Boston pays $170K to settle landmark case involving man arrested for recording police with cell phon

Boston pays $170K to settle landmark case involving man arrested for recording police with cell phone

www.aclum.org

BOSTON -- Simon Glik, a Boston attorney wrongly arrested and prosecuted for using his cell phone to record police officers forcefully arresting a man on the Boston Common, has reached a settlement with the City of Boston on his civil rights claims. The settlement requires the City to pay Glik $170,000 for his damages and legal fees.

Mr. Glik was forced to defend himself against criminal charges of illegal wiretapping, aiding the escape of a prisoner, and disturbing the peace.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
arstechnica.com
www.wgbh.org
aclum.org

I'm glad to see this guy emerge victorious from his legal case, the crimes they charged him with were over-the-top, "illegal wiretapping, aiding the escape of a prisoner, and disturbing the peace" - all from recording a video of an arrest in a public venue.

The authorities should realize by now that cell phone cameras are here to stay, maybe they should try to clean up their act and "serve and protect", instead of trying to act like thugs and enforcers.

No one should get arrested for this: Glik v. Cunniffe

www.aclum.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

If a case is settled out of court, does it still set a legal precedent? I sure hope so...

Half witted bootstompers wasting millions in our tax dollars to defecate on our constitutional rights.

They need to be held personally accountable, rather than paying money that comes out of our pockets,.

He deserves more than that for being put through all that.

If they can come up with $14 trillion for the pigs on Wall Street they can give this trooper who slogged though all that on his own a little more cash, I believe.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer

...a Boston attorney wrongly arrested and prosecuted for using his cell phone...

Attorney?

And what if it had not been an attorney.

Originally posted by SilentKoala
If a case is settled out of court, does it still set a legal precedent? I sure hope so...

I'd say no, it does not set a precedent.

Not totally sure about that though.

If he had not been an attorney he would likely still be in jail.
Thing is that any attorney who would step up to defend a person in this position could only do himself a big favor by getting publicity which would bring him more business. And besides that, he would get a share of the settlement. $$$$$$
However, this never seems to happen.
I have to wonder why not?
There is no lack of bold personalities in the court room.

Well done to this Lawyer who stood his ground, in the face of criminal charges, ridicule from those who employed these two officers.

Lets hope those officers do not target this lawyer in retaliation of him winning his case.

Doesnt matter. It's not like the cops or the city or the state were punished.

It's the taxpayers who have to pay the fine.

There's no punishment if it isnt your property on the line.

So Boston will just continue to do whatever it wants. Its the residents who are paying the bills for the cities actions.

Like some rich kid whose father pays his parking tickets. He'll never learn.

Originally posted by capone1

Originally posted by SilentKoala
If a case is settled out of court, does it still set a legal precedent? I sure hope so...

I'd say no, it does not set a precedent.

Not totally sure about that though.

Ahh but can we trust we trust a Capone when it comes to all things legal?

So instead of arresting violent offenders these slobs arrest a lawyer for filming them?More disregard for civil rights and abusing authority.F%*k them.

Originally posted by capone1

Originally posted by SilentKoala
If a case is settled out of court, does it still set a legal precedent? I sure hope so...

I'd say no, it does not set a precedent.

Not totally sure about that though.

According to the article, the judgment was from the U.S. Court of Appeals, so it does set a legal precedent.

Last year, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit unanimously ruled that Glik had a "clearly established" First Amendment right to record the actions of public officials on a public sidewalk. Boston finally admitted it had made a mistake earlier this year, and Boston taxpayers will now be paying for the screw-up.

"The First Amendment includes the freedom to observe and document the conduct of government officials, which is crucial to a democracy and a free society."

If only the police understood that...

I've seen a lot of my friends harassed because they were taping police officers' (illegal) actions in a public place. The officers tried saying they could arrest them for it and tried to make them delete the videos but my friends basically said "F you, I know my rights"

Originally posted by SilentKoala
If a case is settled out of court, does it still set a legal precedent? I sure hope so...

If settling this way doesn't make proper precedent, look at the bright side of what it DOES do. It sets another precedent thats almost as real and every bit as important. It sets the precedent of large compensation awards by jury for being abused by the cops for recording what your eye can legally observe.

What happened to that 'The Eye can't trespass' concept? My neighbor tried having be run in for recording his property 24/7 from difference angles after he'd made a nuisance of himself for months. It's the only thing that worked and work it did. Quickly. Only after the local police came out and told him I could record everything I wanted...as long as what I filmed was visible and accessible from a position on public property. I.E. The eye can't trespass.

Originally posted by capone1

Originally posted by SilentKoala
If a case is settled out of court, does it still set a legal precedent? I sure hope so...

I'd say no, it does not set a precedent.

Not totally sure about that though.

All legal cases set precedent in their jurisdiction unless they are following precedent.
Sometimes precedent in other jurisdictions will be followed, but it's then up to a judges discretion.
That's how it works.

At the very least, such a precedent will give law enforcement pause to go after those who record their public actions.

These charges and ANY laws that prohibit bystanders from taking video of interactios between the public and police are a disgrace to the founding principals of the U.S. constitution and civil rights in general around the globe. It's bad enough that police departments across North Amerrica and Europe now have complete anonymity by using Project 25 encryption on their radio's; who's watching the watchers making sure they don't overstep the authority given to them by the people?

Good ruling.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


To my mind the only way of clearing up the abuse of powers by such as the police is to make individual officers to pay the damages the city only bearing the total amount and recover it from the officers.

I'm wondering if its illegal to follow a police officers car? Perhaps those out of work could be mobilized into following and recording the police as close to 24/7 as they can (without trespassing, speeding etc. zoom lenses for safety of course). Obviously it would involve a massive movement. But maybe it would clean out some of the bad eggs? Citizen Detective Capturers, or CDC... hmmm disease control....