Seeming Police Harassment of Peaceful Protesters:
The ACLU of Georgia reports that it is suing "on behalf of two vegan protesters who were subjected to false imprisonment, false arrest and harassment by officials of the Homeland Security Division of DeKalb County and the DeKalb County Police Department."
It also links to the police detective's report, which seems to me to substantiate the ACLU's charges — harassment and false arrest sounds like the right description, based on the detective's own description of what happened. There might of course be some factual details that would change the analysis, but right now it looks like pretty bad behavior.
What is that?
That's pretty damn bad.
I defend 1983 lawsuits for a living, and this is pretty egregious.
Whatever punishment these officers finally receive, it should include civics class.
One of the most destructive unions that conservatives never complain about is the FOP. The union has made it extremely difficult to weed out dishonest and abusive cops.
That strength guess that makes the FOP an effective union (even more effective than the teachers unions conservatives love to hate). But it also makes the FOP a bad citizen (worse than the teachers unions conservatives love to hate).
Incidentally, the fact that these cops wrote all this stupidity down suggest that they really didn't understand the law. (If they did, they wouldn't have been so detailed in the report.) This suggests a failure not merely of judgment on the part of the officers and detective, but of policy and training on the part of the department as well.
The scene that I picture based ont he cops report does not shock me at all. Maybe if I had been there and saw that the couple were really passive as lambs I would be more outraged.
But even if a state could ban such communication, I'm unaware of any law that in fact bans it -- I know of no legal authority for the police officer to demand that the protesters turn over what the protesters saw and wrote down in a public place.
(a) A person commits the offense of disorderly conduct when such person commits any of the following:
(1) Acts in a violent or tumultuous manner toward another person whereby such person is placed in reasonable fear of the safety of such person´s life, limb, or health;
(2) Acts in a violent or tumultuous manner toward another person whereby the property of such person is placed in danger of being damaged or destroyed;
(3) Without provocation, uses to or of another person in such other person´s presence, opprobrious or abusive words which by their very utterance tend to incite to an immediate breach of the peace, that is to say, words which as a matter of common knowledge and under ordinary circumstances will, when used to or of another person in such other person´s presence, naturally tend to provoke violent resentment, that is, words commonly called 'fighting words'; or
(4) Without provocation, uses obscene and vulgar or profane language in the presence of or by telephone to a person under the age of 14 years which threatens an immediate breach of the peace.
(b) Any person who commits the offense of disorderly conduct shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(c) This Code section shall not be deemed or construed to affect or limit the powers of counties or municipal corporations to adopt ordinances or resolutions prohibiting disorderly conduct within their respective limits.
Do some states have laws against gathering information about the police or specific officers? Also, if you could really establish that it was an officer safety issue (for instance they reasonably believed that these people might use the info to later hunt down this cop and harm him) wouldn't it be permissible to confiscate the info. I know I am assuming a lot.
This case is appalling.
Your arguments amount to speculation that the detective's conduct is excusable because his report of his conduct is inaccurate: i.e., the facts are as you speculate, not as the officer on the scene reported. I suppose that it's possible that you're right. But, at this point, it's foolish to prefer bald speculation to the plain (if inconvenient) text of the report.
Actually, I take that back (in part). Looking at the dictionary, it turns out when boisterous is applied to the weather, it can suggest violence ("boisterous" waves and whatnot).* [Of course, our good detective was not confronted with a weather event.]
*You learn something new every day.
I thought cops were trained better than this. First, don't use the secret car when doing things that aren't secret. Second, it's not a crime to take notes.
"von" is right. This does sound like something out of The Onion.
But seriously. If the officers felt like the undercover car's cover had been blown, request a new license plate. Surely the police can do that?
This stuff makes me ill.
What's more distressing is that Jailgor, presumably a guy who thinks about legal issues (hey, he reads VC) can imagine any set of circumstances under which this police is OK.
Let's see, I see someone photographing/surveilling me. I note some identifying characteristic of theirs, whether it's writing down a license number or taking a picture of them. They then announce that (a) that they're entitled to surveil me, because they're undercover cops and (b) that I'm not permitted to retain whatever info I have about who they are, because it might result in their identities being disclosed.
Am I not entitled to verify if they're in fact what they claim to be? Am I only entitled to keep information as to who's surveilling me in public it it's NOT the state?
Truly better than Orwell, or Heller...
First, I was curious about the legitimacy of the confrontation to begin with. I wondered whether the police might have some right to ask for that lcense number back especially after clearly establishing that they were the police. Eugene answered that question and I except his answer.
