By Lauren Kelley
Last January, Michael Allison, a 41-year-old mechanic from Bridgeport, Illinois, went to court to protest what he saw as unfair treatment from local police officers. Allison is an auto enthusiast who likes to tinker with cars, several of which he keeps on his mother's property in the neighboring town of Robinson. Because both towns have "eyesore," or abandoned property, rules that require inoperable cars to be either registered or kept in a garage (which neither house had, and which Allison could not afford to build), Allison's cars were repeatedly impounded by local officials.
Allison sued the city of Bridgeport in 2007, arguing that the eyesore law violated his civil rights and that the city was merely trying to bilk revenues from impound fees. This apparently enraged the local police, who, Allison alleges, began harassing him at home and threatening arrest when Allison refused to get rid of his cars.
Shortly before his January 2010 court date, Allison requested a court reporter for the hearing, making it clear to the county clerk that if one was not present he would record the proceedings himself.
With the request for a court reporter denied, Allison made good on his promise to bring his own audio recorder with him to the courthouse. Here's what happened next, as reported by Radley Bilko in the latest issue of Reason magazine:
Just after he walked through the courthouse door the next day, Allison says Crawford County Circuit Court Judge Kimbara Harrell asked him whether he had a tape recorder in his pocket. He said yes. Harrell then asked him if it was turned on. Allison said it was. Harrell then informed the defendant that he was in violation of the Illinois wiretapping law, which makes it a Class 1 felony to record someone without his consent. “You violated my right to privacy,” the judge said.
Allison responded that he had no idea it was illegal to record public officials during the course of their work, that there was no sign or notice barring tape recorders in the courtroom, and that he brought one only because his request for a court reporter had been denied. No matter: After Harrell found him guilty of violating the car ordinance, Allison, who had no prior criminal record, was hit with five counts of wiretapping, each punishable by four to 15 years in prison. Harrell threw him in jail, setting bail at $35,000.
That's up to 75 years in prison for breaking a law Allison did not know existed, and which he violated in the name of protecting himself from what he saw as an injustice.
As Bilko points out, Allison's case may be extreme, but he is hardly alone in facing outsized punishment for efforts to combat police wrongdoing. Take Christopher Drew and Tiawanda Moore, two Chicagoans highlighted in the New York Times last week. Drew, a 60-year-old artist, faces up to 15 years in prison for using a digital video recorder during his December 2009 arrest for selling art without a permit. Drew had planned on getting arrested in protest of the permit law, which he saw as a violation of artists' rights. He was unaware that filming the ordeal was illegal.
Likewise, Moore, a 20-year-old Southside resident, did not know it was illegal to record a conversation she had with two police officers last August, and she too faces a prison sentence of up to 15 years for doing so. Moore's case is especially troubling because she was in the process of filing a complaint with the two officers about a third officer, who Moore alleges sexually harassed her in her home. She told the Times that she "was only trying to make sure no other women suffered at the hands of the officer" by making the recording. Presumably, she was also trying to protect herself in case she faced another lewd advance. Instead, the officers tried to talk her out of filing her complaint and then slapped her with eavesdropping charges when they found out her Blackberry was recording.
These stories all highlight Illinois' draconian eavesdropping laws, which, ever since a privacy provision was overturned in 1994, have made it illegal to record audio of an individual without his or her consent. Carrying a sentence of between four and 15 years, the laws in the state are some of the harshest in the nation.
Illinois isn't the only state waging a war on citizens with recording devices. Across the country, the growing accessibility of recording devices (like smart phones) and media-sharing sites (like YouTube) is prompting officials to dredge up dusty old eavesdropping and wiretapping laws, leading to "a legal mess of outdated, loosely interpreted statutes and piecemeal court opinions that leave both cops and citizens unsure of when recording becomes a crime," according to Bilko.
The good news is that few people have actually been convicted under these laws for documenting police wrongdoing; neither Michael Allison nor Christopher Drew nor Tiawanda Moore are likely to go to prison for the recordings they made. The bad news, though, is that these laws are being used to intimidate the nation's citizens, making them afraid to stand up against police officers and other officials who are acting illegally and/or immorally. As long as no one is convicted, the law goes unchallenged, notes Adam Schwartz, senior staff counsel for the ACLU of Illinois.
The intimidation techniques extend to still photographers as well, as documented by Carlos Miller on the blog Photography is Not a Crime, which catalogs rights violations against people with cameras and teaches citizens about their legal rights to photograph people and places. (Things that can almost always be photographed from a public place, "despite popular opinion," according to Miller's Web site: criminal activities, law enforcement officers, industrial facilities.) Miller himself has been illegally arrested and had his photos deleted for taking pictures of police officers.
Although he's always beaten his cases in court, Miller recognizes that coming out on top after the fact isn't good enough. "There’s this idea that just because charges are dropped, there’s no harm,” Miller told Reason. “But that isn’t right. There’s definitely harm when someone is illegally arrested and has to spend a night or more in jail. Your life is disrupted. You now have legal bills to deal with. There’s also harm when a cop wrongly tells someone they can’t photograph or record. He’s intimidating them into giving up their rights.”
Some of the most widely viewed posts on Miller's blog -- "St. Louis Cop Beats Man Down in Youtube Video," "Surveillance video once again shines light on Philadelphia PD corruption" -- are testament to why citizens need the explicit legal right to document officers' wrongdoings. Without the recordings of these events (and many, many others like them), justice probably never would have been realized, and the truth never brought to light. Unless we overturn the nation's most over-the-top eavesdropping laws, our legal system will continue to obstruct, rather than promote, justice.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Friday, January 28, 2011
Family of victim killed by since-fired LAPD officer awarded $1.7 million
After deciding this week that a former Los Angeles police officer fired for dishonesty was liable for killing a man, a federal jury Wednesday awarded the victim's family $1.7 million.
