Archive for the ‘First Amendment’ Category

Commentary: How to live your First Amendment freedoms – Press Herald

Recent months have shown that the phrase free speech is often misunderstood. Americans generally know about the First Amendment, but most cannot name the five freedoms it guarantees the freedoms of religion, speech, press, peaceful assembly and government petition.

Through my work with the First Amendment Museum in Augusta, Ive encountered many people who do not know how to put their First Amendment rights into real, concrete practice. Here are five examples of living your freedoms:

HOSTING A FAMILY DINNER

When I was growing up, my family sat down for dinner together every single evening. It was during those family dinners that we had our most robust, informative conversations, touching on politics, religion and everything in between. From a young age, I learned how to express myself and listen to others, in case I might learn something. And I often did.

While family dinners are less common nowadays, they represent a comforting example of lively discourse. We can learn a lot from our family members, with the tool of free speech in our toolbox.

GETTING A LIBRARY CARD

Of course, theres more to learning than just eating with the family. Even the simple act of obtaining a library card and roaming the stacks of books reinforces the pivotal role that free expression has played throughout human history. Libraries are filled with thousands of books on a wide range of topics, but that would never be possible if the writers couldnt express themselves freely.

Now, we can all reap the benefits of their speech, using it to elevate our own knowledge in many different ways.As the French philosopher Rene Descartes once said, The reading of all good books is like a conversation with the finest minds of past centuries.

USING SOCIAL MEDIA

Perhaps the most popular form of free expression today is social media. Whether youre using Facebook, Twitter or something else, technology has gifted us with unprecedented platforms, which can be used to engage with and contact millions of people around the world.

We can not only post whatever we want (for better or worse), but we can also learn from all sorts of interesting people from family and friends to influencers overseas. Even clicking send on a single tweet is an example of the First Amendment at work.

GOING TO CHURCH

While the First Amendment is most commonly associated with free speech, there are four other freedoms:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

For example, freedom of religion is what enablesmillions and millions of Americansto attend church, synagogue, mosque or other house of worship. Whatever your religion, it isAmericanfor you to be able to worship as you choose, without government interference. From Christianity to Pastafarianism, which is the worship of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (yes, its real), we all have the freedom to get in touch with the divine.

PROTESTING PEACEFULLY

The First Amendment also affords us with another freedom: The right of the people peaceably to assemble.

And Americans are living it now more than ever. Last year,as many as 26 million people joined the Black Lives Matter protests after the tragic deaths of George Floyd and other African Americans. They took to the streets, marching, mourning and advocating for change. This also happened during an election year, which saw tens of millions of Democrats and Republicans mobilize on behalf of their respective candidates.

And it was all possible because freedom includes the right to peaceably assemble. Emphasis on the word peaceably: Americans can and should assemble nonviolently, without any rioting, looting and other forms of violence.

So get out there and live your five freedoms! As Americans, the best way to show gratitude for the First Amendment is by exercising it in our daily lives.

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Previous

Next

Continued here:
Commentary: How to live your First Amendment freedoms - Press Herald

In Hoboken, is fight over social media about First Amendment or weaponizing politics? – ROI-NJ.com

Hoboken Councilman Phil Cohen said the ordinance he is cosponsoring with two other council members, the one that would prohibit elected officials from blocking constituents on social media accounts, is about the First Amendment.

The question is whether it is a little political, too.

The ordinance, which Cohen said will be introduced at the Hoboken city council meeting Wednesday, calls for a $500 fine for each person blocked by an elected official. The reason, Cohen said, is simple.

Its about the First Amendment, he told ROI-NJ. This is about social media being a town square.

When elected officials are only interested in hearing people who agree with them, thats censorship. Thats a violation of the First Amendment. And the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals have been very clear that elected officials cannot do this on social media.

Cohen also said the ordinance is pointed specifically at a fellow councilman, Mike DeFusco.

There happens to be recent blocking activity by a councilperson that prompted this, Cohen said.

