Nude pics have police in hot water
The Culpeper Police Department is facing lawsuits from two Culpeper residents who say their privacy was violated when sexually explicit pictures on a cell phone were deliberately shared among officers and deputies after an arrest.
Filed late last month in U.S. District Court in Charlottesville, the plaintiffs, Nathan Newhard and Jessie M. Casella, each seek unspecified compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages.
Named in the suits are the CPD, Chief Scott Barlow and a former sergeant alleged to have distributed the photos. See civil complaint filed
The six-count civil complaints allege deliberate indifference to the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, violations of their privacy, “outrageous and shocking” conduct, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and failure of Barlow and the department to adequately train, supervise and discipline officers.
A court date has not been set.
According to the complaints, the incident began during the early morning hours of March 30, 2008, when Newhard was arrested by an unidentified town officer and charged with DUI and three other misdemeanors.
While in custody, the complaint says, Sgt. Matt Borders gained control of Newhard’s cell phone, which contained nude photographs of Casella, his girlfriend.
“Borders then alerted other officers in the station house so they could view the private picture messages without permission,” says the complaint.
After alerting officers in the building, Borders is accused of using his police radio to invite other officers to view the pictures at the station.
“Several officers not associated with the arrest of Nathan Newhard travelled to the Town of Culpeper Police Department headquarters to view the private picture messages,” the complaint states.
“Defendant Borders’ actions of displaying the private explicit picture messages of plaintiff Casella were brutal, demeaning and shocking to the conscience,” the complaint continues.
“Borders’ conduct offended the generally accepted standards of decency when he announced over the (radio system) that other town officers who wanted to see the nude pictures should come into the station.”
According to the lawsuit, an unidentified sheriff’s deputy brought the situation to the couple’s attention. As a result, Newhard claims he was forced to resign his teaching position with Culpeper County Public Schools after news of the incident was leaked to school officials.
Casella, a specialist in equine hoof care, also says the incident seriously harmed her professional career.
Barlow confirmed Friday afternoon that Borders resigned in December. Borders is the only person other than Barlow identified by name in the suit.
Barlow said by e-mail that the town had not officially been served with the suit and stopped short of directly linking the suit and last year’s alleged incident.
“We did receive and investigate an internal complaint that is very likely in reference to this,” Barlow said. “I am confident that we handled the complaint appropriately and professionally. Based on a potential pending lawsuit, I cannot comment any further.”
Veronica Robinson, one of two attorneys representing the plaintiffs, said their investigation recently uncovered new information and the complaint filed last month will likely be amended to include new information as it is discovered.
“We do have some people who gave us information that the information was shared outside the Police Department,” she said. “The more we learn, the more we see the type of case we have.”
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
rogersk - I looked up, on line of course, when that chief was at the CPD—there were no cell phones then, nor half the electronics there are now. So nude pics would have been put through a Polaroid or a photography shop to be processed. I doubt “ladies” back then posed as easily either. All behavior was different (and in many ways much better) in your good ol days.
Charges and actions aside….Whatever happened to the “good old days” when Roy Jamieson was chief and things went smoothly in the CPD??? I don’t recall anything like this happening then. I guess honor and good judgment are long gone these days. Signs of the times????
The bottom line is that anyone who commits a crime should be held accountable. This does not apply however to several of our local officials and their pals. Until there is equal justice for all, there is no justice. Less talk - more convictions!
I would like to say that semper fi mom you are correct with putting the legal issues aside. The conduct greatly concerns me. It should concern everyone.
I’d like to say this noth8nlyf. I am very familiar with Us v. Murphy. The court ruled based on the circumstances of the case and the possibility of the loss of what was on the cell phone. The ruling still does not give the authority to just check cell phones on any arrest as lawman stated. Your statement that courts ruled warrantless searches of cell phones caught my attention and just needed a little clarification. We can all learn from each other. I have been practicing law for quite some time. Sometimes the interpretation of court rulings can be difficult.
An example would be if I was arrested for shoplifting. I had a cell phone on my belt at the time of my arrest. It would be a violation of my privacy if the arresting officer took it and viewed it. That would be a violation of my fourth amendment rights. Don’t mean to beat a dead horse but as an attorney I do understand what case you mentioned.
The Chime Rule or Chimel v. California covers search incident arrest. We must protect the rights of every citizen, even those arrested.
