Police department settles suit for $65,000
The Point Marion Police Department has paid $65,000 to a Fayette County man who brought suit last July claiming his civil rights were violated in an alleged wiretapping incident in Point Marion, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
The ACLU sued on behalf of Gregory Rizer alleging that Point Marion police Officer Kevin Lukart and Chief Jay Stutler violated his civil rights. The suit also names the borough itself and Mayor Carl Ables.
A court order entered in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh late last month confirmed the settlement; but the settlement details were not available until the ACLU announced the agreement in a press release Wednesday.
“We hope that this case helps educate other police departments about the right of citizens to record and observe police officers on the job,” said Reggie Shuford, executive director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania. “Recording police is a check on the extraordinary power they have in our society.”
The suit had contended that Rizer used his cellphone to make an audio recording of police while they questioned a friend of Rizer on Jan. 3, 2012.
Lukart, who was questioning Rizer’s friend, realized Rizer was recording the conversation when his phone memory became full and his phone started automatically playing back the recording, the suit alleged. Rizer alleged he recorded the conversation because Lukart was being aggressive.
Lukart ultimately arrested Rizer and charged him with violating wiretap laws.
The suit alleged Lukart agreed to release Rizer from police custody if he wrote a statement admitting to the recording and indicating he knew the recording to be illegal.
Rizer said he went to Ables two days later to complain about Lukart and, on Jan. 6 the suit alleges, Rizer was arrested by Lukart and Stutler for violating the state’s wiretapping law. Prosecutors withdrew the charge in February.
Pennsylvania law requires the parties involved in a conversation consent to it being taped when there is an expectation of privacy.
While Rizer’s friend consented to the taping, attorneys for police and the borough argued that Lukart also had to consent to the taping.
According to the lawsuit, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that the state’s Wiretap Act does not apply if the person being recorded does not have a “reasonable expectation of privacy.”
“Rizer’s experience shows what happens when police officers try to shield their conduct from public scrutiny,” said Glen Downey, one of Rizer’s attorneys.
“No one should be subjected to retaliation for simply documenting a police officer’s public acts.”