This is where the story on First Amendment rights involving social media may be better framed as one that follows the first rule of governing: All politics is local.

Cohen said DeFusco is blocking constituents who are drawing attention to a recent issue involving DeFusco renting his apartment on Airbnb during the pandemic (see story here by Hudson County View).

DeFusco, an open member of the LGBTQ community, said he was blocking people because he has been attacked for his personal life.

He calls the ordinance an overreach. He doesnt feel it will pass. And, if you want to talk First Amendment issues involving social media, DeFusco said hes happy to do so. This dispute is not about that, he said.

For starters, DeFusco who said he intends to form an exploratory committee regarding a run for mayor this fall said its a political attack.

Its also a personal one, he said.

Ive been attacked as the only out LGBTQ member of the city council and in all of Hudson County, he said. I began blocking people that attacked my partner, that attacked my family, that have made homophobic slurs to me.

This is nothing new. Its been going on since Ive been in public office for six years.

DeFusco said human rights top all.

Social media is a toxic place, he said. I am a public official, but Im also a human being. When my family is brought into the topic, Im going to take protective actions.

He estimates he has blocked 15 people the past six years, but he said thats no longer the case.

The gray area here is whether a quasi-political policy account counts toward any relevant law or relevant rulings, he said. But, out of an abundance of caution, Ive since unblocked everyone. Theres no issue.

Cohen said its important to codify what should be an understood truth.

There are elected officials who are choosing to communicate about official business on social media platforms, so that they can get their message out to the community, whatever their political interests may be, he said. And, when you put ideas into the social media marketplace, those ideas can be shut down, disagreed with argued with. Thats all fair game.

No ones requiring community leaders or elected officials to have social media accounts. But, if you have them, you shouldnt be shutting down dissent, or people who disagree with you or people you dont like.

Councilwomen Tiffanie Fisher, who said she plans to vote No should the ordinance come up, said it has little to do with the First Amendment and everything to do with political retribution.

If someone knows a politician can be fined for blocking them, they can attack them for anything they want because they know they are unable to block you. It really can be predatory at a local level.

Fisher said First Amendment issues are issues for the courts.

If someone really felt my blocking them was a violation of their First Amendment rights, then they have an avenue to file a complaint. One exists right now: The courts. This just weaponizes local politics. Thats all it does.

Cohen isnt convinced. He said politics is politics.

If youre blocked, you cant question, you cant criticize, you cant mock, you cant satirize, he said. What would America be if you couldnt make fun of your politicians? Thats as American as apple pie.

Read the original post:
In Hoboken, is fight over social media about First Amendment or weaponizing politics? - ROI-NJ.com

Internal NYPD Documents Show Cops Were Sent to Protests With Barely Any First Amendment Training – The Intercept

Last year, after New York officials announced a plan to dispatch 500 additional police officers to the citys subway system, a coalition of activist groups organized a series of protests.On January 31, they held a day of transit action that saw small demonstrations pop up at stations and on trains across the city. Fuck your $2.75, a flyer promoting the event read, referring to the cost of a subway ride. Public transit should be free, read another, which means free fares, free of policing, free of accessibility barriers, free to sell churros, free to dance, free to sleep.

The flyers, along with other protest-related literature on topics like what to do if arrested, ultimately made their way into instructional materials used by the New York Police Departments Police Academy, the six-month training all aspiring cops go through at the beginning of their career. The protest literature propaganda, as the NYPD referred to it was included in a Police Academy student guide on civil disorder and came with a warning: The FTP (F**k the Police) group, also known as Decolonize this place and shutitdown, considers themselves an activist group that claims to fight for the rights of the poor and indigenous people, the guide noted, mischaracterizing what is actually a loose formation of several groups that shared the materials. This group has been responsible for vandalizing NYPD vehicles and property, entering the transit system without paying, and additional illegal destructive behavior.

The NYPDstudent guide on civil disorder was part of a cache of internal documents obtained by The Intercept in response to a public records request for protest-related police training materials. The documents, which we are publishing with this story, also include instructor and student guides as well as class slides and quizzes on the topics of officer discretion, maintaining public order, and custodial offenses, which include resisting arrest and obstructing governmental administration, two of the most frequent protest-related charges.

