Raid on Atlanta Gay Bar Leads to Policy Changes on Photographing Police
In a brazen display of Constitutional ignorance, Atlanta police officers stormed into a gay bar last year without a search warrant and forced about 80 people down at gunpoint, confiscating their cell phones to prevent photographs as they frisked everybody in the bar.
Police claimed they were attempting to crack down on public sex acts and indecent exposure inside the Atlanta Eagle bar, but after more than two hours of frisking, interrogating and entering names into a police database, they left without making a single arrest.
While their actions were clear violations of the First and Fourth Amendments, Atlanta police insisted they were only following departmental policy.
And they were right. Since 2005, the police department had a policy in place that allowed them to detain people whom they deemed “suspicious” without any actual probable cause or search warrant.
However, the Atlanta Police Department will now be forced to rewrite its policy after a settlement this week stemming from the September 2009 raid.
Dan Grossman, attorney for the plaintiffs and longtime Photography is Not a Crime reader, spearheaded the settlement in which the city will dish out $1 million to 28 plaintiffs as well as certain procedure reforms.
Grossman, who is also a photographer, was sure to include a provision that forbids police from preventing citizens from photographing them in public.
- Requires the revocation or amendment of several unconstitutional Atlanta Police Department policies regarding search, seizure, and arrest;
- Requires Atlanta police officers to wear clearly visible nametags and to identify themselves upon request;
- Prohibits Atlanta police officers from interfering with the public’s right to take photographs and make video and audio recordings of police activity;
- Requires Atlanta police officers to document certain warrantless ID checks, detentions, frisks, and searches;
- Requires the City of Atlanta to conduct mandatory in-person training of all police officers every two years regarding Fourth Amendment law and the safe use of firearms;
- Requires the Atlanta Police Department to rule on citizen complaints of police misconduct within 180 days (many of these these investigations previously remained open for years);
- Requires the Atlanta Police Department to conduct an investigation which should lead to discipline of officers for specific types of misconduct and for untruthfulness, including lies told under oath in various proceedings.
Grossman said the city council will consider adapting these reforms as law. And he believes other cities should enact similar laws.
"Photography and videography is one of the most powerful tools for police accountability," he said in an interview with PINAC. "If cities actually care about police accountability, they would pass a law like this."
Grossman did an excellent job on keeping the public informed of this case with a site he launched, where you can read more details.
The entire settlement can be read here.
He also sent me PDFs of the Standard Operarting Procedures (linked below) that were declared unconstitutional with the following explanation.
As you will see in the Search and Seizure SOP (SOP.3020), the section describing warrantless searches never mentioned the need for probable cause. (See Paragraph 4.3.1(2)).
The "Terry stop" SOP (called "Field Interviews") instructed police officers to detain, frisk, and run ID checks on "suspicious" persons. This SOP was basically a handbook to unconstitutional seizures. It never even mentions the words "Reasonable Articlulable Suspicion," which is required for a lawful Terry stop. And the SOP even contains its own "cover-up" provision: If an officer finds that the civilian "has a legitimate reason for being at the location," the officer is instructed to "de-escalate the situation by courteously explaining what prompted the stop" and "tactfully alter the encounter into a less formal citizen contact." (Section 4.3.4) Needless to say, an illegal detention can never be "altered" after the fact into a consensual encounter.
Can you fix the focus on a blurry photo after the fact?
The birth of Mirrorless Cameras
MiMedia, letting you access your media, wherever you are
Lightroom 4 on Apple's Mac App Store
Choosing your first dSLR camera
New York City can be beautiful!
The Fujifilm Finepix X10, A Review
Choosing the Right Light Stand
Photojojo iPhone Telephoto Lens review — AudioCast
My week with Q
How To Become A Successful Photographer
"When the Wind Stopped" — poem with 4 photos
Strategies for shooting action
20 Tips for Insects on Flowers
Cast aways - saving those photographic memories
One Man Show: My 25 Years With Digital Photography
Studio, Flash, & Available Light — Three Books Reviewed
Portrait styling: dangerous pairings
Adobe Photoshop CS6 Product Managers Interview Audiocast
A gift of flowers: unfold your senses
On Set of "Love & Robots" the Film
Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk Inkjet Paper — Audiocast











Planning “National Geographic” style photo travel
Wilderness Travel 1 Rainforests – Essential Gear
Backlighting Basics
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 3 of 3
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 2 Of 3
What Moves You?
