Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

The Courts News

Boston Pays Out $170,000 To Man Arrested For Recording Police 270

Posted by Soulskill
from the better-than-a-strongly-worded-letter dept.
Ian Lamont writes "The City of Boston has reached a $170,000 settlement with Simon Glik, who was arrested by Boston Police in 2007 after using his mobile phone to record police arresting another man on Boston Common. Police claimed that Glik had violated state wiretapping laws, but later dropped the charges and admitted the officers were wrong to arrest him. Glik had brought a lawsuit against the city (aided by the ACLU) because he claimed his civil rights were violated. According to today's ACLU statement: 'As part of the settlement, Glik agreed to withdraw his appeal to the Community Ombudsman Oversight Panel. He had complained about the Internal Affairs Division's investigation of his complaint and the way they treated him. IAD officers made fun of Glik for filing the complaint, telling him his only remedy was filing a civil lawsuit. After the City spent years in court defending the officers' arrest of Glik as constitutional and reasonable, IAD reversed course after the First Circuit ruling and disciplined two of the officers for using "unreasonable judgment" in arresting Glik.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Boston Pays Out $170,000 To Man Arrested For Recording Police

Comments Filter:
  • I just wish... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TWX (665546) on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @07:08PM (#39491023)
    ...that a precedent had been set in by court instead of by settlement. When one party (in this case, the government) is forced by the court to do something, it tends to have more legal weight behind it than when the party instead voluntarily takes an action.
    • Re:I just wish... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @07:09PM (#39491043)

      At least this will encourage others to file similar suits, though. There's more than 1 way to skin a cat.

    • Re:I just wish... (Score:5, Informative)

      by hey! (33014) on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @07:20PM (#39491137) Homepage Journal

      The precedent has *already* been set, and the City of Boston settled *as a result*.

      • Re:I just wish... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by icebike (68054) * on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @09:18PM (#39492069)

        But the price was not high enough for every officer on the line to get the message. They pay more for your average car crash involving a city vehicle.

        Add three more zeros to the end of that number and this practice of arresting photographers ceases everywhere in the country overnight.

        The court ruling helps. but not enough. It was only the First Circuit. We went years with GPS tracking sans warrant being legal in one circuit and illegal in another before the SCOTUS stepped in.

        • Re:I just wish... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by JoeMerchant (803320) on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @10:19PM (#39492453)

          You would think $17M would get attention, but I have seen cases with $7M settlements where similar abusers just yawn and say "so sue me."

          It took this guy and the ACLU a couple of years to get here, I'd feel ripped off if I only received $170K for two years of seriously disrupting my life.

        • Re:I just wish... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @11:09PM (#39492833)

          But the price was not high enough for every officer on the line to get the message. They pay more for your average car crash involving a city vehicle.

          Add three more zeros to the end of that number and this practice of arresting photographers ceases everywhere in the country overnight.

          How about firing everyone up the chain of command who supported them.
          Taxpayers pay for those fines, but taking away their jobs and pensions is more appropriate - after all when the police abuse their powers it generally ruins the lives of the people they do it. Turn about is fair play.

        • Re:I just wish... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by ancient_kings (1000970) on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @11:35PM (#39492995)
          Now if they made the officer pay at least half of $170,000, and then take the rest from the entire police officer's pension plan instead of the tax payer, then you'll see these type of evil, cowardly arrests stop overnight. Nothing like sharing the pain to stop this...
          • Re:I just wish... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Alranor (472986) on Wednesday March 28, 2012 @01:30AM (#39493501)

            Charge the officers involved with kidnapping.

            Then you'd see them stop.

      • Re:I just wish... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Joce640k (829181) on Wednesday March 28, 2012 @03:53AM (#39494007) Homepage

        "After the City spent years in court defending the officers' arrest of Glik..."

        I wonder how long they'd have fought if they hadn't had taxpayer money to pay the lawyers.