An organizer who is involved with Decolonize This Place told The Intercept he was not surprised to learn that the NYPDs training included literature by the FTP formation, which can stand for Feed the People and Fight the Power, in addition to Fuck the Police. Theres a long history of the police or the police state or the intelligence trying to understand the way others do stuff, said the organizer, who asked for anonymity for fear of being targeted by the NYPD and right-wing media. What weve put out, we think of it as public knowledge that is not readily available for people, to protect privacy and to keep people safe. That its perceived as threatening I dont know what to say about it.

This flyer, distributed by a coalition of activist groups in New York City, was included in instructional materials used by the New York Police Department to train new officers.

Image: NYPD

No part of the academys basic curriculum is specifically dedicated to the policing of protest,even as officers are frequently deployed to do so, leading to frequent abuses and fierce backlash against the department. Instead, lessons about other aspects of the job, like how to take an uncooperative person into custody, include nebulous protest-related tidbits, such as advice on balancing the NYPDs position as guardian of public order and its stated commitment to safeguarding constitutional rights. It is important in our democratic society that the rights of assembly and the freedom to peaceably protest be protected, officers are taught, according to the documents obtained by The Intercept. At the same time, these rights cannot be used as an excuse for violence nor may the exercise of those rights unnecessarily interfere with other important rights, such as those of non-demonstrators.

The NYPD, the training materials claim, has a tradition of restraint and great success in handling the most sensitive demonstrations with respect for the rights of both demonstrators and the general public. Time and again, we have earned our reputation as the finest police department for handling demonstrations.

Together, the documents offer an overview of the NYPDs protest-related training that is striking for its vagueness and the lack of practical guidance to back the departments declared commitment to the rights of protesters. The key to quelling a civil disturbance without a need for force is the threat of force, coupled with tight discipline and control, one of the documents reads. A well-disciplined, well-armed unit creates the impression of a powerful, competent police force. Usually, a large, overpowering police presence will stop rioters in their tracks. If force must be used, remember to use only the minimum amount necessary to control the situation.

Corey Stoughton, an attorney at the Legal Aid Society, which together with the New York Civil Liberties Union has sued the city over the polices violent response to last years George Floyd protests, said the training on protesters constitutional rights is practically meaningless. Were talking about a maximum 45-minute discussion session on how to protect peoples First Amendment rights at protests, she said. The tools you walk out of that training room with, as an officer, are all geared towards finding ways to justify the arrest of protesters, rather than finding practical ways to facilitate peaceful protests and the exercise of free speech rights.

Stoughton, who reviewed the documents obtained by The Intercept, noted that while they contain rhetorical commitments to protesters rights, they focus almost exclusively on ways police can limit them: The only practical information you would leave a training like that with is, How can I arrest protesters?

John Miller, the NYPDs deputy commissioner for public information, wrote in an email to The Intercept that the NYPD handles five to 10 protests daily, the vast majority without incident. Policing a peaceful protest requires very little specialized training, he wrote, adding that the more complex aspects of the training have to do with disorder control. Finding the right balance in policing protests does not come with certain or obvious answers, it is an ongoing process.

A police officer shines a flashlight on protesters participating in a day of transit action against increased police presence in New York City subways on Jan. 31, 2020.

Photo: Aidan Loughran/NurPhoto via Getty Images

In the aftermath of the police brutality displayed during last summers uprising, a series of official reports denounced the departments failure to adequately train officers ahead of the protests. Most cops had not received protest-related training since leaving the academy years or even decades earlier. Thereviews drew a distinction between the Strategic Response Group, a heavily militarized, rapid-response unit that has an estimated 700 members and receives specialized training, and the rest of the NYPDs 35,000 uniformed officers.

