ACLU-TN Comment on Modification of Court Order Limiting Memphis Police Surveillance
MEMPHIS, Tenn. — A federal judge has issued modifications to a 1978 court order that prohibited the Memphis government from monitoring the constitutionally-protected political activities of residents.
The original court order limiting domestic surveillance was issued in the 1978 decision in ACLU-TN’s lawsuit Kendrick v. Chandler. In 2018, the court ruled in Blanchard v. City of Memphis that by engaging in surveillance of the protected political activities of activists, the Memphis police had violated the 1978 court order.
The court ruled that the city failed to train its officers on “political intelligence” as defined and forbidden by the 1978 consent decree. This failure led to a “shared misunderstanding of the Decree’s requirements and a significant number of violations.”
The city subsequently filed motions to revise the 1978 consent decree. After collecting public input on modifying the decree, a lengthy negotiation between the ACLU of Tennessee and the city, and a hearing, Judge Jon Phipps McCalla issued his ruling.
The modifications to the consent decree expand its language to include social media, electronic surveillance, body cameras and other modern technology, while maintaining that the city shall not engage in First-Amendment-related intelligence. While the decree allows the city to view information posted to social media for legitimate law enforcement purposes, such as in the course of a criminal investigation, it clearly states that the city may not create undercover accounts on social media or surveil people exercising their free speech rights for the purpose of First Amendment-related intelligence. The modifications also include restrictions on the use of body-worn and other cameras during protests and assemblies. The court additionally denied the city’s effort to expand sharing of information about individuals’ First Amendment activities among members of interagency task forces, which would have created a loophole to monitor protected free speech activities.
“We are pleased that the modifications ordered today take into account new technology that did not exist when the original court order was drafted decades ago, but still preserve the strength and protections of the original,” said Thomas H. Castelli, ACLU-TN legal director. “The modifications also clarify exactly what the consent decree means, so that everyone – including law enforcement – can fully understand the safeguards it provides. In its previous decision, the court recognized that this consent decree makes Memphis one of the few — if not the only — metropolitan police departments in the country with a robust policy for the protection of privacy in the digital age, and that has not changed.”
ACLU of Tennessee Executive Director Hedy Weinberg had this reaction: “More than forty years ago, the ACLU of Tennessee went to court and successfully challenged police spying on Memphis residents. Our recent, successful lawsuit to once again stop police surveillance of residents illustrates the need for constant vigilance to protect our First Amendment rights. We applaud the court for modifying its order in a way that reinforces that Memphians have the right to engage in political speech without fear of unwarranted police monitoring.”
Blanchard v. City of Memphis was filed on February 22, 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee by Bruce Kramer of Apperson Crump, PLC. The ACLU of Tennessee intervened in the case on March 2, 2017.
Today’s order can be found here at: https://www.aclu-tn.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/opinion-and-order.pdf
The modified consent decree can be found at: https://www.aclu-tn.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Modified-Decree.pdf
Case information on Blanchard v. City of Memphis can be found at: http://www.aclu-tn.org/blanchard-et-al-v-city-of-memphis/
Information on Kendrick v. Chandler, the lawsuit that led to the 1978 consent decree, can be found here: http://www.aclu-tn.org/blacklisted-memphis-police-surveillance-and-kendrick-v-chandler-a-timeline/
This statement is available at: https://www.aclu-tn.org/comment-on-modification-of-court-order-limiting-memphis-police-surveillance
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.