Joseph Cruz killed Mohammad Usman Chaudhry early on a March morning in 2008, when Cruz and his partner encountered the 21-year-old autistic man lying in the bushes alongside a Hollywood apartment building.
Since the killing, Cruz has insisted that Chaudhry tried to attack him with a knife and that he fired his gun in self-defense. On Monday, however, after four days of testimony, the jury rejected Cruz’s account when it returned a unanimous verdict finding that the ex-officer had used excessive force and acted in “a reckless, oppressive or malicious manner” when he shot Chaudhry.
During the trial, lawyers for the Chaudhry family presented evidence aimed at putting doubt in the minds of the jurors over Cruz’s account. Testing on the knife that Cruz said Chaudhry had used, for example, found one person’s DNA profile on the handle and blade but showed that the DNA was not Chaudhry’s.
Also, after Cruz claimed he had never met Chaudhry before the shooting, a man testified that he had been present on multiple occasions when Cruz confronted Chaudhry and called him by name.
After the verdict, the jury was asked to decide how much money, if any, to award Chaudhry’s parents. Attorneys representing Cruz and the city of Los Angeles had tried to limit the size of the award by arguing that Chaudhry had had a frayed relationship with his parents that lessened their suffering.
Lawyers for the family countered that the parents cared deeply for their son, despite the strain on the relationship caused by his autism.
“We’re very pleased. I think the jury saw the truth in this case,” said Olu Orange, an attorney for the family. “This was about restoring the honor of this family’s son.”
Orange called on the city, and specifically Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, to forgo an appeal.
“In light of the findings of the jury on the facts of this case, I hope Mayor Villaraigosa would apologize to the Chaudhry family on behalf of the city, accept the verdict and not put the family through further trauma over the loss of their son," he said. "If the city doesn’t, they’ll just be spending more taxpayer money to defend a dishonest cop.”
John Franklin, a spokesman for the city attorney’s office, declined to comment on the verdict or whether the city would appeal. Peter J. Ferguson, who represented Cruz, could not be reached immediately for comment.
The award punctuates the awkward role the city played in the case. After the shooting, the LAPD fired Cruz for dishonesty in an unrelated case. At the time, lawyers for the city argued that Cruz had destroyed his credibility.
During the trial, however, the LAPD and city attorney’s office tried to persuade the jury that Cruz was, in fact, credible and that his account of the shooting should be believed.
Joseph Cruz killed Mohammad Usman Chaudhry early on a March morning in 2008, when Cruz and his partner encountered the 21-year-old autistic man lying in the bushes alongside a Hollywood apartment building.
Since the killing, Cruz has insisted that Chaudhry tried to attack him with a knife and that he fired his gun in self-defense. On Monday, however, after four days of testimony, the jury rejected Cruz’s account when it returned a unanimous verdict finding that the ex-officer had used excessive force and acted in “a reckless, oppressive or malicious manner” when he shot Chaudhry.
During the trial, lawyers for the Chaudhry family presented evidence aimed at putting doubt in the minds of the jurors over Cruz’s account. Testing on the knife that Cruz said Chaudhry had used, for example, found one person’s DNA profile on the handle and blade but showed that the DNA was not Chaudhry’s.
Also, after Cruz claimed he had never met Chaudhry before the shooting, a man testified that he had been present on multiple occasions when Cruz confronted Chaudhry and called him by name.
After the verdict, the jury was asked to decide how much money, if any, to award Chaudhry’s parents. Attorneys representing Cruz and the city of Los Angeles had tried to limit the size of the award by arguing that Chaudhry had had a frayed relationship with his parents that lessened their suffering.
Lawyers for the family countered that the parents cared deeply for their son, despite the strain on the relationship caused by his autism.
“We’re very pleased. I think the jury saw the truth in this case,” said Olu Orange, an attorney for the family. “This was about restoring the honor of this family’s son.”
Orange called on the city, and specifically Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, to forgo an appeal.
“In light of the findings of the jury on the facts of this case, I hope Mayor Villaraigosa would apologize to the Chaudhry family on behalf of the city, accept the verdict and not put the family through further trauma over the loss of their son," he said. "If the city doesn’t, they’ll just be spending more taxpayer money to defend a dishonest cop.”
John Franklin, a spokesman for the city attorney’s office, declined to comment on the verdict or whether the city would appeal. Peter J. Ferguson, who represented Cruz, could not be reached immediately for comment.
The award punctuates the awkward role the city played in the case. After the shooting, the LAPD fired Cruz for dishonesty in an unrelated case. At the time, lawyers for the city argued that Cruz had destroyed his credibility.
During the trial, however, the LAPD and city attorney’s office tried to persuade the jury that Cruz was, in fact, credible and that his account of the shooting should be believed.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
No First Amendment Right to Tape Cops in Public?
In Illinois, police may audio record any conversation in a public place, but no one else may record their conversations—among themselves or with citizens they interact with, no matter how audibly—in a public place; to do so is a felony. A federal judge last week dismissed a First Amendment challenge to this law brought by the ACLU.
She found no constitutional right to record conversations loud enough to be heard in public areas. CorrespondingCalifornia law appears to protect such recording.
Radley Balko reports for Reason.com.
Federal District Court Judge Suzanne Conlon has dismissed (PDF) an ACLU challenge to the Illinois law that makes recording someone in a public space without their permission a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison. As I've reported here, the law is used almost exclusively against people who attempt to record on-duty police officers. The ACLU was seeking declarative and injunctive relief to prevent the police from arresting workers and volunteers who planned to record police at an anti-war protest this spring.
As I wrote in my feature story, "The War on Cameras", there's a strong argument that this is a newsgathering function protected by the First Amendment. But Conlon doesn't agree.
