U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Lawsuit Settlement Over Detainment Of A Journalist Will Force Denver Police Department To Admit The First Amendment Exists
Source:
TechDirt
URL Source: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2 ... t-first-amendment-exists.shtml
Published: Sep 18, 2019
Author: Tim Cushing
Post Date: 2019-09-19 05:54:47 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 2741
Comments: 24
Last summer, Denver police officers decided the First Amendment didn't exist in the city, at least not while they were in the process of helping a naked black man get some medical attention by handcuffing him in the middle of the sidewalk. Denver PD officers Adam Paulsen and James Brooks noticed journalist Susan Greene filming the incident and decided she needed some law enforcement herself. So they approached her and told her to stop filming by citing an inapplicable law. For whatever reason, they also told her to "act like a lady." Greene was handcuffed and placed in a squad car for 12 minutes before a less-stupid cop contacted these officers and told them to release her. The whole incident was captured by officers' body cameras, including the repeated suggestion the journalist wasn't "acting like a lady" by contesting the officers' decision to cuff her and put her in the nearest squad car. Here was the bullshit the cops used to try to shut Greene down: As Greene detailed in a post the next day, and as the body-cam footage confirms, she approached the scene and was immediately blocked by Officer James Brooks. He continues to block her as she tries to keep shooting, at one point raising the camera high above Brooks’s head. Brooks is quickly joined by Officer Adam Paulsen, and the two advise her that she can not take photographs because doing so violates the HIPAA rights of the nearly naked man they have cuffed. HIPAA or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act outlines an individual’s rights to medical privacy. To be clear, HIPAA isn't violated when officers perform an ultra-weird medical consultation in the middle of public street -- one that involves a strategically-draped towel and a pair of handcuffs. If this man was ultimately taken in for a medical/mental examination and those records were handed over to the reporter, that would be a HIPAA violation. Shooting footage of public servants on a public street performing their public duties doesn't violate the privacy of anyone, medical or otherwise. The officers also claimed she was interfering with the non-arrest the officers claimed they were not making, apparently oblivious of the fact that they had approached the journalist, rather than the other way around. They also trotted out the "stop resisting" canard to pre-exonerate themselves for their aggressive handling of a person armed with a camera. Throughout the entire thing -- at least all the way up till the settlement the city is planning to pay Susan Greene -- Denver PD brass acted with useless decorum. Shortly after the incident went public, Police Chief Paul Pazen said people were way too focused on officers ignoring the First Amendment, rather than expressing their concern for the naked person his officers had handcuffed in the middle of the sidewalk. “It doesn’t appear that you’re asking any questions with regards to how an individual is treated who’s in crisis,” he said at one point in the interview. “That’s really what we all should be focusing in on.” “In a situation like this, we should look at the whole picture, not just certain segments that could point one person in a bad light.” Actually, it was two people, chief. And they put themselves in a "bad light" with their actions. The public shouldn't be deterred from asking why police officers are violating Constitutional rights, even if there are other issues at play. More disheartening was the complaint process, in which one of the officer's supervisors pretty much said filing a complaint would be a waste of everyone's time. I called Denver Police Department’s District 6 and spoke with Sgt. Shawn Saunders, who supervises Officer Brooks. He said he’d look into the incident and make sure the halo camera footage and other evidence are preserved for review. He gave me the option of filing a formal complaint against Officer Brooks. I told him I’d consider it, but that I don’t have a lot of confidence in Denver’s disciplinary system, which I’ve seen slap officers on the wrists for misconduct far more serious than this, only to have the Career Service Board side with the police union and overturn even the most meager disciplinary measures. To that, Saunders offered a response that was at once striking yet maddening in its candor. Yeah, he told me. “I don’t have a lot of confidence in it, either.” Part of the system works. But it will still be citizens paying for it. Susan Greene is about to receive a payout from the city of Denver. Denver’s Police Department has agreed to a $50,000 settlement with Colorado Independent Editor Susan Greene, whose First Amendment rights officers violated when they wrongfully handcuffed and detained her for photographing police last summer. The officers who handcuffed and detained her were also punished… by losing two days of pay each. Finally, the Denver PD will be forced to refresh itself on the contours of Constitutional protections -- basic stuff these officers were certainly aware of before they decided government might beats First Amendment rights. As part of the settlement, Denver agrees to significantly strengthen First Amendment and sensitivity trainings for police through at least 2024. The department also will update its policies on police bias and search and seizure of recording devices. We know officers aren't expected to know the intricacies of the laws they enforce. In fact, they're barely expected to know anything about the multiple statutes they use to detain and arrest people. But we should expect them to know just enough about Constitutional protections to realize they can't handcuff a person just for filming them. The thing is, they very likely do know this. Some officers just choose to ignore this knowledge because they think they might get away with it. They didn't here, and now citizens will be footing the bill for these officers and their unwillingness to respect the rights of the people they're supposed to protect.