      • by pavon (30274)

        Yeah, but it's a shame that they agreed not to continue against the IAD. Individual police officers breaking the law isn't a huge threat to society if they are held accountable for it. However, when the IAD, whose entire job is to keep the cops in line, refuses to take legitimate complaints against the police, and the DA turns around and presses charges against anyone who does complain, that is when you know you have big problems. It shows the system is corrupt to the core, not the result of a few bad apple

    • Re:I just wish... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Mitreya (579078) <mitreya.gmail@com> on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @07:23PM (#39491183)

      I just wish... ..that a precedent had been set in by court instead of by settlement

      Yes! I also wish to know which one will be chosen here: "The two officers, ... , face discipline ranging from an oral reprimand to suspension, a department spokeswoman said yesterday."
      Why do I think it will be a lot closer to the former?

      • Re:I just wish... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by oracleguy01 (1381327) on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @07:39PM (#39491299)
        That is kind of what I was thinking. The officers got off very easy, they probably should have been fired. The IAD officers should be disciplined as well for their poor handling of the case. Even if the arresting officer didn't know (which is no excuse) that what Gilk was doing was legal, IAD certainly should have.
        • by Blindman (36862)
          According to the article, the City of Boston had a policy allowing officers to arrest people in those circumstances. No one will get fired for following this type of policy. I'm thinking the punishment will be an informal finger wag.
          • Re:I just wish... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by WaywardGeek (1480513) on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @08:36PM (#39491695) Journal

            I'm just glad this suit went the right way. Cam-coders in every cell phone will have a major impact on both crime and enforcement in the future. People are getting filmed while robbing or committing other crimes right and left, which is a very good thing, and a major disincentive to commit major crimes. Note that no one is trying to make us to stop recording crimes in progress, unless it's policemen committing them. The impact this has on enforcement should be equally positive, creating a major disincentive for the police to act above the law. If this had gone the other way, it would have been a blow to freedom from government oppression.

          • by sjames (1099)

            Yes, an oral reprimand ending in "don't let me CATCH you doing that again" (nudge nudge).

          • Re:I just wish... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by ae1294 (1547521) on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @10:42PM (#39492613) Journal

            According to the article, the City of Boston had a policy allowing officers to arrest people in those circumstances. No one will get fired for following this type of policy. I'm thinking the punishment will be an informal finger wag.

            Yes they where just following orders... I wonder what other orders they follow?

          • Re:I just wish... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by SvnLyrBrto (62138) on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @10:55PM (#39492737)


            Who cares what some bureaucrat wrote in some city policy? If what Glik, and people like him, were doing was not, in fact, against the law; then the cops were 100% out of line in even speaking to him, much less arresting him. And they should be facing catastrophic civil and even criminal penalties of their own.

            How the heck does anyone figure that policy overrides the law?

            • by BlueStrat (756137)

              How the heck does anyone figure that policy overrides the law?

              Because they have an organized and heavily-armed domestic para-military force (which the Federal government has been encouraging the creation & use of, and providing local PDs grants and other funding mechanisms to create) with which they respond with overwhelming and deadly force to any perceived resistance from any common citizen, but are almost never employed in the rare arrests of politicians, the super-rich, and others in equally "elite" positions.

              Many people are intimidated out of complaining too

        • No doubt, but it's easiest to discipline the lowest people on the totem pole.

        • Re:I just wish... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by SvnLyrBrto (62138) on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @10:38PM (#39492575)

          Even being fired, they would have been let off too easy. At the very minimum, that $170K should have come out of the officers' assets and future earnings; not from the taxpayers.

          I'd even say that when the cops decide to make up false offenses and arrest people for them like this, the cops involved should, themselves, be facing jail time.

          • by sFurbo (1361249)
            How is making up false offenses and arresting people not kidnapping? Why are the cops not tried for kidnapping? (Yes, yes, I know, who should arrest them, who should file the charges, but it would be nice to live in a slightly fairer world.)
      • Re:I just wish... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TheRaven64 (641858) on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @07:46PM (#39491369) Journal
        So, the range of punishments is from being told not to do it again, all the way up to being given some paid time off? Where do I sign up?
      • I picture (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ILongForDarkness (1134931) on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @07:51PM (#39491397)

        Elmer Fudd comes out and says "Tony you been warry warry baddd".

