Man Arrested For Video Recording Cops Sues Boston Police

November 2, 2011 @ 8:49PM

Man Arrested For Video Recording Cops Sues Boston Police

Topics
News

A man who was arrested for recording a group of Boston police officers beating on his friend filed a federal lawsuit today.

Maury Paulino claims that the officers turned on him when they noticed him recording; one of them punching him, kneeing him and pepper spraying him in the face while the others watched.

Paulino was charged with felony wiretapping along with assault and battery on a police officer, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest in the 2009 incident.

The wiretapping charge was quickly dropped and he beat the other charges in court.

Boston police, who have a history of arresting people who record them, say they have been trying to clean up their act.

According to the Boston Globe:

In a statement, Boston police said that since last year, all officers have received training on the issue of citizens openly recording them with electronic devices, which is permissible under state law.

“The training bulletin created for officers in summary reinforces that public and open recordings is allowed under the wiretap statute,” the statement read. “There is no right of arrest for public and open recordings under this statute.”

Paulino’s video of the incident is posted above.

Please send stories and tips to carlosmiller@magiccitymedia.com

Tagged with:
Massachusetts
wiretapping

Comments

JdL

6 months ago

You go, guy! These pathetic thug cops deserve to be called out for their cowardly acts.

Rusty Carr

6 months ago

The pathetic thug cops will NOT be called out for anything. The cities insurance company will pay the award and that'll be the end of it. Untill the next poor guy gets caught video recording the cops.

Shawn Wright

6 months ago

Maybe the cops just want to be kind and give everyone a nice payday? ;)

Frank

6 months ago

Lawsuits don't get their attention. They love lawsuits. Because even if they are a defendant in a lawsuit, the union contract counts that as time-and-half "court pay".

What will get their attention is the day a judge orders that the jury award be paid from the department pension fund.

Bob G

6 months ago

The nerve of that man, attacking the officer's fists with his face! Off with his head!!!

joe

6 months ago

The ABA Journal 11/1/11
Can Citizens Record Cops on Cellphones? Joining 1st Circuit in Mass., Oregon Appeals Court Says Yes.

Arrests of individuals who record police as they are being questioned have been much in the news lately.

Among the latest to be criminally charged is a Florida man is being held in the Palm Beach County Jail in lieu of $4,500 bail for allegedly recording officers on his iPhone after a traffic stop. Carl Paul, 21, of Pompano Beach, who was described by arresting officers as "belligerent," is charged with illegal interception of communication for violating the state's two-party consent law with his claimed recording, reports the Palm Beach Post.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, the Oregon Court of Appeals held last week that a 33-year-old man's criminal conviction for doing the same thing should be reversed, reports the Oregonian.

Because a Eugene police officer had told Shane Michael Neff that he was being recorded on the patrol car's camera, there was no need for Neff to announce to the officer that he was using his cellphone to document the encounter the court held in an Oct. 26 opinion (PDF).

"It's about whether people should have the right to record their public servants," said attorney Bronson James of Portland, who handled Neff's appeal. "The whole issue is bubbling to the fore. I wouldn't be surprised to see some legislation at the next legislative session about it."

In Boston, a lawyer arrested for filming police on his cellphone as they arrested someone else won a federal appeals court victory earlier this year concerning his right to bring a false arrest suit. (Criminal charges against Simon Glik were eventually dropped, and his civil suit against the police is ongoing.)

The ruling in August by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Glik's case is the first by a federal appeals court to recognize a clear First Amendment right to record police, recounts the Recorder.

An American Civil Liberties Union press release about the 1st Circuit ruling provides further details.

A Chicago woman was acquitted In August, after a jury trial, on felony eavesdropping charges she was slapped with after recording internal affairs officers who, she says, were trying to talk her out of filing a sexual harassment complaint against a cop, the Chicago Tribune reported at the time.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/recording_cops_on_smartphone/

Steveo

2 months ago

In Carl Paul's case: the 15th Circuit Florida State Attorney's office took less than 20 days to file a declaration that they would not file charges in his case and this was after doing the same thing with Sharron Tasha Ford in 2009 and Joshua Mandel in early 2011 in the same Circuit.

Palm Beach County you will remember is the place where the infamous "guidelines for video recording" police came from that no one there (Palm Beach Sheriff's office) wants to own up to writing. Maybe they should have checked with the guys that would be prosecuting the case first on whether they should arrest people for this felony? These are non violent acts from non-violent "protesters". The police can walk away, go to the SAO later and ask for an arrest warrant. Which they won't get.

I think that this probably goes through their mind. I can get the ID from the videographer, let it go then go to the SAO for a warrant, but then he thinks, "how am I going to get the camera? If I don't arrest him/her." I personally think that it is more important to the leo that they confiscate the camera/phone than it is to make a false arrest.

joe

6 months ago

The Crime Report, Special Report:

"Cameras, Cops and the First Amendment."

Is an in-depth look at the rights to photograph & record police.

http://www.thecrimereport.org/news/inside-criminal-justice/2011-11--came...

joe

6 months ago

The Union Leader, NH 11/3/11
Judge says recording police stop OK.
(unfortunately it's a subscription newspaper)

A District Court judge says audio taping of a police officer is a First Amendment protection in dismissing charges against a Weare man.
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20111103/NEWS15/711039977

I found two older articles related to this from 8/31/11 "Court tells police to let the public videotape"
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20110831/NEWS07/708319991

Another article is dated 6/16/11 "Weare police face more federal lawsuits"
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20110517/NEWS07/705179991/0/news

xdamousex

6 months ago

“The training bulletin created for officers in summary reinforces that public and open recordings is allowed under the wiretap statute,” the statement read. “There is no right of arrest for public and open recordings under this statute.”
----------------------
Essentially, the Boston Police Department -- and most police departments -- have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy when it comes to abuse.