Tag: police surveillance

Categories
News News Blog

City Proposes Modifications, Clarification to Consent Decree on Police Surveillance

CREDIT: Brandon Dill

Brandon Dill

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

The city has submitted proposed modifications to the 1978 Kendrick consent decree on police surveillance and the court is asking for public comment on the changes.

U.S. District Judge Jon McCalla ruled in October 2018 that the Memphis Police Department (MPD) violated several areas of the decree, including intercepting 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.

McCalla’s ruling also mandated the creation of a court-appointed monitoring team to track MPD’s progress and adherence to the decree. Since then the monitoring team headed by Ed Stanton III has been working with the city and police department to create new policies and procedures related to the decree.

Last week, the city filed a notice to the court which included proposed modifications to the decree. The court is giving the public until May 4th to submit comments on the city’s proposals.

The filing only seeks to change one section of the decree. The modification would allow the MPD director to designate officers to approve investigations that might interfere with the exercise of First Amendment rights, as long as the designees receive regular training on the consent decree and the director periodically reviews the designees’ work.

The current language of the decree only allows for the MPD director to authorize such investigations.

The meat of the filing is in the 17 addendum items or “clarifications” that the city looks to add the consent decree. The city notes that “the parties generally have a common understanding on certain areas of permissible conduct under the consent decree.” Therefore, these stipulations do not require an actual modification of the decree, the filing said.

A few examples from the addendum items include:

• MPD is allowed to gather intelligence on upcoming events via social media, but should delete the intelligence if there is no “criminal law reason” to keep it.

• MPD may use undercover accounts to solve crimes, but cannot employ accounts like the “Bob Smith” account, which was largely used to gather information about protests and its participants. MPD will implement tighter regulation and control of undercover accounts.


• With authorization from the MPD director, officers can conduct long-running investigations that could intersect with First Amendment activity, including those that require an online undercover presence.

• MPD may receive and share information with other law enforcement agencies as long as MPD does not use another agency to what it is not allowed to do under the consent decree

• Gang activity is not protected by the First Amendment or consent decree.

• The structure of the Multi-Agency Gang unit does not violate the consent decree.

See full filing below.

[pdf-1]

In September of last year, the city moved to “significantly modify” the 1978 Kendrick consent decree, filing a sealed motion with the court. The city argued that the decree “unduly burdens legitimate investigative activities and creates restrictions that are unnecessary for the protection of First Amendment rights,” according to court documents that were unsealed in November.

The city said the consent decree prohibits MPD from “using other agencies or persons as ‘surrogates’ to do indirectly what it could not do directly,” preventing coordination between law enforcement agencies.

Specifically, the city said the consent decree has a “detrimental effect” on the city’s participation in the Joint Terrorism Task Force, the Tennessee Fusion Center, the Multi-Agency Gang Unit, and CrimeStoppers. It also prevents sharing and receiving intelligence with federal agencies and the Shelby County Sheriff’s Department, the city said.

McCalla denied the city’s motion, writing that modifying the decree in that way would “eviscerate the core goals of the Kendrick consent decree.”

Continuing, McCalla said any modification to the decree would need to be “carefully crafted after a thorough review of evidence and a finding of sufficiently changed circumstances compel a modification.”


A trial on the proposed modifications is set for June 17th. Then, the court will review all of the information it’s received and make a decision on if the consent decree should be modified and if so, what changes should be made.

Categories
News News Blog

Hearing to Modify Consent Decree on Police Surveillance Set for June


The city will get to make its case for modifying the 1978 consent decree prohibiting 

police surveillance in June.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Jon McCalla denied the city’s motion to immediately “significantly modify” the 1978 Kendrick Consent Decree. The city argued that the decree prohibits the Memphis Police Department (MPD) from “using other agencies or persons as ‘surrogates’ to do indirectly what it could not do directly,” preventing coordination between law enforcement agencies.

But McCalla denied the request, saying that because all parties have not agreed to the modification of the consent decree, there would have to be an evidentiary hearing before the court could make a ruling.

Thursday McCalla said an evidentiary trial hearing on that matter is set preliminary for June 17th. Then, the court will review all of the information it’s received and make a decision on if the consent decree should be modified and if so, what changes should be made.

The team appointed to ensure and monitor MPD’s compliance to the consent decree gave its third progress update to the court Thursday.