In a 115-page report, the Department of Investigation, an independent agency overseeing city government, concluded that other than for personnel assigned to SRG, DOI found that, prior to the Floyd protests, NYPD lacked standardized, agencywide, in-service training related to policing protests. The DOI added, NYPD appears to have deployed a large number of front-line supervisors and officers to police the Floyd protests without adequate training. The conclusion was echoed by the citys law department, the Office of the Corporation Counsel, which wrote in its own report that for a majority of the officers who were assigned to the George Floyd protests, their training on policing protests was limited to what they had received as recruits in the Academy.

When criticized for using force against protesters last summer, the NYPD responded in part by noting that hundreds of its officers were injured in the course of doing their job. Miller, the deputy commissioner for public information, repeated that claim in his statement to The Intercept. Police officers who received basic training in handling peaceful protests were challenged by situations in which protests often shifted from orderly to disorderly, he wrote. While they tried to make arrests of only individuals for specific acts of violence or property damage they often found themselves struggling with groups of people trying to de-arrest those individuals.

Miller also noted that only 69 of the 976 complaints made against individual officers last June and July named SRG officers, which he suggested may be due to the advanced training SRG officers receive in team tactics for arrests that are specifically geared to reduce injuries to those being arrested and to the police officers arresting them. Yet the SRG was heavily involved in some of the most brutal repression of protests in the wake of Floyds killing last summer, including the violent arrestsof at least 263 people police had trapped in the streets at a June 4 protest in the Bronx. Last month, The Intercept published a series of SRG training documents that reflect the units heavy-handed approach to the policing of protest: coaching cops on tactical maneuvers and mass arrest scenarios, as well as providing additional training for SRGs distinctive armor-clad bike squads.

NYPD SRG officers arrest a protester during a Black Lives Matter demonstration over the murder of George Floyd in New York City on May 28, 2020.

Photo: Johannes Eisele/AFP via Getty Images

Facing backlash over its handling of the protests, last summer the NYPD expanded the training it gives all officers on the force. The new training includes subjects like the the Mobile Field Force, crowd management versus crowd control, crowd psychology, protester roles and tactics, the Handschu agreement a consent decree prohibiting the NYPD from engaging in purely political surveillance formations, flex-cuffing, mass arrests and team carries, according to NYPD spokesperson Sgt. Edward D. Riley.

The DOI noted that while it was unable to conduct a full assessment of the new training, it determined that much of it appeared to consist of disorder control tactics like those deployed by the SRG. (The topics identified by Riley also appear in the SRGs training materials.) The new training has limited emphasis on de-escalation and effective communication with protest participants in an attempt to maintain peace and order, the agency concluded. That scenario-based training appears focused solely or primarily on crowd control tactics and formations with no discernable reference to managing interactions, facilitating First Amendment rights, and minimizing the use of force.

Asked whether the new departmentwide training was modeled after the SRGs, Miller, the deputy commissioner, told The Intercept that it followed the Federal Emergency Management Agencys Center for Domestic Preparedness curriculum and includes protecting and facilitating demonstrations as well as training in the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution regarding the right to protest and equal protection under the law.

Still, critics of the NYPDs response to protests are warning against calls for more training that they fear will result in the entire department getting schooled in the ways of its most militarized unit. One of the open questions is: Is the new training a distillation of the SRG training? said Stoughton, the Legal Aid attorney. In which case, whats the basis for thinking that thats going to change anything about the NYPDs response to protests?

There has been little researchon the effectiveness of police training, yet calls for more training regularly follow high-profile instances of police abuse. Critics say this response only directs more resources to police departments while failing to tackle the underlying cultural issues at stake.

Its a stopgap cosmetic measure that costs more money, Joo-Hyun Kang, director of Communities United for Police Reform, a coalition of community organizations, told The Intercept. Really, the way that we reduce this level of violence is we have to reduce significantly the bloated budget, the outsized power, the scope, the size, and the footprint of the NYPD.

These flyers, distributed by a coalition of activist groups in New York City, were included in instructional materials used by the New York Police Department to train new officers.Credit: NYPD

The instruction materials obtained by The Intercept offer a glimpse into the way the NYPD conceives of its role and history in relation to protest.

