Topic: Law and Civil Liberties

Police Officers Must Keep the Cameras Rolling

Recently released dash camera footage of an arrest in St. Louis, Missouri offers an example of the disturbing flippancy with which cameras can be turned off during police interactions with the public.

According to a police report, on the evening of April 10, 2014, officers Nathaniel Burkemper and Michael Binz stopped a silver Ford Taurus after it made an illegal U-turn and “abruptly parked.” Only minutes earlier, 911 operators had received calls reporting shots fired. One of the calls mentioned a silver car with big rims.

Footage from the dash camera on Burkemper and Binz’s cruiser shows that shortly after the Ford Taurus pulls over, Binz moves to the passenger side of the vehicle, where he searches and handcuffs the passenger. Burkemper speaks to the driver, Cortez Bufford. Burkemper filed a report stating that he smelled marijuana and that both Bufford and his passenger did raise their hands when asked. However, Bufford reportedly “became agitated.” From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Bufford “became agitated,” Burkemper wrote, refusing to give his name and reaching for a pants pocket before the officer warned him to keep his hands in view. Bufford refused orders to get out. Burkemper called for backup when Bufford became “increasingly hostile.”

The report says Binz told Burkemper he had found two bullets in the passenger’s pocket. Burkemper then ordered Bufford out again, saying he was under arrest. Bufford unlocked his door, but refused to exit.

The dash camera footage shows officers pulling Bufford from the car. Then, at least seven officers are involved in kicking, tasing, and subduing Bufford while he is on the street. According to Burkemper’s report, once Bufford was on the street he struggled and reached for his pocket. The  Post-Dispatch reports that Binz “recovered a Kel-Tec 9mm semi-automatic pistol with four rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber.”

Defending the Right to Offend

Between 1861 and 1865, Texas was in a state of rebellion, waging war against the United States under the flag of the Confederacy. Texas has never offered any indication that it’s ashamed of this history. Indeed, the state recognizes April as Confederate History Month and spends January 19 celebrating Confederate Heroes Day. Yet now Texas is before the Supreme Court, arguing that its citizens’ sensibilities must be spared the sight of the Confederate flag in one particular context.

The case involves a state agency that knows well what it is to cause universal offense: the Department of Motor Vehicles. Texas’s DMV, like that of many states, runs a program that allows private organizations such as charities, universities, and businesses to design their own “specialty” license plates—not to be confused with “vanity” plates, where the vehicle owner chooses the letters/numbers on her plate—which can then be purchased through the DMV. The current range of customized plates on offer in the Lone Star State include messages that are patriotic (“God Bless America”), fannish (“Dallas Cowboys”), socially conscious (“Be a Blood Donor”), commercial (“Dr. Pepper”), and completely immoral (“Young Lawyers”).

These custom plates include a near-limitless variety of slogans, symbols, logos, and color patterns—something for everyone’s taste. Except the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Their design, which included a miniature depiction of the Confederate battle flag, was rejected by the DMV on the grounds that some members of the public would find it offensive.

It’s certainly right about that—and the relevant statute authorizes the DMV to reject any design that “might be offensive to any member of the public”—but do we really want the government determining what’s “too offensive”?

Federal Judge Stops Obama’s Executive Action on Immigration

Late last night, as the DC area braced for a snowstorm, a federal judge in Brownsville, Texas granted a temporary injunction to the executive action that President Obama announced in November. The expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was set to go into effect tomorrow, with the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) starting up in May, so a quick ruling was expected after Judge Andrew Hanen held a hearing last month. And based on how that hearing went, it’s no surprise that Texas and the 25 other states suing the federal government succeeded in stopping the executive action at least temporarily.

Is “Colorado’s Marijuana Money Going Up In Smoke?”

NPR has an interesting story about the interaction between Colorado’s tax revenue from legalized marijuana and its Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR):

Colorado voters overwhelmingly supported state taxes on marijuana, and the state collected tens of millions of dollars in the first year of legalization. But in a strange twist, all those taxes raised from pot may have to be refunded because of a quirk in the state’s constitution. That means money earmarked for schools and drug prevention programs could be lost unless lawmakers agree on a solution.

Liberal supporters of legalization will worry that this conflict threatens to invalidate a key argument for legalization; conservative opponents will use the conflict to claim legalization was oversold.

But libertarian legalizers should not care much either way.  The crucial arguments for legalization are increased freedom for marijuana users and decreased prohibition costs for everyone, not increased tax revenue.

So if Coloradans end up with legal marijuana and an income tax refund, that’s just fine.

Judges Say No To Obama Labor Regulators’ Hot Blueberry Crush

What does federal labor law have in common with civil forfeiture law? As I write at Reason:

Under a provision of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, the U.S. Department of Labor can seek what is known as a “hot goods” order, freezing the physical output of an employer that it suspects of having violated wage and hour law, all without having to prove its case at a trial.

Until lately the procedure was little known to the general public, but the Obama administration, amid its general all-fronts offensive to expand wage and hour law and intensify its enforcement, has begun using it against farmers in a series of actions. Applied to agriculture, a “hot goods” order is even more than usually coercive, because both sides know the crop will rot if not brought to market soon. Moreover, as in many forfeiture cases, the freezing of a target’s most valuable asset may mean that it cannot afford legal help to appeal or otherwise challenge what has happened — all of which gives the federal government the leverage to get what it wants in resulting negotiations without having to test the strength of its case at trial.

Now, however, a federal judge has slapped down the administration hard in a Pacific Northwest case that farm groups had described as “extortion.” In a humiliating defeat, the Department of Labor has agreed to drop charges against two Oregon blueberry growers and refund the moneys extracted from them. It’s a case that should rally attention to the need to roll back the Department’s powers in this area.

My whole Reason piece is here.

Police Body Cameras Raise Privacy Issues for Cops and the Public

Advocates of increased transparency in law enforcement are understandably keen to see more police officers wearing body cameras. Not only is there some evidence that police officers wearing body cameras contributes to a decline in police “use-of-force” incidents, footage from police cameras has provided useful evidence to those investigating allegations of police misconduct. Yet despite the benefits of police body cameras there are serious privacy concerns that must be considered and addressed as they become more common.

Perhaps the most obvious privacy concerns are those of the civilians filmed by police officers. If footage from police body cameras is considered public record then hours of footage of innocent people’s interactions with police officers is potentially available. It is not hard to imagine a situation in which police officers wearing body cameras enter someone’s home and leave without making an arrest. Footage of that encounter could reveal embarrassing or private information about the homeowner.

In November of last year it was reported that Washington police departments were reviewing their policies related to dash cameras and body cameras in the wake of an increase in requests for footage from the public via public record requests. As the ACLU has pointed out, Washington is one of the states where body camera footage is considered “susceptible to public release upon request.”

At the end of last month, members of the North Dakota House overwhelmingly passed a bill that would exempt police body camera footage of the inside of a private place from a public record request. North Dakota House member Kim Koppelman, who introduced the bill, said that the legislation would protect civilians in situations similar to the one I outlined above. Koppelman reportedly introduced the bill “at the request of West Fargo Police Chief Michael Reitan.” Koppelman and Reitan may be primarily concerned with the privacy of civilians, but a civilian could have a genuine interest in seeing the footage gathered by police officers in her home, especially if she believes that officers damaged property or behaved poorly.