Border patrol shooter’s privacy suit on life support
A federal judge has gutted former San Diego-area Border Patrol agent Arturo Lorenzo’s privacy suit against the government, dismissing nearly all of his claims.
Lorenzo sued the government late last year after a surveillance video of him shooting and killing a Mexican man on the banks of the All American Canal was leaked to The San Diego Union-Tribune. The man had likely crossed the border illegally and, based Lorenzo’s account in the lawsuit and the grainy surveillance video, was ready to throw a rock.
In his suit, Lorenzo claimed that the leak of the video was an invasion of his privacy because it disclosed private facts, intruded into his private affairs, put him in a false light (similar to defamation and libel), negligently inflicted emotional distress and violated the federal Privacy Act.
Judge Dana M. Sabraw said in an order issue order this week that Lorenzo’s claim for false light is barred by a federal law that gives the United States immunity from being sued for defamation and that the mere facts of the case—that this was a shooting of a suspected illegal immigrant on the U.S. border, in public—defeated his remaining privacy claims.
The judge said:
A shooting at the border involving a law enforcement officer and an illegal alien is clearly a newsworthy event. The incident raised issues of legitimate public concern, such as illegal immigration, violence at the border, and whether reasonable force was used by law enforcement. … His name, the location of the event, and the events surrounding the altercation are not private matters.
Lorenzo also said the government should also be held responsible because it failed to properly supervise the unknown employee who leaked the tape. The judge shot that down, too, saying that courts have given the government wide discretion on how it supervises its employees.
What’s left? Not much. The judge let stand Lorenzo’s claim that he and his wife suffered emotional distress because of what they say was the government’s negligent handling of the video tape. Lorenzo will also be allowed to continue his suit under a claim that the government violated the federal Privacy Act—which says that only the subject of a government record can authorize its release—mainly because the government didn’t ask for that claim to be dismissed (the judge gave no indication of what would’ve happened if the government had asked for that). However, his wife, Fabiola, can’t sue for the same thing (she was trying, too) because the video tape wasn’t about her, according to the judge.
We’ve asked Lorenzo’s attorney if an appeal of the judge’s order is planned. We’ll let you know if we hear back.
Public employee on public land out in public shooting unarmed illegal immigrants…someone*cough cough Arturo Lorenzo cough cough*needs to read the law regarding filming/photographing public servants in a public place. Ahem. IT’S PERFECTLY LEGAL, ASSHOLE!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
True, not illegal to take a picture of a person in public. But this suit is a bit more complicated.
Two things — Lorenzo’s argued he has an expectation of privacy, but the judge has largely shot that down.
But, since the government was the one taking the picture, it becomes a government record that concerns him, and that probably means it’s subject to the privacy act and that government can’t release it without his permission. It’s not clear cut, so we’ll see where it goes from there.
I don’t understand your second thing. I mean, why isn’t it a public record? Because it’s in his personnel file?
Oh, that doesn’t mean it’s not a public record. But exemption 7(c) of the federal FOIA provides for the protection of personal information in law enforcement records. Personel information in a government records system — which Lorenzo argues that this video tape, showing his likeness and name is — is subject to the controls of the Privacy Act of 1974 which prohibits the disclosure of a record without the subject of the record’s written consent.
You’re correct. It IS complicated. What hasn’t been said is the BP’s policy regarding taking photographs at work and/or the BP’s policy regarding photographs taken at work belonging to the government. If it DOES belong to the government, wouldn’t it be public property anyway because the public IS the government and vice-versa?
My guess is the BP doesn’t want to look even more stupid than it already has.
OK. I just re-read the story. I’m assuming that the videotape was taken by another agent. The article doesn’t clear up that discrepency.
My next question is: How in the FUCK is it possible to have “grainy” footage of the illegal alien getting ready to throw rocks? This concerns me that my tax money is being stolen to pay for these overpaid babysitters and they can’t even afford to buy decent cameras? That’s scary.