Tag: ACLU

Categories
News News Blog

Judge Temporarily Halts Voter Registration Law From Taking Effect

CREDIT: U of M/Facebook

U of M/Facebook

A voter registration event at University of Memphis last year

A state law that places restrictions on voter registration efforts was temporarily blocked Thursday by a federal court.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Tennessee filed for an emergency preliminary injunction late last month to halt the law from taking effect.

The law, signed by Governor Bill Lee in May, mandates a slew of requirements for those participating in voter registration efforts and penalties for those who don’t comply. It was set to take effect on October 1st.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee Judge Aleta Trauger granted the ACLU’s motion for emergency injunction Thursday.

Trauger wrote that the plaintiffs would “suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted, and that the public interest strongly favors granting the injunction.”

The injunction means the state cannot take any steps to “implement, enforce, conduct investigations pursuant to, or assist in any prosecution” under the law.

[pdf-1]


Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the ACLU of Tennessee said that Trauger’s ruling “indicates that the court understands the dangerous burdens this law places on organizations simply trying to ensure that as many eligible voters can participate in the democratic process as possible.”

“This decision allows our clients to continue their important work of registering voters — including those who have been historically disenfranchised — this election season,” Weinberg said. “We look forward to the day when this unconstitutional law can be struck down for good.”

The ACLU, along with the Campaign Legal Center and Fair Elections Center filed a lawsuit in May challenging the legislation on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Tennessee, the American Muslim Advisory Council, the Mid-South Peace & Justice Center, Rock the Vote, Spread the Vote, Central Labor Council, and HeadCount. The lawsuit is still ongoing.

[pullquote-1]

Danielle Lang, co-director of voting rights and redistricting for the Campaign Legal Center calls the law in question “punitive,” noting that voter registration drives have historically been a way for marginalized groups to gain access to the ballot box.

“This law punished civic organizations for seeking to help register voters, particularly those in underserved communities,” Lang said. “As the court recognized, it struck at the heart of free speech rights and imposed needless burdensome regulations.”

Thursday’s ruling by Trauger is a “significant victory,” said Michelle Cohen, counsel at Fair Elections Center.

“The court’s ruling recognizes the critical role of these efforts in our democracy,” Cohen said. “Because the court stopped these restrictions from going into effect, the door to participating will remain open to community-based civic engagement efforts to engage fellow citizens, which are so badly needed in Tennessee.”

Earlier this week, the state moved to have the lawsuit dismissed, but Trauger denied that request, saying in her decision that the plaintiffs in the case have presented “plausible claims.” She raised many concerns about the law in her decision, calling the law a “complex and punitive scheme.”

Trauger also cited the low number of registered voters in her decision. There were 4,872,000 voting-aged Tennesseans, but only 3,183,000 registered voters as of November 2018, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey.

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission ranked Tennessee 44th out of all states in the percentage of its citizens registered to vote.

Categories
News News Blog

Judge Denies State’s Request to Dismiss Voter Registration Lawsuit


A federal judge denied the state’s request to dismiss a lawsuit Monday that challenges a new state law that would put substantial requirements in place for groups that participate in voter registration efforts.

Judge Aleta Trauger for the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee said that the lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Tennessee and the Campaign Legal Center and Fair Elections Center, will proceed.

Trauger said the plaintiffs in the case have presented “plausible claims.” She raised many concerns about the law in her decision, calling the law a “complex and punitive scheme.” 

Judge Aleta Trauger

“If Tennessee is concerned that voter registration drives are being done incompetently, it can engage in public education efforts without relying on a complex and punitive regulatory scheme,” Trauger wrote. “If it is concerned that the drives are being done fraudulently — for example, by a person or organization collecting forms and never turning them in — it can punish the fraud rather than subjecting everyone else to an intrusive prophylactic scheme that true bad actors would likely evade regardless.”


One of the judge’s key concerns is the lack of guidance that the legislation’s language offers.

“The ambiguity, as well, places too much burden on individuals who merely wish to exercise their First Amendment rights within the law,” Trauger wrote.

[pullquote-1]

The vagueness of the law leads to uncertainty which is “inherently likely to result in a chilling effect on organizations and individuals who wish to participate in voter registration but who cannot afford to find themselves on the wrong side of an enforcement action,” Trauger said.

