Garcia v. Montogmery County

Closed Expands Expression

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Audio / Visual Broadcasting, Press / Newspapers
  • Date of Decision
    March 8, 2017
  • Outcome
    Decision Outcome (Disposition/Ruling), Other
  • Case Number
    12-cv-03592-JFM
  • Region & Country
    United States, North America
  • Judicial Body
    First Instance Court
  • Type of Law
    Criminal Law, Constitutional Law
  • Themes
    Other (see tags)
  • Tags
    Freedom of press, Law enforcement, Videos

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

Montgomery County settled a First Amendment lawsuit brought by photojournalist Mannie Garcia in which he claimed his rights were violated when police officers arrested, detained and prosecuted him for attempting to record what he believed was a display of excessive force by the police.

Despite the County’s denials of Garcia’s allegations, its police department updated its policies after the incident to specifically note that the public has a right to record and photograph police officers.

The case also attracted national attention as the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a Statement of Interest in the action urging the federal court not to dismiss Garcia’s case after Montgomery County filed a motion to do so. In its Statement the DOJ wrote: “The United States is concerned that discretionary charges, such as disorderly conduct, loitering, disturbing the peace, and resisting arrest, are all too easily used to curtail expressive conduct or retaliate against individuals for exercising their First Amendment rights….Core First Amendment conduct, such as recording a police officer performing duties on a public street, cannot be the sole basis for such charges”.


Facts

Mannie Garcia, the Plaintiff in this case, was leaving a restaurant in Montgomery County in June 2011 when he observed the police arresting two Hispanic men in what he believed was a display of excessive force. He started to film the incident and was approached by one of the officers. He stated that he was a member of the press as he is employed as a photographer. However, he was placed under arrest by the officer and taken to jail (after the officer allegedly put him in a choke hold).

Garcia was charged with disorderly conduct but was found not guilty, and thereafter brought an action against the County and individual police officers for violation of his civil rights.

After the complaint was filed, Montgomery County moved to dismiss, arguing failure to state a cause of action, governmental immunity and others. The “DOJ” filed a statement of interest arguing against dismissal. In their statement the DOJ expressed concern that discretionary charges such as disorderly conduct “are too easily used to curtail expressive conduct or retaliate against individuals for exercising their First Amendment Rights.” Pg. 1. Further, the DOJ urged the Court to find that individuals are protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendment if they are peacefully filming the police in public.

On November 5, 2015 U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang allowed the the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on a limited number of counts only and similarly granted Garcia Partial Summary Judgment on just a few of the counts sought in his Cross Motion.


Decision Overview

The case was settled out of Court for $45,000 on March 8 2017. The Court is currently deciding how much to award Garcia attorney’s fees and costs.

The Complaint alleged violations of the Plaintiff’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, a claim for First Amendment retaliation, claims for violation of his rights under the Privacy Protection Act 1980, false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, battery and others. In addition to seeking damages, the complaint sought relief in the form of injunctive relief barring the police from interfering with the First Amendment rights of the press and directing the County to develop policies to ensure the First Amendment rights of individuals are protected by the police.

Although this case settled without a Court ruling it remains an important precedent in the realm of freedom of speech. Further, the settlement shaped policy in Montgomery County as the police department adopted new policies protecting individuals’ First Amendment Rights and the DOJ made it clear that national policy supports upholding the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of those that peacefully film the police.


Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Expands Expression

This case expands expression even though there was a settlement out of court that ended the litigation. It has helped to shape Montgomery County’s police policy which has been updated to specifically protect the public’s  right to record and photograph police officers. Further, the government emphasized the importance of the public’s First Amendment’s rights and their protection.

Garcia stated of the lawsuit and settlement, “I’m extremely relieved that it’s come to fruition after five and a half years. I think this lawsuit has given attention to the fact that police departments need to pay attention in regards to individuals’ rights.”

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

National standards, law or jurisprudence

  • U.S., Const. amend. I
  • U.S., Const. amend. XIV
  • U.S., Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011)
  • U.S., Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214 (1966)
  • U.S., 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  • U.S., Maryland Criminal Code §10–201
  • U.S., Privacy Protection Act 1980, 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

This case did not set a binding or persuasive precedent either within or outside its jurisdiction. The significance of this case is undetermined at this point in time.

The decision was cited in:

Official Case Documents

Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback