ACLU trial ends, police describe surveillance
The Memphis police surveillance trial ended shortly before noon Thursday, following statements from a police major about the more than 1,000 video cameras posted at intersections and other spots throughout the city.
Now lawyers for the city and the ACLU of Tennessee will file legal briefs in a schedule that extends well into September, and possibly into October. Lawyers did not make closing arguments in the non-jury trial.
U.S. District Judge Jon McCalla is expected to issue rulings on the numerous issues in the case sometime in the fall, though he didn’t specify a date.
“Thank you all very much,” the judge told the lawyers. “The court has a lot to consider.”
In addition to three-and-a-half days of trial testimony, hundreds of pages of legal filings and piles of other documents, photos and videos have been submitted in the case.
The judge has already ruled that the city violated a 1978 consent decree against gathering “political intelligence” when it monitored activists with Black Lives Matter and other social movements. But the judge let the trial continue as he considered other issues.
Among the issues is whether the ACLU of Tennessee has legal standing to sue. The state ACLU wasn’t a party to the 1978 consent decree rather, a west Tennessee chapter of the ACLU took part, and the city contends the state ACLU can’t enforce the rules.
The judge has said he’ll rule on the standing question first. If he lets the case continue, the ACLU will have until Oct. 9 to file a brief in response to the city’s request to throw out the 1978 consent decree or modify it.
The city contends the 1978 consent decree doesn’t hold relevance for the modern world because it doesn’t address new technologies such as smartphones, body cameras and social media.
The judge will also have to rule on other issues. The ACLU wants the judge to take steps including appointing a monitor to enforce the 1978 consent decree against gathering “political intelligence.” The organization also argues for steps including enforcing far more training in the rules.
City attorney Bruce McMullen spoke outside the courthouse.
“I think we made it abundantly clear before the proceedings that the purpose of us monitoring social posts was to be in a situation to provide the necessary resources to provide public safety.
“There was nothing that came out of any proceedings that wasn’t in the papers before and that we didn’t talk about or discuss before.”
Thomas Castelli, a lawyer with ACLU of Tennessee, told reporters he couldn’t talk about evidence. But he gave general statements about the case, which has drawn national attention.
“Hopefully it will bring awareness on ... other cities and other police departments, how they’re conducting their surveillance (of ) free speech,” he said. “And whether or not they’re crossing the line that we as people, as citizens and constituents, should say to our public officials ‘We don’t want this. This is not the type of policing we want in the United States.’”
During the last day of testimony, Police Maj. Lambert Ross, who formerly ran the department’s Real Time Crime Center, described in detail the more than 1,000 cameras placed throughout the city, plus specialized capabilities including license place readers.
He also described a camera system that automatically points toward the location of a gunshot, then zooms out slowly to catch images of any fleeing suspects.
He denied the department used these camera systems for political surveillance, though the ACLU presented emails in which the police appeared to have done so.
In one case in November 2016, Ross had written, “Joe, we need to get some still photos of the protest for the director. We need to create a folder to keep these in.”
The subject line of that email was “Re: Overtime,” and Ross had written that message in response to a request from officers who had been following a Fight for $15 protest and wanted overtime pay.
Ross told the court the police director needed photos of the protest to help justify his overtime budget needs.
The court also heard from activist Rev. Earle Fisher as well as Rev. Elaine Blanchard, an activist dubbed the “Gangsta Grammie” after it was discovered she’d ended up on a list of people who required special security measures at city hall.
It was dubbed a “blacklist” by opponents.
Months before discovery of the “blacklist,” she had taken part in a protest at Graceland in support of Black Lives Matter. Also before the “blacklist,” she had taken part in a clergy police academy program sponsored by the Memphis Police Department.
She recalled meeting Police Director Michael Rallings andlater posed for a photo with him, which was presented in court along with a social media post about an article about the case.
She reported that at one point Rallings told her and others that frequent protests were requiring extra manpower and making it difficult for him to meet budget.
“I felt intimidated and afraid,” she said. “Seemed like he talked about Graceland a lot in particular and looked at me.”
Under questions from a lawyer for the city, she said despite her presence on the “blacklist,” she’d never actually been required to have an escort at City Hall. The attorney also aimed to show she’d not been stifled from expressing her views.
Yet, she said the situation cost her a contract job at a nonprofit because that organization’s leaders were concerned about employing someone seen as in conflict with the government. Blanchard said the situation also affected her behavior.
“It’s made me feel paranoid in some ways. Certainly about social media. And I’m much more careful now about when and what I put on social media,” she said.
She said she continues to support friends in Black Lives Matter, but feels nervous about it.
“I don’t want to become a target of the police department again. I might need the police department to help me.”
Reach reporter Daniel Connolly at 529-5296, daniel.connolly@commercialappeal.com, or on Twitter at @danielconnolly.