The ACLU filed this federal lawsuit in the Eastern District of Missouri on August 14, 2014, a few days after the police shooting of Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Missouri, and during the days of protests that followed. The lawsuit was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Missouri State ...
read more >
The ACLU filed this federal lawsuit in the Eastern District of Missouri on August 14, 2014, a few days after the police shooting of Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Missouri, and during the days of protests that followed. The lawsuit was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Missouri State Highway Patrol, the County of St. Louis, Missouri, and the City of Ferguson. The lawsuit claimed that people photographing and recording police actions in Ferguson have a First Amendment right to do so. The day after the case was filed, the parties reached a recorded agreement:
Parties acknowledge and agree that the media and members of the public have a right to record public events without abridgement unless it obstructs the activity or threatens the safety of others, or physically interferes with the ability of law enforcement officers to perform their duties.
Agreement 1. This agreement substituted for a Temporary Restraining Order.
The ACLU filed a First Amended Complaint on November 12, 2014. This added a Due Process claim, alleging that defendants' interference with individuals who are photographing or recording at public places, but who are not interfering with law enforcement, fails to provide them with a reasonable opportunity to understand what conduct is prohibited, and "authorizes and encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement."
First Am. Compl. 6. On November 14, the ACLU also filed for a Preliminary Injunction.
On November 20 and 21, the plaintiff asked the court to approve consent judgments between the plaintiff and each of the three named defendants--the Missouri State Highway Patrol, the County of St. Louis, Missouri, and the City of Ferguson. On November 21, the District Court (Judge John A. Ross) granted all three orders.
The orders for the Missouri State Highway Patrol and the County of St. Louis permanently enjoin those institutions from "interfering with individuals who are photographing or recording at public places but who are not threatening the safety of others or physically interfering with the ability of law enforcement to perform their duties."
See Order Granting Joint Mot. to Relief (as to Missouri State Highway Patrol);
Order Granting Joint Mot. to Relief (as to County of St. Louis).
This differs from the language in the order directed at the City of Ferguson. That order provides that the City and its employees or agents
shall not enforce or threaten to enforce any rule, policy, or practice that grants law enforcement officers the authority or discretion to arrest, threaten to arrest, or interfere with any individual, including any member of the media or member of the public photographing or recording in public places unless that person is threatening the safety of others or physically interfering with the ability of law enforcement to perform their duties.
Order Granting Joint Mot. to Relief (as to City of Ferguson).
Although these orders resolved the case, the court specifically retained jurisdiction to enforce all three orders.
Greg in den Berken - 11/24/2014
compress summary
