a mass arrest of 141 people in the middle of the night.
Although Boston police have said that they had no immediate plans to evict the Occupy Boston protesters, Boston Police Department spokesperson Elaine Driscoll told boston.com on Nov. 15, 2011, that, "It's difficult to say what will happen moving forward, but we will make those decisions on a daily basis."
Copies of legal documents are available here:
http://aclum.org/occupy_legal
More information from the ACLU of Massachusetts about the rights of demonstrators is available here:
http://aclum.org/occupy
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
The New York Civil Liberties Union has filed a federal lawsuit defending the public’s right to take photographs in the New York City subway system without fear of being arrested or having to show identification to police.
The lawsuit was filed Monday afternoon in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of plaintiffs Steve Barry and Michael Burkhart, railroad enthusiasts and photographers who were unlawfully arrested in August 2010 while taking photos of subway trains at the Broad Channel subway stop in Brooklyn. At the time, they were awaiting the arrival of a vintage subway train on display by the New York Transit Museum. They both were charged with unlawful photography, and Barry was handcuffed and charged with failing to produce ID in violation of a Transit Authority rule.
“People cannot be arrested for taking pictures in public places, including the subway, and they cannot be required to carry identification documents,” said NYCLU Associate Legal Director Christopher Dunn, lead counsel on the case. “The police harassment of photographers must stop.”
The lawsuit argues that the arrests violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. It also maintains that a Transit Authority’s rule requiring people using the city’s transit system to carry ID documents is unconstitutional. The City of New York, the Transit Authority and the NYPD officer who detained the photographers are named as defendants.
Barry, 54, is the editor of Railfan & Railroad Magazine, a monthly publication for railroad enthusiasts. He manages the website www.railroadphotographer.com. Burkhart, 36, works in marketing in the Philadelphia area. They are friends and members of the National Railway Historical Society.
Barry and Burkhart, of New Jersey, traveled to New York City on Aug. 21, 2010 for a scheduled run of one of the Transit Museum’s vintage subway trains. These exhibitions are popular among photographers.
While waiting for the vintage train, the plaintiffs were taking photos of regular subway trains. A police officer approached them and told them that they were not allowed to take photographs in the subway system. Barry asked the officer to identity the city statute that they were violating. Instead, the officer demanded ID from both men. Barry gave his name and address but did not present identification. The officer handcuffed Barry and searched his pockets.
“I never imagined that I’d get arrested for taking pictures of a subway train,” Barry said. “It was a humiliating experience, and I hope this lawsuit will prevent other people from enduring similar mistreatment.”
Both men, who had never previously been arrested, were detained in the subway station’s waiting area for about a half hour. Barry was handcuffed the entire time.
“This was a baffling and upsetting experience,” Burkhart said. “Taking pictures of a subway train is not a crime. It’s disheartening to think that we’re not the first people to be arrested for this and that it could happen again to anyone.”
Barry and Burkhart were issued summonses charging them with taking “unauthorized photos,” though the transit rule the officer cited states that photography is permitted in the transit system. Barry also was issued a summons for violating the Transit Authority rule requiring people to carry ID. The New York City Transit Adjudication Bureau later dismissed all the charges. As a result of their arrests, Barry and Burkhart have stopped coming to New York City to photograph in the subway system.
“The NYPD has a troubling history of harassing photographers and violating their First Amendment rights,” NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman said. “Moreover, the city cannot require people to carry ID while using public transit. The freedom to move about without having to prove you identity to government agents is a core American right.”
Also serving as counsel in the case are Andrew Avorn, Timothy Taylor-Hurley and Eleanor Spottswood, who are NYU Law School students participating in the Civil Rights Clinic.
To read the NYCLU’s full complaint, visit http://www.nyclu.org/files/releases/Sub_Photo_ID_Complaint_11.14.11.pdf.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
In response to this morning’s expulsion of Occupy Wall Street protesters from Zuccotti Park, New York Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Donna Lieberman issued the following statement:
“The eviction of protesters from Zuccotti Park was not about public health. Rousting hundreds of peaceful protesters from their tents in the dead of night amid a media blackout doesn’t promote public safety – it endangers it.
The NYCLU has a team of legal observers monitoring today’s events. We will work to ensure that police are held accountable for any misconduct. By all indication, the Occupy Wall Street protests will continue for some time, and we expect the NYPD to adapt its practices to accommodate protest.”
The NYCLU has protest monitors across Lower Manhattan, from Zuccotti Park to Duarte Square, and is monitoring the situation as it unfolds. Live updates are being posted on the NYCLU’s Twitter feed, twitter.com/nyclu. The organization is urging its 50,000 members to raise their voices and call 311 to complain that the NYPD is unlawfully blocking access to Zuccotti Park. We’re also asking protesters to share their stories and experiences with police via email at protest@nyclu.org.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 10, 2011
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
RI ACLU executive director Steven Brown issued the following statement today in response to news reports that Providence police have used special infra-red technology to determine whether people have been sleeping overnight inside the tents in Burnside Park where the “Occupy Providence” protest is taking place:
“The RI ACLU believes that the Providence police department's surreptitious use of infra-red technology to determine whether the tents in Burnside Park are occupied at night is troubling on a number of levels.
“The mere fact that police may be entering the park at night solely for the purpose of secretly gathering information is disconcerting in and of itself, but the use of special technology to peer into the occupiers' tents is especially disturbing. Even if it was only thermal-imaging technology, which detects heat infrared radiation, the invasion of privacy is still substantial. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled a decade ago that police are required under the Fourth Amendment to obtain a warrant in order to use this type of technology on homes.
“We know that at least some of these tents are, in fact, homes for people who have nowhere else to go. Homeless people do not shed their right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure merely because they do not have a permanent residence. Thus, the use of this technology is not only troubling from a policy perspective, but it raises significant constitutional issues as well.
“We believe the Providence police have thus far shown admirable restraint in dealing with the 'Occupy Providence' protest. However, the secretive use of privacy-invasive techniques simply has no place in what has thus far been a peaceful demonstration, and we call on the police department to disavow any further use of this or similar intrusive technology at the park.”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. – The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan filed a lawsuit today asking a federal judge to strike down a state law that criminalizes peaceful panhandling in all public places. The lawsuit was filed against the state attorney general and the City of Grand Rapids, which has made 399 begging-related arrests since 2008.
“Anti-begging laws that punish that most vulnerable segment of our society are not only harsh, they are unconstitutional,” said Miriam Aukerman, ACLU of Michigan staff attorney. "Removing the reminders of poverty from our sight is not the answer to Michigan’s economic woes. We need laws and practices that provide compassionate solutions for our growing homeless population.”
In May, the ACLU of Michigan submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Grand Rapids Police Department seeking incident reports related to begging and panhandling offenses since 2008. The GRPD produced 399 incident reports of individuals prosecuted under the unconstitutional state statute. Collectively, individuals charged with begging between January 1, 2008 and May 24, 2011 were sentenced to 1,641 days in jail, which, according to estimates, costs taxpayers more than $60,000.
“Jail time is a harsh price to pay for being poor,” said Aukerman. “The ACLU is not opposed to laws that protect citizens from threats, intimidation and harassment. However, throwing people in jail because they are poor or homeless is not only wrong, it’s illegal.”
The ACLU’s lawsuit was filed on behalf of two Grand Rapids’ residents who have been repeatedly arrested or ticketed by police for violating the state’s blanket ban on begging in public. James Speet has been homeless for about two years and lives in a tent. Speet receives food stamps, and also collects bottles, cans and scrap metal to survive. He hopes to find work, and has been seeking employment by holding up a sign in public that reads “Need Job, God Bless.” Speet, who has been prosecuted multiple times under the unconstitutional state law, was most recently arrested in July for holding up the sign in Grand Rapids.
“I see people holding up signs throughout the city advertising restaurants or protesting and they don’t get arrested or ticketed,” said Speet. “I don’t understand why my sign is any different just because I’m homeless and looking for a job.”
Ernest Sims is a veteran who relies on a $260 disability assistance check and food stamps for survival. When unable to afford his expenses, he asks people for “spare change to help a veteran” on the public streets of Grand Rapids. On July 4, 2011, a Grand Rapids police officer arrested Sims, who was asking change for bus fare. Sims has since pleaded guilty and was sentenced to $100 or two days in jail.