        Seriously oral reprimand? Something like "hey dumbass you just cost us two years of your wages". The sad think is it is the public's money that is going to be used to pay this. So you pay for a police officer, he pisses on a citizens rights then you tax the public some more to pay off for the damage you did. Nice.

    • Re:I just wish... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @07:28PM (#39491213)

      The precident is that police don't know the first fucking thing about the Constitution or your civil rights. Police can and will do whatever the fuck they want and your only recourse is to try and file a complaint about it after the fact (in the meantime, shut up and do what you're told by the officer).

      If cops actually had a clue about law, they wouldn't be cops.

    • by nomel (244635)

      I just wish I had $175,000...which is probably what he wished.

    • Re:I just wish... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DaleSwanson (910098) on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @11:10PM (#39492843)

      I just wish that a precedent had been set in by court instead of by settlement.

      I wish the money had come from the pockets of those responsible, and not the tax payers.

  • Amazing! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mitreya (579078) <mitreya.gmail@com> on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @07:09PM (#39491029)
    And it only took 5 years! And it didn't invalidate similar laws in other states, either.
    • Did it even invalidate similar laws in THAT state? It sounds to me (IANAL) that they just said "Alright, we messed up this time." Not "Alright, it's utterly insane that we would even try this and we'll never arrest someone for filming police in public again."
    • Re:Amazing! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by micheas (231635) on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @08:32PM (#39491669) Homepage Journal

      Quoting from the apeals court ruling: "The presense of probable cause is not even arguable here."

      I wouldn't want to try arguing a similar arrest was legal when the court uses language like that in it's ruling.

      The court didn't say that they didn't find the police officers arguements unconvincing, they more or less said get a clue.

      The police were told that it did not matter what their boss told them, they were still guilty of violating Gilk's first amendment rights, and could be personally sued for it. Which should put a chill in law enforecement officers making those types of arrests.

      • Re:Amazing! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by demonlapin (527802) on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @09:52PM (#39492323) Homepage Journal

        could be personally sued for it.

        I don't see that anywhere. Revocation of qualified immunity would be an immense boon to public liberty and would drop the hammer on bad cops, but his payout appears to be coming from the city of Boston, not from the officers themselves.

        • Re:Amazing! (Score:5, Informative)

          by codegen (103601) on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @10:15PM (#39492439) Journal

          In the earlier appeal decision (a href="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/10-1764P-01A.pdf">pdf) on the motion to dismiss, page 24, the final two sentences are

          For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the district court's order denying appellants' claim of qualified immunity. So ordered.

          The defendents are the city of Boston and the three officers involved. The city may have chosen to shoulder the costs, but several cities in the first circuit have specifically sent out warnings to thier police officers that they may be personally held liable for false arrests arising from public recording

        • by Fnord666 (889225)

          but his payout appears to be coming from the taxpayers of Boston,


  • Not that I wouldn't do the same thing in his shoes, but I would still have liked to see this go the distance rather then it just being a payout of tax payers money.
    • by DigiShaman (671371) on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @07:38PM (#39491285) Homepage

      Not sure what this guys occupation is, but 5 years later with $170,000 isn't much to show for it. That's $34,000 a year. It's also a payout for his legal fees. Net profit??? In fact, he could still be in negative when it's all said and done.

      • It's a bonus on top of whatever his ordinary salary is, not a replacement. I dare say most people would be happy with a bonus of $34,000 a year.

