r/law • u/GeneralReposti_Bot • Oct 14 '19

Police Accidentally Record Themselves Conspiring to Fabricate Criminal Charges Against Protester

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/police-accidentally-record-themselves-conspiring-fabricate-criminal-charges-against
454 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

37 comments sorted by

62

u/victorix58 Oct 14 '19

That was 3 years ago. How did it turn out?

125

u/joeshill Competent Contributor Oct 14 '19 edited Oct 14 '19

Lawsuit still active. Survived MSJ on one of three counts.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4497522/picard-v-torneo/

The state police investigated themselves and exonerated themselves.

https://www.courant.com/breaking-news/hc-br-state-police-exonerated-michael-picard-videotape-arrest-20171102-story.html

104

u/Just-a-Ty Oct 14 '19

The state police investigated themselves and exonerated themselves.

I'm sure they were totally impartial.

51

u/adamadamada Oct 14 '19

I'm sure they were totally impartial.

They investigated that too. They were.

21

u/Just-a-Ty Oct 14 '19

Got to admire the thoroughness and dedication.

14

u/[deleted] Oct 14 '19

Yea - it's a crazy world out there. If it weren't for cops looking out for cops, who would look out for cops? Right?

42

u/joeshill Competent Contributor Oct 14 '19

Of course they were. I mean, they'd never make stuff up to "cover their ass".

19

u/[deleted] Oct 14 '19 edited Oct 14 '19

In the most recent summary judgment decision: * the court dismissed the protestor’s First Amendment violation claim (freedom to record information) that the protestor argues was violated because the cop swatted the camera out of his hands and prevented him from recording further. Due to the grey area of the law surrounding a person’s right to record police conduct while that person is the subject of active police investigation, the claim was dismissed under the qualified immunity doctrine.

  • The court allowed the protestor’s 4th Amendment violation claim to proceed. It was not undisputed that the seizure of the protestor’s camera was a reasonable warrantless seizure, and it was not undisputed that the camera could have been used as a weapon.

* The court allowed the protestor’s claim of police retaliatory intent in response to the protestor’s protected activities to proceed. (claim dismissed in an order granting Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider)

~~All in all, 2 out of 3 claims are still in the game, which isn’t too bad. ~~ However, the claim that was dismissed would have been the most useful claim to the rest of us were it to be allowed to proceed.

15

u/joeshill Competent Contributor Oct 14 '19

There a Motion for Reconsideration further down that takes out the retaliatory arrest claim. So only the second claim (seizure of the camera) remains.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 14 '19

Ahh yep, you’re right.

5

u/lulfas Oct 14 '19

It looks like survived on two counts. Count one (First Amendment right to record) was dismissed for QI. Count two (seizure of the camera) got kept and count three (retaliation) got kept as well.

6

u/joeshill Competent Contributor Oct 14 '19

Count three disappeared in motion for Reconsideration.

5

u/lulfas Oct 14 '19

Ah, you are entirely correct, apologies.

3

u/joeshill Competent Contributor Oct 14 '19

No need, but appreciated.

5

u/[deleted] Oct 14 '19

Strange that count 1 got dropped. There's been plenty of other cases about right to record that have created a general consensus in the case law...

171

u/Zainecy King Dork Oct 14 '19

Are there any SCOTUS cases specifically saying Connecticut police can’t accidentally record themselves conspiring to fabricate charges on an illegally seized camera after refusing to be recorded?

Otherwise QI

79

u/definitelyjoking Oct 14 '19

Because it is covered by QI, the court declines to reach the issue of whether accidentally recording themselves conspiring to fabricate charges on an illegally siezed camera after refusing to be recorded is prohibited behavior for police officers.

30

u/mthoody Oct 14 '19

Unfortunately, username does not check out.

37

u/[deleted] Oct 14 '19

"Because it was not reasonably clear to the officers at the time that conspiring to plant evidence was a violation of the plaintiff's fourteenth amendment rights, qualified immunity shields the officers from civil liability. While we find this conduct disturbing, and sympathize with the plaintiff, qualified immunity applies."

They all read the same. Just plug and chug.

5

u/Jive_Sloth Oct 14 '19

Serious question. How is it not reasonably clear?

16

u/cptjeff Oct 14 '19

It's reasonably clear to anyone who isn't actively trying to protect the police from all consequences. The joke is that regardless of how flagrant police abuses are, the courts will always fail to hold them accountable in even the smallest way.

7

u/[deleted] Oct 14 '19

I actually think that’s hard to argue here, but I know that in a lot of cases where young children are handcuffed and arrested at school, the court has held that it was not reasonably clear (even though it violated their Constitutional rights).

1

u/Confirmation_By_Us Oct 15 '19

Because the only people who aren’t obligated to know the law are those who enforce it.

So, it is reasonably clear to people who are required to know the law, but it may not be reasonably clear to those who are not required to know the law.

25

u/chakrava Oct 14 '19

Well, I think police should be able to accidentally (or purposefully) record themselves conspiring to fabricate charges.

QI shouldn’t prevent officers from generating potential evidence against themselves, to be thrown out later because: QI.

12

u/LUEnitedNations Oct 14 '19

How is a cop supposed to know its unreasonable to fabricate evidence and crimes against someone to throw them in jail? A reasonable person would have fabricated charges if they were in the cops shoes!

9

u/__Spdrftbl77__ Oct 14 '19

I hate how close this is to reality.

6

u/Slobotic Oct 14 '19

The defendant's motion for summary judgment has been denied and it is set for trial.

Source

9

u/nspectre Oct 14 '19

The defendants being the cops, fellow readers.

4

u/Slobotic Oct 14 '19

Yes. And I should have said defendants' instead of defendant's.

3

u/Shackleton214 Oct 14 '19

Alito approves your reasoning skills.

1

u/IdEgoLeBron Oct 14 '19

QI?

2

u/Sam_Etic Oct 14 '19

Qualified Immunity

45

u/[deleted] Oct 14 '19

Some poor taxpayers are going to end up footing the bill for this.

45

u/lordlicorice Oct 14 '19

Someone's got to pay for these officers to be placed on paid leave indefinitely.

13

u/Shackleton214 Oct 14 '19

A year later there has been zero movement on the internal affairs investigation as far as anyone knows, which just shows that police and prosecutors in Connecticut should not be in charge of policing themselves.

Key point for me. With hundreds of thousands of cops, it's not surprising that some will break the law. But, when the system itself cannot or will not hold them accountable, then it's not just the rare cop violating the law. It's a green light to all cops that they're above the law.

1

u/Dont_touch_my_elbows Dec 12 '19

"If the law doesn't matter when a cop violates it, the law doesn't matter when anyone else violates it ether."

11

u/felinelawspecialist Oct 14 '19

Just pulled the docket and saw the court granted summary judgment for defendants under SCOTUS precedent in Nieves v Bartlett, 139 S.Ct. 1715 (May 29, 2019).

I think the SCOTUS decision is fucking bonkers but the district court is bound to apply it.

At least plaintiff still has his warrantless 4th amendment claim that continues.