UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Case 1:20-cv-00929-RDB Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 1 of 21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

LEADERS OF A BEAUTIFUL STRUGGLE 25 W. Fayette St. Baltimore, MD 21201

ERRICKA BRIDGEFORD 136 Garden Ridge Rd. Cantonsville, MD 21228

KEVIN JAMES*

Plaintiffs,

v.

BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT 601 East Fayette Street Baltimore, MD 21202

MICHAEL S. HARRISON, in his official capacity as Baltimore Police Commissioner

601 East Fayette Street Baltimore, MD 21202

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 20-929

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1. This lawsuit challenges the Baltimore Police Department's ("BPD") deployment of aircraft to conduct long-term, wide-area aerial surveillance of the entire city of Baltimore. The BPD's mass surveillance system will persistently record the movements of virtually all of Baltimore's 600,000 residents, including Plaintiffs. This surveillance system presents a novel and society-changing threat to individual privacy and to free association, and it violates the Constitution.

* In a concurrently filed motion, Plaintiff Kevin James has requested a waiver of his obligations under Local Rule 102.2(a) to provide his home addresses in the caption of this complaint.

1

Case 1:20-cv-00929-RDB Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 2 of 21

2. The BPD calls this system the "Aerial Investigation Research" program, or "AIR." The BPD has contracted with a company, aptly named Persistent Surveillance Systems, LLC ("PSS"), whose planes will fly over Baltimore at least 40 hours a week. Once per second, advanced wide-angle camera systems on those planes will collect images of over 90 percent of the city at a time, creating slow-frame-rate video recordings of pedestrians on sidewalks, parks, driveways, and back yards, and vehicles moving about on public streets and private lots. To Plaintiffs' knowledge, the BPD has not yet commenced the program.

3. The AIR program would put into place the most wide-reaching surveillance dragnet ever employed in an American city, giving the BPD a virtual, visual time machine whose grasp no person can escape. And though the program's objectives to reduce crime and violence are laudable, the Constitution dictates that this all-seeing and ever-present "eye in the sky" is not an available solution.

4. Plaintiffs Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle ("LBS"), Erricka Bridgeford, and Kevin James are Baltimoreans deeply concerned about their community, its relationship with law enforcement, justice, and equality. The ability to associate with others, free from unwarranted government scrutiny, is essential to Plaintiffs' political activity and advocacy. If the AIR program is permitted to proceed, it will violate Plaintiffs' privacy rights and burden their freedom of association; it will undermine the ability of LBS to carry out political activities crucial to its mission; and it will hinder Ms. Bridgeford's and Mr. James's advocacy and community organizing.

5. Through this action, Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the BPD's policy and practice of persistent aerial surveillance violates their First and Fourth Amendment rights; an

2

Case 1:20-cv-00929-RDB Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 3 of 21

injunction against Defendants' operation of the AIR program; and an order requiring the BPD to destroy the information about them that it has collected in violation of their constitutional rights.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ? 1331 and 42 U.S.C. ? 1983 because this lawsuit alleges violations of the U.S. Constitution. 7. The Court has authority to grant declaratory and injunctive relief, and any other appropriate relief, under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. ?? 2201?2202, and under the Court's inherent equitable jurisdiction. A substantial, actual, and continuing controversy exists between the parties with respect to Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. 8. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ? 1391(b) because Defendants reside in this district and the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this district.

PARTIES 9. Plaintiff LBS is a Baltimore-based grassroots think-tank, founded in 2010, that advances the public policy interests of Black people in the city through youth leadership development, political advocacy, and intellectual innovation. LBS's work addresses historic and structural impediments to Black people's quality of life, including poverty, violence, and white supremacy in the American political and socio-economic order. To this end, LBS advocates for policing reform, and it has spearheaded numerous legislative efforts aimed at policing accountability. LBS has been a frequent critic of law enforcement's use of surveillance technologies against Black communities. LBS sues on its own behalf and on behalf of its staff. 10. Plaintiff Erricka Bridgeford is a Black activist in Baltimore City, where she was born and raised. Ms. Bridgeford is the co-founder and current co-organizer of Baltimore Ceasefire 365 ("Ceasefire"), a movement that serves as a hub for organizations and citizens to support one another, work together, and share resources with the goal of seeing an end to murder

3

Case 1:20-cv-00929-RDB Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 4 of 21

in Baltimore City. Ceasefire organizes quarterly "ceasefire weekends" in the city, and one recent study has shown that these efforts have led to more than a 50% reduction in gun violence in Baltimore while in effect.

11. Plaintiff Kevin James is an information-technology professional, hip-hop musician, activist, volunteer Emergency Medical Technician, and community organizer. Mr. James lives in Baltimore City and has lived in the area since 2001, when he joined Teach for America in Baltimore. He has been involved with many grassroots movements in the city, including advocacy related to school funding, housing rights, mental health, and immigration.

12. Defendant Baltimore Police Department ("BPD") is the police department for the City of Baltimore. No state official or agency exercises any supervisory authority over the BPD or the Police Commissioner of the BPD. The BPD operates only within the City of Baltimore. The BPD is the entity responsible for the implementation of the AIR program.

13. Defendant Michael S. Harrison is the Police Commissioner of the BPD. He has supervisory authority over all operations of the BPD, including policymaking authority over the AIR program. On behalf of the BPD, Commissioner Harrison signed the contract with PSS to implement the AIR program. He is sued in his official capacity.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Background

14. Wide-area, persistent aerial surveillance is not entirely new. It was first developed as a military program, named Gorgon Stare, for use over battlefields abroad.

15. It is also not entirely new to Baltimore. In 2016, the BPD and PSS initially deployed this technology for several months, keeping it secret from the public, the Mayor of Baltimore, and the city's prosecutors. It was only after news reports revealed the existence of this system--which led to an overwhelming public outcry--that the BPD halted this surveillance.

4

Case 1:20-cv-00929-RDB Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 5 of 21

Ultimately, the BPD recorded more than 300 hours' worth (and one million images) of the movements of ordinary Baltimoreans as they moved about the city. Although PSS publicly represented that the information it collected would be deleted after 45 days, PSS instead saved all of the recordings indefinitely.

16. In September 2019, PSS pitched the BPD on a three-year, $6.6 million revival of the aerial surveillance program. In December 2019, Baltimore Police Commissioner Michael Harrison announced that, despite the program's "controversial history," he intended to enter into a contract for a 180-day pilot program of wide-area, persistent aerial surveillance, beginning in the spring of 2020.

17. In March 2020, as Baltimoreans were reeling from a State of Emergency declaration by Governor Larry Hogan concerning the fast-evolving coronavirus pandemic, and the shuttering of enormous portions of the local and national economies, the BPD held three public meetings about its imminent aerial surveillance program. The meetings were conceived as steps to assuage the public in the wake of the BPD's secret aerial surveillance trials with PSS in 2016. The first, on March 11, was attended by just 20 people. Two other meetings, rescheduled to March 23 and March 30, were held as online Facebook events, as Baltimoreans were under emergency orders prohibiting gatherings of more than ten people.

18. On April 1, 2020, the Baltimore Board of Estimates approved the BPD's contract with PSS to implement the AIR program (the "Contract") by a 3-to-2 vote.

The AIR Program 19. According to the Contract, the BPD will authorize PSS to use its aerial technology and analytics to assist in the investigation of certain crimes in Baltimore during a six-month "pilot" period. The BPD acknowledges that this technology's "effect on crime has not been

5

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download