The judge also noted that restricting voter registration drives in order to try to preserve election commission resources is “like poisoning the soil in order to have an easier harvest. There is no point in taking a step to preserve resources if, by doing so, one thoroughly compromises the reason that the resources were important in the first place.”

Read Trauger’s decision in full below. 

[pdf-1]

The law in question was signed by Governor Bill Lee in May and is slated to go into effect on October 1st.

Late last month, the ACLU filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. If granted, the injunction would prohibit the state from penalizing those participating in voter registration who don’t meet all the requirements of the new law.

There were 4,872,000 voting-aged Tennesseans, but only 3,183,000 registered voters as of November 2018, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey.

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission ranked Tennessee 44th out of all states in the percentage of its citizens registered to vote.


Categories
News News Blog

ACLU Moves to Stop State Voter Registration Law From Taking Effect

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Tennessee filed for an emergency injunction Friday in an attempt to stop a state law that places substantial requirements on voter registration efforts from going into effect.

The law, signed by Governor Bill Lee in May, mandates a slew of requirements for those participating in voter registration efforts and penalties for those who don’t comply. It is set to take effect on October 1st.

Some of the requirements of the law include providing the coordinator of elections with information about any voter drive prior to holding it, completing a training session, and filing a sworn statement stating an intention to obey the laws and procedures pertaining to the process.

The law also creates civil and criminal penalties to groups or individuals who turn in more than 100 “deficient filings.” Groups opposing the law have said it would place “strict, unnecessary, and irrational restrictions” on community-based voter registration efforts.

[pullquote-1]

Soon after the law was passed, the ACLU, along with the Campaign Legal Center and Fair Elections Center filed a lawsuit challenging the legislation in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Tennessee, the American Muslim Advisory Council, the Mid-South Peace and Justice Center, Rock the Vote, Spread the Vote, Central Labor Council, and HeadCount.

The ongoing lawsuit, League of Women Voters of Tennessee v. Hargett, argues that the law violates the freedoms of speech, association, due process, and “the fundamental right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”

Now, the ACLU is trying to stop the law from going into effect by filing a motion for a preliminary injunction. If granted, the injunction would prohibit the state from penalizing those participating in voter registration who don’t meet all the requirements of the new law. Read the full motion for injunction below. 

[pdf-1]


“Civic-minded groups like our clients should be able to help community members register to vote without the threat of being charged with a crime or slapped with an exorbitant fine,” said Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the ACLU of Tennessee. “While this case works its way through the system and we prove in court why this law is unfair and unconstitutional, our clients should be able to help as many Tennesseans as they can gain access to the ballot box.”

Tuesday (today) is the last day to register to vote to participate in the upcoming city elections, set for Thursday, October 3rd. Voters can register one of three ways: online, via mail, or in person. Find more information on how to register here. 

Categories
News News Blog

Group Calls Committee’s Interruption of CEO’s Testimony ‘Disrespectful,’ ‘Dismissive’

CREDIT: Matt Anderson

Cherisse Scott

Head of a Memphis organization that works for reproductive justice was cut short during her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday as she spoke against legislation that would essentially ban abortion in Tennessee. 

Cherisse Scott, founder and CEO of SisterReach, an organization meant to help women and girls of color, women living in low-income and rural areas, and the LBGTQ community obtain reproductive justice, was cut off five minutes into what was meant to be a 10-minute testimony by chairman of the committee Senator Mike Bell (R-Riceville).

“Reproductive justice seeks to liberate and emancipate vulnerable populations from all forums of reproductive and sexual oppression,” Scott said early in her testimony. “It challenges us to expand our analysis beyond abortion to be inclusive of the myriad of other issues that preclude women and people that give birth from achieving reproductive and sexual autonomy.”

Scott called the legislation in question an “outright and intentional abandonment by the Tennessee state legislator of these vulnerable people.”

She said the legislation would be the “final straw in a political pattern of vile, racist, un-American, and un-Christian legislation.”

[pullquote-1]

Scott continued citing “harmful” policy making that intersects with abortion rights. She noted the need for sexual education in schools, access to health care, education reform, and more behavioral and mental health care.

She said the legislators have “created an environment that leads Tennesseans to need more abortions, under-care or neglect their children, regardless of whether or not they want to or able to parent.