One of the major reasons that New York City is so frequently selected as the site for National Conventions is this Departments reputation for handling demonstrations by communicating with all parties, the materials note. This has been a dramatic change from the practices of some other police departments, which have emphasized the deployment of SWAT teams and aggressive crowd control techniques.

The documents credit such success to the 1994 establishment of the Disorder Control Unit, or DCU, the precursor to the SRG, and claim that since its establishment, New York City has not been the victim of any large-scale civil disorder. That telling fails to mention that the DCU was central to some of the most brutal repression of protest in city history, including the 2011 Occupy Wall Street protests and the 2004 Republican National Convention, where large-scale police abuses led to a historic $18 million in legal settlements.

Theres really no question that part of what played into the violent response to the protests this summer was the NYPDs failure to absorb lessons from litigation and complaints that emerged from its response to prior incidents, said Stoughton. What the summer made clear was that the NYPD has not fully grappled with that history.

As documents obtained by attorneys over the years reveal, little has changed about the NYPDs protest-related training despite countless lawsuits and court rulings critical of its conduct. In a classaction lawsuit seeking to represent hundreds of protesters arrested last summer, attorneys argued that the NYPD failed to train its officers about how to protect First Amendment activity since at least the 1990s, when the DCU was created. Despite the wealth of evidence of NYPD members historical brutality against protesters, [the city] has ignored, and/or failed to utilize, relevant information, including information gleaned from reports and lawsuits, as well as other data points, to identify deficiencies in NYPD training as it relates to constitutionally compliant protest policing.

While none of that recent history features into the NYPDs training documents, the materials do refer to the polices position, historically, as the target of protests they are tasked with controlling. In fact, most of the riots in this country over the last half-century have been started by what, justifiable or not, were believed by citizens to have been abuses of police discretion, the documents note. It is sobering to reflect on all the damage that has been caused by controversial decisions made by police officers on the street.

The documents briefly acknowledge law enforcements role in stirring or exacerbating major instances of civil unrest in the early 1990s, like the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles and the unrest in New York Citys Crown Heights neighborhood. They also note that, in the 1960s, police had become the source of great controversy and remark on how, following the civil rights movement, suddenly, government commissions and scholars found the police very interesting. The training materials say in recent years, some of the most serious allegations of police discretion have been claims that it has been abused, and degenerated into racial profiling.

The documents warn officers that demonstrators feel strongly about their cause and call on them to recognize this intensity, treat it objectively and professionally, and not allow ourselves to be hooked into the emotion of the moment.

Even when protesters criticism is directed at police themselves and takes the form of chanted curse words and personal insults, the documents encourage officers not to lose control and overreact to the verbal abuse. The documents say, Regardless of your personal feelings towards the demonstrators or the object of their protest, you must remain neutral. A lack of professionalism or the use of unnecessary force against civilians damages the relationship between the Department and the community, as well as the Departments image.

NYPD SRG officers stand guard at a protest in Union Square in New York City on Nov. 5, 2020.

Photo: Stephanie Keith/Bloomberg via Getty Images

While police officers generally have broad discretion to decide how to address a situation, the documents emphasize that such individual discretion can be taken away during protests. At some demonstrations, you may be directed to follow orders scrupulously and to exercise no individual discretion whatsoever, one module notes. Do as you are told.

That exception to the rule also appears in the SRG training documents published by The Intercept, making clear that protest-related decisions during the Floyd protests like ones to surround protesters in a controversial maneuver known as kettling, or to make mass arrests were not made by individual officers. The resulting violence, the documents suggest, was not a matter of lone cops going rogue but policy deliberately sanctioned by department leadership.

Before every demonstration, the Departments operational and intelligence experts try to find out everything possible about the demonstrators and their cause, and how they intend to get their point across, the documents state. Based on this analysis, the Department develops a very precise strategy for policing the demonstration. At times, this may require that every officer play a specific and defined role, as part of a highly coordinated team effort that allows for no variance.

