Post by WaTcHeR on Jan 31, 2007 12:41:19 GMT -5
Victim of False Arrest Gets Police Check in ACLU Office
John Doe (name changed to protect the innocent) was videotaping the scene in Freedom Plaza when a Park Police officer asked him if he had a permit to videotape. When Doe refused to turn off his camera, he was arrested! The Park Police sustained Mr. Doe's claim of misconduct, disciplined the police officer and now have paid Mr. Doe a five-figure check for damages to settle the lawsuit filed by the ACLU-NCA on his behalf.
This case illustrates the abuse of authority that some Park Police officers engage in, to the discredit of the majority who do not. Here are some of the facts as laid out in the complaint.
One summer afternoon, Mr. Doe was crossing Freedom Plaza while carrying his videocamera when he saw Park Police Officer Brian Perry interacting with a group of young people and began videotaping the scene.
Officer Perry then approached plaintiff and the following dialogue ensued (as recorded on plaintiff’s videotape):
Officer Perry: How you doing? Do you have a permit to be taping on National Park Service grounds? Goodbye! [Waving him away.] See ya. See ya. [Waving.] Sir, I’m asking you … you’re interfering with a government function. Goodbye!
Plaintiff: I’m recording a government function, I’m not interfering.
Officer Perry: No you’re not. You got a permit for it?
Plaintiff: Why do I need to have a permit?
Officer Perry: ’cause you’re taping me. I’m a government agent.
Plaintiff: Why do I need to have a permit to tape you?
Officer Perry: You need a permit to tape me, yes you do. Get lost!
Plaintiff: I need a ... I need ... Can you explain that to me? So I can find a proper reference of that. Where can I find the information on that?
Officer Perry: You being here is gonna cost them so if it’s your friends that are right here …
Plaintiff: They’re not my friends. I don’t know any of these people.
Officer Perry: OK. OK.
Plaintiff: But I think if they are being…
Officer Perry: You’re interfering with a government function. I’m gonna ask you one more time and then you’re gonna get locked up.
Plaintiff: I’m not interfering with a government function. I wasn’t interfering, I was recording.
Officer Perry: You’re bothering me, bothering me. You’re interrupting my business.
Plaintiff: So my presence recording you bothers you enough that you would lock me up?
Officer Perry: Yes it is. Yes it is. Yes it is.
Plaintiff: And you have authority to do that?
Officer Perry: Yes I do.
Plaintiff: By what ... By what ...?
Officer Perry: You’re interfering with a government function. 36 CFR. Want me to go find it?
Plaintiff: And what exactly is that? No, I’ll find it if you can tell me where it is.
Officer Perry: You’re gonna get locked up. Put your hands behind your back.
Plaintiff: You’re gonna lock me up? You’re gonna lock me up?
Officer Perry: Put your hands behind your back. Put your hands behind your back.
Officer Perry then placed plaintiff under arrest, handcuffed him, summoned other officers to the scene, and transported plaintiff to a police facility for processing.
Officer Perry’s conduct was unjustified:
There is no law or regulation requiring plaintiff to have a permit to videotape on National Park Service grounds.
There is no law or regulation requiring plaintiff to have a permit to videotape a Park Police officer.
Plaintiff was not interfering with Officer Perry.
Plaintiff was not interfering with a government function.
Officer Perry did not have probable cause to arrest plaintiff for any offense.
Officer Perry had no legal or factual justification to arrest or detain plaintiff.
On the ride to the police facility, Officer Perry told plaintiff that, as it was a Friday afternoon, he could expect to spend “a long weekend in jail.” Officer Perry knew or should have known that this statement was probably untrue. In fact, plaintiff was processed and held in a cell for approximately six hours. He was released late that evening with a citation charging him with having violated 36 CFR § 2.32 (“Interfering with agency functions”).
Mr. Doe returned from the West Coast to Washington for his criminal hearing where, after neither Officer Perry nor anyone else fromt he Park Police appeared, the charge was dismissed. Shortly thereafter, when he was riding his bicycle on Pennsylvania Avenue, Officer Perry saw him and began following him in his police vehicle, calling to him over his loudspeaker in an excited tone. Officer Perry had no justification for acting in that manner.
Mr. Doe filed a complaint with the U.S. Park Police regarding Officer Perry’s conduct. Plaintiff subsequently received a letter from Captain James W. Moore, Commander, Central District, U.S. Park Police, stating:
“After investigation, we have concluded that your complaint must be classified as sustained, that is the allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to justify a reasonable conclusion of misconduct. As such, we will be taking the appropriate administrative action against the officer.”
In December 2004, John Doe (center in photo above) was at the ACLU-NCA office with Legal Director Arthur Spitzer (left) and Staff Counsel Donn Cohen (right), together with his settlement check from the government.
We have presented in some detail the facts set forth in the complaint so that everyone can understand how tragic it is when a police officer violates his public trust and abuses the rights of his fellow human being.
Although not reflective of all--or even most--law enforcement officials, Officer Perry's conduct is, sad too say, also not uncommon (as you can gather from any check of the news or this website).
Mr. Doe had the determination to stand up for his rights, and the foresight to keep his videocamera running. Had not the Park Police been confronted by that evidence, one wonders how forthcoming would have been their laudable conclusion that Officer Perry had indeed engaged in misconduct?
Similarly, without the benefit of a recording, one wonders how many other charges by a police officer that an individual has "interfered with an investigation," "failed to move along," or was similarly both groundless and retaliatory--but never remedied?