The ACLU has not alleged a cognizable First Amendment injury. The ACLU cites neither Supreme Court nor Seventh Circuit authority that the First Amendment includes a right to audio record. Cf. Potts v. City of Lafayette, Indiana, 121 F.3d 1106, 1111 (7th Cir.1997) (“there is nothing in the Constitution which guarantees the right to record a public event” ’). Amendment would therefore be futile....
The ACLU intends to audio record police officers speaking with one another or police officers speaking with civilians. The ACLU’s program only implicates conversations with police officers. The ACLU does not intend to seek the consent of either police officers or civilians interacting with police officers. Police officers and civilians may be willing speakers with one another, but the ACLU does not allege this willingness of the speakers extends to the ACLU, an independent third party audio recording conversations without the consent of the participants. The ACLU has not met its burden of showing standing to assert a First Amendment right or injury....
Amendment would be futile. The ACLU has not alleged a constitutional right or injury under the First Amendment. Rather, the ACLU proposes an unprecedented expansion of the First Amendment . . .
Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, commenter "Jeff" makes a good point:
Why don’t we look at the issue from the other side? Is it within the state’s power to prohibit a citizen from recording a law enforcement officer in this way?
I know we tend to think of rational basis review as a rubber stamp, but these laws seem to be a stretch under any standard. Of course, it’s almost impossible to argue that this isn’t rationally related to some asserted purpose, but one could argue that the asserted purpose is merely pretextual, and that the real purpose is impermissible.
The government can certainly provide a rational basis for forbidding the recording of private conversations without the consent of all parties. But it would be interesting to hear the state's rationality for requiring the consent of anyone whose voice might be picked up before making recording in a public space. What interest does that law serve? Certainly not privacy, given that there's no expectation of privacy in public spaces.
I suspect we'll be seeing more from this case, as well as more challenges to the Illinois law, particularly if/when Christopher Drew and Michael Allison become the first people convicted under it. To this point, the law has been used primarily to harass and arrest people who record police in public. The charges are inevitably dropped or downgraded to misdemeanors before the case gets to trial.
MORE: Just to clarify, the Illinois law only applies to audio recording. So security cameras, which generally don't include audio, aren't in violation of the law. If you used an application on your smart phone that only recorded video, you could also presumably record police without being arrested under this law, although they could always arrest you for interfering with a police officer or some other catch-all charge. The Illinois law also includes an exception for law enforcement, so police recordings without permission of the person being recorded are permissible.
She found no constitutional right to record conversations loud enough to be heard in public areas. CorrespondingCalifornia law appears to protect such recording.
Radley Balko reports for Reason.com.
Federal District Court Judge Suzanne Conlon has dismissed (PDF) an ACLU challenge to the Illinois law that makes recording someone in a public space without their permission a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison. As I've reported here, the law is used almost exclusively against people who attempt to record on-duty police officers. The ACLU was seeking declarative and injunctive relief to prevent the police from arresting workers and volunteers who planned to record police at an anti-war protest this spring.
As I wrote in my feature story, "The War on Cameras", there's a strong argument that this is a newsgathering function protected by the First Amendment. But Conlon doesn't agree.
The ACLU has not alleged a cognizable First Amendment injury. The ACLU cites neither Supreme Court nor Seventh Circuit authority that the First Amendment includes a right to audio record. Cf. Potts v. City of Lafayette, Indiana, 121 F.3d 1106, 1111 (7th Cir.1997) (“there is nothing in the Constitution which guarantees the right to record a public event” ’). Amendment would therefore be futile....
The ACLU intends to audio record police officers speaking with one another or police officers speaking with civilians. The ACLU’s program only implicates conversations with police officers. The ACLU does not intend to seek the consent of either police officers or civilians interacting with police officers. Police officers and civilians may be willing speakers with one another, but the ACLU does not allege this willingness of the speakers extends to the ACLU, an independent third party audio recording conversations without the consent of the participants. The ACLU has not met its burden of showing standing to assert a First Amendment right or injury....
Amendment would be futile. The ACLU has not alleged a constitutional right or injury under the First Amendment. Rather, the ACLU proposes an unprecedented expansion of the First Amendment . . .
Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, commenter "Jeff" makes a good point:
Why don’t we look at the issue from the other side? Is it within the state’s power to prohibit a citizen from recording a law enforcement officer in this way?
I know we tend to think of rational basis review as a rubber stamp, but these laws seem to be a stretch under any standard. Of course, it’s almost impossible to argue that this isn’t rationally related to some asserted purpose, but one could argue that the asserted purpose is merely pretextual, and that the real purpose is impermissible.
The government can certainly provide a rational basis for forbidding the recording of private conversations without the consent of all parties. But it would be interesting to hear the state's rationality for requiring the consent of anyone whose voice might be picked up before making recording in a public space. What interest does that law serve? Certainly not privacy, given that there's no expectation of privacy in public spaces.
I suspect we'll be seeing more from this case, as well as more challenges to the Illinois law, particularly if/when Christopher Drew and Michael Allison become the first people convicted under it. To this point, the law has been used primarily to harass and arrest people who record police in public. The charges are inevitably dropped or downgraded to misdemeanors before the case gets to trial.
MORE: Just to clarify, the Illinois law only applies to audio recording. So security cameras, which generally don't include audio, aren't in violation of the law. If you used an application on your smart phone that only recorded video, you could also presumably record police without being arrested under this law, although they could always arrest you for interfering with a police officer or some other catch-all charge. The Illinois law also includes an exception for law enforcement, so police recordings without permission of the person being recorded are permissible.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of Ohio woman assaulted by prison guard
Washington -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday in support of an Elyria woman who was sexually assaulted twice by an Ohio prison guard, then punished for reporting the attacks.
Michelle Ortiz considers this a moral victory, not only for herself but for all women who have been assaulted or punished by the people paid by the public to protect them. Ortiz was sexually assaulted in prison while serving a 12-month sentence in a domestic violence case in which she fought off her physically abusive husband with a knife.
