Thompson and Miller Arrive At Settlement In Federal Suit For 2004 Eavesdropping Charges

In negotiations this summer, Patrick Thompson and Martel Miller arrived at a settlement in a civil suit against local authorities claiming their civil rights had been violated when eavesdropping charges were leveled against them in 2004 for videotaping the police.

In June 2005, Thompson and Miller filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court against Champaign, Urbana, and Champaign County. The complaint contained three major components: 1) Patrick Thompson had been racially profiled by Champaign police in three traffic stops in late 2003. 2) Martel Miller had his Fourth Amendment rights violated when Champaign police illegally seized his videotape and equipment. 3) Assistant State’s Attorney Elizabeth Dobson had maliciously prosecuted Miller and Thompson on charges of felony eavesdropping.

Those named in the original suit included Champaign City Manager Steve Carter, Champaign Police Chief R.T. Finney, Deputy Chiefs John Murphy and Troy Daniels, Sgt. David Griffet, Officer Justus Clinton, State’s Attorney John Piland, and Assistant State’s Attorney Elizabeth Dobson.

In a series of events that led up to the eavesdropping charges, there were several questionable traffic stops. Thompson was stopped by Champaign Police in October 2003 for an alleged seat belt violation. In December 2003, Thompson was sitting in his car in a parking lot waiting to merge into traffic when Champaign Sgt. David Griffet approached him and asked what was in the cup he was drinking from, apparently suspecting it was alcohol. Thompson answered that he was drinking tea. Although he was allowed to go, Thompson says he was followed by several police cars and later was stopped by one of them. He was given a warning ticket for having a license plate light out, an illegitimate claim according to Thompson. He entered a formal complaint for what he said was a case of racial profiling.

In January 9, 2004, a meeting took place between City Manager Steve Carter, several members of the Champaign police command staff, Patrick Thompson, and John Lee Johnson, then still alive. Despite Johnson’s support of Thompson, the complaint was dismissed. In a letter dated February 5, 2004, Steve Carter wrote:

“After reviewing the information from our meeting and the police reports, and after conferring with the City Attorney with regard to the legal arguments made by Mr. Johnson, it is my decision to uphold the decisions of the Chief. As to whether the stops were racially motivated, I do not feel that there were facts presented to support this allegation […]. Finally, neither the fact that you were not ticketed for the alleged seat belt violation nor that you were issued a warning ticket for the equipment violation seems to indicate racial bias.”

Exhausting the complaint process, Thompson took direction action, teaming up with long-time friend Martel Miller to videotape police encounters with African Americans. After notifying authorities of their intentions in a letter dated March 26, 2004, Thompson and Miller hit the streets collecting video footage. As early as June 2004, Champaign police moved to shut them down. Indeed, Thompson captured video images of Assistant State’s Attorney Elizabeth Dobson watching him with her own video camera.

On August 7, 2004, Champaign police seized Martel Miller’s camera and tape without arresting him and without a warrant. On August 10, the State’s Attorney filed charges against Miller, but Judge Heidi Ladd refused to agree to a warrant and instead issued a summons for him to appear in court. On August 23, Miller was formally indicted on two counts of felony eavesdropping, an antiquated law that was never enforced—that is, not until two black activists started videotaping police. The following day, August 24, Thompson was arrested on charges of home invasion and sexual abuse, and held on an exorbitant $250,000 bond. On September 2, 2004, Thompson was charged for the first time with eavesdropping and Miller was hit with a third charge.

State’s Attorney John Piland told the News-Gazette (Oct. 17, 2004) that the eavesdropping charges were filed at the request of the Champaign Police Department’s command staff. The police, he said, wanted the charges kept against Thompson and Miller to bring them to the table for a conversation.

City Manager Steve Carter refuted Piland, saying “R.T. was consistent from early on that we were interested in having the charges dropped.” Chief Finney stuck to this script, telling me in 2007 that he knew nothing about plot to charge Thompson and Miller, and that if he had known he would have put a stop to it.

An affidavit from Elizabeth Dobson refutes Finney’s claim. According to Dobson, on August 9, 2004, she met with command staff at the Champaign Police Station to discuss charges against Thompson and Miller. Dobson states that Chief Finney’s concern was that Champaign “not be the first or only police agency alleged as the victim of the Eavesdropping offense.” Chief Finney, Dobson claims, wanted the University of Illinois Police Department to go along with the charges. After UIPD refused to participate, the prosecution still went forward.

In the following weeks there were several public screenings of Citizen’s Watch, the video produced from Thompson and Miller’s footage, and editorials in the News-Gazette criticizing Piland. The phony eavesdropping charges turned out to be a great embarrassment for local authorities. Piland eventually dropped the charges against Miller, and after a new State’s Attorney was elected in November 2004, eavesdropping charges against Thompson were also dismissed.

Since it was filed in 2005, the federal suit managed to withstand challenges by an army of city, county, and private attorneys. The complaint was originally written and defended by Thompson, and was later picked up by Bob Kirchner and Ruth Wyman who had stepped in to provide counsel on Thompson’s sexual abuse and home invasion case. The legal accomplishments of Thompson, a legal novice, have truly been extraordinary. Thompson defended himself in his first trial against criminal charges of sexual abuse invasion and received a hung jury. He won a small claims suit against his former attorney Harvey Welch. And now he has forced a settlement in a federal courthouse.