According to the 24-page lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Michigan’s anti-begging law is unconstitutional because peaceful panhandling is protected speech under the First Amendment. In addition, the law violates the Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection as it allows other First Amendment activity to go on without incident, while punishing begging.
This is not the first time the ACLU has challenged anti-begging policies in Michigan. In May, the ACLU of Michigan successfully lobbied Royal Oak officials to repeal an unconstitutional ordinance that similarly punished peaceful panhandling on public sidewalks. Similar laws making it a crime to ask for financial assistance in public places have been struck down in states across the country, including New York, Florida, California, Massachusetts and Illinois.
In addition to Aukerman, Steep and Sims are represented by Dan Korobkin and Michael J. Steinberg of the ACLU of Michigan.
To read our complaint in this case, go to http://www.aclumich.org/sites/default/files/BeggingComplaint.pdf
To read more about the 399 arrests in this case, go to http://www.aclumich.org/sites/default/files/ArrestsFOIA.pdf
To read more about the Royal Oak Anti-Begging Ordinance, go to http://www.aclumich.org/issues/free-speech/2011-05/1556
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
DETROIT – In a victory for free speech, a federal judge in Michigan yesterday struck down a state statute that makes it illegal to “adversely affect” a funeral. The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan filed the lawsuit in 2009 on behalf of an army veteran and his late wife who were arrested for taking part in the funeral procession of a friend while displaying signs and bumper stickers on their van that were critical of the Bush Administration.
“Although the statute was designed to keep the controversial Westboro Baptist Church out of Michigan, it was ultimately used to disrupt a peaceful funeral and arrest innocent mourners whose privacy the statute was designed to protect,” said Dan Korobkin, ACLU of Michigan staff attorney. ”Today’s ruling serves as a reminder that innocent people suffer when our legislators pass overly broad laws that give police officers unchecked power to arrest people who express unpopular views.”
Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Thomas L. Ludington struck down the provision of the statute that prohibits conduct that will “adversely affect” a funeral stating that it violated the First Amendment and was unconstitutionally vague. Previously, Judge Ludington had ruled that the right to freedom of speech, the right to due process, and the right against unreasonable searches and seizures should have protected Lewis and Jean Lowden from being arrested and jailed during their friend's funeral.
“I can never express the shame and humiliation that Jean and I felt when we were forced out of the funeral procession and arrested,” said Lewis, after the case was filed in 2009. “In the end, this lawsuit may bring us justice; however it will never give us back the moment our beloved friend Todd was buried,” said Lewis Lowden. “I only wish Jean lived to see the day we filed this lawsuit.”
For several years, the Lowdens taped homemade signs critical of former President George W. Bush and U.S. policy to the inside windows of their van. In September 2007, Lewis and Jean drove in the funeral procession of their close friend Cpl. Todd Motley, who died in action in Iraq. When they arrived at the memorial service a funeral flag was placed on their van and no one in the family complained about the signs. They drove slowly along the procession route through downtown Harrison.
About 2 miles into the drive, Lewis was asked to pull over by a Clare County Sheriff's Deputy. The Lowdens told the deputies that they were friends of the family and that they were not protesting the soldier’s death. Nonetheless, Lewis and Jean were arrested for violating Michigan’s funeral protest law and their van was impounded. As a result of the arrest, they missed the burial service. The Lowdens were detained for about 24 hours and Jean, who was suffering from a serious medical condition, found the detention particularly distressing. The criminal charges against the Lowdens were eventually dropped.
To read today’s decision, go to: http://www.aclumich.org/sites/default/files/Lowdendecision.pdf
To read the ACLU complaint, go to: http://www.aclumich.org/sites/default/files/file/lowdencomplaint.pdf
To read this release on our website, go to: http://www.aclumich.org/issues/free-speech/2011-09/1606
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
Portland - In 1968, a handful of visionaries founded the "Maine Civil Liberties Union," a chartered affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union. This year, as part of a nationwide effort to create a shared visual identity among the national organization and its more than 50 affiliates, the MCLU Board of Directors and our full membership voted to change the organization's name to the "American Civil Liberties Union of Maine," or "ACLU of Maine.”
The Maine Civil Liberties Union Foundation, a separate corporation under which the affiliate's legal and public education programs operate, now will be known as the "American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Maine," or "ACLU of Maine Foundation."
“We, in Maine, are part of a much larger community who support civil liberties and civil rights for all people. The name change reflects our affiliation with an important nationwide movement to defend and advance the Constitution and the Bill of Rights,” said Shenna Bellows, Executive Director of the ACLU of Maine. “While our name has changed, our 40+ year tradition of dedication to the defense of civil liberties in Maine remains the same. The ACLU of Maine is an integral, vital part of a powerful national ACLU, united in principle and purpose to the defense of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.”
50 other affiliates now identify as the ACLU of _____ in a nationwide effort to establish unified branding. In 2010, the ACLU celebrated its 90th anniversary with an exhibit documenting the ACLU’s historic victories in cases like Loving v. Virginia and Gideon v. Wainwright as well as some of our important losses like the Scopes evolution trial and Korematsu v. United States.
"This name change to the ACLU of Maine recognizes the reality that all of our members are, in fact, members of the both the ACLU and the Maine affiliate. Further, the new name continues to convey our commitment to the state of Maine by keeping Maine in our organization’s name and logo,” said Shenna Bellows, Executive Director of the ACLU of Maine. “Sharing a common name, but providing for each affiliate’s distinct identity, will convey stature and stability. The new shared visual identity will convey a unified image for the entire ACLU organization.”
State Authorizes Anti-Choice License Plate While Expressly Refusing Pro-Choice Alternative, In Clear Violation of the Public’s First Amendment Rights
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
RALEIGH – The American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation (ACLU-NCLF) filed a lawsuit today in the federal district court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on behalf of North Carolinians seeking a specialty license plate that supports a woman’s right to reproductive freedom. During this year’s legislative session, the North Carolina General Assembly passed House Bill 289, which authorized the issuance of a “Choose Life” license plate. However, the legislature repeatedly refused to authorize a plate that supported the countervailing position in favor of reproductive freedom. Six amendments were proposed in the legislature to authorize an additional new plate that stated either, “Trust Women. Respect Choice,” or simply “Respect Choice.” The legislature rejected all six amendments. As such, the lawsuit alleges that the State is engaging in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.
“If anti-choice drivers are permitted to express their views on their license plates, people like me should be able to express our view that women deserve full reproductive freedom,” said Sue Holliday, plaintiff and certified nurse midwife.
The lawsuit asks the Court to declare that the current license plate scheme constitutes viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment and to order the State to cease developing and issuing the “Choose Life” license plate without authorizing a countervailing pro-choice plate.
The following statement may be attributed to Katherine Lewis Parker, Legal Director of the ACLU-NCLF:
“This is a basic issue of freedom of speech and fairness. It is a fundamental tenet of the First Amendment that the State cannot use its authority to promote one side of a debate while denying the same opportunity to the other side. Anyone who supports freedom of speech should agree with this stance, regardless of one’s position on abortion. Our position would be the same if the State had authorized a pro-choice license plate but not an anti-choice alternative. In that situation, the ACLU-NCLF would be suing on behalf of anti-choice drivers under the exact same theory of viewpoint discrimination.”
The Plaintiffs are the ACLU of North Carolina (on behalf of its statewide membership) and pro-choice automobile owners Sue Holliday, Dean Debnam, Maria Magher and Chris Heaney. All Plaintiffs in this lawsuit are represented by Katherine Lewis Parker, Legal Director of the ACLU-NCLF.
A copy of the complaint can be found on the ACLU of North Carolina’s website at http://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/.
The ACLU of North Carolina is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to preserving and expanding the guarantees of individual liberty found in the United States Constitution, the North Carolina Constitution, and related federal and state civil rights laws. With approximately 6,800 members throughout the state and an office located in Raleigh, the organization achieves its mission through advocacy, public education, community outreach, and when necessary, litigation.
Jay Stanley, Senior Policy Analyst, Speech, Privacy and Technology Project
Taking photographs and video of things that are plainly visible in public spaces is a constitutional right — and that includes the outside of federal buildings, as well as transportation facilities, and police and other government officials carrying out their duties.
However, there is a widespread, continuing pattern of law enforcement officers ordering people to stop taking photographs or video in public places, and harassing, detaining and arresting those who fail to comply. The ACLU, photographer's groups, and others have been complaining about such incidents for years — and consistently winning in court. Yet, a continuing stream of incidents of illegal harassment of photographers and videographers makes it clear that the problem is not going away. In the spring of 2011 alone, the list of incidents included these cases:
SPECIAL FEATUREExamples of these kinds of abuses, which continue to be reported weekly, are chronicled on web pages such as Photography is Not a Crime. And for more information on the ways in which law enforcement is spying on Americans today, visit our report on "Spying on First Amendment Activity."
A Crucial Check on Power
The right of citizens to record the police is a critical check and balance. It creates an independent record of what took place in a particular incident, free from accusations of bias, lying or faulty memory. It is no accident that some of the most high-profile cases of police misconduct have involved video and audio records.
Of course, photography is not necessarily "objective" and it is always possible in a particular case that there can be circumstances at work outside a photographic record. Overall, however, the incidents above make it abundantly clear that respect for the right to photograph and record is not well-established within the law enforcement profession.
Many of those involved in these incidents appear to be activists who know their rights and are willing to stand up for them. But not everyone is able to stand up to police officers when harassed; we don't know how many other Americans comply with baseless orders to stop photographing or recording because they are uncertain of their rights or too afraid to stand up for them.
Photography as a Precursor to Terrorism
A big part of the problem here is "suspicious activity reporting" — the construction of a national system for the collection and distribution of information. Under this system (as we discuss on this page and in this report), law enforcement leaders at the federal, state and local level push officers on the ground to investigate and report a broad spectrum of legitimate, everyday activity as potentially "suspicious" — including photography. In fact, many such programs actually suggest that photography is a "precursor behavior" to terrorism, and direct the police to react accordingly. This notion has been dismissed as "nonsense" by security experts — but appears to be disturbingly robust.
A serious question for photographers and videographers who are harassed is whether they are being entered in government suspicious activity databases or watch lists, and whether and how such a listing might come back to haunt them. An investigation of Suspicious Activity Reports by NPR and the Center for Investigative Reporting, for example, found numerous individuals were reported to the FBI for taking photographs or video in the Mall of America.
A Problem From the Top
Another disturbing trend is police officers and prosecutors using wiretapping statutes in certain states (such as Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania) to arrest and prosecute those who attempt to record police activities using videocameras that include audio. (Unlike photography and silent video, there is no general right to record audio; many state wiretap laws prohibit recording conversations if the parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy — which is never true for a police officer carrying out his or her duties in public.)
Word appears to have circulated within law enforcement circles somehow that using wiretapping statutes is a strategy for preventing public oversight, with some taking the concept to ridiculous extremes.
In contrast, it appears to be stubbornly difficult to spread word within those same circles of the fact that photography and videotaping in public places is a constitutional right. And earlier this year, following a lawsuit by the New York branch of the ACLU, DHS agreed to issued a directive to members of the Federal Protective Service making it clear that photographing federal buildings is permitted. Yet arrests by Federal Protective Service officers appear to be continuing. You would think that police chiefs and other supervisors could easily instruct and enforce an understanding of photographers' rights among their officers. Still, for some reason, all too often that is not happening. In New Orleans, for example, in response to its public records request, the local ACLU found the police department's policy which clearly instructs officers that people have the right to photograph. Yet officers there routinely violate the stated policy.
Know Your Rights
Everyone should be clear on what their rights are when engaging in photography in public spaces. The ACLU has prepared a "Know Your Rights" resource for photographers confronted by police. Learn more >>
Simon Glik Broke No Law When He Used His Cell Phone to Record Police Officers' Use of Force Against Another Man on Boston Common
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
BOSTON -- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled unanimously late Friday that Simon Glik had a right to videotape police in action on Boston Common. Mr. Glik sued three police officers and the City of Boston for violating his civil rights after police arrested him and charged him with illegal wiretapping, aiding the escape of a prisoner, and disturbing the peace--all for merely holding up his cell phone and openly recording Boston police officers who were punching another man on Boston Common in October 2007. As a defense, the police argued the law was not clear, but the Court decisively rejected their claim of immunity from being sued.