from the being-deliberately-wrong-is-just-playing-the-odds dept
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
Biased authors are such disgusting people - but not quite as much as libertarians are. Salute, Gatlin
Not at all surprised to see your hatred for the first amendment on display once again. As long as it's cops infringing on those rights, it's swell with you, right boot-licker?
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. As long as it's cops infringing on those rights, it's swell with you, right boot-licker? I did that. If my doing that pissed you off, then I effectively accomplished two things this morning already with satisfying results. When truth prevails over agenda, I say to everyone … Salute, Gatlin
Susan Greene is about to receive a payout from the city of Denver. Denver’s Police Department has agreed to a $50,000 settlement with Colorado Independent Editor Susan Greene, whose First Amendment rights officers violated when they wrongfully handcuffed and detained her for photographing police last summer. As part of the settlement, Denver agrees to significantly strengthen First Amendment and sensitivity trainings for police through at least 2024. The department also will update its policies on police bias and search and seizure of recording devices. Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Actually, I pity your ignorance. What is right with me was to point out the misleading way the author framed his presentation with a supposition. I debunked your absurd claim in my post #4 to you.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Actually, I pity your ignorance. I am so deeply touched by the sincere feeling of deep sorrow and warm compassion you feel for me after all the horrendous suffering , distress, and unhappiness I have heaped upon you. Thank you. I feel tears beginning to flow … Salute, Gatlin
Did it FORCE the PD to ADMIT anything? As the author so boldly stated it would.
Asked and answered, but since you are still whining about it, I'll post it again. Finally, the Denver PD will be forced to refresh itself on the contours of Constitutional protections -- basic stuff these officers were certainly aware of before they decided government might beats First Amendment rights. As part of the settlement, Denver agrees to significantly strengthen First Amendment and sensitivity trainings for police through at least 2024. The department also will update its policies on police bias and search and seizure of recording devices.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. They were FORCED to do something. They never ADMITTED anything. There is a DEFINITE difference, asshole.
They never ADMITTED anything. Yada, yada, yada. Same shit - different day. They admitted that what they did was WRONG. Do you think they were wrong arresting a journalist who was recording them?
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Keep on telling yourself that. It will not change the fact that they NEVER ADMITTED any such thing. The were FORCED to comply with a court order. There is a BIG difference, asshole
Receiving “a payout” or “paying a fine” is NEVER an ADMISSION to ANYTHING. You always try to see things as you want them to be – and not as they really are. I will not let you get away trying to do that with me … Salute, Gatlin
In this case, it is. The department instituted new policies and required better constitutional training as part of the settlement. In effect, that is a tacit admission of guilt. Are you going to answer this question, or are you going to weasel your way out of it again? Do you think they were wrong arresting a journalist who was recording them?
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. I thank you for asking a DIRECT question to ascertain my considered view instead of doing what you always do – and that being to take it upon yourself to SAY what i I think when you have not even asked. Thank you for your COURTESY in doing this. I can offer you my opinion – without reviewing all the evidence – only by giving a qualified answer. I am sure you must understand that, because unlike you – I will never summarily pass judgment simply after reading an article. With that in mind … If ALL the journalist did was to record them and in no way interfered with the performance of their duty – then my “qualified” answer is: Yes, the police were wrong. Now, that I have answered your question – please answer a question for me. Why is it always okay with you to readily accept and be extremely happy with the judgement of the court when it rules against the police – and it is forever so wrong with you that you throw temper tantrums when the court rules in favor of the police? I eagerly await your answer … Salute,
Uh, maybe because cops should be held to a higher standard - when they violate the rights of the people, they deserve to be punished. and it is forever so wrong with you that you throw temper tantrums when the court rules in favor of the police? The only one I see throwing "temper tantrums" is you princess. I'm not going to stand by and watch you post your usual cop-worshiping screeds without putting you in your place.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Attempted many times by you and failed each time...
