ACLU receives settlement from Pitt lawsuit

The American Civil Liberties Union and Pitt have reached a $48,500 settlement after a man filed… The American Civil Liberties Union and Pitt have reached a $48,500 settlement after a man filed a lawsuit against the Pitt police in 2009 for violating his First and Fourth Amendment rights.

Pitt police arrested Elijah Matheny, a Hill District resident, on April 29, 2009, and charged him with violating the state’s Wiretap Act when he used his cell phone to record officers detaining and questioning his friend after they caught him searching for discarded items in a construction bin outside Bouquet Gardens.

Glen Downey, a private lawyer handling the case for the ACLU, said that the case went into mediation, which then resulted in a settlement with Pitt. He said that the details of what went on in mediation are confidential.

Pitt’s insurance company, not the University directly, will pay the settlement, Downey said.

Pitt spokesman John Fedele said the University had no comment on the settlement.

The Pitt News reported in June that Pitt spokesman Robert Hill said the “University was not a party to the lawsuit mentioned by the ACLU in its news release.” However, the lawsuit listed a Pitt police officer as a defendant in the case.

Matheny was arrested on a violation of Pennsylvania’s Wiretap Act. The Pitt police officer called the Allegheny County District Attorney’s Office to confirm the violation of the act and authorize the arrest.

The act forbids audio recording without the consent of all parties involved, but it does not apply to people who audio record government officials on public property because there is no expectation of privacy, according to an ACLU press release sent in June.

The charges against Matheny were later amended, and he was charged with disorderly conduct and defiant trespassing. In July 2009, all of the charges were dismissed at a preliminary hearing.

In the 2009 lawsuit, the ACLU alleged that Pitt police violated Matheny’s First and Fourth Amendment rights by punishing him and confiscating his cell phone for legitimately trying to gather information about the police activity happening at the scene.

Downey said that Matheny’s case was an important one to take up because it occurred right before the G-20 Summit two years ago, and he wanted to make sure that innocent people weren’t arrested for simply trying to record the events that were going to happen at G-20.

Overall, Downey said the case was successful because there were not any allegations of people being arrested for using their cell phones to record during the G-20.

“Our position is that it’s very important, especially with emerging technology, that people should be able to document what public officials are doing,” he said. “In this case, someone tried to stop that from occurring.”

The lawsuit also alleged the district attorney’s office engaged in “a pattern of erroneously advising law enforcement that audiotaping police officers in public violates Pennsylvania’s Wiretap Act,” the ACLU statement said.

As part of an earlier settlement, Allegheny County and the district attorney’s office released a memo in September 2010 telling district attorneys and local police chiefs that recording police officers in the process of their duties does not violate the Wiretap Act.

Although this case was local, Downey said that recording public officials is a national conversation.

“We need to determine whether people can pick up their cell phones and record.”