“And if all this isn’t heartbreaking enough, you weild your political power in Jesus’ name,” Scott said. “Many of you who claim to be conservative Christians have weaponized the word of God to forward your political agendas and maintain power and control over the most vulnerable Tennesseans. You manipulated Biblical scripture to align with your colonialism and supremacist ideologies, instead of showing mercy.”

Matt Anderson

Cherisse Scott continues to speak as she is approached by the sergeant-in-arms

This is when Bell interrupted Scott: “That’s enough. Your time is up.”

Scott continued to speak though, prompting Bell to call for the sergeant-in-arms to escort Scott from the room.

“I have sat here and I have watched you all to allow people to talk and talk, but you won’t allow me to talk as a Christian because I disagree with the way that you believe?” Scott said, noting that she hadn’t gone over her allotted 10 minutes.

Bell asked for Scott’s microphone to be turned off, as she continued to speak, and then he called for a five-minute recess, and left the room.

“Either you care about people’s bodies or you do not,” Scott told the committee. “Either you are here to save my life or you are not. Stop being an impostor of God’s word and do your jobs.”

Scott’s words garnered applause and cheers from members of the audience. Watch Scott’s interrupted testimony here or read the entire testimony here.

Of the 21 witnesses that spoke before the committee, Scott was the only one prohibited from completing her testimony. She was also the only African-American witness, and one of nine women.

SisterReach called the committee’s actions a “bold declaration of the staunch, disrespectful, and dismissive attitude toward women.” 

Many watching the hearings agreed and took it to Twitter.

Group Calls Committee’s Interruption of CEO’s Testimony ‘Disrespectful,’ ‘Dismissive’ (4)

Group Calls Committee’s Interruption of CEO’s Testimony ‘Disrespectful,’ ‘Dismissive’

Group Calls Committee’s Interruption of CEO’s Testimony ‘Disrespectful,’ ‘Dismissive’ (5)

Group Calls Committee’s Interruption of CEO’s Testimony ‘Disrespectful,’ ‘Dismissive’ (2)

Group Calls Committee’s Interruption of CEO’s Testimony ‘Disrespectful,’ ‘Dismissive’ (6)

Group Calls Committee’s Interruption of CEO’s Testimony ‘Disrespectful,’ ‘Dismissive’ (7)

Group Calls Committee’s Interruption of CEO’s Testimony ‘Disrespectful,’ ‘Dismissive’ (8)

The legislation up for discussion, sponsored by Senator Mark Pody (R-Lebanon) seeks to redefine viability and outlaw abortion at the moment of conception, or when a woman finds out she is pregnant.

Others who testified against the legislation include Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee. Weinberg called the arguments made in support of the legislation “certainly creative,” but “irrational.”

“Abortion restrictions disproportionally harm women in rural areas and women with limited incomes,” Weinberg said. “Forcing a woman to carry to term increases existing hardships. It’s unconstitutional.”

If the bill is passed, Weinberg said the ACLU will sue and “We will win.”

Group Calls Committee’s Interruption of CEO’s Testimony ‘Disrespectful,’ ‘Dismissive’ (3)

Wrapping up the two-day hearing, Pody admitted that the issue is “very, very contentious,” but also “extremely important.”

Pody also noted that the bill isn’t “necessarily a heartbeat bill” and that no other state is “hearing something like this.”

“I think it’s going to boil down to this: When does life begin?” Pody said. “And who’s going to decide? So far it’s been decided by the Supreme Court, but I believe at one point everybody thought the world was flat. I believe at one point, people of color didn’t have the same rights,

“I believe at one point, women didn’t have the same rights. As we grow as a society, we want to make sure everybody’s protected. If there’s life in the womb and that life is human, I believe that that life deserves protection as well.”

Categories
News News Blog

Tennessee Legislature’s Anti-Refugee Lawsuit Defeated (Again)

CREDIT: Courtesty of U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Courtesty of U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Children line up inside a U.S. immigration detention center.


A Tennessee appeals court upheld a lower court’s decision Wednesday to dismiss a lawsuit by state lawmakers aimed at blocking refugee resettlement in Tennessee.

The Tennessee General Assembly sued the United States Department of State on the grounds that refugee settlement in Tennessee violates the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit alleged that though Tennessee had withdrawn from the federal Refugee Resettlement Program, the federal government forced Tennessee to continue funding the program by “threatening the state with the loss of federal Medicaid funding.” The state said it had to “expend a substantial amount of state taxpayer money” to fund the program.