It is not possible for the Denver Police Department to be a party of the lawsuit. It will not be forced to admit anything. As a legal entity, it does not exist. Denver's Police Department will not pay anything. That's better. The corporate municipality may be sued, and may pay.
Thank you.
Isn't that a difference that makes no difference? The lawsuit may be paid off by the city from its treasury or by its insurance carrier as the city is the responsible governing entity of the PD and has deeper pockets. But it is difference without distinction since everyone knows it was the PD's actions which caused the lawsuit to be brought successfully. The distinction you are drawing is primarily one of who has the liability (the city) and who has the deeper pockets (the city). This is only accounting and legal talk that doesn't change the fact that city employees violated a journalist's rights. I don't think anyone really imagined that the Denver PD's police chief was writing a check from police department bank accounts.
I'd say that this was a deliberate attempt to ignore the laws. I don't doubt that the PD employees who arrested the woman knew that they were violating the law. They wanted instead to intimidate and this indicates that they have been trained or advised on how to intimidate people who are filming them and/or are attempting to develop methods to stop or greatly reduce such information gathering outside of their control. It reeks of preparedness for such an event, like the police were prepared to do exactly what they did. This was no accident or misunderstanding of the law. It was an attempt to push it as far as it could go. And to intimidate the public from filming police. I suspect, as usual, the largely unknown and unaccountable police training companies and the advice they hand out all over the country to various PDs.
Isn't that a difference that makes no difference? The lawsuit may be paid off by the city from its treasury or by its insurance carrier as the city is the responsible governing entity of the PD and has deeper pockets. But it is difference without distinction since everyone knows it was the PD's actions which caused the lawsuit to be brought successfully. It is a distinction which demonstrates that the source does not know what the hell he is writing about. He simply rehashed someone else's story. As the PD is not a legal entity, it has no pockets whatever to pay a settlement. This time Cushing has written an entire article about a settlement agreement that does not exist, although some readers seem to imagine that it does. It is not a distinction without a difference that the Police Department has no authority to enter into any legally binding agreement. The city attorney can't just bind the city either. Any actual settlement agreement valued at more than $5,000 requires the agreement of the city council. When the council gets to see the proposed settlement, everything on the Christmas tree may be agreed to or not. The cops involved were each docked two days pay.
Yet the original article from which this one was essentially plagiarized had this as its first sentence: "Denver’s Police Department has agreed to a $50,000 settlement with Colorado Independent Editor Susan Greene, whose First Amendment rights officers violated when they wrongfully handcuffed and detained her for photographing police last summer." It isn't clear to me who was negotiating with the lady's lawyer(s), Susan Greene. The PD agreed to something, maybe just the training portion. Seems hard to believe that the PD has lawyers who negotiate such settlements themselves with no city oversight. I always thought that in a big city, the city lawyers would handle such matters. But perhaps I'm wrong and the city used lawyers that worked for the PD to negotiate with. Or maybe the city did negotiate the settlement with Greene's lawyers but the PD had to sign off on the new training requirements and they were consulted last so the original reporter just lumped all the most basic facts together to report that "Denver’s Police Department has agreed to a $50,000 settlement with Colorado Independent Editor Susan Greene..." as the first sentence in the article, an attempt at making the briefest possible summary statement. Perhaps the problem here is that the original reporting wasn't all that clear on the facts of which lawyers negotiated the settlement. And then the plagiarist from TechDirt decided to re-write the story so it could appear on their little content farm so they could generate hits, improve search engine ranking and display ads to TechDirt readers. The plagiarist probably produced the entire story in 15 minutes and made $5 or so for this little "article" produced by plagiarizing and quoting the original source, the Colorado Independent. Anyway, that is pretty typical for the workday of those who work for these content farms here in America and around the world. As for this being political news, well, not that much. The last paragraph of the original story was "On Monday, Denver’s council approved a $1.55 million legal settlement with a group of female sheriff’s deputies who work in the Denver jail and alleged workplace discrimination on the basis of sex." So this little First Amendment case probably got about 2 minutes of discussion and a vote to approve the payout from the Denver council before they moved on to pay off the whiny female jailers for $1.5M.
