University of Washington Professor Shirley Scheier has settled the lawsuit over her arrest by the City of Snohomish for taking pictures of power lines. The American Civil Liberties Union represented her and settled for $8000. The settlement is disappointing and disturbing given the small damages and lack of deterrent effect for the city.
A fine arts teacher, Scheier, 55, was driving home in October 2005 when a Snohomish police officer stopped her car to question her about “suspicious” conduct in photographing power lines. Scheier’s art often involves photographing public structures and told the officers that it was for an exhibit. The police nevertheless arrested her, cuffed her, and held her in a police car for 25 minutes.
While damages in such a case would likely be low, the ruling would have produced a finding that the arrest was unlawful. By agreeing to the settlement, the city was allowed to dismiss the matter as a small expense with no finding of wrong doing. Not only has no action been taken against the officers, the city is heralding their actions was entirely correct. Snohomish City Manager Larry Bauman insisted that “I believe our officers acted completely within our standards and procedures, and properly based on the 911 call we received from the Bonneville Power Administration.”
This represents a difference among public interest lawyers in handling such cases. This is something of a pattern for the ACLU, which often settles cases rather than go to trial, including consolidated cases where I have represented other litigants who refused such settlements. I have great respect for their work, but these small settlements do little beyond generating the initial coverage and requiring small expenditures from the cities. The figure in this case appears to be lifted from a 2004 case in which the City of Seattle paid Bogdan Mohora the same amount after being arrested for photographing the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks. He was also represented by the ACLU.
These settlements tend to undermine other public interest lawsuits by setting damages at a very low level. It encourages cities to run the clock on litigation and then offer minimal compensation — often citing the ACLU settlements from prior cases. Courts tend to view other cases as setting the level of standard compensation. In the federal system under Rule 68, this can present an added risk for litigants who refuse the settlement offer.
For the full story, click here.
This seems like a blatant Constitutional violation. Since when can’t a lawbiding citizen take pictures of any public structure? Especially a citizen who is an artist and who used the pictures for her art. I would think a malpractice claim should be considered. Very poor advice. Could the ACLU’s financial problems be related to their reluctance to go to trial?
jonathanturley
Lottakatz:
Cases can be consolidated for purposes of briefing and hearings without binding the litigants to the arguments or settlements in other cases.
Thank you, I did not know that. Obviously though as you state in the article, settlements can undermine what you hope to achieve in your trial.
I have my membership renewal to the ACLU on my desk here. They will get my money but they’ll have to read an enclosed letter too. They seem to be selling us out pretty cheaply. I’d have thought our freedom to take a picture and, you know, the 4th Amendment, would have gone for more.
This was after the heightened security alerts. People who worked on the power grids, which were separated from the utility companies and transmission lines were given a security clearance to continue working there.
She was seen taking photographs of the transmission lines. She was arrested and placed in custody for 25 minutes. She was released, other than the fact that she was able to prove who she was, she probably would not have been treated this fairly, tongue in cheek as I say that.
If I remember correctly a competing case of a terrorist suspect out of Oregon was arrested in 2004. He is an attorney, was in the Army and converted to muslin. I think his name was Brandon Mayfield and a partial finger print was made of the Madrid bombing, allegedly belonging to him.
He lived a life of incarceration until he was finally released. His family lived a life of hell as well based upon the need to arrest and detain.
Do you think he will settle for a mere 8K?
The point I am aiming at is sometimes all too often many of us are in a rush for judgment, just like the officers. Sometimes we need to pause and think before action unless the action required is immediate. And in this case and the Mayfields, nothing was imminent.
from story “This is a pattern for the ACLU, which often settles cases rather than go to trial, including consolidated cases where I have represented other litigants who refused such settlements.”
Can cases be consolidated even when a litigant does not choose to be part os a consolidated case?
Lottakatz:
Cases can be consolidated for purposes of briefing and hearings without binding the litigants to the arguments or settlements in other cases. I currently have a case where the ACLU settled and we rejected the settlement as insufficient. We are going to trial.