"This is a resounding victory for the First Amendment right to openly record police officers carrying out their duties in a public place," said Sarah Wunsch, ACLU of Massachusetts staff attorney. "It will be influential around the country in other cases where people have been arrested for videotaping the conduct of the police," said Wunsch.
"Police officers must be trained to respect the right of people to openly record their actions in public," said David Milton, a Boston attorney representing Mr. Glik for the ACLU in the civil rights suit. "Simon did what we hope any engaged citizen would do, which was documenting what he thought looked like an improper use of force, and his action in no way interfered with the police."
"This case is significant not only for members of the public who use cell phone cameras to document police conduct. It is equally important for members of the media, since reporters and the public have the same right of access to information," said attorney Milton. The court noted that changes in technology have made it hard to draw a line between a private citizen and a journalist. This ruling applies to recording of all public officials. The Court noted the particular importance of recording police officers because they have "substantial discretion that may be misused to deprive individuals of their liberties."
Massachusetts wiretap statute (Ch. 272, Sec. 99) prohibits willful interception--in secret--of any oral communication, without having obtained the prior authorization of those taking part. However, the statute does not require "consent," it only requires that the recording not be secret. Since Mr. Glik was openly recording the police by holding up his cell phone, there was no reason to believe he was violating the statute. The police therefore also violated Glik's Fourth Amendment right to not be arrested without probable cause, as well as his First Amendment right to observe and gather information about what the police were doing in a public place.
At the time of his arrest, Simon Glik was a lawyer who had finished a clerkship with the Probate Court. He was looking for a permanent job as an attorney. Instead, for four months, he became a criminal defendant facing a felony charge.
During the incident, Mr. Glik stood about ten feet away from the officers while they were making an arrest. He did not interfere. Mr. Glik did not speak to the police officers nor did they speak to him until the suspect was in handcuffs. The police officers were identified later as John Cunniffe, Peter J. Savalis, and Jerome Hall-Brewster. They are defendants in the civil rights case along with the City of Boston, which the suit argues is responsible for inadequately training, supervising, and disciplining officers who arrest people under the wiretap statute for openly recording the police carrying out their duties in public.
Shortly after Mr. Glik's arrest, the Suffolk County District Attorney's office dropped the "aiding the escape of a prisoner" charge but pursued the wiretap charge (a felony) and disturbing the peace. After a judge of the Boston Municipal Court threw out those charges, the ACLU of Massachusetts brought a civil rights suit on Mr. Glik's behalf, charging that the police officers and the City had violated his rights.
All of the police officers asked the U.S. District Court to throw out the case against them on the grounds of "qualified immunity", which protects government officials from the burdens of a lawsuit only if the allegations of the complaint do not show a constitutional violation, or, if they do constitute a violation of a constitutional right, the right was not clearly established, and a reasonable police officer would not have known about it.
In June 2010, U.S. District Court Judge William Young denied the police officers' request to have the case against them dismissed, stating that the law is clearly established that the First Amendment protects Simon Glik's conduct, and refused to grant them qualified immunity from suit.
The police officers appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which heard oral arguments on June 8, 2011. The claims against the City of Boston for failing to train and supervise police officers about the right of Americans to observe and openly record the conduct of the police in public is not subject to qualified immunity and have continued in U.S. District Court.
David Milton of the Boston firm Law Offices of Howard Friedman is the cooperating attorney for the ACLU of Massachusetts and argued for Simon Glik, asking the First Circuit to affirm Judge Young's ruling. He, his colleague Howard Friedman, and ACLU of Massachusetts staff attorney Sarah Wunsch have been representing Mr. Glik on the civil rights lawsuit.
For more details, including video of the arrest witnessed by Mr. Glik, see:
http://aclum.org/glik