At Thursday’s hearing, Rachel Levinson-Waldman, the monitoring team’s social media and public policy expert, discussed the social media policies for federal agencies. Levinson-Waldman said the FBI and IRS are the only two agencies that use social media for investigative purposes and have a publicly available policy.

The FBI guidelines allows for collecting First-Amendment-protected information only if its related to an authorized investigation. The collection will not interfere with the individual’s Constitutionally protected rights, and if the method of investigation is the “least intrusive alternative.”

Levinson-Waldman said that these guidelines mirror language in the 1978 Consent Decree.

Generally, the FBI guidelines allow for more intrusive investigative methods as the level of the investigated increases.

One key piece of the FBI guideline Levinson-Waldman noted is that during an inquiry, unless related to federal crimes or national security, the agency is allowed to search and review public social media accounts, but is prohibited from using fictitious personas or engage in undercover activity.

MPD’s use of the undercover Facebook account of Bob Smith was one of the violations noted in McCalla’s ruling last fall. The account friended more than 200 activists.

One of the takeaways from Thursday’s hearing for local activist Hunter Demster is that there aren’t many clear, outlined policies nationally of local and federal law enforcement agency’s social media use.

“From the get-go, a lot of us have said that is going to be one of the most important elements that comes out of this entire process,” Demster said. I think we have an opportunity to set the standard for the rest of the country. I think it’s important to look at what other federal and local departments have done, but I think we need to pave a new path forward. At the center needs to be people and their civil rights, not necessarily public safety.”

The monitoring team and the city were given until Tuesday, November 26th to submit the most recent draft of the new MPD social media policies and training procedures, as well as an audit and compliance plan to the court.

The monitor team is looking to hold focus groups early next year. Dr. Sheila Peters, an associate professor of physiology at Fisk University will lead those groups. McCalla said this is an important piece of the process as “everyone is entitled to be heard.”

Attorneys for city questioned if the discussions from the focus group will be used for evidentiary purposes. McCalla said the discussions won’t be evidence but “important input.” The groups will create space for the public to bring new concerns to the table and gather public sentiment, he said.

Categories
News News Blog

Judge Denies City’s Request to Modify Decree on Police Surveillance

CREDIT: Brandon Dill

Brandon Dill

Michael Rallings with crowd during protest

The city’s motion to immediately modify the 1978 consent decree prohibiting police surveillance was denied this week by a federal judge.

Last year, U.S. District Judge Jon McCalla ruled that the Memphis Police Department (MPD) violated the decree by participating in political surveillance on activists here.

In September, the city filed a sealed motion with the court to “significantly modify” the 1978 Kendrick consent decree. The city argued that the decree “unduly burdens legitimate investigative activities and creates restrictions that are unnecessary for the protection of First Amendment rights,” according to recently unsealed court documents.

The city said the consent decree prohibits MPD from “using other agencies or persons as ‘surrogates’ to do indirectly what it could not do directly,” preventing coordination between law enforcement agencies.

Specifically, the city said the consent decree has a “detrimental effect” on the city’s participation in the Joint Terrorism Task Force, the Tennessee Fusion Center, the Multi-Agency Gang Unit, and CrimeStoppers. It also prevents sharing and receiving intelligence with federal agencies and the Shelby County Sheriff’s Department, the city said.

[pullquote-1]

The city also argues that assuring compliance with the consent decree and its “restrictions that go well beyond that which is required by federal law” requires the city to “expend scarce resources.”

The modified decree that the city requested would allow the use of political intelligence gathered by third parties.

McCalla denied the city’s motion, writing that modifying the decree in that way would “eviscerate the core goals of the Kendrick consent decree.”

Continuing, McCalla said any modification to the decree would need to be “carefully crafted after a thorough review of evidence and a finding of sufficiently changed circumstances compel a modification.”

“A change would need to achieve the goals of the Kendrick Consent Decree while providing the city and the MPD flexibility to engage in the sharing of information for legitimate law enforcement purposes,” McCalla wrote.

McCalla notes that because all parties have not agreed to the modification of the consent decree, there would have to be an evidentiary hearing before the court could make a ruling.

A telephone conference call between all parties is scheduled for January 2nd to discuss the possibility of scheduling an evidentiary hearing on the city’s requests to modify the decree.

