The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Pennsylvania resident Gregory Rizer, who was arrested in January for recording a police officer aggressively questioning his quadriplegic friend. The officer also confiscated Rizer’s cell phone.

When Rizer complained to the mayor’s office about the arrest, the Point Marion Police Department arrested him at home and charged him with violating Pennsylvania’s wiretap law, which bans audio recording unless all parties consent. The district attorney has since removed the charges and returned Rizer’s cell phone – without the recording. The ACLU argues that Rizer was within his rights to record the officer because “the state’s Wiretap Act does not apply if the person being recorded does not have a reasonable ‘expectation of privacy.’” ACLU cooperating lawyer Glen Downey explained,

“The explosion of technology that allows almost every citizen to document and record the interactions between police and civilians makes it incumbent that both the officers and those seeking to record them understand that officers cannot shield themselves from public scrutiny by invoking wiretap laws. Police officers performing their official duties do not possess the requisite reasonable expectation of privacy necessary to be covered by the statute.”

There have been reports from across the country of police officers interfering with cell phone recording of their actions. Earlier this month, the New York City Police Department put out a flyer warning against a couple who record “stop-and-frisk” searches in the city. New York’s ACLU chapter released a phone app, “Stop-and-Frisk Watch,” to help New Yorkers hold police officers executing these controversial searches accountable.

Last week, New Jersey’s ACLU chapter released a similar app, “Police Tape,” an Android phone app that allows users to discreetly videotape and record police officers. The app also explains American civil rights and allows users to send recordings to ACLU databases for backup storage.

– Ben Sherman

Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts. Jr., has stayed a Maryland high court ruling that prohibits DNA collections from suspects charged but not yet convicted in violent crimes. The stay has been granted until at least July 25.

The appeal to the Supreme Court was made by Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler after Maryland’s Court of Appeals refused to reverse its decision in Alonzo Jay King Jr. v. State of Maryland.

The case centers on Maryland legislation, which, starting in 2009, allowed police to collect DNA from suspects after they were charged with violent crimes or burglaries. Before then, police had been able to collect DNA only from convicted criminals.

Alonzo Jay King Jr. challenged the law after he was arrested in Wicomico County in April 2009 on first- and second-degree assault charges. Prosecutors used a DNA swab stemming from that case to connect him to a 2003 rape. He was eventually convicted and sentenced to life in prison for the rape.

But in a 5 to 2 ruling, the Maryland Court of Appeals sent King’s case back to the Wicomico County Circuit Court and threw out the DNA evidence against him, saying investigators violated his Fourth Amendment rights in taking his genetic material and comparing it with old crime scene samples. The ruling was condemned by prosecutors and police chiefs, who said it would hamper detectives’ ability to solve cold cases and jeopardize the convictions of 34 robbers, burglars and rapists whose genetic samples were taken after they were charged in separate cases.

While the stay is only valid for a week, because lower state and federal courts have been divided on the issue, it is likely that the stay will be extended and the case will be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Twenty-five states and the federal government have similar laws allowing DNA collection after someone has been charged with a violent crime but before conviction, and disputes over their constitutionality have erupted across the country. The main constitutional argument in the case is whether people charged with violent crimes have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their DNA that is higher than that of those who have been convicted.

In their decision that DNA collection after charging but before conviction was unconstitutional, the Maryland Court of Appeals said that its “analysis is influenced by the precept that the government must overcome a presumption that warrantless, suspicionless searches are per se unreasonable….The state bears the burden of overcoming the arrestee’s presumption of innocence and his expectation to be free from biological searches….”

–Alex Brown

Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad (R) is trying to circumvent a recent Supreme Court decision which held that mandatory sentences of life in prison without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders violates the Eight Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Branstad disagrees with the decision in Miller v. Alabama and is acting to undercut the decision’s effect in Iowa by altering the sentences of certain juvenile offenders in his state.

In an attempt to subvert the decision, he commuted the sentences of all 38 Iowa inmates who were sentenced as children and are currently serving mandatory life in prison sentences to 60 years in prison. By requiring that the offenders serve 60 years, Branstad guarentees that none will be eligible for parole before they are well into their 70s. A statement from the Governor’s office reflects the fact that the Governor’s action complies with the technical effect of the decision while completely ignoring the reasoning behind it.

“During this process, the victims are all too often forgotten by our justice system, and are forced to re-live the pain of the tragedies,” said Branstad. “These victims have had their loved ones violently taken away from them. I take this action today to protect these victims, their loved ones’ memories, and to protect the safety of all Iowans.” [...]

“Today Governor Branstad and I want to ensure that justice is served, Iowans are protected, and victims are heard,” said [Branstad's Lt. Gov. Kim] Reynolds. “The governor’s action today gives the opportunity for parole in compliance with the recent Supreme Court decision; however, the action also protects victims from having to be re-victimized each year by worrying about whether the Parole Board will release the murderer who killed their loved one.”