Second, I just wanted to note that once the confrontation took place, how violent or erratic the protestors were acting is not clear from the report. You can't really judge unless your there. I have read a number of police reports in my day including one that conveyed the details of a homicide scene and believe me, no matter how dramatic the scenario, they were all dry as dirt. I just wanted to make that point.
For the record, I think it was wierd that the police were there taking pictures to begin with and I am fully ready to believe that the protestors were perfectly calm and reasonable and that the cops were just being bullies.
It's certainly happened to me.
Dekalb Ordinance 16-58 provides:
Sec. 16-58. Disorderly conduct.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to act in a loud and boisterous, reckless, unruly or violent manner for the purpose of insulting, degrading, or inciting another or a group of individuals in a public place.
(b) It is not the intent of this section to restrict any individual's right to free speech.
(Ord. No. 90-32, § 1, 8-14-90)
If the vehicle is a government vehicle it will normally have a tag that will identify the vehicle as belonging to some (local or state) government agency, local county, municipality, or state government. Unless the vehicle had a normal tag because it was being used for undercover work, it had a special tag on it identifying as government owned. Police cars in Georgia normally have this type of special tag on them. If these dectectives were using a police car (with this special tag) they were not really undercover and anyone could get the tag number and find out who using the vehicle.
Being a legal layman, I would not be surprised if there are some federal civil rights charges that could be pursued against these detectives.
You guys are all missing the most hilarious quote of all in the officers report. "Freeman (one of the protestors) attempted to pull his arm from Gorman (cop) in a threatening manner." The nerve of those folks. To think they have Fourth Amendment rights against search and seizure.
Jailgor,
Your civil rights don't depend on you being perfectly calm and reasonable. Even real criminals have civil rights. Why are you willing to hold citizens to a standard of being "perfectly calm and reasonable" in order find what they were doing is okay. First they had someone taking info down in a suspicious manner, and then they're Fourth Amendment rights are violated once (illegal stop) and attempted to be violated again (asking for their property, the paper) and finally violated again (there's no way handcuffing somebody qualifies as a Terry Stop).
In your view, when do people have the right to stop being "perfectly calm and reasonable," to authorities acting like jack-booted thugs?
moreover, that the officers demanded something is irrelevant. Officers demand things all the time; it just isn't the same ordering, and the law is pretty consistent, it's your fault for not asking the officer to distinguish orders from requests.
when police officers are pushing the limits, pushing you, the only safe course of action is silence. You give your name. If you know of know of no crime or you reasonably view yourself as the target, you just ignore further questions. If the officer asks you for the piece of paper, you just sit there. You don't argue. You don't refuse. You just do not act. If you're uncertain you ask if the officer is ordering you. If he says yes, you capitulate and then sue. If he refuses to say yes or no. You very calmly and quietly repeat the question in response to every request. If he says no, you ignore him. It's pretty simple.
They on the other hand did precisely the wrong things, and in so doing opened themselves to what is frankly clear danger under the law.
You never have a right not to be calm in public. Almost anywhere not doing so _will_ qualify you for disorderly conduct charge.
People whether or not they are officers have a right not endure boisterousness in public--the First amendment is not grounds for being excused from laws regulating civility.
And your suggestion for how to deal with a cop pushing the limits sounds like it would be very frustrating for the cop. If you have a cop who really disregards the law, he might decide to take you into custody and beat what he wants out of you.
Crane:
In the face of harassment by a police officer, there is little you may legally do at the time of harassment. Anything but the silent approach is likely to actually run you afoul of the law--which is structured to protect police officers + presumes their integrity. When faced with harassment by the police, the best approach is avoid any basis on which you might be arrested and convicted, collect documentation, and sue.
But if you don't do step one (protect yourself from easy accusations) you'll be in the position that Angelfactor describes... namely that you're forced to trade-in your just complaint to escape prosecution for a crime that you did in fact commit even if you actions are arguably justified.
Energy should be focused on defanging the law, not on a case-by-case censoring of police officers.
Also, I agree that the silent approach can anger police officers but psychology suggests that it actually extremely effective because it deprives them of a stream of pretexts in which to respond and overcome their own moral hesitancies.
I'm also interested in what definition of boisterous doesn't involve violent or threastening behaviour. It's also unsurprising that boisterous appears to be a term of art under the applicable law.
Everyone needs to calm down, as this is standard police conduct and not all objectionable.