Ahead of that meeting, the team appointed to monitor MPD’s adherence to the consent decree will present its quarterly progress to the court on Thursday, November 21st. The hearing will take place at 9:30 a.m. at the Clifford Davis-Odell Horton Federal Building.

Read McCalla’s full decision below.

[pdf-1]

Categories
News News Blog

Monitor in Police Spying Case Holds Second Public Forum

CREDIT: Brandon Dill

Brandon Dill

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

The court-appointed team tasked with monitoring the Memphis Police Department’s (MPD) adherence to a 1978 consent decree prohibiting police surveillance is holding its second public meeting Thursday (today).

Last year, U.S. District Judge Jon McCalla appointed the team after ruling that the police department had violated the Kendrick consent decree of 1978 by participating in political surveillance on activists here.

The team’s first public forum in July left many activists feeling unheard and wanting more of a voice in the monitoring team’s process.

Now, the team wants to hear new concerns from the public tonight at 6 p.m. at Mississippi Boulevard Christian Church.

Memphis Mayor Jim Strickland promoted the meeting last week in his weekly email to constituents.

“The purpose of this meeting is for you to give your thoughts about the decree and its impact on our community,” Strickland wrote. “If you are concerned about your neighborhood receiving a Sky Cop or your child’s school having a traffic camera and license plate readers, please don’t miss this meeting.”

But, Strickland also noted in the newsletter that the consent decree was signed “long before the internet, social media, and other modern technology became a routine part of our lives.”

[pullquote-1]

Strickland said the decree limits MPD’s use of technology in fighting crime, and potentially restricts MPD’s ability to coordinate with other agencies, like the Multiagency Gang Unit.

“To put it in more everyday terms — it may restrict the use of Sky Cops, traffic cameras, interstate cameras, and publicly available social media post which may provide a warning of a public safety threat,” the mayor wrote.

Earlier this year, Ed Stanton III, who is heading the monitoring team, told the Flyer that finding the balance at the intersection of a 1978 consent decree and 21st century police techniques is a challenge.

“In 1978, you didn’t have the internet, social media, SkyCop, body cams, etc,” Stanton said. “We have to ensure that public safety remains a priority, but at the same time, ensuring compliance with the consent decree. There’s a balance there.”

See the agenda for tonight’s meeting below.


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

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
News News Blog

ACLU Trial Wraps Up, Ruling to Come in September

CREDIT: Brandon Dill

Brandon Dill

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

Court adjourned Thursday morning in the federal trial over Memphis police surveillance on activists. 

Memphis Police Department (MPD) Major Lambert Ross was the last witness to take the stand in U.S. District Judge Jon McCalla’s courtroom. Ross was the head of the Real Time Crime Center (RTCC) during the time of the alleged police surveillance.

The RTCC houses more than 30 large, high-definition monitors displaying live footage from 1,000 cameras around the city. The footage is monitored by both civilian and commissioned officer analysts who can radio officers when incidents occur, Ross said.

Ross said that the RTCC was never used for political surveillance, but to find out where events were being held and how many people were involved. Precincts were then made aware of any large events that were ongoing in their area.

The RTCC began searching social media in 2014, Ross said. Initially, it was used to assist in solving crimes, but after the 2016 bridge protest, searches related to protests were more common. Specifically, Ross said Black Lives Matter was a recurring search term.

“I’m not going to say we chose that term, but it chose us,” Ross testified. “The event picks the search term.”

When asked if searching social media was ever done to find out if specific people would be involved in an event, Ross said no. Ross said as a black man, he “understands the right to protest” and would never interfere. As his MPD colleagues testified before him, Ross said the motivation for the monitoring was public safety.

The city and the ACLU-TN both rested their cases following Ross’ testimony and are required to submit closing briefs in writing to McCalla by Friday, Sept. 14th. Then, both sides have until Friday, Sept. 24th to respond to the opposing side’s brief.

McCalla will release the ruling after both sides have answered each others’ briefs. After court adjourned, one of the attorney’s for the ACLU-TN, Thomas Castelli, said he hopes that the trial will result in court-ordered independent monitoring of MPD, a change in their policies, and better training as it related to the 1978 consent decree.

Additionally and separately from this case, the city has filed a motion to vacate or modify the decree. The ACLU has until early October to that request.

