I was arrested for filming police tonight

[carolina guy]

Should not be the case as there is no qualified immunity.

Both the LEO and the LEA need to be forced to pay unless the LEA can show that the LEO was clearly and properly trained and should have known better.

 

[jhfc]

Since the right to film the police in public has been established for some time now, I would expect those in the profession of law enforcement to have no excuse for not knowing this fact.

What would be interesting would be to find out what training/policies the LEA had put in place with regard to this fact and if there had been any communications during the event encouraging breaking the law on the part of the LEOs. Have there been other incidents of this sort in the recent past? Is it pattern?

 

[tombrewster421]

I'm not worried about the charges, just frustrated and wondering if I should sue, since this type of thing seems to be escalating.

All the material in the case law database and LE Digest regarding recording officers stems around damages for when LEOs arrest recorders.

I know I CAN sue, but not sure if I should.


LEO DIGEST DEC 04
"RCW 9.73, the “Privacy Act” governing the interception and recording of private
conversations and communications, does not define “private conversation” for purposes of
the Act’s general prohibition on single-party-consent taping of private conversations.
However, several decisions have held that that a citizen does not violate the statute if the
citizen tapes the officer’s spoken words or radio communications where the contact occurs
in a public place. State v. Flora, 68 Wn. App. 802 (Div. I, 1992) July ’93 LED:17; Alford v.
Haner, 333 F.3d 972 (9
th
Cir. 2003) Sept. ’03 LED:06 (Civil rights lawsuit for unlawful
arrest); Johnson v. City of Sequim, 382 F.3d 944 (9
th
Cir. 2004) Oct. ’04 LED:22; Dec. ’04
LED:14 (Civil rights lawsuit for unlawful arrest)."


LED DEC 2004, p16:
"No “qualified immunity” for the arresting officer The Johnson majority opinion also holds that the Flora Court’s interpretation of chapter 9.73
RCW was “clearly established” when the officer arrested Johnson. Therefore, the Johnson Court holds, the officer is not entitled to defend against personal liability under the federal Civil Rights Act on the “qualified immunity” ground that a reasonable officer would not have known of
the controlling law at the time of the arrest. "

"...Under
City of Canton v. Harris
, 489 U.S. 378 (1989), the Department's failure to
train its officers about the Privacy Act may amount to "deliberate indifference"
toward unlawful arrests under its provisions. As the Supreme Court has
explained:... " ibid

Oh gee, a post that cites why officers are NOT entitled to qualified immunity straight from the first page in the thread. Did you even read the whole first page? It was the fourth post even.

 

[509rifas]

Since there is no qualified immunity associated with a case like this I'm not sure why the city would settle. The suit should be going directly at the officer(s) involved in the rights violation. The taxpayers shouldn't be penalized for the actions of a couple dumb cops.

The city is liable for failure to train. Check the Dec 04 LED (I'm on a fone right now so I can't paste a link). Or really anything index in the WA CJTC will tell you. I believe both the 9th circuit and state courts made that clear on this particular issue.
I'd like to see the reason why the Dep. Chief didn't say or do anything, nor did anyone else. They were ALL responsible to know the law; they're cops for christs sake.

 

[davidmcbeth]

I think it would be a good idea for the LEO to keep his job, how else is he going to pay for the civil suit he should be losing?

Or be a money maker for citizens whose rights he tends to violate?

 

[DocWalker]

Oh gee, a post that cites why officers are NOT entitled to qualified immunity straight from the first page in the thread. Did you even read the whole first page? It was the fourth post even.

So your saying the PD and City isn't responsiable for stupid cops patroling the street that don't know basic laws?

This is the conclusion you have base this on; it has more to do with harrassment than why he was arrested.

The City and PD are resposiable for the actions in the performance of his duties to include his training.

 

[davidmcbeth]

So your saying the PD and City isn't responsiable for stupid cops patroling the street that don't know basic laws?