If you believe that you have been the victim of police misconduct in Washington, DC or Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, please contact the ACLU-NCA office at (202) 437-0800.
www.aclu-nca.org/page.asp?JID=38
John Doe (name changed to protect the innocent) was videotaping the scene in Freedom Plaza when a Park Police officer asked him if he had a permit to videotape. When Doe refused to turn off his camera, he was arrested! The Park Police sustained Mr. Doe's claim of misconduct, disciplined the police officer and now have paid Mr. Doe a five-figure check for damages to settle the lawsuit filed by the ACLU-NCA on his behalf.
This case illustrates the abuse of authority that some Park Police officers engage in, to the discredit of the majority who do not. Here are some of the facts as laid out in the complaint.
One summer afternoon, Mr. Doe was crossing Freedom Plaza while carrying his videocamera when he saw Park Police Officer Brian Perry interacting with a group of young people and began videotaping the scene.
Officer Perry then approached plaintiff and the following dialogue ensued (as recorded on plaintiff’s videotape):
Officer Perry: How you doing? Do you have a permit to be taping on National Park Service grounds? Goodbye! [Waving him away.] See ya. See ya. [Waving.] Sir, I’m asking you … you’re interfering with a government function. Goodbye!
Plaintiff: I’m recording a government function, I’m not interfering.
Officer Perry: No you’re not. You got a permit for it?
Plaintiff: Why do I need to have a permit?
Officer Perry: ’cause you’re taping me. I’m a government agent.
Plaintiff: Why do I need to have a permit to tape you?
Officer Perry: You need a permit to tape me, yes you do. Get lost!
Plaintiff: I need a ... I need ... Can you explain that to me? So I can find a proper reference of that. Where can I find the information on that?
Officer Perry: You being here is gonna cost them so if it’s your friends that are right here …
Plaintiff: They’re not my friends. I don’t know any of these people.
Officer Perry: OK. OK.
Plaintiff: But I think if they are being…
Officer Perry: You’re interfering with a government function. I’m gonna ask you one more time and then you’re gonna get locked up.
Plaintiff: I’m not interfering with a government function. I wasn’t interfering, I was recording.
Officer Perry: You’re bothering me, bothering me. You’re interrupting my business.
Plaintiff: So my presence recording you bothers you enough that you would lock me up?
Officer Perry: Yes it is. Yes it is. Yes it is.
Plaintiff: And you have authority to do that?
Officer Perry: Yes I do.
Plaintiff: By what ... By what ...?
Officer Perry: You’re interfering with a government function. 36 CFR. Want me to go find it?
Plaintiff: And what exactly is that? No, I’ll find it if you can tell me where it is.
Officer Perry: You’re gonna get locked up. Put your hands behind your back.
Plaintiff: You’re gonna lock me up? You’re gonna lock me up?
Officer Perry: Put your hands behind your back. Put your hands behind your back.
Officer Perry then placed plaintiff under arrest, handcuffed him, summoned other officers to the scene, and transported plaintiff to a police facility for processing.
Officer Perry’s conduct was unjustified:
There is no law or regulation requiring plaintiff to have a permit to videotape on National Park Service grounds.
There is no law or regulation requiring plaintiff to have a permit to videotape a Park Police officer.
Plaintiff was not interfering with Officer Perry.
Plaintiff was not interfering with a government function.
Officer Perry did not have probable cause to arrest plaintiff for any offense.
Officer Perry had no legal or factual justification to arrest or detain plaintiff.
On the ride to the police facility, Officer Perry told plaintiff that, as it was a Friday afternoon, he could expect to spend “a long weekend in jail.” Officer Perry knew or should have known that this statement was probably untrue. In fact, plaintiff was processed and held in a cell for approximately six hours. He was released late that evening with a citation charging him with having violated 36 CFR § 2.32 (“Interfering with agency functions”).
Mr. Doe returned from the West Coast to Washington for his criminal hearing where, after neither Officer Perry nor anyone else fromt he Park Police appeared, the charge was dismissed. Shortly thereafter, when he was riding his bicycle on Pennsylvania Avenue, Officer Perry saw him and began following him in his police vehicle, calling to him over his loudspeaker in an excited tone. Officer Perry had no justification for acting in that manner.
Mr. Doe filed a complaint with the U.S. Park Police regarding Officer Perry’s conduct. Plaintiff subsequently received a letter from Captain James W. Moore, Commander, Central District, U.S. Park Police, stating:
“After investigation, we have concluded that your complaint must be classified as sustained, that is the allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to justify a reasonable conclusion of misconduct. As such, we will be taking the appropriate administrative action against the officer.”
In December 2004, John Doe (center in photo above) was at the ACLU-NCA office with Legal Director Arthur Spitzer (left) and Staff Counsel Donn Cohen (right), together with his settlement check from the government.
We have presented in some detail the facts set forth in the complaint so that everyone can understand how tragic it is when a police officer violates his public trust and abuses the rights of his fellow human being.
Although not reflective of all--or even most--law enforcement officials, Officer Perry's conduct is, sad too say, also not uncommon (as you can gather from any check of the news or this website).
Mr. Doe had the determination to stand up for his rights, and the foresight to keep his videocamera running. Had not the Park Police been confronted by that evidence, one wonders how forthcoming would have been their laudable conclusion that Officer Perry had indeed engaged in misconduct?
Similarly, without the benefit of a recording, one wonders how many other charges by a police officer that an individual has "interfered with an investigation," "failed to move along," or was similarly both groundless and retaliatory--but never remedied?
If you believe that you have been the victim of police misconduct in Washington, DC or Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, please contact the ACLU-NCA office at (202) 437-0800.
www.aclu-nca.org/page.asp?JID=38