Branstad’s focus on victims and assertion that his action is in compliance with the Supreme Court decision are both off base. In Miller, the Court did not rule that juveniles who commit heinous crimes cannot be sentenced to life without parole, just that those sentences cannot be mandatorily imposed. The decision was based on the fact that children are fundamentally different from adults in ways that are particularly important when it comes to sentencing. Children are more reckless, risk-taking, and impulsive, while also being more vulnerable to outside influences. Children also lack control over their environment and have a greater capacity for reform than adults.

What impact Miller will have on inmates who were sentenced as juveniles and are serving mandatory life remains an unanswered question. But one thing is clear: unilaterally commuting sentences to make them eligible for parole only after 60 years cannot be the result the Supreme Court anticipated. For a juvenile, facing 60 years in prison is not substantially different from a life sentence. But more importantly, the ruling declared when it comes to mandatory sentencing, age matters, and Branstad didn’t take into account the age, or any other characteristic, of offenders when he changed the sentences. He merely decided that his opinion on the feelings of victims and length of punishment should overrule the Supreme Court’s decision.

–Alex Brown

Just in time for the holy month of Ramadan, a federal judge has ruled that Tennessee county officials need to stop blocking worshipers from occupying their newly-built mosque, overruling a county judge’s order that was preventing the mosque from opening.

The Islamic Center of Murfreesboro sued Rutherford County, TN yesterday, asking the district judge for an emergency order to allow the mosque to open its doors to worshipers before Ramadan begins at sundown today. Federal prosecutors also filed a similar lawsuit in Nashville, alleging violations of the federal law that guarantees freedom of religion and equal protection under the Constitution.

The Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty and a local civil rights attorney represented the congregation’s case. More than 100 religious leaders from varying faith traditions also signed onto a letter drafted by the Beckett Fund to support the mosque . A statement to the federal court explained that Rutherford County’s discrimination against the Muslim community is both hypocritical and harmful:

If [the mosque] were a Christian church, it would have been granted a certificate of occupancy and would be worshipping in its new facility today…The discriminatory treatment of the mosque also sends a powerful message to the Muslim community that they are second-class citizens, not worthy of the same rights or protection as Christian churches.

The Islamic center’s legal troubles first began in 2010, when Rutherford County residents filed a lawsuit alleging that Islam was not a real religion, but rather a “seditious cult” that intended to impose Islamic religious law on the U.S. government. Although that case was thrown out, a local judge picked the fight up again this May and ruled that the mosque’s building permits were invalid because the congregation had not provided “adequate public notice” of the construction. But thanks to U.S. Attorney Jerry Martin’s ruling yesterday in favor of the Murfreesboro congregation’s emergency petition — ultimately determining that the local judge could not hold the Murfreesboro mosque to the separate standard he had created in his May ruling — congregants will be able to worship in their newly-constructed mosque.

The resistance to the Murfreesboro mosque is not the only recent example of Islamophobia in the state of Tennessee. Tennessee Republicans are currently circulating a petition condemning their governor for hiring Muslim employees, and the Rutherford County sheriff’s office brought in an anti-Muslim speaker to train police officers about Muslim culture earlier this year.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) believes that US Attorney General Eric Holder “purposefully” made remarks meant to “incite racial tensions” by talking about voter identification efforts at the NAACP.

In a statement released Tuesday, Perry calls on President Obama to apologize for Holder’s speech at the NAACP, during which he said that voter identification laws amounted to a “poll tax“:

“Perhaps while the President is visiting Texas, he can take a break from big-dollar fundraisers to disavow his Attorney General’s offensive and incendiary comments regarding our common-sense voter identification law.

“In labeling the Texas voter ID law as a “poll tax,” Eric Holder purposefully used language designed to inflame passions and incite racial tension. It was not only inappropriate, but simply incorrect on its face.

“The president should apologize for Holder’s imprudent remarks and for his insulting lawsuit against the people of Texas.”

The Department of Justice blocked Texas’s law particularly because of its negative impact on Latino voters, saying that it violated the Voting Rights Act. Indeed, Texas judges seem to agree that the voter ID law would disenfranchise voters of color.

It’s not incorrect to say that voter identification legislation effectively adds up to a poll tax: 25 percent of black and 16 percent of Latino eligible voters lack photograph identification — which can be expensive to obtain.

In fact, voter ID laws themselves may incite racial tension. A poll released yesterday revealed that people who are most supportive of voter ID efforts also tend to be those who harbor a lot of “racial resentment,” particularly toward African Americans.

Welcome to Justiceline, ThinkProgress Justice’s morning round-up of the latest legal news and developments. Remember to follow us on Twitter at @TPJustice

• Sen. Chuck Schumer is urging the Justice Department to drop its antitrust suit against Apple and e-book publishers, arguing that the result of the lawsuit will be Amazon dominating the e-book industry.
• North Dakota’s Chief Justice will ask the legislature to create three to six new judgeships to help with a growing court workload brought on by the growth in oil development in the state.
• In an attempt to bring attention to the increase in corporate spending on elections that followed Citizens United, Angela Marie Vogel and Corporate Person were married by Pastor Rich Lang yesterday.
• The Justice Department is forcing two more marijuana dispensaries in San Francisco to close on August 1, bringing the number of dispensaries in the city to nearly a 10-year low.

–Alex Brown