"If this helps one woman that this has ever happened to or that it could ever happen to, then I am just so happy," she said. "Not for the money, but for the verdict."
The ruling reversed a decision by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, that would have denied Ortiz her verdict and a $625,000 judgment. The high court decision was written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and has implications for how government attorneys handle lawsuits filed against public employees.
But the case has only narrow ramifications for the general public, despite the compelling story behind it, according to attorneys for the state of Ohio as well as outside legal experts.
"The Supreme Court case was solely about a procedural issue; it involved which procedures to use to challenge certain categories of legal rulings," Lisa Peterson Hackley, spokeswoman for the Ohio attorney general's office, said in an e-mail statement. "While we're disappointed in the outcome, it's always good when courts clear up unclear rules."
Andrew Pollis, a visiting assistant law professor at Case Western Reserve University who assisted Ortiz's lead attorney, David Mills, in the case, agreed that the case could be interpreted to have a limited impact.
"To be honest, this is a narrow procedural issue, so it isn't some new ruling about the way prison officials must treat inmates, although you could tell from the way Justice Ginsburg wrote the ruling that she was displeased with the way prison officials treated Michelle Ortiz," Pollis said.
Ortiz was in the Ohio Reformatory for Women in November 2002 when she reported that a male guard fondled her breasts and warned, "I'll get you tomorrow, watch." He did, returning when Ortiz was asleep to molest her again.
When Ortiz told other inmates about the attack, she was shackled and sent to solitary confinement. The state said this was for her own protection, as well as for the sake of preserving the integrity of their investigation while they looked into Ortiz's claims.
Ortiz sued, and the prison's case manager and an institutional investigator claimed they were just doing their jobs. They said they should be considered immune from the lawsuit unless Ortiz could establish that their conduct violated her clearly established rights.
A trial judge, however, refused to grant their motion for dismissal, or summary judgment, at that point, and the case went to trial. Ortiz won.
That's when the two state employees, Paula Jordan and Rebecca Bright, filed an appeal. The appeals court ruled in a 2-1 vote that the pre-trial motion for dismissal should have been granted.
Ortiz appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court. Mills argued on her behalf that if the two employees were intent on claiming immunity, they should have kept on arguing it after their motion for summary judgment was dismissed, using procedures available during the trial and immediately after the verdict was read.
The Supreme Court agreed.
In a concurring opinion, Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed that the appeals court made a mistake, but they would have sent the case back to that court to consider other issues.
Since the attacks, "Ohio has instituted significant reforms to prevent this type of activity" and, if it occurs, to address it quickly, said Carlo LoParo, spokesman for the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.
Before Monday's ruling, various federal and state courts disagreed on the rules for challenging government-employee immunity if it is rejected before trial. The ruling will send a clear signal about how to proceed, said Alan Chen, director of the constitutional rights and remedies program at the University of Denver's Sturm College of Law.
Michelle Ortiz considers this a moral victory, not only for herself but for all women who have been assaulted or punished by the people paid by the public to protect them. Ortiz was sexually assaulted in prison while serving a 12-month sentence in a domestic violence case in which she fought off her physically abusive husband with a knife.
"If this helps one woman that this has ever happened to or that it could ever happen to, then I am just so happy," she said. "Not for the money, but for the verdict."
The ruling reversed a decision by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, that would have denied Ortiz her verdict and a $625,000 judgment. The high court decision was written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and has implications for how government attorneys handle lawsuits filed against public employees.
But the case has only narrow ramifications for the general public, despite the compelling story behind it, according to attorneys for the state of Ohio as well as outside legal experts.
"The Supreme Court case was solely about a procedural issue; it involved which procedures to use to challenge certain categories of legal rulings," Lisa Peterson Hackley, spokeswoman for the Ohio attorney general's office, said in an e-mail statement. "While we're disappointed in the outcome, it's always good when courts clear up unclear rules."
Andrew Pollis, a visiting assistant law professor at Case Western Reserve University who assisted Ortiz's lead attorney, David Mills, in the case, agreed that the case could be interpreted to have a limited impact.
"To be honest, this is a narrow procedural issue, so it isn't some new ruling about the way prison officials must treat inmates, although you could tell from the way Justice Ginsburg wrote the ruling that she was displeased with the way prison officials treated Michelle Ortiz," Pollis said.
Ortiz was in the Ohio Reformatory for Women in November 2002 when she reported that a male guard fondled her breasts and warned, "I'll get you tomorrow, watch." He did, returning when Ortiz was asleep to molest her again.
When Ortiz told other inmates about the attack, she was shackled and sent to solitary confinement. The state said this was for her own protection, as well as for the sake of preserving the integrity of their investigation while they looked into Ortiz's claims.
Ortiz sued, and the prison's case manager and an institutional investigator claimed they were just doing their jobs. They said they should be considered immune from the lawsuit unless Ortiz could establish that their conduct violated her clearly established rights.
A trial judge, however, refused to grant their motion for dismissal, or summary judgment, at that point, and the case went to trial. Ortiz won.
That's when the two state employees, Paula Jordan and Rebecca Bright, filed an appeal. The appeals court ruled in a 2-1 vote that the pre-trial motion for dismissal should have been granted.
Ortiz appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court. Mills argued on her behalf that if the two employees were intent on claiming immunity, they should have kept on arguing it after their motion for summary judgment was dismissed, using procedures available during the trial and immediately after the verdict was read.
The Supreme Court agreed.
In a concurring opinion, Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed that the appeals court made a mistake, but they would have sent the case back to that court to consider other issues.
Since the attacks, "Ohio has instituted significant reforms to prevent this type of activity" and, if it occurs, to address it quickly, said Carlo LoParo, spokesman for the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.