Bruce McMullen, chief legal officer for the city of Memphis, said the city is asking the court vacate the consent decree “because it’s not really relevant today.” It predates any standard technology that law enforcement uses today, he said.

If the court isn’t willing to completely do away with the decree, McMullen said it should “at least be modified and updated so that it’s applicable to the law enforcement best practices that we use today.”

“I want to emphasize that it’s nothing we’re doing today that 155 other jurisdictions do not do in law enforcement,” McMullen said. “It’s basic law enforcement, from Skycops to body cams, which a lot of citizens supported us getting.”

Categories
News News Blog

Police Official Says Bob Smith Account Friended Over 200 Activists

Day one of the federal trial over Memphis’ police surveillance wrapped up Monday with Sgt. Timothy Reynolds of the Memphis Police Department (MPD) on the stand.

Reynolds, who works in MPD’s Office of Homeland Security, was one of the key personnel responsible for creating and using the undercover social media accounts of Bob Smith.

On the stand, Reynolds admitted to adding more than 200 friends who he said were in connection to protests and other gatherings that could become unlawful.

First created in 2009, the Bob Smith account was intitially used solely for investigations and gang-related crimes, but its use changed over time, Reynolds said. A different and more specific type of intelligence gathering started after the 2016 Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, as “we didn’t want a copycat shooter,” he said.

Other evidence revealed the undercover account actively sharing links, commenting on and liking posts, joining and posting in groups, and responding to event requests.

The information gathered through the Bob Smith accounts was then used to monitor the organizers of protests and other community events that MPD thought could be a threat to safety. Many of the events were centered around 19-year-old Darius Stewart, who was killed by an MPD officer in July 2017. Gatherings associated with the Black Lives Matter movement were also closely followed.

However, gatherings like town hall meetings and concerts were also monitored, Reynolds said.

In one email presented to the court, Reynolds’ boss, then-Major Eddie Bass, made Reynolds aware of the “potential for another adverse gathering” planned by organizers of a vigil that Reynolds had previously referred to as “peaceful.”

On another occasion, Reynolds said protesters were trying to “circumvent the permit process,” by planning events in public spaces like libraries where permits aren’t needed.

The plaintiff’s counsel also brought forth emails showing that on multiple occasions MPD shared intelligence on individuals and planned events with organizations outside law enforcement, like Fedex, AutoZone, and Memphis Light, Gas & Water. The information was shared via daily Joint Intelligence Briefing memos.

The plaintiff will resume questioning Reynolds Tuesday morning before the defense begins its cross-examination. After Reynolds, the next witnesses slated to take the stand are Mike Cody, Bruce Kramer, Major Stephen Chandler, and MPD director Michael Rallings.

Categories
News News Blog

Trial on Memphis Activists Surveillance Begins

Arguments began Monday in a trial to determine whether or not the city of Memphis violated activists’ First Amendment rights with a system of surveillance that included extensive monitoring of social media.

U.S. District Judge Jon McCalla will ultimately decide whether or not city leaders violated a 1978 consent decree entered in Kendrick v. Chandler. The order was meant to stop the city from gathering intelligence and surveillance on people engaged in protected free speech activities. Specifically, the decree prohibits political, covert, and electronic surveillance, as well as harassment and intimidation.

Opening arguments on Monday focused on whether or not the American Civilc Liberties Union of Tennessee (ACLU-TN) — as it exists today — was the plaintiff in the 1976 complaint involving Chan Kendrick, an ACLU official at the time.  

Lawyers for the city argued that the ACLU-TN was not a party in the Kendrick complaint, and therefore did not have standing in the present case. They presented close to 20 historical memos to prove that today’s version of ACLU-TN didn’t exist in 1978 and questioned Hedy Weinberg, current executive director of ACLU—TN.

With that, Buckner Wellford, one of the city’s attorney representing the city asked the judge to rule on the ACLU-TN’s standing, a move that could have ended the trial. But McCalla said that’s an issue that should be thoroughly considered before making a decision.

“This is a really important issue to the case,” McCalla said. “It’s more important to get it right than to get it fast.”

Should the judge decide the ACLU has standing, Thomas Castelli, counsel for the ACLU-TN said the other key issues to be decided are:

• Whether the city is in contempt of the 1978 consent decree by learning about protests through social media.