This is the conclusion you have base this on; it has more to do with harrassment than why he was arrested.

The City and PD are resposiable for the actions in the performance of his duties to include his training.

As far as being a plaintiff and getting $$$ I always list both .. I don't really care who pays me as long as I get $$$

 

[tombrewster421]

So your saying the PD and City isn't responsiable for stupid cops patroling the street that don't know basic laws?

This is the conclusion you have base this on; it has more to do with harrassment than why he was arrested.

The City and PD are resposiable for the actions in the performance of his duties to include his training.

And if they did train him but he felt the need to harass him anyway, then the city would not be liable. Either way the officer doesn't have immunity because it's his job to know not to violate the rights of others. If the city didn't train him then they can both be sued.

 

[carolina guy]

And if they did train him but he felt the need to harass him anyway, then the city would not be liable. Either way the officer doesn't have immunity because it's his job to know not to violate the rights of others. If the city didn't train him then they can both be sued.

If the city trained him and he violated the OP'ers civil rights, the city will still need to show that this was an isolated incident otherwise, they should be liable for failing to correct his behavior or removing him from the force.

Regardless, if the city DID train him properly, then it sounds like a civil and criminal problem for the LEO.

 

[rapgood]

And if they did train him but he felt the need to harass him anyway, then the city would not be liable. Either way the officer doesn't have immunity because it's his job to know not to violate the rights of others. If the city didn't train him then they can both be sued.

Even if city trained him, they can be sued for negligent supervision.

 

[tombrewster421]

If the city trained him and he violated the OP'ers civil rights, the city will still need to show that this was an isolated incident otherwise, they should be liable for failing to correct his behavior or removing him from the force.

Regardless, if the city DID train him properly, then it sounds like a civil and criminal problem for the LEO.

Yes it sounds like we understand each other now. Basically the individual officer can and should be held liable. Obviously if he doesn't get slapped with a personal lawsuit and is covered by the taxpayer dime then he would just go on doing whatever he wants.

 

[jhfc]

Even if city trained him, they can be sued for negligent supervision.

At this point would the City's best course be to profusely apologize, drop all charges against the OP and provide a proper training plan to their employees such that these gross violations of an innocent person's rights don't happen again? Or is it too late for that?

 

[tombrewster421]

Even if city trained him, they can be sued for negligent supervision.

But the unlawful arrest would only be on the officer, correct?

 

[carolina guy]

Even if city trained him, they can be sued for negligent supervision.

(*what he said*)

 

[carolina guy]

But the unlawful arrest would only be on the officer, correct?

My guess would be yes...unless his supervisor knew WHY the OP was arrested and then did nothing to correct the unlawful arrest immediately. Still sounds like it needs to cost the city some $$ to ensure they train the rest of the force properly.

 

[rapgood]

But the unlawful arrest would only be on the officer, correct?

No. I think that the OP can go after the city for the unlawful arrest on the theory that it was the policy of the city, by and through its chief of police, to approve, acquiesce, condone and ratify the unreasonable seizure and detention of the OP in violation of his 4Am rights.

 

[hermannr]

No. I think that the OP can go after the city for the unlawful arrest on the theory that it was the policy of the city, by and through its chief of police, to approve, acquiesce, condone and ratify the unreasonable seizure and detention of the OP in violation of his 4Am rights.

Same reasoning, I think you should go after the police union too, for encouraging this type of illegal activity.

 

[F350]

At this point would the City's best course be to profusely apologize, drop all charges against the OP and provide a proper training plan to their employees such that these gross violations of an innocent person's rights don't happen again? Or is it too late for that?

My understanding is that even if charges are dropped the arrest record remains to haunt the OP for the rest of his life; he has been damaged and deserves just compensation.

 

[davidmcbeth]

My understanding is that even if charges are dropped the arrest record remains to haunt the OP for the rest of his life; he has been damaged and deserves just compensation.

good point

 

[Jamesm760]

I would like some money... Where are the LEOs in my area that violate rights...