Police Take Pregnant Woman Out of Hospital; She Dies in Jail
January 9, 2013 @ 7:29 AM
January 9, 2013 @ 7:29 AM
November 20, 2012 @ 2:54 PM
More from the Atlanta-Journal Constitution here.
September 10, 2012 @ 5:43 PM
September 6, 2012 @ 12:35 PM
Here are the 8 reports of police misconduct tracked for Wednesday, September 5, 2012:
August 15, 2012 @ 4:09 PM
Minnesota has a criminal law that punishes complaints of police misconduct that a person knows to be false. The constitutionality of that law has been challenged and may now be on its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Here’s some background. Melissa Crawley complained that an officer forged her signature on a medical release form at a hospital. Police looked into the matter and concluded that Crawley fed them false information. Crawley was charged under the Minnesota law and was later convicted by a jury.
On appeal, Crawley’s lawyers argued that the law was unconstitutional because it criminalizes false speech that is critical of the police but not false speech that favors the police. The appeals court agreed and reversed Crawley’s conviction.
The case then moved to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which overturned the appeals court.
Justice Stras filed a dissenting opinion. Here’s an excerpt from his opinion:
The point of the foregoing discussion is not to conclusively resolve the historical debate over the primary motivation animating the ratification of the First Amendment, but rather to highlight the indisputable principle that criticism of the government—and those who run it—is at the core of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has recognized as much: “[c]riticism of government is at the very center of the constitutionally protected area of free discussion[, and] [c]riticism of those responsible for government operations must be free, lest criticism of government itself be penalized.” Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 85 (1966). Put differently, “[i]t is vital to our form of government that citizens and press alike be free to discuss and, if they see fit, impugn the motives of public officials.” Janklow v. Newsweek, Inc., 788 F.2d 1300, 1305 (8th Cir. 1986); see also Snyder v. Phelps, __ U.S. __, 131 S. Ct. 1207, 1215 (2011) (“[S]peech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government.” (citation omitted)). The statute at issue here, Minn. Stat. § 609.505, subd. 2, punishes precisely the type of speech that is at the “very center” of the First Amendment: statements critical of government officials—in this case, peace officers. Cf. Gray v. Udevitz, 656 F.2d 588, 591 (10th Cir. 1981) (collecting cases holding that police officers are considered public officials under the First Amendment).
Because subdivision 2 regulates within an area of core First Amendment expression, it risks chilling valuable speech unless it provides sufficient breathing space to prevent self-censorship or suppression. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 342 (1974). That is, in order to prevent the chilling of truthful speech on a matter of public concern—police misconduct—subdivision 2 must contain either “[e]xacting proof requirements,” Madigan, 538 U.S. at 620, such as a heightened mens rea, New York Times Co., 376 U.S. 279-80; a showing of specific harm, S.F. Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Comm., 483 U.S. 522, 539-41 (1987); or a showing of materiality, United States v. Lepowitch, 318 U.S. 702, 704 (1943); or contain some other “limitations of context” that help to ensure that “the statute does not allow its threat of . . . criminal punishment to roam at large,” Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. at 2555 (Breyer, J., concurring). Given the breadth and practical application of subdivision 2, the statute fails to provide sufficient breathing space for core First Amendment speech.
The key risk posed by subdivision 2—a criminal statute—is that legitimate, truthful criticism of public officials will be suppressed for fear of unwarranted prosecution. “[E]ven minor punishments can chill protected speech.” Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234, 244 (2002); see also Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544, 565 (1993) (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (“There can be little doubt that regulation and punishment of certain classes of unprotected speech have implications for other speech that is close to the proscribed line, speech which is entitled to the protections of the First Amendment.”). Thus, the mere threat of prosecution may cause some would-be government critics to refrain from voicing their legitimate criticism, “because of doubt whether [their statement] can be proved in court or fear of the expense of having to do so.”
That’s the dissent in the Minnesota Supreme Court. The majority of the court upheld the statute and Crawley’s conviction. Crawley’s lawyers are expected to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear this dispute. Stay tuned.
H/T: Constitutional Law Prof Blog
August 7, 2012 @ 4:02 PM
August 3, 2012 @ 3:29 PM
July 5, 2012 @ 12:06 PM
Here are the 10 reports of police misconduct tracked for Tuesday, July 3, 2012:
November 7, 2011 @ 1:15 AM
Here are the 29 reports of police misconduct tracked in our National Police Misconduct News Feed for this weekend of November 5-6, 2011:
That’s it for this weekend, stay safe out there!
February 24, 2011 @ 1:43 AM
A quick note before today’s reports. Starting today the reports will mostly be in short format, meaning they will largely be just a dump straight from the news feed with minimal commentary and minor corrections. If you’re curious as to why I’ll elaborate at the bottom of this post.
Here are the 22 reports of police misconduct tracked in our National Police Misconduct News Feed for this Wednesday, February 23, 2011:
Well, there was some good news for once today. I managed to win a 3-month contract job and it starts today (being Thursday). It’s at a lower rate than what I’ve worked for the last 6 years, but I think it will be manageable. Furthermore, it pays once a week so that will help us bridge the gap. What’s more, it gives us a little bit of room to try and bargain with our landlord to see if we can avoid eviction while working to repay the rent we owe. Even if we can’t reach an agreement then we at least have a buffer to find temporary housing or a motel room of some sort.
The problem is it’s on-site work so I’m not sure how well I’ll be able to manage the news feed. I have several feeds and alerts set up so, in the worst case, I think it will just mean the feed won’t update as often, but it should still be good at tracking events per day. Still, any help in tracking reports is appreciated so if you see a story you think we missed, definitely drop us a message about it!
It’s been a rough time of it lately, so hopefully this is a sign that things will get better for us soon, and for the project as well. Thank you all for your support, without which we wouldn’t have survived nearly this long!
Thank you, and as always, stay safe out there!