The lawsuit was dismissed in March 2018 by a federal judge who ruled there was a lack of standing by the legislature to sue on its own behalf and that the state failed to show that refugee resettlement in Tennessee violates the Constitution.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision Wednesday, also stating that the General Assembly had not established its standing

“Accordingly, we do not reach the questions of ripeness, statutory preclusion, or whether the General Assembly stated a claim upon which relief could be granted,” the court’s opinion reads.

[pullquote-1] Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, said she “applauds the Sixth Circuit’s decision, which reinforces that this lawsuit should have never been brought in the first place.”


“What’s more, as a state and as a nation, we value fair treatment of refugees and compassion toward those in need,” Weinberg said in a statement. “Our country has a long tradition of honoring these values through our asylum system. There is nothing more American than allowing people the opportunity to seek safety and to work and care for their families.

“Today’s decision ensures that Tennessee will continue to uphold these important values. We will continue to remain vigilant and ready to act against politicians’ attempts to undermine refugee resettlement in our country.”

Lisa Sherman Nikolaus, policy director for the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, said the legislature used this lawsuit to “stoke fear and division.”

“After two embarrassing defeats in the courts, the legislation must finally put this hateful lawsuit to rest and put our taxpayer resources to better use, such as funding public schools and increasing access to healthcare,” Sherman Nikolaus said. “Throughout the debate around the lawsuit, Tennesseans have shown up to defend the life-saving work of refugee resettlement.

“It is clear that our communities are ready and willing to welcome those seeking safety and protection in our country and will reject efforts by lawmakers to divide us.”

Categories
News News Blog

Monitor in Police Spying Case to Seek Feedback at Community Forum

CREDIT: Brandon Dill

Brandon Dill

Protesters and police officers face off during the 2016 Hernando de Soto bridge protest


The team appointed to monitor the Memphis Police Department’s (MPD) compliance to a federal judge’s ruling on police surveillance wants to hear from the community at a public forum this Thursday.

After the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Tennessee won a lawsuit against the city on behalf of Memphis activists last year, U.S. District Judge Jon McCalla appointed former U.S. Attorney Ed Stanton of the Butler Snow Law Firm to lead the independent group tasked with monitoring MPD’s progress and adherence to the court’s orders.

The question at hand during the August trial: Did MPD violate the 1978 Kendrick Consent Decree which prohibits political surveillance and interference of an individual’s First Amendment rights? McCalla ruled that MPD did violate that decree by actively pursuing covert surveillance of four local activists.

The city violated several areas of the consent agreement, McCalla ruled, including: intercepting phone calls and electronic communications, using a fake Facebook profile of “Bob Smith” to learn of activists’ activities, and failing to properly inform officers of the parameters of the 1978 ruling.

✖ Thursday’s meeting will take place at Mississippi Boulevard Christian Church in Midtown from 6-7:30 p.m. click to tweet

Now, in an effort to “encourage transparent dialogue,” the monitoring team will hold a series of community meetings to share updates on the group’s work and to allow the community to give feedback on the city’s efforts to comply with the 1978 consent decree.

Thursday’s meeting will take place at Mississippi Boulevard Christian Church in Midtown from 6 p.m.-7:30 p.m. Attendees will have the opportunity to ask the team questions and learn more about MPD’s progress with compliance. Representatives of the ACLU will also be at the meeting to answer questions.

A second public forum is tentatively slated for the fall. The monitoring team also launched a website this month to keep the public informed on the group’s efforts. 


Apart from appointing the monitoring team, McCalla also ordered MPD to revise its policy on political surveillance, train officers on the decree, establish a process for criminal investigations that may result in political intelligence, establish written guidelines for using social media searches, maintain a list of those searches, and submit that list to the court four times a year.

On August 27th, the monitoring team will return to McCalla’s courtroom to give a 90-day progress report. At an April hearing, McCalla said he would like to have a draft of MPD’s revised information-gathering policy by the August court date.


Categories
News News Blog

Webber’s Shooting Called ‘Boiling Point For Community’

CREDIT: Facebook


Civil rights groups say the community’s response to Wednesday’s fatal shooting of Brandon Webber at the hands of U.S. Marshals officers goes beyond the events of this week and is the result of years of injustice.

