Aren't These the Guys We're Supposed to Trust?
Although this isn't a traditional sex crimes story, it once again highlights how the folks in charge of investigating and prosecuting these crimes often are causing as many problems as they are purportedly solving. Today's case of interest is actually a federal civil case filed in New York by Jane Doe, a 17-year old girl who claims that Harrison (NY) police officers violated her fundamental right to privacy by repeatedly viewing a videotape depicting her performing various sexual acts with her boyfriend. The police came upon this tape (in her presence, as she was detained) while searching her boyfriend's home upon his arrest for the sale and possession of marijuana.
From the Smoking Gun:
The girl claims that police watched the video in her presence "while laughing,"
and that they put a camcorder in her face and "mockingly" asked her questions
about the explicit video as it played. She also alleges that a Harrison
detective told her, "I should beat your ass for this. I hope your parents beat
your ass." The teenager claims that the investigator also retrieved anal beads
from a bedroom, put them in her face, and asked, "What do you do with these--put
them in your mouth?" The girl charges that cops subsequently played the video
"sufficiently close to the cell in which the boyfriend was incarcerated so that
he could hear the audio component of the video," and that they laughed about the
video and made "repeated references by name to his girlfriend as she was
depicted on the video." She also contends that the Harrison officers "thereafter
played the video for other members of the department to watch for their
amusement, sexual gratification, and to further degrade Plaintiff."
Does Jane Doe have a meritorious claim here? Under the 14th Amendment and 42 USC § 1983, the right to privacy covers a substantial number of issues. The Supreme Court has noted that the right to privacy is "the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters." Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599 (1977). And the 10th Circuit has stated that an “individual's expectation of privacy for constitutional purposes is legitimate only if the information is ‘highly personal or intimate.’ Nilson v. Layton City, 45 F.3d 369, 372 (10th Cir. 1995).
We can think of no more highly personal or intimate information than what Jane Doe showed on that videotape. There are some who may argue that she should not have made the tape in the first place, and that the police properly seized the tape using standard assumptions of probable cause with respect to the boyfriend. Both statements may be true, but if what Jane Doe alleges about the humiliation and public viewings of the video is true, the Men in Blue of Harrison PD in New York rewrote the definition of reasonableness to an extent far beyond what could have ever been contemplated. Let’s hope Jane Doe finds justice here.
More Coverage:
NY Daily News - Westchester Cops in Sex Tape Scandal
NY Post - Police Sex Tape Scandal
The Lower Hudson Journal News - Harrison Cop Denies Allegations in Sex Tape Suit
0 comments:
Post a Comment