      • by codegen (103601) on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @09:51PM (#39492315) Journal
        The guy is a family court lawyer. The settlement is $50,000 + lawyers fees (he was represented by the ACLU). The case is decisive in that Boston attempted to have the case dismissed base on limited immunity(i.e. can't sue police for doing their job). The trial court ruled against them (i..e. lawsuit can go ahead). The ruling was appealed and the appeal court handed down a ruling (pdf [uscourts.gov]) that left little doubt how the rest of the trial would go. The appeal court ruling said, in no uncertain terms, that the recording was legal, that it was not secret and Mr. Gliks rights were violated. Given that ruling on a motion to dismiss, there is no way the city would go ahead with a lower trial that would just confirm what the appeals court already said, so they settled.
    • by timeOday (582209) on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @07:43PM (#39491325)
      The taxpayers are also the voters. They deserve to pay until they take notice and send a message to their government.
    • by c0lo (1497653)

      Not that I wouldn't do the same thing in his shoes, but I would still have liked to see this go the distance rather then it just being a payout of tax payers money.

      Yes, that is exactly the problem: have your fight for 5 years and all the others only cheering on the margins (if ever). That's no longer justice, it's "entertainment"... and of a dubious quality.

    • by codegen (103601) on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @10:06PM (#39492381) Journal

      If you mean "go the distance" as in set a precedent, then this case already did.

      Early in the trial, the city attempted a motion to dismiss on the ground of limited immunity(i.e. can't sue police for doing thier job in good faith). The Citiy's argument was that the wiretap law says you "can't record in secret" and since it wasn't clear that the phone was recording audio, then the audio part of the recording was secret, and therefore the was probable cause for the arrest, and thus limited immunity applied. The appeals court handed down a decision(pdf [uscourts.gov]) in 2011 that drew on over 10 years of precedents that said in no uncertain terms that it wasn't a secret recording, that Mr Glik had the right to record police in public and that any resonable person would have known this. Therefore the police cannot claim llimited immunity.

      Faced with such a strong appeals court ruling on the motion to dismiss, it was clear any trial would be lost by the City. So they settled.

      The 2011 dismissal appeal decision is a precedent, and has already been used as binding precedent in 1st circut, and as non-binding precedent in all of the other circuits on similar cases. There is one case, I have misplaced the link, where the lawsuit is for an incident that happened before the 2011 glik decision and the police are claiming that since the incident happened before the glik decision, they couldn't know that it was a civil rights violation to arrest someone for this. As far as I can tell, they aren't getting anywhere with that argument. The language of the glik decision makes it clear that it has always been a civil rights violation to arrest someone for openly recording the police in a public space.

  • Its close but its not April 1st yet guys!

  • lose-lose (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @07:09PM (#39491041)

    Boston has paid out nothing; Boston tax payers have paid out. There is no downside to law enforcement breaking the law, as they simply fall back on the (apparently) bottomless pockets of the general population. It's unlikely those involved will receive so much as a reprimand, let alone be fired. Even when officers are fired, they simply get re-employed as another location. It's a lose-lose situation for everyone but the officers.

    • Re:lose-lose (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sique (173459) on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @07:23PM (#39491173) Homepage

      Let it be a lesson to those people electing someone on a "tough on crime" ticket (which in turn means: free reign for the police to do as it likes.) They pay with their tax money for their mistake.

    • But let them (cops, captains, chief, IAD, DA) pull the same shit again and heads will roll. This is a win for the good guys no matter how you cut it.

    • by micheas (231635)
      One thing that I don't get from the article is if the suit against the officers has also been settled. The appeals court said they had no reason to suspect their actions were legal, no matter what their bosses told them, and could therefore be personally sued.
    • Re:lose-lose (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rahvin112 (446269) on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @10:35PM (#39492549)

      You didn't read the story then (duh). The court tossed qualified immunity for the officers. Glik sued both the city and officers in question and in theory the city could force the cops to split the tab with them (I doubt they will). This should send a big chill through the nations police force as it's now precedent that they can lose immunity for false arrest. That's a HUGE precedent and exposes officers violating peoples rights to civil suits that take them for everything they are worth. Now an officer has to make the choice to falsely arrest someone with the understanding that they could end up in civil court and ordered to pay that person a bunch of money for violating their rights.

