ACLU and Kirkland & Ellis LLP Sue Puerto Rico Police Superintendent for Violating Constitutional Rights
Suit Comes on Heels of ACLU Report that Blasted Rampant Abuse by Puerto Rico Police
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
SAN JUAN, P.R.—The American Civil Liberties Union and Kirkland & Ellis LLP today sued the superintendent of the Puerto Rico Police Department for violating the constitutional rights of peaceful protesters who were beaten and abused during demonstrations against controversial government policies including mass layoffs of public workers and cutbacks at a public university.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the General Student Council of the Río Piedras Campus of the University of Puerto Rico and a local union, says the Superintendent of the PRPD (currently Héctor Pesquera) encouraged a pattern of violence against demonstrators, including tear gas, pepper spray, beatings with batons, rubber bullets, and painful pressure point techniques.
The suit seeks a declaratory judgment that the excessive force used by police violated the First and Fourth amendments, and also seeks an injunction requiring Pesquera to put in place a policy governing how police treat public protests and curbing the use of force against protesters.
“If these abuses had taken place in New York, or if the media in the continental United States had covered the events in Puerto Rico more widely, there would have been widespread outrage at the Puerto Rico Police Department’s actions,” says Marjorie Lindblom, a senior partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP.
The federal suit, filed in the District Court of Puerto Rico, comes on the heels of a highly critical report by the ACLU detailing unprecedented levels of police abuse and civil rights violations by the PRPD, which is the second-largest police department in the U.S.
The suit is being brought on behalf of a labor union, the Federación Central de Trabajadores, UFCW (the “FCT”), and the university student council of the University of Puerto Rico’s Río Piedras campus, the Consejo General de Estudiantes del Recinto de Río Piedras de la Universidad de Puerto Rico (“General Student Council”), organizations whose members have suffered and continue to suffer direct harm as a result of the PRPD’s gratuitous use of force.
The pattern of abuse started in 2009, when Governor Luis G. Fortuño proposed his controversial Fiscal and Economic Recovery Plan, commonly known as Law 7, which resulted in restrictions in the collective bargaining rights of unions and decreased funding for public universities. The eventual adoption of Law 7 sparked a series of protests during which the PRPD regularly attacked protesters exercising basic Constitutional rights.
“The police department appears to have an unwritten policy of suppressing the most fundamental rights under the constitution including the right to free speech,” said Christopher Hansen, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU.
The lawsuit details numerous instances of police abuse against peaceful protesters at locations that are traditionally the site of public demonstrations in Puerto Rico, including outside the Capitol Building and the Government Development Bank for Puerto Rico, and on the campus of the University of Puerto Rico.
For instance, at one demonstration outside a hotel hosting a political fundraising event for the governor, Luisa Acevedo, president of the FCT, was pepper-sprayed by police at close range. “I was incapacitated” Acevedo said, “but that didn’t stop the officer who pepper-sprayed me from hitting me with his baton, sending me to the ground.”
As Lindblom notes, “It is unfathomable that Ms. Acevedo, a woman in her mid-fifties, could pose a threat to heavily armed police officers from the riot squad.”
This was not an isolated incident. On June 30, 2010, for example, the PRPD used tear gas, pepper spray, and beatings with batons against University of Puerto Rico students, labor union leaders and members, and concerned citizens who had gathered outside the Capitol Building to peacefully protest recent government actions. The suit also charges that police regularly used excessive force against student protesters on the University of Puerto Rico campus and at other locations.
Outrage over the PRPD’s use of excessive force led the U.S. Department of Justice to release a report in September 2011 finding the PRPD had engaged in a pattern and practice of unreasonable use of force designed to suppress freedom of expression. But no meaningful reforms have resulted in the wake of the report.
“Plaintiffs were left with no choice but to turn to the judicial system in order to force the PRPD to take responsibility for its actions and to initiate real and lasting reform because neither public shaming nor informal political pressure have caused the PRPD to reform itself,” said William Ramirez, executive director of the ACLU of Puerto Rico.
Attorneys on the case include Lindblom, Hansen, Ramirez and Nora Vargas-Acosta.
A copy of the lawsuit can be found at:
www.aclu.org/free-speech/puerto-rico-preliminary-statement-complaint
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.