The sensationalized version selected for publication here at LF had the far more titilating introduction, "Last summer, Denver police officers decided the First Amendment didn't exist in the city...." Now, there is a guy who knows how to write about the law. But I am sure that if you were the deranged and detained man sitting there in your birthday suit, awaiting ambulance transportation, you and your ACLU lawyer would have no beef about the cops allowing a lady with a cell phone to take crotch shots of you. The Colorado Independent reported that, “It doesn’t appear that you’re asking any questions with regards to how an individual is treated who’s in crisis,” he said at one point in the interview. “That’s really what we all should be focusing in on.” “In a situation like this, we should look at the whole picture, not just certain segments that could point one person in a bad light.” The Colorado Independent reported complainant Greene said she plans to share the settlement money with the Independent, which is a nonprofit newsroom. Without looking it seemed clear to me that it had to be a representative of the City Attorney's Office. Who else could it be? The Chief of D's? The Colorado Independent reported, "Police Chief Paul Pazen could not be reached for comment Tuesday. A spokesman told The Independent to speak to the city attorney’s office instead." The Independent also reported, "The settlement requires final approval of the City Council, which must sign off on any payment above $5,000. Ryan Luby, spokesman for the City Attorney’s Office, said it’s unclear when the council will vote on this. “But certainly soon,” he said. Council President Jolon Clark said he had not yet received information on the settlement and so he could not comment." It seems impossible to believe that the PD has lawyers who negotiate such settlements. It's hard to believe a PD has its own legal division. That's what the City Attorney's Office is for. For prosecutions, there is the DA's office. The PD is not a seperate legal entity. It has no corporate legal existence. The unrelated $1.55 million settlement was already approved as Ryan Luby, the spokesman for the City Attorney's Office, was stating the Greene proposal had to go to the City Council, and Council President Jolon Clark was stating he had not yet received information of the Greene proposal and could not comment. It is clear the sequence of events you ascribe is not possible. Perhaps the problem here is that the original reporting uses Susan Greene as its source for the content of the (allegedly proposed) settlement agreement. Lawyers do not typically negotiate the terms of a settlement agreement in the press. Presstitutes may do that crap. https://www.denverpost.com/2018/08/23/denver-police-detained-journalist-no-charges/ Colorado Independent editor says she was handcuffed while taking photos on public street By Elise Schmelzer | eschmelzer@denverpost.com A Denver police officer won’t face criminal charges after the editor of the Colorado Independent said he handcuffed her while she took photos on a public sidewalk. Denver District Attorney Beth McCann declined to press charges against Officer James Brooks, Denver District Attorney spokesman Ken Lane said Thursday afternoon. The editor, Susan Greene, reported that Brooks handcuffed her and placed her in a patrol car on July 5 because she refused an officer’s order to stop shooting photos of police standing around a naked man they had handcuffed on a downtown sidewalk. “There is insufficient evidence to charge and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer’s conduct constituted criminal offenses,” he said in a statement. [...] - - - - - - - - - - https://muckrack.com/susan-greene Editor/chief bottle washer at @coindependent. Investigative reporter. Evangelist for old-school beat reporting and unflinching nonprofit news. Lady. - - - - - - - - - - Non-profit news. Independent and non-partisan, like PBS. A non-profit journalist, accredited by a non-profit newsroom, is a lady on the street with her cell phone. A non-profit journalist is a former for-profit journalist who had her column canceled by the Denver Post. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_journalism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Non-profit journalism (abbreviated as NPJ, also known as a not-for-profit journalism or think tank journalism) is the practice of journalism as a non-profit organization instead of a for-profit business. NPJ groups are able to operate and serve the public good without the concern of debt, dividends and the need to make a profit. Just like all non-profit organizations, NPJ outfits depend on private donations and or foundation grants to pay for operational expenses. Study: Nonprofit News Outlets See Revenue Increase In 2018 YOY by Sara Guaglione, Yesterday Nonprofit news outlets generated $100 million more revenue in 2018 than the previous year, according to a study from the Institute