The ACLU retracted late Tuesday a claim it made earlier that day that the University of… The ACLU retracted late Tuesday a claim it made earlier that day that the University of Pittsburgh reached a settlement with Elijah Matheny in a federal lawsuit over an incident with Pitt police in 2009.

After issuing the press release early Tuesday afternoon, the American Civil Liberties Union retracted its statement that Pitt had agreed to pay a settlement of $48,500 to Matheny, a Pittsburgh resident who was arrested by University police and chared with wiretapping in 2009.

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

After the press release was rescinded, Witold Walczak, the ACLU of Pennsylvania legal director, said that no settlement has been made and that he has no further comment regarding a trial in the works or any future settlement.

He also declined to comment on why the press release was sent out by the ACLU.

The Pitt officer was dismissed as a defendant by a federal judge last year, but the ACLU appealed the decision to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Matheny was arrested on April 29, 2009 by Pitt police after using his cell phone to record the officers detaining and questioning his friend. Police then arrested Matheny on charges of violating the Wiretap Act, which forbids audio recording without the consent of all parties involved, according to the ACLU’s original press release.

Matheny and his friend, Tamisha Evonne Singletary, were searching a construction bin outside of Bouquet Gardens for discarded items when Pitt police approached the pair and asked for identification, according to the original civil complaint.

Once police were able to confirm Singletary’s identity, they released her but arrested Matheny for violating the Wiretap Act, according to the complaint. Police also charged Matheny with possessing of an instrument of crime — his cell phone.

Once Matheny was taken into the Pitt police station, an officer called the Allegheny County District Attorney’s Office to confirm that Matheny could be charged for violating the Wiretap Act. The DA’s office authorized the arrest.

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

In a 2009 lawsuit, the ACLU said the University of Pittsburgh 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.

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

As part of a settlement in the lawsuit, 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.

The ACLU’s statement said the Wiretap Act does not apply to people who audio record government officials on public property because there is no expectation of privacy.

“The right to record police is an important human-rights-protection tool, as the ongoing Twitter and YouTube postings from North Africa and the Middle East have shown, and it’s every bit as essential in the United States,” Walczaksaid in the original press release.