Before Monday's ruling, various federal and state courts disagreed on the rules for challenging government-employee immunity if it is rejected before trial. The ruling will send a clear signal about how to proceed, said Alan Chen, director of the constitutional rights and remedies program at the University of Denver's Sturm College of Law.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Chicago artist's protest backfires as he faces 15 years in jail... because he recorded his own arrest on video
By Daily Mail Reporter
An artist who used a video camera to record being arrested by police is facing up to 15 years in prison.
Chris Drew has been charged with Class 1 felony under the Eavesdropping Act in Chicago, Illinois.
The bemused activist said he did not know anything about the law when he was protesting about restrictions on where artists can sell their work.
He has resorted to civil disobedience in his fight against rules he regards as draconian – and got a friend to record his arrest on an Olympus camera.
Mr Drew expected police to take him into custody before releasing him over the misdemeanour – but now he’s facing up to 15 years in jail.
He will go on trial on April 4 charged with using a digital recorder to capture his arrest on December 2, 2009.
He was selling silk-screened patches for $1 when he was stopped by police.
Footage of the incident has been posted on YouTube.
Three officers surround him in the tape before he is led away across the road and put into a vehicle.
The suspect told the Chicago News Cooperative: ‘I expected to be charged with a misdemeanour.
‘I didn’t know about the eavesdropping law. But when you fight for your rights, you have to expect anything. I have a ’60s bent to me. I won’t back down. I won’t be intimidated.
‘From the moment I comprehended these charges, I knew we had to change this law.’
Mr Drew, the founder of the Uptown Multi-Cultural Art Center, had set out to get himself arrested for selling items in the street three times before he was finally stopped by police.
Under the Eavesdropping Act, which applies in 12 states, all parties must consent to a recording being made.
Maryland, Illinois and Massachusetts are the only states where it is illegal to record conversations with the police.
In Illinois police are currently prosecuting nine people for alleged breaches of the law.
The maximum penalty is only three years behind bars for the first time the law is broken and five years if it is done again,
But anyone recording a judge, attorney general, state attorney or police officer can be sent to jail for up to 15 years.
An artist who used a video camera to record being arrested by police is facing up to 15 years in prison.
Chris Drew has been charged with Class 1 felony under the Eavesdropping Act in Chicago, Illinois.
The bemused activist said he did not know anything about the law when he was protesting about restrictions on where artists can sell their work.
He has resorted to civil disobedience in his fight against rules he regards as draconian – and got a friend to record his arrest on an Olympus camera.
Mr Drew expected police to take him into custody before releasing him over the misdemeanour – but now he’s facing up to 15 years in jail.
He will go on trial on April 4 charged with using a digital recorder to capture his arrest on December 2, 2009.
He was selling silk-screened patches for $1 when he was stopped by police.
Footage of the incident has been posted on YouTube.
Three officers surround him in the tape before he is led away across the road and put into a vehicle.
The suspect told the Chicago News Cooperative: ‘I expected to be charged with a misdemeanour.
‘I didn’t know about the eavesdropping law. But when you fight for your rights, you have to expect anything. I have a ’60s bent to me. I won’t back down. I won’t be intimidated.
‘From the moment I comprehended these charges, I knew we had to change this law.’
Mr Drew, the founder of the Uptown Multi-Cultural Art Center, had set out to get himself arrested for selling items in the street three times before he was finally stopped by police.
Under the Eavesdropping Act, which applies in 12 states, all parties must consent to a recording being made.
Maryland, Illinois and Massachusetts are the only states where it is illegal to record conversations with the police.
In Illinois police are currently prosecuting nine people for alleged breaches of the law.
The maximum penalty is only three years behind bars for the first time the law is broken and five years if it is done again,
But anyone recording a judge, attorney general, state attorney or police officer can be sent to jail for up to 15 years.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Burge sentence – justice still delayed and denied
by Ted Pearson
So Jon Burge has been sentenced to 54 months in prison by U. S. District Court Judge Joan H. Lefkow. That’s four and a half years. That’s twice the sentence suggested in the federal guidelines for perjury. In sentencing Burge Judge Lefkow noted the total lack of remorse by Burge for his crimes and his continued denial that he did anything wrong. She expressed shock that Burge’s attorneys justified what Burge did because the people he tortured were members of gangs and had been convicted of crimes, even though many were wrongfully convicted. She excoriated the City of Chicago and Cook County for what she called a failure of leadership, observing that had Burge’s supervisors and the Cook County State’s Attorney taken steps to stop Burge early in the saga of his crimes, “we would not have come to this point.” The State’s Attorney at the time was Chicago’s outgoing Mayor of 22 years, Richard M. Daley. Lefkow’s statement in issuing the sentence against Burge was an indictment of the city’s leadership.
But let’s keep some perspective on this. Burge’s 54 month sentence equates to 1643 days in prison. That’s 15 days for each man Burge and his detectives tortured.
Twenty four of these men are still in prison. The average prison sentence meted out to his victims is difficult to calculate, since 12 were sentenced to death (saved only by former Gov. George Ryan), or to life in prison without parole. Sixteen of his victims have been exonerated. The average, to date, of the number of years spent behind bars by his victims, is on the order of 25. Burge’s sentence is about fourteen hours for each year his victims have spent so far in prison. One year in prison for a Black or Latino man equals fourteen hours in prison for the white detective, Jon Burge. Such is the nature of our criminal justice system.
Not included, however, are the hundreds of men, all Black or Latino, who were tortured by Burge’s detectives AFTER he was removed from his position in 1991. These men have said at their trials that they falsely confessed and were convicted of crimes they did not commit. Many others make credible claims that they were framed by corrupt police simply to “clear their books,” to settle old scores, or in plea bargains with other criminals. The Chicago Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression has received scores of letters from such men.