FIGURES IN MOTION: Decades of Evolving Personal Imagery in Photography, Part 7
Lomography Store, Austin, Texas — GALLERY
GALLERY — Up to $1,000 Reward for Cattle Rustlers
Taking your Portraiture Higher
The "Bible" of Time-Lapse Photography
Interview with Harold Davis — Closeup Maestro of Flowers & Water Drops
Interview with Steve Caplin — Photoshop Digital Artist, Commercial Illustrator, & Author
Easy technique to select, edit and sequence keywords for web
How much should you charge for a photograph?




























Comments
In Oregon, we don't have to identify ourselves even in a Terry Stop. The only time we are required under Oregon Law to identify ourselves is if we are to be cited or arrested. Being stopped while driving a vehicle is a different situation but a passenger in the same vehicle is not driving and is not required to produce identification.
In Oregon, if an officer attempts to identify us under threat of arrest that officer has committed the crime of Coercion and that's a class C felony.
Of course the above is by the book. You may find it just doesn't work that way in real life. For example, like in most situations an officer would probably never face prosecution for Coercion.
Lets see.. I think I commented on policy that was illegal during an debate with JL.. Here is a perfect example. These policies are soooo poorly written that it leaves out ULTRA important requirements. But then again the Atlanta area is so f'd up I shouldn't be surprised, the people there don't trust the cops..
Citizens are generally required to obey a lawful order from police. But when the order is itself illegal, and police use violence (or threat of violence) to coerce compliance with the illegal order, one could rationally conclude that resistance would be legal under the same concept and circumstances that allows a self-defense plea to be entered against an assault & battery charge.
Of course, given how police are a privileged class that are generally not subject to the laws nor held to their oaths by the courts, it probably wouldn't work out well to try it...
ONE DAY THE VICTIMS OF THESE TYPES OF RAIDS ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT AND SOMETHING LIKE A SMALL RIOT WILL HAPPEN. MANY PEOPLE INCLUDING SOME POLICE OFFICERS ARE GOING TO BE SERIOUSLY HURT. THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OF PROPERTY WILL BE DESTROYED DOZENS OF LAWSUITS WILL BE FILED. THEN THERE WILL BE A LOT OF CRYING ABOUT HOW THIS COULD HAVE HAPPENED!
POLICE SHOULD NOT TREAT PEOPLE LIKE THIS. WOULD THEY WANT TO BE TREATED LIKE THIS? AND THIS SETTLEMENT MIGHT BE A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, BUT WITHOUT SOME SERIOUS DISCIPLINARY ACTION FOR THE POLICE INVOLVED IT WILL PROBABLY HAPPEN AGAIN. MAYBE NOT IN ATLANTA, BUT SOMEWHERE ELSE.
THIS MACHO WAY OF POLICING SOCIETY IS NOT EARNING THE POLICE ANY FRIENDS.
June 28, 1969.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots
For example.
ONE DAY THE VICTIMS OF THESE TYPES OF RAIDS ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT AND SOMETHING LIKE A SMALL RIOT WILL HAPPEN. MANY PEOPLE INCLUDING SOME POLICE OFFICERS ARE GOING TO BE SERIOUSLY HURT. THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OF PROPERTY WILL BE DESTROYED DOZENS OF LAWSUITS WILL BE FILED. THEN THERE WILL BE A LOT OF CRYING ABOUT HOW THIS COULD HAVE HAPPENED!
POLICE SHOULD NOT TREAT PEOPLE LIKE THIS. WOULD THEY WANT TO BE TREATED LIKE THIS? AND THIS SETTLEMENT MIGHT BE A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, BUT WITHOUT SOME SERIOUS DISCIPLINARY ACTION FOR THE POLICE INVOLVED IT WILL PROBABLY HAPPEN AGAIN. MAYBE NOT IN ATLANTA, BUT SOMEWHERE ELSE.
THIS MACHO WAY OF POLICING SOCIETY IS NOT EARNING THE POLICE ANY FRIENDS.
"but after more than two hours of frisking, interrogating and entering names into a police database, they left without making a single arrest."
Just what a bunch of gay men need down south, their names on a police database. Of course information like this NEVER gets leaked to the internet, NooOOooOooO! That NEVER happens. If they haven't been charged with anything their names shouldn't be on ANY government database resulting from that raid. It's a gross violation of privacy and they should sue the cops to get their names removed from the database. As a general rule NO one not charged with a crime should wind up on a police database.
Turned out to be more of a pain in the ass then the police were expecting. Dont ever piss off a gaggle of gays, they have cash, lawyers, and a attitude. Good for them.
I see what you did there.
Post new comment