Just City said in a Thursday statement via Twitter that the neighborhood’s response is based on “decades of sustained over-policing and entrenched policies that criminalize poverty.”

“The loss of another young life was but a spark on the smoldering ashes that exist in so many neighborhoods in our community,” reads the statement from Just City. “Every single day in Memphis, young and old alike encounter oppressive systems, which are nearly impossible to avoid or escape.”

[pullquote-1]

Just City said the courts demand more time and attention from the poor than the wealthy, so “even simple traffic tickets can cause a crisis.”

“Hefty” court costs and fees, which if not paid result in driver’s license suspensions, is one way that Just City said those living in poverty are unfairly treated by the system.

“Law enforcement and courts demand accountability for the slightest misstep,” Just City said. “Yet when a life is taken in a hail of gunfire, we wait for days, weeks, or years for a simple description of what occurred, and officers are rarely, if ever, held accountable.”

Webber’s Shooting Called ‘Boiling Point For Community’

Hedy Weinberg, director of the ACLU of Tennessee, shared similar sentiments Thursday, saying that the community’s response was “clearly one of pain, of frustration, of anger.”

“While we in no way condone violence against police officers, the boiling point reached by some individuals in the crowd last night is the consequence of decades of injustice, discrimination, and violence against black people in Memphis and beyond,” Weinberg said. “Of course people in Frayser are upset and angry. We should all be angry.”


Weinberg continues saying that to ignore the pain of protesters and instead to respond with “a militarized show of police force, only illustrates and reinforces the problem.”

Facebook

Brandon Webber

“To adapt the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., unrest is the language of the unheard,” Weinberg said. “To stem the erosion of trust between the community and law enforcement, it is incumbent on Memphis leaders to start listening. This means acknowledging the community’s legitimate pain and anger.”

Weinberg also questioned if there were any attempts made by the officers to de-escalate the situation before shooting Webber: “Was shooting Mr. Webber over a dozen times, if reports are accurate, really necessary?”

There should be a “swift, thorough, and transparent” investigation into the shooting and a “prompt” release of any footage or evidence related to the incident, Weinberg said.

[pullquote-2]

The Memphis branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) also wants answers surrounding Webber’s death.

In a Thursday statement, Deidre Malone, president of the Memphis branch, said the group is “very interested” in determining whether or not the U.S. Marshal officers that shot Webber were wearing body cameras and if there “was a better way to engage Mr. Webber once he was located.”

“Unfortunately for our citizens, Memphis is again in the spotlight over a shooting of an African American,” Malone said. “The NAACP Memphis Branch will continue to ask these questions until we obtain a response.”


Categories
News News Blog

Groups File Lawsuit Challenging New State Law on Voter Registration


Three groups filed a federal lawsuit Thursday challenging a new Tennessee law that would put substantial requirements in place for groups that participate in voter registration efforts.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Tennessee, Campaign Legal Center, and Fair Elections Center on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Tennessee, the American Muslim Advisory Council, the Mid-South Peace and Justice Center, Rock the Vote, and Spread the Vote.

The defendants in the suit are Mark Goins, coordinator of elections for the state of Tennessee; Herbert Slatery, Tennessee Attorney General; and members of the state election commission.

The law in question, signed by Gov. Bill Lee last week, lists a slew of requirements for those participating in voter registration efforts and penalties for those who don’t comply.

[pullquote-1]

The legislation, HB 1079/ SB 971, sponsored by Rep. Tim Rudd (R-Murfreesboro)  and Sen. Ed Jackson (R-Jackson) includes conditions organizations must adhere to when holding voter registration drives.

Some of the requirements include providing the coordinator of elections with information about the drive prior to holding it, completing a training, and filing a sworn statement stating an intention to obey the laws and procedures pertaining to the process.

The law also creates civil and criminal penalties to groups or individuals who turn in more than 100 “deficient filings.”

The organizations who filed the lawsuit maintain that the law violates the freedoms of speech and association, due process, and the right to vote under the First and 14th Amendments.

“This is a lawsuit challenging strict, unnecessary, and irrational restrictions on community-based voter registration speech and activity,” the complaint reads. “Plaintiffs bring this action to prevent the enforcement of a new Tennessee law that unconstitutionally burdens and chills there core political speech and associational rights.”

The ACLU-TN said Thursday that Tennessee is ranked 44th in voter registration, but that there was a surge in registration during the 2018 midterm elections. The group believes the new law comes as a result of that registration growth and election officials’ lack of resources to handle the influx.

Sophia Lakin, staff attorney for the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project said the legislation is “punishing” civic organizations that advocate for people’s right to vote and that help them do so.

“With its dismal voter registration rates, Tennessee needs these groups on the ground,” Lakin said. “What politicians should be doing is making sure that local election officials have the adequate resources to do their jobs. Silencing civic groups’ voices is not the solution.”

Paul Garner, organizing director of the Mid-South Peace and Justice Center, one of the plaintiffs agreed, calling the law “draconian” and a form of voter suppression. Garner said the law punishes “those that want the democratic process to reflect and represent as many people as possible in communities like Memphis.”

[pullquote-2]

The lawsuit aims to ensure the political participation of all the state’s eligible voters, Hedy Weinberg, executive director of ACLU-TN said.

“Voter registration drives have long been a way for communities that are historically disenfranchises — including students, people of color, immigrants, and senior citizens — to empower individuals and gain access to the ballot box,” Weinberg said.

The League of Women Voters of Tennessee, another plaintiff, has prioritized making sure voters are properly registered and have all the information they need for nearly 100 years, according to Marian Ott, president of the organization.

“Voter registration surges like the one Tennessee saw in 2018 should be celebrated, not penalized,” Ott said. “We saw this law as a threat to democracy and a direct violation of our Constitution.”

The law created the “country’s most aggressive” penalties for voter registration drives, Paul Smith, vice president of the Campaign Legal Center, said.

“If the court does not intervene, the state will unlawfully chill the efforts of organizations working to get people registered,” Smith said. Voter registration drives for years have been a way for historically marginalized groups to empower their communities and gain access to the ballot box. We are taking Tennessee to court to protect that tradition against government threats of fines and jail time.”



Read the full complaint here. 

Categories
News News Blog

Monitor in Police Spying Case Says MPD Has Been “Extremely Cooperative”

CREDIT: Brandon Dill

Brandon Dill

Protesters and police officers face off during the 2016 Hernando de Soto bridge protest

The head of the team appointed by the court to monitor the Memphis Police Department’s (MPD) adherence to a federal judge’s October ruling on police surveillance said at a Tuesday hearing that the city has been “cooperative” and “responsive” so far. 

U.S. District Judge Jon McCalla appointed former U.S. Attorney Ed Stanton of the Butler Snow Law Firm to lead the independent monitoring group in December after he ruled in the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Tennessee v. the city of Memphis case. McCalla said the city failed to train its officers on the 1978 consent decree that bars political surveillance of citizens and that MPD did violate that decree.

As a result, the court imposed sanctions on the police department, including the appointment of Stanton and several others to monitor the implementation of the court’s recommendations.

The court instructed the department to revise its policies on political intelligence and train officers accordingly, establish a process for approving criminal investigations that may incidentally result in gathering political intelligence, establish written guidelines for the use of social media searches, and maintain a list of those searches.

Ed Stanton III

Giving a progress report to the court, Stanton said Tuesday that over the past three and a half months, the team has been acting as the “eyes and ears of the court,” conducting a comprehensive review of MPD’s code of conduct, it’s onboarding and training process, and social media practices, including a record of the search terms used by the department.

“It’s important to know that to date, the city, through its counsel, has been extremely cooperative, responsive, and resourceful in providing the documents and files the monitoring team has requested thus far,” Stanton said. “Still, it’s impossible to obtain instant solutions or compliance.”

Stanton said the team is still evaluating data and thousands of documents from the city.

Another important part of the process will be meeting with Lt. Col. Anthony Rudolph, training commander for MPD, to learn more about the training officers receive relating to social media and surveillance.

Stanton said the team was hoping to meet with Rudolph before Tuesday’s hearing, but wasn’t able to as Rudolph is out of the country.

Judge McCalla said meeting with Rudolph is crucial to the process, calling the parties’ inability to set a meeting with the commander a “miscue” that should not have occurred: “This should have happened a while ago.”