There will be much discussion about the degree to which Burge’s sentence and Judge Lefkow’s statement were victories over police torture. Victims of his tortures who have been exonerated or released, and who were present in the courtroom when the sentence was delivered, were near unanimous in voicing their anger that he received such a light sentence, when so many of them have suffered decades of false imprisonment. U. S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said that “the investigation continues” into police torture in Chicago, but he did not say whether indictments against any of Burge’s partners in crime would be sought. Fitzgerald did not even hint that the U. S. Justice Department would take any steps to intervene on behalf of Burge’s victims who remain incarcerated. He did not suggest any effort to seek compensation for the victims of Burge’s crew, some of who are now homeless and living on the streets.
But lest it be lost in the discussion let’s remember this one simple fact: dozens of Black and Latino men who have alleged from the beginning that they gave false confessions under physical duress at the hands of police remain in prison, or face continued unemployment and ostracism because of false felony records. No matter how many years Jon Burge is in prison, his imprisonment will not free a single person. No matter how many of the police torturers may ultimately be brought before the bar of justice, it will not compensate a single torture victim for the loss of their freedom, the disruption and stress on their families, the psychological torment, or the physical damage to their persons.
Each of these torture survivors has lost part of their human potential, their ability to support their families. This, along with other everyday acts of racism and injustice, serves to as a constant reminder that the lives, hopes and dreams of people who are neither white nor rich, are expendable. Yet, the torture survivors have not lost their dignity due to this racist, inhumane treatment. They bravely share their stories, courageously testify, march, protest and keep fighting for justice. They inspire all who care about humanity, especially their attorneys, to step up and do the same, if not more to eliminate structural inequality, especially in the criminal justice system.
These men are imprisoned, or carry serious felony records, as a result of police crimes. They are crime victims in every sense of the word, and victims of crimes committed under color of law. Chicagoans who believe that all men and women are endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can not rest until these men are all free and have been compensated for the suffering they and their families have endured. The jailing of Jon Burge and the prosecution of his gang of torturers will not satisfy this demand. Only the restoration of these men to freedom and full citizenship can accomplish that.
In post-apartheid South Africa the Rev. Desmond Tutu led a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, at which the torturers of Black African freedom fighters faced their victims and accepted responsibility for their crimes. In Illinois there needs to be such a process. There is no legal precedent for it in the U. S. that I know of, but a first step would be for U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, and Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez to immediately create special units to investigate these claims of wrongful conviction and torture, and take steps to have the victims set free and compensated when the evidence supports their claims. Dallas County Texas District Attorney Craig Watkins has taken such an initiative utilizing DNA evidence, and 25 men in Dallas County have been freed in four years. We in Cook County can do no less.
#
Ted Pearson is Co-Chairperson of the Chicago Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, with offices at 1325 S. Wabash Av. Suite 105, Chicago IL 60605, 312-939-2750, http://www.naarpr.org.
So Jon Burge has been sentenced to 54 months in prison by U. S. District Court Judge Joan H. Lefkow. That’s four and a half years. That’s twice the sentence suggested in the federal guidelines for perjury. In sentencing Burge Judge Lefkow noted the total lack of remorse by Burge for his crimes and his continued denial that he did anything wrong. She expressed shock that Burge’s attorneys justified what Burge did because the people he tortured were members of gangs and had been convicted of crimes, even though many were wrongfully convicted. She excoriated the City of Chicago and Cook County for what she called a failure of leadership, observing that had Burge’s supervisors and the Cook County State’s Attorney taken steps to stop Burge early in the saga of his crimes, “we would not have come to this point.” The State’s Attorney at the time was Chicago’s outgoing Mayor of 22 years, Richard M. Daley. Lefkow’s statement in issuing the sentence against Burge was an indictment of the city’s leadership.
But let’s keep some perspective on this. Burge’s 54 month sentence equates to 1643 days in prison. That’s 15 days for each man Burge and his detectives tortured.
Twenty four of these men are still in prison. The average prison sentence meted out to his victims is difficult to calculate, since 12 were sentenced to death (saved only by former Gov. George Ryan), or to life in prison without parole. Sixteen of his victims have been exonerated. The average, to date, of the number of years spent behind bars by his victims, is on the order of 25. Burge’s sentence is about fourteen hours for each year his victims have spent so far in prison. One year in prison for a Black or Latino man equals fourteen hours in prison for the white detective, Jon Burge. Such is the nature of our criminal justice system.
Not included, however, are the hundreds of men, all Black or Latino, who were tortured by Burge’s detectives AFTER he was removed from his position in 1991. These men have said at their trials that they falsely confessed and were convicted of crimes they did not commit. Many others make credible claims that they were framed by corrupt police simply to “clear their books,” to settle old scores, or in plea bargains with other criminals. The Chicago Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression has received scores of letters from such men.
There will be much discussion about the degree to which Burge’s sentence and Judge Lefkow’s statement were victories over police torture. Victims of his tortures who have been exonerated or released, and who were present in the courtroom when the sentence was delivered, were near unanimous in voicing their anger that he received such a light sentence, when so many of them have suffered decades of false imprisonment. U. S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said that “the investigation continues” into police torture in Chicago, but he did not say whether indictments against any of Burge’s partners in crime would be sought. Fitzgerald did not even hint that the U. S. Justice Department would take any steps to intervene on behalf of Burge’s victims who remain incarcerated. He did not suggest any effort to seek compensation for the victims of Burge’s crew, some of who are now homeless and living on the streets.
But lest it be lost in the discussion let’s remember this one simple fact: dozens of Black and Latino men who have alleged from the beginning that they gave false confessions under physical duress at the hands of police remain in prison, or face continued unemployment and ostracism because of false felony records. No matter how many years Jon Burge is in prison, his imprisonment will not free a single person. No matter how many of the police torturers may ultimately be brought before the bar of justice, it will not compensate a single torture victim for the loss of their freedom, the disruption and stress on their families, the psychological torment, or the physical damage to their persons.
