On camera: another case of racial profiling by the RPD
Primary tabs
After a judge's ruling and an appeal from a second request for body worn camera footage from May 5, 2018, the city of Rochester finally releases an appropriately redacted video.
Still from Rochester Police Department body worn camera footage
Christopher, a Black, Corn Hill resident, was riding his bicycle back home to Troup Street from the Montgomery Neighborhood Center, after hanging out and playing basketball, when a Rochester Police Department (RPD) officer pulled him over for riding on the wrong side of a nearly empty Clarissa Street.
The officer, whose name has been requested by Rochester Indymedia via a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request, tells Christopher that she pulled him over on his bicycle because he was riding on the wrong side of the road. The body worn camera (BWC) footage does not show Christopher riding on the wrong side of the road, or riding period. The video starts as she begins to question who he is, where he’s coming from, what his business is, where he lives, and if he has any warrants out for his arrest. (You can read the rush transcript at the bottom of the article.)
The pretext for the stop was Christopher’s alleged riding on the wrong side of the road. The purpose for the officer was twofold: 1) to get as much personal information about Christopher as she could and 2) to determine if he had any outstanding warrants that she could use to arrest him. After the interaction, which ended with Christopher leaving without physical injury or arrest, I spoke with him briefly as he headed home. I observed the interaction from the front of the Flying Squirrel Community Space. Christopher seemed flustered, frustrated, angry, and exhausted. On the day of the incident, I posted this to Facebook:
I just witnessed an African American guy, who lives in the Corn Hill Neighborhood, pulled over on his bicycle at Atkinson and Clarissa for not having lights on his bike. It was broad day light and there was no inclement weather. He said this happens often. The stop happened at around 5:45pm. He was not arrested or ticketed. It's bullshit. #BlackLivesMatter #RacialProfiling #Roc #PoliceAccountabilityBoardNOW #NoJusticeNoPeaceNoRacistPolice
On May 9, 2018, I filed a FOIL request for the BWC footage of the officer. The request stated:
I would like the body worn camera footage from officers who stopped an African American man on a bicycle at the noted intersection above between 5:30 and 6:00pm on May 5, 2018. Thank you for your time and consideration with this request.
It was given FOIL number: RR18-01891.
Then, on May 21, 2018, my request for BWC footage was granted. Specifically, the email read:
The video I was sent can be seen below:
Clearly, as you can see, the video has been completely blurred with the audio completely stripped from it. This is not transparency.
At the same time, I was also seeking BWC footage from officer Jonathan P. Laureano who pulled over a Black man who the officer had interacted with a year before. (That story is soon to come.) I spoke with the individual and he requested that I get the footage. I requested the video. With respect to Christopher (the man in the still photograph above), I took a gamble. The case with the footage from Laureano was appealed and eventually an Article 78 was filed. My gamble was that if I could hold off on getting the footage from the incident on May 5 and hope the Court ruled in my favor on the Laureano issue, then I could re-request the footage from May 5 and get an unredacted version of the video based on the Court's order. If the Court ruled against me, and the City's policy was allowed to stand, then it might have meant never getting the video or requring me to appeal to the highest court in New York State and possibly the nation.
However, my gamble paid off. On December 18, 2018, Supreme Court Judge Ann Marie Taddeo ruled in my favor on my article 78 proceeding. I claimed that the City’s policy of blanket redactions and removal of sound from BWC video with the added cost of paying a technician hundreds of dollars to review the video and apply the proper redactions was against the letter and spirit of the Freedom of Information Law in New York State. The judge agreed.
The Court held that the Respondents (the City) “shall reconsider the Petitioner’s [the author's] FOIL request.” Judge Taddeo did not buy the City’s arguments: the Court found “no provision” in the law allowing for blanket-blurred video; she found Corporation Counsel Timothy Curtain’s argument that blurring videos “helps the requestor” to be an argument that “strains credibility” and is “unsupported in the record;” the Court found it “surprising that . . . in the first quarter of the 21st century, it will take a trained professional twelve hours to perform redactions to a one-hour video;” and the City “failed to explain” from which section of the law gives them the “power to perform these expected redactions.” She ordered the City to provide a redaction log for any redactions made when reconsidering my request and reminded them that the law “does not provide for the redaction of the arresting officer’s image or voice.” (My attorney, Elliot Dolby-Shields, is appealing the judge’s ruling on the basis that she didn’t provide a compliance date and, to date, the City has still not responded (and is in violation of the Court’s order) to my other FOIL request for BWC footage from officer Laureano.)
Armed with this knowledge, I filed another FOIL request on March 6, 2019 for the RPD body worn camera video footage of the stop with Christopher. My request mirrored my original request made in 2018. My reasoning was that if the City had read the Court’s order, then I should be able to get the video with the audio and without the blanket blur.
What I got on March 26 was this:
It was frustrating to see that the City used an argument that clearly did not take into account the judge’s order.
Upon reading the statement and receiving the same link to the same blurred video, I immediately responded and forwarded the judge’s order to the law department of the city:
No one ever responded to my email. Therefore, I sent an appeal on April 2:
On April 11, Tim Curtain, via Stephanie Prince, responded to my appeal: “I have performed a diligent review and am reversing the determination of the Records Access Officer.” You can see the email below.
And so, nearly a year after my first request, the City finally released the nearly unredacted body worn camera footage with a redaction log. You can see the redaction log below.
Unredacted Video of the May 5, 2018 Incident with Christopher
At the end of the day, we have a video showcasing racial profiling in the City and an officer fishing for information from an innocent person who was humiliated, frustrated, and angry at how he was treated. Thankfully, Christopher was not assaulted by the officer. However, these kinds of daily occurances of injustice are unacceptable and furthers the distrust between the Black and Hispanic communities and the police. Enough is enough.