  • should be 10x that.

    Make an example of them until they take our rights seriously. It's obviously a cultural problem they have deep into the roots.

  • same story yet again (Score:4, Interesting)

    by berashith (222128) on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @07:16PM (#39491091)

    this also happened in Mass around 2001 or 2002, where someone was getting harassed and decided to record the procedure. He was a musician and had a recorder of some sort in his car. After all the grief that he took, he brought the tape to internal affairs to have the offending officers reprimanded, and they used the tape against him in a wiretapping case. Now he has been harassed and arrested. WINNING

  • Yeah, really! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    How can it be "wire" tapping to record what your eyes can plainly see, in public? What wire? What tapping?

  • Typical /. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Beelzebud (1361137)
    I knew that there would be more people whining about tax money here, than the violations of the man's rights.
    • If anything, I expect a larger outrage here about the rights than you would get in most news circles. The average person doesn't care about the rights issue because it's happening to "someone else", whereas the settlements (and the money to fund it) is coming from them the taxpayer and does have an effect on them personally (if it changes tax rates or effects funding on things the other individual cares about). Plus there's the whole "he got money for nothing" angle which is more a jealously thing.

      You're no

    • by mmcxii (1707574)
      No, it's not more about tax money than a man's rights. It's more about a non-punishment of paying a settlement out of tax payer money instead of some kind of repercussions against those who violated a man's rights. For the most part, the government doesn't pay for their abuse when the repercussion for a crime is handing out "free" money and hoping the other party shuts up about rights violations... you pay for this and the abuse goes on.
    • Maybe because the violation of his rights is plain as day, while the slap on the wrist that really only hurts the public is a little bit more subtle.

      A while back, there was a school that was fined for giving students laptops with webcams and spying on the students at home. My initial reaction was "Good!" until I read the comments, and it was similiarly pointed out that it was taxpayer money being awarded, not really punishing the school officials who made the idiotic decision to invade privacy.
    • They're related. If public servants can abuse members of the public and then pass the responsibility for restitution on to other members of the public, then they have no incentive to stop. If the fine were paid by the officers in question, then it would be a different matter.
      • by micheas (231635)
        The appeals court did rule that the officers could be personally sued, but I don't know what became of that.
    • by cain (14472)

      You lost me when you linked to WND. If you've got other sources, I'd be glad to see 'em.

    • by abigsmurf (919188)
      I find it rather suspicious the 4 misdemeanours weren't named in that article wheras the dropped felony was. Use of ellipsis in quotes also raises alarm bells. I suspect there's a bit more to that than the articles are saying.
    • by russotto (537200)

      It's not that the cops are slow to learn. It's that the lesson they're being taught is they can do whatever the fuck they want, and the worst possible outcome for them is a paid vacation. The most likely outcome is they get away with it clean and their victim is punished. You want the cops to sit up and take notice? Judges need to start having them taken out back of the courtroom and summarily executed for pulling this shit. Won't happen, because most judges (and juries) are on the side of the cops no

  • by Dancing Propeller He (632229) on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @07:28PM (#39491219)
    So until, the police and Internal Affairs get caught breaking the law, the law on the books isn't actually followed by the exact people who should know the law? Vigilante justice from within the police system is not a good culture to have brewing. Shouldn't anyone within the policing system that breaks the law or supports breaking the law be fired? Seems to be a conflict of interest to me.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by abigsmurf (919188)
      They acted in a way they believed the law specified. It took 5 years of lawyers and judges wrangling for it to be conclusively decided that the law didn't specify that and the arrest was wrongful.

