7 results for 'cat:"Public Record" AND cat:"Police Misconduct"'.
J. Ashe grants a request by an alleged police brutality victim, awarding civil penalties in the total amount of $17,000 for the city’s failure to timely respond to his state law public records requests for interviews by internal affairs investigators, 911 call materials and police body-worn camera footage. The city acted unreasonably or arbitrarily by failing to give any explanation for its seven-business-day delay in responding to the litigant’s first public records request, instead stating he did not suffer any injury due to the de minimus delay. A civil penalty is not awarded based on the injury suffered by the requestor; it is awarded when a custodian unreasonably fails to timely notify the requestor of the availability of records, advise of an exception for their production or provide an estimated completion date.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Louisiana , Judge: Guidry, Filed On: March 1, 2024, Case #: 2:19cv11803, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: public Record, Damages, police Misconduct
J. Hollander denies a community justice group’s motion to alter or amend the courts motion to dismiss judgment in favor of the Baltimore City Law Department, including the police department and several of its officers and other staff, its allegations of First Amendment violations for not releasing public records. The group argues the department has condoned or ratified an unconstitutional viewpoint of discrimination in failing to consider factual allegations. Therefore, they have failed in two respects to allege that there was a practice of disfavoring and any policymaker had actual knowledge of the exercised deliberate indifference for the wrongdoing.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Hollander, Filed On: November 17, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv1901, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: public Record, police Misconduct
J. Biran upholds the intermediate court's decision that a community justice organization should not pay the $245,000 fee to review 2,337 files of police misconduct that the Baltimore Police Department charged it. The lower court agreed with the department when it argued tax payers would be funding the fee and the information found would not be easily understood by the public. However, the intermediate court disagreed, arguing that transparency by the department would support a better relationship between the police and the public and its denial of the fee was arbitrary and capricious. Based on this logic and the fact that the justice organization could not possibly pay the fee, the department should finance it. Affirmed.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Biran, Filed On: August 31, 2023, Case #: 24-C-20-001269, Categories: public Record, police Misconduct
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Hollander grants the Baltimore Law Department, including the police department and several of its officers and other staff, its motion to dismiss allegations of First Amendment violations brought by a community justice group. The group has attempted on numerous occasions to gain access to records from the police department, particularly those reporting police misconduct. However, its claims are solely based on its assertion that it is being discriminated against based on the identities of its members, providing no evidence of this besides its own viewpoint. Also, the law department is an improper litigant.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Hollander, Filed On: August 10, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv1901, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: public Record, First Amendment, police Misconduct
J. Bell finds the district court improperly denied the news website owner’s petition for a writ of mandamus compelling the police department to disclose a report as to its investigation of its sweep of a homeless encampment. An affidavit provided by the police department asserts conclusions as to the potential effect of disclosing the full report but doesn’t explain why the records are confidential. Officers’ faces may remain redacted from video footage as the relevant statute provides that “any photograph of a peace officer … [is] not public information.” Affirmed in part. Reversed in part and remanded.
Court: Nevada Supreme Court, Judge: Bell, Filed On: June 15, 2023, Case #: 84389, Categories: public Record, police Misconduct