U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
JMS:TDM:RJO
DJ 207-35-10
Special Litigation Section – PHB
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington DC 20530
May 14, 2012
Mark H. Grimes
Baltimore Police Department
Office of Legal Affairs
601 E Fayette St
Baltimore, MD 21202
Mary E. Borja
Wiley Rein LLP
1776 K St NW
Washington, DC 20006
Re: Christopher Sharp v. Baltimore City Police Department, et. al.
Dear Counsel:
Judge Paul W. Grimm scheduled a settlement conference in Christopher Sharp v. Baltimore City Police Department, et. al. for May 30, 2012. While we take no position on Mr. Sharp’s claim for damages against the individual defendants, it is the United States’ position that any resolution to Mr. Sharp’s claims for injunctive relief should include policy and training requirements that are consistent with the important First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights at stake when individuals record police officers in the public discharge of their duties. These rights, subject to narrowly-defined restrictions, engender public confidence in our police departments, promote public access to information necessary to hold our governmental officers accountable, and ensure public and officer safety.
The guidance in this letter is designed to assist the parties during the upcoming settlement conference. It specifically addresses the circumstances in this case and Baltimore City Police Department’s General Order J-16 (“Video Recording of Police Activity”), but also reflects the United States’ position on the basic elements of a constitutionally adequate policy on individuals’ right to record police activity.
1. Background
In his complaint, Mr. Sharp alleged that on May 15, 2010, Baltimore City Police Department (“BPD”) officers seized, searched and deleted the contents of his cell phone after he used it to record officers forcibly arresting his friend. Compl. at 9-12, ECF. No. 2. Mr. Sharp further alleged that BPD maintains a policy, practice or custom of advising officers to detain citizens who record the police while in the public discharge of their duties and to seize, search, and delete individuals’ recordings.
h/t Matt Bracken