The training materials make repeated references to court rulings in favor of protesters right to assemble and warn that attempts to regulate activities that are classified as pure speech have failed constitutional muster. These statements, however, are invariably followed by examples of things police can do, within the bounds of the law, to restrict protests. The fact that conduct may be permitted under the First Amendment does not mean that the government cannot regulate that conduct in some way if the overwhelming needs of the rest of society require it, the documents note, citing traffic congestion, pedestrian congestion and inconvenience to others as justification for intervention.

The documents then elaborate on how officers can arrest protesters in a legally defensible way. The general policy of the New York City Police Department is to warn non-violent demonstrators before making arrests, the training notes. Otherwise, an immediate arrest will be viewed as an attempt to interfere with the rights of the protesters.

That kind of approach implying that constitutional rights should only be protected enough to avoid legal repercussions are indicative of an underlying antagonism by police toward protesters that no amount of training can fix, critics have long maintained. A better solution to avoid violent repression of protest, they add, is considering whether police need to be there in the first place.

Why are there so many police at protests? Do we even need police at protests? asked Kang, of Communities United for Police Reform, adding that, at best, police at protests handle traffic control that can easily be left to civilians, and at worst, they escalate tensions and infringe on protesters rights. Theres a much bigger question of, whats their role, and should police even have a role?

More:
Internal NYPD Documents Show Cops Were Sent to Protests With Barely Any First Amendment Training - The Intercept

Seeking to clear haze between news and opinion – The Dickinson Press

Of the following three hypothetical stories, which is the opinion piece?

Answer: C, although many people nowadays feel B is opinion, too. A few might even say A.

That uncertainty is proving to be a conundrum for newspaper managers, journalists and readers alike.

Commentary and analysis have boomed in the age of the internet. What used to be relegated to a single page in a newspaper perhaps two pages on a Sunday now is available ad infinitum on the web.

And as a certain crass saying about opinions goes: Everybodys got one. Thanks to the internet, most everybody also has a virtual printing press or broadcast station to distribute it unfiltered to the masses.

As Forum Communications Co. continues its weeklong project on news literacy and the First Amendment, managers and content producers in the company have realized the difference between news and opinion or at least the foggy haze that sometimes envelopes the two must be addressed.

It seems that too often, readers mistake news as opinion. In some cases, readers believe a newspapers simple decision to pursue and publish certain stories is opinion disguised as news. And to be honest, perhaps the medias sometimes casual packaging of opinion content could be adding to a growing distrust in news.

To address this, a team of people from throughout Forum Communications convened earlier this year to discuss ways we can alleviate concerns we have heard from our own readers.

With that in mind, a few crib notes about news and opinion content.

News stories include the byline of the reporter and, ideally, outline the basic facts of a story. In journalism classes, young reporters are taught to provide the who, what, when, where, why and how of an event or issue. Our companys news stories are verified by sources, by data or by both.

News stories about a fire, for instance, may not include quotes or comments from a source. Stories that outline issues generally include comments from both sides.

News stories can be found scattered throughout a newspaper or website, often categorized by sections Life or Region, for instance.

These are unsigned pieces that reside on a newspapers editorial or opinion page; theyre unsigned because editorials traditionally represent thoughts or work by multiple authors or are written on behalf of the publisher, a newspapers top executive. Often, they are attributed to an editorial board, generally a group that helps determine a newspapers editorial stances or gathers to discuss issues with sources.

These are usually personal in nature and represent that particular authors insight. Columns run a gamut of styles and genres, ranging from politics to food, or simply life in general. At most newspapers, they are distinguishable by the inclusion of the authors photo. Columnists may not always be full-time employees of a newspaper but they usually are regular, paid contributors and hired based on their background or expertise in a subject. Columnists are expected to be interesting, sometimes provocative, sometimes thoughtful and sometimes humorous.

Often, columns are published on the opinion pages, but some are printed on pages that match their particular genre, such as sports or lifestyle pages. And while a columnist may not necessarily be an opinion columnist, they do at times offer their personal thoughts.