Yet despite the egregiousness of public officials, legal immunity still protected many of their actions. The suit originally asked for more than a million dollars in compensation, but in the end the settlement came in far below that figure. Although there was no confidentiality agreement that often goes along with such a settlement, Thompson and Miller asked that the dollar amount not be made public.

A settlement in this case indicates that local authorities were unwilling to take the stand to defend their actions in 2004. The full extent of their conspiracy to send Patrick Thompson and Martel Miller to prison will remain unknown.


Who's going to protect the populace from the police in Champaign County?

Apparently no one.

I felt fairly sure that they'd win this case, based on the facts. This was only reinforced after Patrick recently won both the third try to adjudicate his case and his suit to recover the pittance he paid for bad legal advice.

Theoretically, the feds should have been onto this like flies on you know what, investigating the multiple and systemic violations of civil rights that were exposed by the courage of a few to speak truth to power. It seems that the best they can muster is to concede there was another case to be resolved in favor of the plaintiffs.

Does anyone with half a brain think that the _only_ lawlessness by the local police are those things revealed by this mess of steaming crap left by local law enforcement? If so, I've got a good price on a bridge in NYC for you. If police were held to the same standard as the rest of us, they'd have to open another prison -- or two.

The Good 'Ol Boy Network

During the Citizens Watch videotaping, it is Sgt. David Griffet who appears on camera numerous times, even challenging videographer Martel Miller's reasons for videotaping. Officer Justus Clinton mentions Griffet's name in his police report against Miller as being part of the "command staff" seeking to stop the videoptaping.
Turns out, Sgt. David Griffet was also working part-time as a "civilian investigator" with the State's Attorney's office. (one of the videotapings that led to the seizure of the camera was footage of Sgt. Griffet questioning someone as to the whereabouts of a "person of interest" in the course of an investigation for the State's Attorney's office.)

It also turns out that Sgt. David Griffet shared an office with guess who? Assistant State's Attorney at the time, Elizabeth Dobson.

On August 7, 2004, when Martel Miller's camera was seized, it wasn't seized by Officer Justus Clinton (who in the first scene of Citizens Watch shines a flashlight into the videocamera) but rather he called for command staff to come out (as Clinton was told to do the next time he caught members of VEYA videotaping) and guess who shows up?

Sgt. David Griffet and Elizabeth Dobson. Dobson was on a "ride-along" that night with Griffet and according to her affidavit she filed along with the dropped eavesdropping charges against Martel Miller, Dobson admits (paragraph 3) instructing Sgt. David Griffet to seize the camera and videotape that night on August 7. (Miller had recorded a bicyclist being ticketed for not having a light on his bike, and Miller was videotaping the person's bike with a light on it. When the camera and tape were returned to Miller in November of 2004, this portion of the tape had been erased.)

So we have an Assistant State's Attorney who videotapes while on ride-alongs with police officers, is caught on tape doing so, and then the mickey mouse game of catching the VEYA members videotaping begins.

As far as Champaign Police Chief R.T. Finney being "consistent", people should look at the September 18, 2004 VEYA forum held at the Douglass Center during the peak of the hubbub over the eavesdropping case. Filmed just 7 days before the eavesdropping charges were to be dropped against Martel Miller, Finney is on tape defending the Champaign Police Department for seizing the VEYA videotape and camera, and the subsequent Class 2 felony charges filed against Miller and Thompson, because Illinois state law says you can't record the audio of police officer conversations while in the public way. A law that still stands to this day despite Rep. Chapin Rose's efforts to change it in 2005.

Prior to the November 4, 2004 election, then-State's Attorney John Piland kept the eavesdropping charges against Patrick Thompson, and maintained that his office "will provide unmistakable education" to the public that recording uniformed police officers in the public way is a violation of their privacy.
Current State's Attorney, Julia Rietz has said on WDWS radio that she would never charge anyone with eavesdropping for recording police officer conversations, (unless the person does so concealing the recording device) but since the Videotaping/Retaliation case began in 2004, there have been two incidents where citizens were told they cannot videotape police officers because "that's the law". One citizen was audio recording on his cellphone during his traffic stop and had his cell phone seized by police, and returned with the audio erased.
It is not unusual for citizens to be told that the videotape police make during traffic stops is not available when citizens attempt to subpoena such tapes for their defense. In fact, Patrick Thompson had a traffic violation case dismissed in 2007 when he attempted to seek the squad car videotape. (Thompson's car was stopped 3 times during the week of the announcement that Judge Clem had ruled Thompson was to be given a new trial for the criminal sex abuse case.)
During the Brian Chesley beating on March 30, 2007, civilian onlookers began pointing cellphone cameras at the incident. Champaign Police officers circled around the officers on top of Chesley and locked arms so cameras could not record what was happening to Chesley. The cellphone ban at the courthouse was done by Tom Difanis because of the cellphone's new capability to record.
When you also consider that this State's Attorney decided to keep police reports from the public (in Jan. of 2007), it is clear that law enforcement's preference is that their actions are not recorded nor ever publically diseminated (unless it's a carefully crafted press release), even though they claim over and over they are doing "nothing wrong".

But then what else can we expect from 4 police departments who have failed 3 times in a row on the state-wide racial profiling study, and a state's attorney married to an officer who has been publically accused of falsifying a police report?
During the time of the eavesdropping case of 2004, academics and activists were so outraged that people were being charged with felony crimes for recording their police officers, that they vowed to take to the streets with cameras. So far, no one else has stuck their necks out like Miller and Thompson did. The prosecutions of these men has successfully put a chill on citizens holding law enforcement accountable.

Post new comment

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer