Posted on 10/06/2011 9:14:50 AM PDT by rawhide
A former Atlanta woman on Thursday filed a federal lawsuit against the Atlanta Police Department, contending an officer illegally seized her camera after she took pictures of officers kicking a man who was handcuffed and laying on the ground.
The suit said Felecia Anderson, 24, who lived in the West End on Oct. 14, 2009, saw members of APD's now-disbanded Red Dog unit raiding her neighbor's house. When she also saw officers kicking and dragging a man, she went home and got her camera, the suit said.
As Anderson filmed the incident as she stood on the sidewalk, officers ordered her to stop recording, threatening to arrest her, the suit said, noting Anderson complied and began walking back to her house.
One of the officers came up behind her and demanded she turn over her camera, and seized it when Anderson dropped it, the lawsuit said. The officer also grabbed Anderson's cell phone out of her hand, the suit said.
The officer, identified in the lawsuit as Jeffrey Branum, then deleted the close-up photos Anderson had taken, and Anderson's neighbors witnessed him doing it, the suit said. Officers then placed Anderson under arrest for having no driver's license, walking in a roadway and disorderly conduct.
Those charges are still pending against Anderson, who now lives in New York.
"Documenting police activity in a public space is not a crime," said Atlanta lawyer Albert Wan, who represents Anderson. "In fact, it's a constitutional right and a well-established one at that."
The suit seeks "nominal and modest" compensatory damages as well as unspecified punitive damages. Anderson's lawyers say they have tried to settle the case with the city of Atlanta, but have had no success in doing so.
Gerry Weber, a lawyer with the Southern Center for Human Rights, who also represents Anderson, called on APD to fully investigate the officers involved in the incident.
Since when do you need a driver’s license to walk?
The more you type, the more you sound like a buffoon.
When you are involved in, or interfere with an “official” police event, and you are asked to identify yourself and refuse to do so; you’ve crossed the line and made yourself a part of the “event.”
When you are involved in, or interfere with an “official” police event, and you are asked to identify yourself and refuse to do so; you’ve crossed the line and made yourself a part of the “event.”
“...When you are involved in, or interfere with an “official” police event,
and you are asked to identify yourself and refuse to do so...”
-
Based on the information presented, you are speculating that:
(a) she interfered and (b) she refused to identify herself.
But that’s O.K., you just keep on licking them boots.
There is NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to identify yourself to a policeman. She is neither a suspect, nor is she under arrest for any violations. This was simply a thuggish attempt at intimidation.
These are Public Servants, not the Gestapo
See for yourself ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes
Nothing there absolves you from your erroneous statements.
Actually what it means is that the police are making up charges because she did not interfere with the crime scene, she only documented the police actions. They got pissed off about it and harassed her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.