      If it took people who have been studying law most of their lives that long to decide, what chance does a police officer, with a comparatively small legal knowledge and a few minutes under pressure to make his mind up, have to get to the right decision? It would be more than a bit harsh to brand cops criminals wh
      • Are they capable of patriotism and the respect for rights and the rule of law that that patriotism (in the US) entails?
      • by dcollins (135727) on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @08:37PM (#39491699) Homepage

        Oh god, please. Compare to this case in Baltimore from just last month: BPD is hauled into court by the ACLU for routinely arresting people when they video police, under wiretapping statutes. Three days before the court hearing, BPD announces that they concede that people shouldn't be arrested for photography -- but within the same day, BPD are still arresting people taking video: except the charge has now magically changed to loitering.

        http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/blog/bal-in-federal-hill-citizens-allowed-to-record-police-but-then-theres-loitering-20120211,0,3706866.story [baltimoresun.com]

        The police departments are very consciously corrupting the law to benefit themselves, doing everything they can to delay and obstruct justice, and prosecutors are helping them along. If they get definitively slapped down in court for one thing, then within 24 hours they come up with brand-new bogus legal readings and go on with their abusive behavior unchanged. This is not remotely a "decision beyond their capability" one-time accident.

      • by shutdown -p now (807394) on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @09:16PM (#39492057) Journal

        It took five years because the party that was guilty of violating citizen's rights was stubbornly insisting that they "didn't do anything wrong", and then later on that they "didn't know it was wrong", and the court was forced to not only find whether there is any truth to their claims, but whether it can even serve as a plausible excuse - i.e. whether they could have reasonably not understood their obligations under the 1st Amendment. And the court, basically, ruled that they did not, and that the right that was infringed was clear and unambiguous. From the ruling [uscourts.gov]:

        In summary, though not unqualified, a citizen's right to film government officials, including law enforcement officers, in the discharge of their duties in a public space is a basic, vital, and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment. Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err in denying qualified immunity to the appellants on Glik's First Amendment claim.

        (I recommend you actually read the full text of the ruling - it's not all that long, and the arguments are surprisingly clear and easy to follow)

    • by deblau (68023)

      I would think that with enough precedents against them and enough six figure settlements, any city would catch on pretty quickly that they need to fire such law-breaking cops. Hell, if another cop pulls this shit in Boston, you can bet the suit won't be for $100,000, but for a ton more because the city is showing signs of being a "habitual offender".

  • Money is not enough (Score:5, Interesting)

    by markdavis (642305) on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @07:37PM (#39491277)

    So, does that compensation include:

    1) Removing his fingerprints from not only Boston police's files, but the FBI and every other system it was instantly and permanently sent to?

    2) Removing all records of his improper and illegal arrest from every system?

    Somehow I think information, once collected, is forever there. He will now be "searched", like a suspect, every time prints are run.

  • So, now that if could be worth almost $120K to be arrested for recording police in action, I wouldn't be surprised if the next big craze (or How to Make Money scheme) will be to look for & start recording any police action (from the common ticketing of a motorist to questioning witnesses or suspects near the scene of an incident, etc.)

    It's perhaps like a lottery... some officers will be either unaware of the final outcome of the Glik story or perhaps simply lose their cool in the heat of the moment.

    1. S

  • Freedom of the Press (Score:4, Informative)

    by cpu6502 (1960974) on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @07:56PM (#39491441)

    I can't believe this was ever an issue. Recording events as they happen, whether it's with a video, audio, or the old-fashioned pen-and-paper method, is a protected right under the first amendment of both the U.S. and most State Constitutions.

    And to the person who wished a precedent had been set? Here it is: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/08/28/2030243/mass-court-says-constitution-protects-filming-on-duty-police [slashdot.org]

  • by Stoutlimb (143245) on Tuesday March 27, 2012 @08:00PM (#39491477)

    5 years. Way to go USA justice system. You suck.

  • I guess the beginning is for the brave, but if everybody just takes photos non stop ... eventually the police will be decentitized. Everybody knows that there are cameras everywhere noways so much like open source ... a million eyes will eventually weed out the bugs in the system. We are living in times of change.
  • how can IAD call it"unreasonable judgment if they had been supporting the idea for 5 years?

Behind every great computer sits a skinny little geek.