• Whether the city infiltrated activist groups for the purpose of political intelligence.

• Whether photos of protesters were taken for the purposes of political intelligence.

• Whether the city contacted protest organizers to chill their first amendment rights

• Whether the city made the process for obtaining permits for protest harder than for other events.

Castelli said most of plaintiff’s evidence will be from a time period between Spring 2016 and 2017, when protests occurred at the Memphis Zoo, Valero Memphis Refinery, the Hernando de Soto bridge, and Graceland.

Wellford said his team will aim to reveal the motivations of the Memphis Police Department (MPD) and prove there was no ill-intent or attempts to stymie First Amendment rights. In his opening statement, Wellford said MPD’s main motivation for monitoring activists has been to ensure public safety.

“July 2016 was probably the most tumultuous month in Memphis since the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King in modern times,” Wellford said, citing the bridge protest, the police shooting of Darius Stewart, and other incidents that had occurred around the country.

The threats were “real and tangible,” Wellford said.

McCalla told Wellford that no one disagrees with those facts, but that “they aren’t central issues to the case.”

“Public safety is important, but we can’t lose sight of why we are here,” McCalla said. “The case is about whether or not the city complied with the consent decree.”

As of press time, court was set to resume Monday afternoon. The second witness, MPD Sgt. Timothy Reynolds, was to return to the stand. Reynolds was instrumental in creating the undercover social media account of “Bob Smith,” which was used to monitor the moves of activists.

Categories
News News Blog

Rallings Calls Media Coverage of ACLU Lawsuit “Erroneous”

CREDIT: Brandon Dill

Brandon Dill

Michael Rallings with crowd during protest

In response to news coverage of a recent court ruling saying that Memphis violated a 1978 consent decree by gathering political intelligence on protesters, Michael Rallings, director of the Memphis Police Department (MPD), said Tuesday that some of the language in the reports “does not accurately reflect the department’s activities.”

Specifically, Rallings said the terms “surveillance” and “spying” are “erroneous.”

Rallings also said the city’s goal has been to be transparent about the issues involved in the case, ACLU of Tennessee, Inc vs. City of Memphis.

“In fact the only reason many of the articles were printed in the first place is because we voluntarily unsealed documents and posted them on the city website for the world to see,” Rallings said.

[pullquote-2]

Set to go to trial Monday, August 20th, the case is the result of a lawsuit against the city for gathering political intelligence on protesters over a two-year period through social media and other mediums. Rallings said he can’t speak at length about ongoing litigation but “feels compelled to explain a few things”:

-The terms “surveillance” and “spying” are “erroneous,” and were never used in the court’s order. “Those words conjure up images of officers in unmarked vans on the street corner listening to tapped phone conversations. This does not accurately reflect MPD’s activities, or its motivation, regarding the monitoring of events which are the subject of this lawsuit.”


-Officers look at social media posts to help us gauge the size and intensity of demonstrations so that we can properly provide for public safety. This is also an effective tool in stopping criminal activity such as sexual predators, domestic violence, stalking, and threats. We also use other technology, such as body cameras, SkyCops, and security cameras in our law enforcement efforts to keep Memphians safe.

-Monitoring of social media posts and the usage of modern technology such as body cameras are considered to be best practices in policing nationwide. Various media reports show that many other cities, such as Boston, Charlotte, Denver, Little Rock, San Jose, and Seattle, use social media monitoring. In the aftermath of last year’s Charlottesville riots that resulted in about 40 casualties, including three deaths, the after-action recommendation said that monitoring social media is crucial to protecting public safety.

[pullquote-1]

“We feel like we have been complying with the consent decree as it would apply to today’s world,” Rallings said. “We need to be able to read these posts and use them as part of our decisions about how we deploy resources, since we are responsible for the safety of all involved.”

Protest and counterprotest can cause “mayhem and loss of life,” Ralling said, but proper social media monitoring helps the agency prepare and respond to those types of events.

“These tools enabled me to ensure that the 2016 bridge protest was peaceful and without injury,” Rallings said. “Without these tools, I believe that night would have ended very differently We will, however, follow the judge’s order.”

Rallings said if the judge rules in favor of the plaintiff, then the department will “find a way to balance public safety with complying with the manner in which the court interprets the consent decree.”