Journalist asks court to dismiss lawsuit over officers' photos

A freelance journalist is asking a judge to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the city of Los Angeles alleging that documents he obtained through the California Public Records Act Request contained headshots and names of police officers in sensitive and undercover assignments who were accidentally included in the release.

“This is a tool for the public to be able to identify the officer when they are doing something in public,” said Susan Seager, an attorney with the University of California Irvine Press Freedom Project, which assists freelance journalists with legal cases. “The idea that everybody could potentially work undercover is ridiculous.”

In addition to the Press Freedom Project, the law firm of Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai LLP, and the lawyer Colleen Flynn also are asking that the city's lawsuit be dismissed on the grounds that it violates Ben Camacho's constitutional rights to free speech as a journalist.

Camacho's motion is in response to a lawsuit filed against him and the activist group Stop LAPD Spying Coalition earlier this year, alleging the LAPD accidentally included in a flash drive sent to Camacho photos that were sensitive or showed undercover officers. The LAPD realized the photos were included in the release after a report by the Los Angeles Times.

The motion contends the city's lawsuit is a SLAPP — for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation — that was filed to stop him from exercising his right to publish the information.

“To be sued by the city of Los Angeles has been an interesting experience because all I've been doing is my job,” Camacho said at a news conference on Tuesday. “Just the fact that I had to sue to get photos of people who are on the street every day shows how the LAPD wants to be a secret police.”

The Los Angeles Police Protective League — the union representing LAPD officers — has also filed a lawsuit against Police Chief Michel Moore to demand the department reclaims photos of undercover officers, which the union says were mistakenly included in the release of the records.

Camacho has previously said whether or not he will be required to give the photos back, the damage from the city's accidental release had already been done.

“It's just hard for me to understand how me giving anything back (to the city) would remedy this,” Camacho said. “They're archived on the internet — there's no huge undo button.”

The first hearing for the case will be in August.