Similar to columns, op-eds almost always are submitted by unpaid contributors who do not have any connection to the newspaper. Opinion editors often are finicky about accepting op-eds, following criteria based on an authors expertise.

Op-eds go by many names. At the Grand Forks Herald, theyre known as Viewpoints and at the Duluth News Tribune, theyre known as Local Views. At The Forum of Fargo-Moorhead, they have no special name. They universally are published on opinion pages.

These are shorter pieces, also from unpaid contributors, that dont require any particular expertise, but rather allow news consumers to voice their thoughts on the news of the day.

Forum Communications Co. is dedicated to using its resources to not only cover the news, but also to offer insightful commentary that promotes dialogue to better educate our readers on important issues. The best way to do that is through robust opinion pages, replete with editorials, columns, op-eds and letters to the editor.

Meanwhile, helping our customers understand why we do it all while redoubling our efforts to differentiate news and opinion remains ever important.

Korrie Wenzel is publisher of the Grand Forks Herald.

Original post:
Seeking to clear haze between news and opinion - The Dickinson Press

Battle Over Shielding Identities Of Police Officers Headed To Supreme Court – WUSF News

A legal battle about whether a 2018 constitutional amendment known as Marsys Law can shield the identities of police officers went to the Florida Supreme Court on Tuesday.

The city of Tallahassee filed a notice that is a first step in asking the Supreme Court to decide whether the constitutional amendment, which is designed to bolster crime victims rights, can apply to police officers who were threatened in use-of-force incidents.

A three-judge panel of the 1st District Court of Appeal last month sided with two Tallahassee police officers, who argued that, as victims, they were entitled to privacy protections included in Marsys Law.

The decision came in a lawsuit filed against the city by the Florida Police Benevolent Association, which represents the police officers, who are identified in court documents as John Doe 1 and John Doe 2.

As is common, the citys notice of taking the issue to the Supreme Court did not provide detailed legal arguments. But a statement issued last week by City Attorney Cassandra Jackson said the case is one of great public importance to the state of Florida in its appellate level interpretation of Marsys Law.

With respect for the (appellate) courts opinion and appreciation of the difficult work performed by police officers every day, the decision has far-reaching implications related to public transparency and is deserving of final review by Floridas highest court, Jackson said in the statement.

The lawsuit is the first major test of whether Marsys Law conflicts with a decades-old government-in-the-sunshine amendment that enshrined in the Florida Constitution some of the nations broadest public-records laws.

Marsys Law addresses a series of issues related to victims rights, including offering privacy protections. Nearly 62 percent of voters approved the measure in 2018.

In the April 6 appellate-court decision, Judge Lori Rowe wrote that nothing in Marsys Law excludes law enforcement officers --- or other government employees --- from the protections granted crime victims.

Rowe, joined by Judges Timothy Osterhaus and Robert Long, wrote that a police officer meets the definition of a crime victim under Marsys Law when a crime suspect threatens the officer with deadly force, placing the officer in fear for his life.

The two police officers in the case were involved in separate use-of-force incidents. In an incident that drew national attention, John Doe 2 shot a Black transgender man last May. Because the police officer was the victim of an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in the incident involving Natosha Tony McDade, the Police Benevolent Association said he had the right to invoke the privacy privilege provided by Marsys Law.

The First Amendment Foundation, the Florida Press Association and a number of media outlets intervened in the lawsuit, arguing that allowing Marsys Law to apply to law-enforcement officers would undercut the states open-records laws.

The appellate ruling reversed a decision by then-Leon County Circuit Judge Charles Dodson, who in July found that the explicit language of Marsys Law was not intended to apply to law enforcement officers when acting in their official capacity.

Dodson said the case involved balancing victims rights with the publics right to hold government accountable by inspecting public records and ordered the city to release the names of the two police officers.

See the original post here:
Battle Over Shielding Identities Of Police Officers Headed To Supreme Court - WUSF News