Each of these torture survivors has lost part of their human potential, their ability to support their families. This, along with other everyday acts of racism and injustice, serves to as a constant reminder that the lives, hopes and dreams of people who are neither white nor rich, are expendable. Yet, the torture survivors have not lost their dignity due to this racist, inhumane treatment. They bravely share their stories, courageously testify, march, protest and keep fighting for justice. They inspire all who care about humanity, especially their attorneys, to step up and do the same, if not more to eliminate structural inequality, especially in the criminal justice system.
These men are imprisoned, or carry serious felony records, as a result of police crimes. They are crime victims in every sense of the word, and victims of crimes committed under color of law. Chicagoans who believe that all men and women are endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can not rest until these men are all free and have been compensated for the suffering they and their families have endured. The jailing of Jon Burge and the prosecution of his gang of torturers will not satisfy this demand. Only the restoration of these men to freedom and full citizenship can accomplish that.
In post-apartheid South Africa the Rev. Desmond Tutu led a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, at which the torturers of Black African freedom fighters faced their victims and accepted responsibility for their crimes. In Illinois there needs to be such a process. There is no legal precedent for it in the U. S. that I know of, but a first step would be for U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, and Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez to immediately create special units to investigate these claims of wrongful conviction and torture, and take steps to have the victims set free and compensated when the evidence supports their claims. Dallas County Texas District Attorney Craig Watkins has taken such an initiative utilizing DNA evidence, and 25 men in Dallas County have been freed in four years. We in Cook County can do no less.
#
Ted Pearson is Co-Chairperson of the Chicago Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, with offices at 1325 S. Wabash Av. Suite 105, Chicago IL 60605, 312-939-2750, http://www.naarpr.org.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Burge witness: Torture charges 'unprecedented'
By Annie Sweeney
The sentencing hearing for former Chicago police Cmdr. Jon Burge recessed for the day after a University of Chicago professor testified that torture allegations against Burge are unlike any other police misconduct in the city's history.
“This is an unprecedented instance,’’ said Adam Green, who specializes in African-American history. “What happened at Area 2 is really a singular chapter.’’
Green said abuse by police strikes at entire communities, but a sense of worth and respect can be restored if the misconduct is addressed.
Earlier today, one of Burge's alleged victims took the stand and asked Burge, “Why would you do this? … You were supposed to be the law.”
Before a packed courtroom, Anthony Holmes told how he still dreams he is inside the now infamous room at the Area 2 station on the South Side where Burge allegedly used electric shock and suffocation to coerce confessions from suspects.
Holmes, saying it was difficult for him to testify about the abuse, took a deep breath before he started. He said his wrongful imprisonment shattered family relationships and caused constant fear of police and re-arrest.
Reading prepared remarks in a low voice, Holmes recounted what Burge allegedly did to him.
“Jon Burge shocked me and he suffocated me and forced me to confess,’’ he said. “ … He tried to kill me and it leaves a growing, hurting feeling.’’
A community activist and a former detective who worked in the same detective division where Burge is alleged to have abused and tortured suspects also testified.
Burge, wearing a dark blue suit, was slightly animated during testimony from Sammy Lacey, the former detective.
Lacey, who is African-American, talked of being passed over for homicide assignments and said he had heard “scuttlebutt’’ about the tactics Burge and others on a midnight shift used against suspects.
Lacey said they were referred to as the “A team.’’ When asked why, he replied, “They were the a-kicking team.’’
Burge’s sentencing hearing began at 10 a.m. with some 80 people lined up outside in the hallway hoping to get for a seat in U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow’s courtroom. An overflow room was set up to accommodate the crowd.
On Friday, Burge’s attorneys are expected to present testimony on his behalf and U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow could impose sentence after that.
The sentencing hearing for former Chicago police Cmdr. Jon Burge recessed for the day after a University of Chicago professor testified that torture allegations against Burge are unlike any other police misconduct in the city's history.
“This is an unprecedented instance,’’ said Adam Green, who specializes in African-American history. “What happened at Area 2 is really a singular chapter.’’
Green said abuse by police strikes at entire communities, but a sense of worth and respect can be restored if the misconduct is addressed.
Earlier today, one of Burge's alleged victims took the stand and asked Burge, “Why would you do this? … You were supposed to be the law.”
Before a packed courtroom, Anthony Holmes told how he still dreams he is inside the now infamous room at the Area 2 station on the South Side where Burge allegedly used electric shock and suffocation to coerce confessions from suspects.
Holmes, saying it was difficult for him to testify about the abuse, took a deep breath before he started. He said his wrongful imprisonment shattered family relationships and caused constant fear of police and re-arrest.
Reading prepared remarks in a low voice, Holmes recounted what Burge allegedly did to him.
“Jon Burge shocked me and he suffocated me and forced me to confess,’’ he said. “ … He tried to kill me and it leaves a growing, hurting feeling.’’
A community activist and a former detective who worked in the same detective division where Burge is alleged to have abused and tortured suspects also testified.
Burge, wearing a dark blue suit, was slightly animated during testimony from Sammy Lacey, the former detective.
Lacey, who is African-American, talked of being passed over for homicide assignments and said he had heard “scuttlebutt’’ about the tactics Burge and others on a midnight shift used against suspects.
Lacey said they were referred to as the “A team.’’ When asked why, he replied, “They were the a-kicking team.’’
Burge’s sentencing hearing began at 10 a.m. with some 80 people lined up outside in the hallway hoping to get for a seat in U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow’s courtroom. An overflow room was set up to accommodate the crowd.
On Friday, Burge’s attorneys are expected to present testimony on his behalf and U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow could impose sentence after that.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Family to get $1.8 million in dad's jailing, teen's false sex-assault interrogation
By JOHN WISELY and L.L. BRASIER
Free Press Staff Writers
A West Bloomfield Township family will get $1.8 million to settle a lawsuit against the police department, after the father was prosecuted and jailed after being accused of sexually assaulting his severely autistic daughter — a prosecution that eventually imploded..