Another member of the monitoring team, Jim Letten, a former U.S. Attorney, said once Rudolph returns, the team will assess MPD’s current policies and training program, adjusting or adding to it if necessary. The aim is to “preserve the department’s investigative goals” while “preserving the right to express and enjoy the First Amendment.”

[pullquote-2]

To do this, the department has to put a training program in place that will “reach every single officer in the department,” training them to “recognize and protect First Amendment rights,” Letten said.

The final recommendations the team makes to the court won’t “threaten degrading the police department’s ability to effectively investigate, find offenders, and protect citizens,” but it won’t “offend the consent decree,” Letten said.

Rachel Levinson-Walden of the Brennan Center for Justice in New York, also serving on the monitoring team, said MPD has made “significant efforts” to address the concerns raised by the team.

Levinson-Walden said this has been “a major factor” in the team’s ability to accommodate the court’s requests.

“The city has made significant progress already and has been extremely cooperative, but there’s more to be done in terms of training and putting protocols in place and in terms of embracing the values set out by this court,” Levinson-Walden said. “Where we are seeing the policies headed are by-and-large in a very good direction.”

But Levinson-Walden reminded the court of why everyone was there Tuesday in the first place: ”In general, social media surveillance by law enforcement can be intimidating and chilling, especially when the focus is people exercising their constitutional right or when it’s disproportionately focused on communities of color.”

Citing a set of police guidelines relating to the use of social media for intelligence drafted by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance in 2013, Levinson-Walden highlighted the need for oversight mechanisms to make sure the department is adhering to the consent decree.

The 2013 guidelines recommend that any law enforcement action involving undercover activity, including developing an undercover profile on social media, should require documentation of all activity, periodic reviews, and auditing of the undercover processes.

Levinson-Walden also said that if a police department is using social media for investigative purposes, then its social media policies should be available to the public.

[pullquote-1]

This isn’t an area that has gotten much attention on a national level, she said. But she and others are in the process of drafting legislation that would put transparency and accountability mechanisms in place for law enforcement agencies using social media.

Levinson-Walden found through a survey that of the 156 police departments in the country who have purchased social media monitoring software, only 18 of them have information-gathering policies that are available to the public.

A major focus of the legislation would be to make sure the public understands how law enforcement is using social media and have an opportunity to provide input on that process.

The bill would also provide certain protections for juveniles, put restrictions on undercover accounts, and require a yearly report from departments on how they are using social media.

Judge McCalla told the monitoring team, along with attorneys for the city and the ACLU that he would like to have all proposed policy revisions drafted within 90 days.


Categories
Politics Politics Beat Blog

ACLU, Governor Speaking “Same Language” on Justice Reform, Weinberg Says

CREDIT: JB

JB

Hedy Weinberg at Rotary Club of Memphis

Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the Tennessee chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, wants it on the record: She is confident that Governor Bill Lee is “very committed to criminal justice reform” and that “we speak the same language” on that issue.

Weinberg made the declaration as part of an ACLU goals review on Tuesday of this week in a luncheon address to the Rotary Club of Memphis. And, after she had concluded her remarks, she submitted to a question-and-answer session and was asked by Rotarian Otis Sanford of The Daily Memphian and the University of Memphis if she was “confident” that Lee “will follow through on this and make a difference with this very ultra-conservative legislature.”

Weinberg answered in the affirmative: “I don’t agree with [him on] everything, but I do have confidence and will be very happy to partner with him.”

In his inauguration address last week, Lee addressed the goal of “safe neighborhoods” and promised to be “tough on crime and smart on crime at the same time.” He elaborated: “[H]ere’s the reality. 95 percent of the people in prison today are coming out. And today in Tennessee, half of them commit crimes again and return to prison within the first three years. We need to help non-violent criminals re-enter society, and not re-enter prison.”

In her remarks to the Rotarians, Weinberg praised Lee as well as the Tennessee County Services Association, the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce,(the Tennessee Association of Goodwills, and the Beacon Center of Tennessee as partners committed to provide progressive remedies to issues of recidivism, non-violent crime, and what she termed Tennessee’s current policies of “over-incarceration.”

The General Assembly has in recent years seen an increasing incidence of cooperation between legislators of the left and right in bills aimed at criminal justice reform. Though she noted remaining islands of obstruction among legislators, Weinberg hailed what she saw as a dawning era of bipartisan agreement on reform issues.