Let me just say that I truly enjoy the posts from everyone on this issue. And yes semper fi mom why on earth would anyone put such pictures on a cell phone and not realize that they just might be viewed by people that they did not want to see them. I enjoy your posts.
Legal issues aside - let’s hope these 2 have learned something…don’t put pictures on anything with Internet access or that can be shared in any manner that you might be embarassed about if someone else sees it. At some point, they need to think about what they’re doing and take some personal responsibility for their choices - again, legal issues aside.
“Checking out a cellphone just to see what’s on there doesn’t cut it, without some justification that doing so is going to enhance what is already there”
You are absolutely correct- it is usually best to get a warrant, but the Fourth Circuit (which covers Virginia) has upheld a warrantless search of a cellphone in US vs Murphy.The behavior of the officer is what is disgusting here. The search of the phone could possibly be related to the “three other misdemeanors.“ Again, it is the behavior of the officer that is the focus of this, not the legality of the search of the phone. I don’t see where the attorney for the plaintiffs is challenging the search, rather it is what the officer did with information that was wholly unrelated to the case at hand.
See link- the “Us v. Murphy” is a link to a pdf version of the actual ruling.
http://circuit4.blogspot.com/2009/01/court-oks-warrantless-cell-phone-search.html
noth8tnlyf a search “incident to arrest” has limits. We have covered this issue with our Commonwealth’s Attorney and we were clearly advised that a warantless search of cell phones is unlawful unless it meets certain criteria.
An arresting officer may search the area “incident to arrest” within the immediate control of the person arrested to discover and remove weapons and to seize evidence to prevent its concealment or destruction. If a cell phone is not part of the investigation or arrest like in this case it cannot be legally viewed by law enforcement.
Any property on the individual after they are arrested is inventoried and placed in the property room. Unless we have it as evidence it is released to them upon their release.
The courts have not allowed us to view cell phones “incident to arrest” just because the individual has been arrested. Viewing a cell phone in a DUI and many other arrests would not be legal.
It’s best practice to obtain a search warrant to avoid the posibility of any evidence being thrown out in a case for being obtained unlawfully. I just want everyone to understand that there are rules when it comes to searches “incident to arrest”. Thanks.
The courts have ruled that a warrantless (without search warrant) examination of a cellphone as a search incident to arrest is lawful. However, this is usually done in a drug case where evidence on the phone may be used to enhance probable cause, not develop it. Tricky area, but it is a legally valid area. Checking out a cellphone just to see what’s on there doesn’t cut it, without some justification that doing so is going to enhance what is already there. You would think that people would learn to erase that type of stuff, but thankfully they don’t.
Let me just clarify that all involved have not been gound guilty of anything yet so I don’t want to jump the gun as it might have sounded in my earlier post.
I agree with semper fi mom on her April 20, 2009 0939 post. Just look at what is happening to our teenagers with the sexting issues. You can’t take back what you post and you can’t control what people will do with it. Technology brought us many issues.
I have heard the steroid issue ed as well as some other things. The problem is that what I hear is hearsay and have no personal knowledge of whetehr or not it transpired. Any misconduct in any law enforcemet agency must be reported. Unfortunately it doesn’t always happen. I can promise you that I follow the rules and have done so my entire career. I have seen many come and go for misconduct.
If we have armed police officers (off duty I assume) getting into fights at loal bars that must be dealt with. I have had my fair share of dealing with disciplining and I have a zero tolerance for any misconduct in law enforcement. Remember, we are the people that you are supposed to trust.
I think the best thing we can do in this incident is wait the outcome is in court. The paper is only given so much due to privacy. I have to sometimes refrain from making judgement based on what I read in the paper. The court will hear all the facts. Thanks.
OUR GOOD OLE BOYS ARE GOING DOWN. OH MY….THEY DONT DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT.WHY WERE THEY LOOKING AT THE CELL PHONE ANYWAY IT IS NOONE’S BUISNESS AS TO WHAT WAS ON THAT PHONE. BUT OF COURSE THE GOOD OLE BOYS ALWAYS MAKE IT THEIR BUISNESS. WE NEED TO CLEAN UP THE FORCE ANYWAY LETS START WITH THE CHIEF ,HE SHOULD HAVE NOT LET IT GO THAT FAR.BUT IF OUR TOWN COUNCIL OR MAYOR HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT HE WILL STILL BE THERE. WHAt is out town coming too
Advertisement