ILNews

Settlement of federal case requires Indianapolis police to revise procedure

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

As part of a settlement to a federal civil rights case, the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department will be instituting a new policy prohibiting police officers from interfering with civilians who are recording their actions.

The policy change was included in a settlement agreement with Indianapolis resident Willie King who was arrested in February 2011 after he used his cellphone to videotape police officers arresting another man. King was charged with resisting arrest, disorderly conduct and public intoxication.

Following a bench trial that found him not guilty, King filed a federal civil rights case against the city of Indianapolis and the police officers involved in the incident. The lawsuit, Willie E. King v. The City of Indianapolis, Jonathan M. Lawlis, Robert K. McCauley, Brad Alford, Michael B. Wright and David Miller, 1:11-cv-01727, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

King claimed the city and the officers violated his First, Fourth and 14th amendment rights. In addition, he asserted the IMPD used excessive force against him and that he was a victim of false arrest and malicious prosecution.
 
The settlement was reached within weeks of King’s March 10, 2014, trial date. Along with requiring the city to implement a new policy, the settlement also awarded King $200,000 in damages.

“Willie King was wronged when the officers stopped his videotaping and took away his cellphone,” said King’s attorney Richard Waples. “We want to make sure that in the future police officers understand that people have the right to video record their actions.”

Within two months of signing the settlement agreement, the city’s police chief must issue a legal bulletin that explains officers should not interfere with civilians who are observing or recording their actions in public as long as these civilians maintain a safe and reasonable distance from the scene, do not interfere with the officers’ work, and do not pose a danger.

Waples, partner at Waples and Hanger, called the settlement an “important victory” and one that “secures the right of all citizens to observe and record police officers’ public actions.”

King began videotaping the officers during the February incident when he became concerned that they were physically abusing the young man they were handcuffing. He retrieved his cellphone from his vehicle and began digitally recording the incident. He first walked to his neighbor’s property, then proceeded to the neighbor’s front porch.

A police officer walked over to King and ordered him to handover his phone. When King did not, the officer grabbed King, tackled him to the ground and, with the help of another officer, confiscated King’s cellphone and arrested him.

King alleged his First Amendment right to observe and record the actions of government officials in public was violated when the police interfered with his videotaping. Also, he claimed his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure was violated when police threw him to the ground injuring his shoulder and forcefully confiscating his cellphone.
 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • man in a cop costume
    the only way for justice to prevail is to hold the man in the cop costume accountable in his individual capacity by claiming theft,assault and kidnapping. This is aside from the false arrest and malicious prosecution. File a claim in common law jurisdiction for damage and injury by the man who committed the acts of violence on you.
  • Right on
    You hit it on the head, Jack! The city has not admitted guilt, and this does not create binding precedent for any other city or police force in the country--they may continue to be abusive and get away with it until a higher court rules on a civil rights case making it law.
  • No Police
    Next time you Police Haters need help call a thug. Oh..the thug might already be there.
  • Should be fired
    The police officers who arrested King need to be removed from the police force.
  • The cops lose the recording
    The cops lose the video when it shows them to be at fault. It haened to me in Winfield, IL. The recording showed the cop was asleep in his car in the middle of the intersection. It never made it to court, and the Judge didn't give a rats ass.
  • Legal Bulletins Are Worthless
    Given experience in Florida recently. Now if it was a departmental order with declaration of disciplinary action, I might be more comfortable.
  • Police and cameras
    The police should be required to wear cameras at all times so that all of their actions are recorded. The reality is a significant % of police have gotten out of control, who believe themselves to be above the law. One of the few ways citizens can defend themselves is to make it mandatory that all police officers on duty wear cameras at all times.
    • No Police
      Who would the Legal Community sue if it weren't for the Police Community? Would we even need the Legal Community or the Criminal Justice System without Police? What a cost saving endeavor.
    • No Police
      We should stop hiring police officers and abolish any standing department. I'm positive this action will stop all of these abuses of power. I suppose society will love each other.
    • Free to be a jerk
      Police officers are never held accountable BY THEIR DEPARTMENT for violating the rights of civilians. The city settles and to show the officer was "falsely" accused it goes on to promote the officer. The promotion send a message that "we'd like more thuggery."
    • Yes
      He most certainly got off with the settlement. When a town, county, state, etc. settles they don't admin wrongdoing. The city's insurance will pay the settlement and the taxpayers are on the hook for both the insurance premiums and this thug of a cop's salary. He is most certainly still out and about violating people's rights. Rest assured, nobody was held accountable for this in any way, shape, or form. The city basically just says "well, we'll send out a memo to the police not to assault you and violate your rights"
      • Violations
        As a result of the settlement, did the officer's get off the hook for violating his rights? That would be a pity.

        Post a comment to this story

        COMMENTS POLICY
        We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
         
        You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
         
        Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
         
        No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
         
        We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
         

        Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

        Sponsored by

        facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

        Indiana State Bar Association

        Indianapolis Bar Association

        Evansville Bar Association

        Allen County Bar Association

        Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

        facebook
        ADVERTISEMENT
        Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
        1. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

        2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

        3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

        4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

        5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

        ADVERTISEMENT