Redaction Log Page 1
Redaction Log Page 2
Related: Racism Running Rampant in Rush | Court rules against City's Body Worn Camera FOIL policy | Rochester's Racist Marijuana Policies Must End | City Council Candidate Forum on Police Accountability from 2017 | David Vann v. the system | 16 arrested during peaceful demonstration during Black Lives Matter Rally | Charges dismissed against Ms. Bonner; will RPD officer McNees be disciplined? Who knows... | A critique of "The New Guardians" by Cedric Alexander
Rush Transcript:
Officer (O): “Where you comin’ from?”
Christopher (C): “Chillin’, chillin’, chillin’. Ridin’ the bike.”
O: “Where you heading to?”
C: “Home. Around the corner.”
O: “Corn Hill?”
C: “Yes. We own the house.
O: “Own the house?”
C: “Yes.”
O: “Who do you live with?”
C: “We own the house; it doesn’t make a difference. We own the house. In Corn Hill.”
O: “Oh. Ok. Do you have a phone number Christopher?”
C: “Yes. A house phone. For what though?”
O: “Just in case I need to get a hold of you.”
C: “For what?”
O: “It’s just a question.”
C: “I don’t get in trouble.”
O: “Listen.”
C: “I’m 50 years old. No, I don’t have a phone. I don’t have a phone.”
O: “Ok. Listen.”
C: “No, no. I don’t have a phone.”
O: “You don’t have a phone?”
C: “No. A house.”
O: “You don’t have any warrants or anything like that?”
C: “No, no. You got the ID, call it in. You know how to do it. Call it in, man. I don’t have any IDs. I don’t get in trouble.
O: “Alright. 209, I’ll be in records.”
“[inaudible]”
O: “209 to records”
“[inaudible]”
O: “Can I get a 29 check on a male black?”
“[redacted]”
O: “How long have you lived over at [redacted]? A lot of people don’t feel like in the city move around a lot.”
C: “People got money.”
O: “What?”
C: “People have money.”
O: “…have money.”
C: “Yes. I don’t got; I said people have money.”
O: “Yeah. Do you live with friends and stuff over there on Troup?”
C: “Family.”
O: “Family?”
C: “Yeah.”
O: “Then were you riding your bike with friends then? Over?”
C: “Yes, yes, yes. I was just comin’ from basketball.”
O: “The basketball court?
C: “Montgomery Center.”
O: “Do you guys like generally meet up like on Saturdays with friends over there and ride bikes? Er, is it just like a hangout spot?”
C: “I ride with the Thurston crew.”
O: “A Thurston crew?”
C: “Yeah. Like the Judge on DKX ride bikes. They got they own crew. Everybody got they own crew. The Conkey crew. Everybody.”
O: “Yeah.”
C: “Uh huh.”
O: “How long you been riding with them?”
C: “I just got my bike fixed today.”
O: “You just got it fixed?”
C: “Yeah.”
O: “It’s a nice bike. The seat looks really comfortable.”
C: “Oh yeah. It was made in France.”
O: “It was made in France?”
C: “Yeah.”
O: “That’s pretty cool. Do you have a repair shop you go to?”
C: “Yeah, Hudson.”
O: “On Hudson?”
C: “Yeah”
O: “You just get around don’t you.”
C: “They fix free bikes.”
O: “They fix for free?”
C: “Couple places. South Ave., Hudson. It’s a couple places. Give away bikes and fix bikes.”
O: “Do you know anyone else with red bikes like that?”
C: “Huh?”
O: “I said red bikes aren’t very common like that. Does anyone else have red bikes like that you know of?”
C: “It’s orange.”
O: “It’s orange? You think that’s orange?”
C: “Of course it’s orange. Red? This is not red.”
O: “I would call it red.”
C: “No.”
O: “Like a light red and a dark red.”
C: “No.”
O: “Maybe an orangish red? We can meet in the middle?”
C: “No. Yeah.”
O: “Meet in the middle?”
C: “Yeah. But it’s more orangish.”
O: “Alright, alright. It’s weird how people just see color slightly different, you know what I mean?”
C: “Yeah.”
O: “Like blue and purples.”
C: “[inaudible] red. So this is not red.”
O: “You like red?”
C: “Yeah.”
O: “Is that your favorite color?”
C: “No. Green.”
O: “Mine too! Do you like, like the dark greens though? The lighter green? What? Money green? Not the first time I’ve heard that.”
C: “Yeah.”
O: “What was wrong with your bike that you had to get fixed?”
C: “Derailleur.”
O: “The what?”
C: “Brand new derailleur.”
O: “Oh, okay. [inaudible radio] Go ahead.”
“[Redacted]”
O: “ Ten-four thank you. I just gotta check one more thing. Can you hold tight boss?”
C: “Yeah”
“[Radio chatter/inaudible.]”
O: “Alright man. You’re going to be all set. Sorry about that. Just make sure you’re supposed to ride your bike with traffic.”
C: “Yeah, yeah.”
O: “Just for safety and stuff like that.”
C: “And buy some lights.”
O: “Yeah.”
C: “I’m going to Walmart after this.”
O: “Even if you get a cheap flashlight and put it on the front just for when it starts getting dark, yeah.”
C: “No, no, no. You might as well–if you’re gonna do somethin’ do it right.
O: “Yeah, alright. Sounds good. Sorry to bother you on this fine day. Enjoy the rest of your ride. Alright?”
C: “Yes.”
O: “209 we’re all set. Oops shit, wrong channel. 209 we’re all set.”