for Nonprofit News. The annual INN Index surveyed 108 of its members (60%) to analyze their finances and operations. The study found the nonprofit news outlets brought in $450 million in annual revenue in 2018. INN has over 230 members. [...] “Several currents have combined to create broader opportunities for news philanthropy. Heightened public awareness of the spread of disinformation and deep declines in the news industry, plus political attacks on the press, have by many accounts increased public understanding of the crisis in journalism," the report reads. Nonprofit news publishers have also "stepped up efforts to engage with their communities and readers," as well as tapped into "significant training, tools and other capacity-building resources provided by foundations and other support programs to help them raise their fundraising expertise.” Revenue to nonprofit news organizations typically comes from foundations, donors and readers who want to support them with memberships or smaller, one-time contributions. Individuals and families now donate nearly 40% of all the revenue going to news nonprofits, according to the INN Index report. Overall, the increase in individual-giving donor revenue was driven by donors of $5,000 or more, who accounted for more than two-thirds of all donor revenue. Another 43% comes from foundations. Some 12% comes from “earned sources,” which includes advertising, sponsorships, events and subscriptions. Nearly one-third of the news organizations in the survey reported having a membership program in 2018. Sixteen percent said they planned to launch membership programs. [...] According to Nieman Lab, another report from Media Impact Funders last week showed journalism philanthropy has quadrupled since 2009, with 17,750 total grants made to 2,369 U.S.-based organizations associated with journalism projects.
In public, it's fair game. If she published photos that actually showed his junk unobscured, she might get into trouble. Usually, nude dudes aren't in much condition to object to anything because they're high on bath salts or crack or meth. And she didn't publish the nude dude's junk either. Nor did the cops know she was a journalista when they approached her and started ordering her around and manhandling her illegally. For which the city will pay rather dearly for about $5,000/minute for the 10 minutes they put her in their deluxe paddywagon. Well, yeah, that's what I thought too. I suppose it's possible that a local law firm handles police brutality cases for the city but you'd think that they would just staff up their own prosecutor's office instead because it would cost less longterm and keep the work in-house. In most cases, the client will know from their own lawyer who is the opposing counsel. But it is the free newspaper people. Denver still has several of them like the Denver Westword (the biggest) and newcomers like Denver Voice. I think they still have their old channel 12 independent public broadcasting station in Broomfield (separate from the official PBS station). I even stumbled over a mention that Colorado Springs revived the Echo, 2 years after its longtime publisher had died. So being pissant free-newspaper people, they're going to maximize their publicity by any means. You seem a little familiar with the Front Range. So am I.
The author frames his misleading ethical dilemma in a very misleading way: Lawsuit Settlement Over Detainment Of A Journalist Will Force Denver Police Department To Admit The First Amendment Exists
His supposition is that the settlement will automatically be decoded for the plaintiff. Even your worst enemy cannot hurt you as much as your own thoughts” ~ Buddha.
Making suppositions will become your enemy, especially when you allow their existence to determine your decisions, mood and behavior.
#2. To: Gatlin (#1)
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#3. To: Deckard (#2)
Not at all surprised to see your hatred for the first amendment on display once again.
What is right with me was to point out the misleading way the author framed his presentation with a supposition.
#4. To: Gatlin (#1)
His supposition is that the settlement will automatically be decoded for the plaintiff.
The author frames his misleading ethical dilemma in a very misleading way: Lawsuit Settlement Over Detainment Of A Journalist Will Force Denver Police Department To Admit The First Amendment Exists Finally, the Denver PD will be forced to refresh itself on the contours of Constitutional protections -- basic stuff these officers were certainly aware of before they decided government might beats First Amendment rights.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#5. To: Gatlin (#3)
(Edited)
If my doing that pissed you off,
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#6. To: Deckard (#5)
#7. To: Deckard (#4)
(Edited)
I debunked your absurd claim in my post #4 to you.
#8. To: Gatlin (#7)
Did it FORCE the PD to ADMIT anything?
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#9. To: Deckard (#8)
(Edited)
#10. To: Gatlin (#9)
(Edited)
They were FORCED to do something.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#11. To: Deckard (#10)
They admitted that what they did was WRONG.
#12. To: Deckard (#4)
Susan Greene is about to receive a payout from the city of Denver.
#13. To: Gatlin (#12)
Receiving “a payout” or “paying a fine” is NEVER an ADMISSION to ANYTHING.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#14. To: Deckard (#13)
In effect, that is a tacit admission of guilt.
Do you think they were wrong arresting a journalist who was recording them?
Attaboy – and that is a compliment, not meant to be sarcastic putdown.
Gatlin
#15. To: Gatlin (#14)
Why is it always okay with you to readily accept and be extremely happy with the judgement of the court when it rules against the police
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#16. To: Deckard (#15)
I'm not going to stand by and watch you post your usual cop-worshiping screeds without putting you in your place.
#17. To: Deckard, Gatlin (#4)
Lawsuit Settlement Over Detainment Of A Journalist Will Force Denver Police Department To Admit The First Amendment Exists
Denver’s Police Department has agreed to a $50,000 settlement with Colorado Independent Editor Susan Greene
Susan Greene is about to receive a payout from the city of Denver.
#18. To: nolu chan (#17)
#19. To: nolu chan (#17)
That's better. The corporate municipality may be sued, and may pay.
#20. To: Deckard, nolu chan (#0)
But we should expect them to know just enough about Constitutional protections to realize they can't handcuff a person just for filming them. The thing is, they very likely do know this. Some officers just choose to ignore this knowledge because they think they might get away with it. They didn't here, and now citizens will be footing the bill for these officers and their unwillingness to respect the rights of the people they're supposed to protect.
#21. To: Tooconservative, Gatlin (#19)
That's better. The corporate municipality may be sued, and may pay.
#22. To: nolu chan (#21)
It is a distinction which demonstrates that the source does not know what the hell he is writing about. He simply rehashed someone else's story. As the PD is not a legal entity, it has no pockets whatever to pay a settlement.
#23. To: Tooconservative, Gatlin (#22)
Yet the original article from which this one was essentially plagiarized had this as its first sentence: "Denver’s Police Department has agreed to a $50,000 settlement with Colorado Independent Editor Susan Greene, whose First Amendment rights officers violated when they wrongfully handcuffed and detained her for photographing police last summer."
[Police Chief Paul] Pazen declined to answer questions about the treatment of Greene, but he did say he thought his officers treated the nearly naked man with “respect and dignity.” He declined to answer why the man was also handcuffed, citing the ongoing investigation.
It isn't clear to me who was negotiating with the lady's lawyer(s), Susan Greene.
Seems hard to believe that the PD has lawyers who negotiate such settlements themselves with no city oversight. I always thought that in a big city, the city lawyers would handle such matters.
The last paragraph of the original story was "On Monday, Denver’s council approved a $1.55 million legal settlement with a group of female sheriff’s deputies who work in the Denver jail and alleged workplace discrimination on the basis of sex." So this little First Amendment case probably got about 2 minutes of discussion and a vote to approve the payout from the Denver council before they moved on to pay off the whiny female jailers for $1.5M.
Perhaps the problem here is that the original reporting wasn't all that clear on the facts of which lawyers negotiated the settlement.
Denver officer accused of detaining Colorado journalist faces no charges
The Denver Post
August 23, 2018 at 4:12 pm Susan Greene
Non-profit journalism
Subscribe to Publishers Daily
#24. To: nolu chan (#23)
(Edited)
But I am sure that if you were the deranged and detained man sitting there in your birthday suit, awaiting ambulance transportation, you and your ACLU lawyer would have no beef about the cops allowing a lady with a cell phone to take crotch shots of you.
Without looking it seemed clear to me that it had to be a representative of the City Attorney's Office. Who else could it be? The Chief of D's?
Perhaps the problem here is that the original reporting uses Susan Greene as its source for the content of the (allegedly proposed) settlement agreement. Lawyers do not typically negotiate the terms of a settlement agreement in the press. Presstitutes may do that crap.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]