The charges against Julian Wendrow were dropped for lack of evidence in March 2008, after he had spent 80 days in the Oakland County jail. His wife, Thal Wendrow, was also jailed, and the girl, 14, and her brother, 13, were placed in foster care for months.
The settlement was made public in district court filings today.
The Oakland County prosecutor’s case was based almost solely on statements the daughter reportedly made using facilitated communication, a widely discredited method in which the child typed on a keyboard with the assistance of a school aid. The girl, who does not speak and functions on the level of a two-year-old, reportedly typed that her father had been raping her since age seven. Prosecutors pursued the case, even though a physical exam showed no sign of assault.
The family sued in federal court in 2008, alleging 38 counts of false imprisonment, wrongful prosecution and other misdeeds.
The Wendrows named the police department as a defendant in part because of a two-hour interrogation a detective conducted with the 13-year-old boy, shortly after his parents arrests, wrongly telling him they had videotapes of both the boy and his father sexually assaulting the girl. The boy had no adult representative present for the interview.
Joseph Brusseau, the detective who remains on the police force, later admitted in depositions that was untrue. The boy, who suffers from Asperger's, a milder form of autism, can be seen in a video rocking and crying during the interview and insisting that neither he or his father had assaulted anyone.
The Free Press obtained a copy of the video of the interview and the parents said they had no objections to putting it on Freep.com.
“They pushed this thing in spite of literally having no evidence of any kind of abuse, other than this Faciliated Communication nonsense, which is in effect a Ouija board,” said Bloomfield Hills attorney Deborah Gordon, who represents the Wendrows. “What the police department did was unbelievably horrific.”
William Hampton, the attorney representing the police department, said the settlement was “nothing more than a business decision by the insurance company, with no admission of wrongdoing or of any liability.”
And he said the department would investigate the case the same way again, including the interrogation of the boy and the jailing of the father.
“We’ll assess everything, but really, right off hand, I can’t think of anything they would do differently because we really don’t think they did anything wrong.”
Facilitated communication has been widely dismissed by experts worldwide because studies show it is the aide who is actually doing the typing. Nevertheless, the Wendrows had pushed the school district to use it, hoping their daughter might be able to succeed in school work.
Oakland County prosecutors, who are also named in the suit, admit in depositions that they did not investigate the method prior to charging the Wendrows, and could not find anyone to support the method as reliable, despite calls nationwide after their arrests. They pursued the prosecution nevertheless. The charges were dropped in March when the girl was unable to type a single answer to questions posed to her in district court.
The Wendrows will be in federal court Thursday, where the prosecutors, and two other defendants, Walled Lake Consolidated School District and the Michigan Department of Human Services will argue to have the case dismissed because of governmental immunity.
Free Press Staff Writers
A West Bloomfield Township family will get $1.8 million to settle a lawsuit against the police department, after the father was prosecuted and jailed after being accused of sexually assaulting his severely autistic daughter — a prosecution that eventually imploded..
The charges against Julian Wendrow were dropped for lack of evidence in March 2008, after he had spent 80 days in the Oakland County jail. His wife, Thal Wendrow, was also jailed, and the girl, 14, and her brother, 13, were placed in foster care for months.
The settlement was made public in district court filings today.
The Oakland County prosecutor’s case was based almost solely on statements the daughter reportedly made using facilitated communication, a widely discredited method in which the child typed on a keyboard with the assistance of a school aid. The girl, who does not speak and functions on the level of a two-year-old, reportedly typed that her father had been raping her since age seven. Prosecutors pursued the case, even though a physical exam showed no sign of assault.
The family sued in federal court in 2008, alleging 38 counts of false imprisonment, wrongful prosecution and other misdeeds.
The Wendrows named the police department as a defendant in part because of a two-hour interrogation a detective conducted with the 13-year-old boy, shortly after his parents arrests, wrongly telling him they had videotapes of both the boy and his father sexually assaulting the girl. The boy had no adult representative present for the interview.
Joseph Brusseau, the detective who remains on the police force, later admitted in depositions that was untrue. The boy, who suffers from Asperger's, a milder form of autism, can be seen in a video rocking and crying during the interview and insisting that neither he or his father had assaulted anyone.
The Free Press obtained a copy of the video of the interview and the parents said they had no objections to putting it on Freep.com.
“They pushed this thing in spite of literally having no evidence of any kind of abuse, other than this Faciliated Communication nonsense, which is in effect a Ouija board,” said Bloomfield Hills attorney Deborah Gordon, who represents the Wendrows. “What the police department did was unbelievably horrific.”
William Hampton, the attorney representing the police department, said the settlement was “nothing more than a business decision by the insurance company, with no admission of wrongdoing or of any liability.”
And he said the department would investigate the case the same way again, including the interrogation of the boy and the jailing of the father.
“We’ll assess everything, but really, right off hand, I can’t think of anything they would do differently because we really don’t think they did anything wrong.”
Facilitated communication has been widely dismissed by experts worldwide because studies show it is the aide who is actually doing the typing. Nevertheless, the Wendrows had pushed the school district to use it, hoping their daughter might be able to succeed in school work.
Oakland County prosecutors, who are also named in the suit, admit in depositions that they did not investigate the method prior to charging the Wendrows, and could not find anyone to support the method as reliable, despite calls nationwide after their arrests. They pursued the prosecution nevertheless. The charges were dropped in March when the girl was unable to type a single answer to questions posed to her in district court.
The Wendrows will be in federal court Thursday, where the prosecutors, and two other defendants, Walled Lake Consolidated School District and the Michigan Department of Human Services will argue to have the case dismissed because of governmental immunity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
