老澳门开奖结果 of DC Sues D.C. Police for False Arrests, Free Speech Violations, Police Abuse at Inauguration Day Protests
Lawsuit Challenges Excessive Force, Manual Rectal Probing, and Denial of Food, Water, and Toilets
WASHINGTON 鈥� The 老澳门开奖结果 of the District of Columbia today filed a lawsuit against the District of Columbia, Metropolitan Police Department officers, and D.C. Police Chief Peter Newsham for making unconstitutional arrests, using excessive force, denying arrested people food, water, and access to toilets, and invasive bodily searches of protesters exercising their First Amendment rights on Inauguration Day.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a legal observer, a photojournalist, and two others arrested that day.
While the overwhelming majority of Inauguration Day protesters demonstrated peacefully, a small number caused property damage. In response to the vandalism, MPD officers employed a controversial crowd-control tactic known as 鈥渒ettling,鈥� where officers corralled more than 200 protesters鈥攊ncluding many who had broken no laws鈥攂y trapping and detaining them for several hours before formally arresting them. Officers also deployed nonlethal crowd-control devices鈥攊ncluding pepper spray, tear gas, flash-bang grenades, concussion grenades, and smoke flares鈥攗pon protesters and others both on the street and inside the kettle, without warning or threat of harm to officers or other members of the public.
The complaint filed by the 老澳门开奖结果 of DC also outlines incidents in which MPD officers handcuffed detained individuals so tightly as to cause injury and subjected some individuals to unlawful manual rectal probing.
鈥淭he MPD鈥檚 extreme tactics against members of the public, including journalists, demonstrators, and observers, were unjustifiable and unconstitutional,鈥� said Scott Michelman, senior staff attorney for the 老澳门开奖结果 of DC. 鈥淧eople from all over the country come to the nation鈥檚 capital to exercise their constitutional right to protest. MPD鈥檚 wanton and vindictive conduct on January 20 chills free speech, which is a vital part of our democracy.鈥�
The 老澳门开奖结果 of DC鈥檚 lawsuit, filed in federal district court in Washington, seeks monetary compensation for the four individuals in an amount to be determined by a jury.
Among the plaintiffs in today鈥檚 case are New York resident Shay Horse, who was covering the protests as a photojournalist, and Baltimore resident Elizabeth Lagesse, an activist who travelled to D.C. to peacefully protest President Trump鈥檚 inauguration. An MPD officer witnessed Horse taking photos to document the protest, then pepper-sprayed him. Lagesse did not participate in any acts of vandalism whatsoever. Both Horse and Lagesse were kettled and subjected to pepper spray, tear gas, and painful handcuffing, and they were denied food, water, and bathroom access for several hours.
The 老澳门开奖结果 of DC also represents D.C. resident Judah Ariel, a legal observer whose neon-green hat clearly marked him as an observer and who was monitoring the conditions of the people trapped in the kettle when he was pepper-sprayed by MPD officers without warning or justification.
The 老澳门开奖结果 of DC is also seeking damages on behalf of Horse and fellow detainee Milo Gonzalez, who were subjected to invasive manual rectal probe searches while in police custody.
鈥淚've been documenting protests for years and I've never seen police act like this in America in such an open, blatant way in broad daylight,鈥� Horse said. 鈥淪o many of us suffered tremendously just for exercising our First Amendment rights to cover the demonstrations or participate in them. With this lawsuit, I want to stand up for all the protestors who were abused and bullied and assaulted and molested.鈥�
In addition to the constitutional claims under the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, the lawsuit charges MPD violated D.C.鈥檚 First Amendment Assemblies Act. That act specifies that tactics that 鈥渟ubstantially encircle鈥� protesters are unlawful unless police have probable cause to believe protesters 鈥渉ave committed unlawful acts鈥� and 鈥減olice have ability to identify those individuals.鈥� The lawsuit also raises claims for assault and battery and false arrest, among others.
The lawsuit is Horse v. District of Columbia. The amended complaint, filed on January 3, 2018, can be found here:
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok鈥檚 challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 老澳门开奖结果 of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter鈥檚 privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer鈥檚 subpoenas.