Talk:Glik v. Cunniffe

Glik v. Cunniffe has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 14, 2014	Good article nominee	Not listed
January 21, 2016	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 13, 2016.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in Glik v. Cunniffe, the court noted that "we have previously recognized that the videotaping of public officials is an exercise of First Amendment liberties"?

Current status: Good article

Freedom of speech Low‑importance

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Enforcement Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article follows the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times, and has specific typeface formatting requirements. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation site.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Glik v. Cunniffe/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wrestlinglover (talk · contribs) 01:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my name is Will and I will be reviewing this article. I'm a paralegal science/political science/economics student so it is rather interesting that this is the first case I have actually reviewed on here.

Lead and Box

I do believe the amendments should be wikilinked in the lead.
Wiretapping should be wikilinked. Though a common term, a user may wish to learn more on the matter.
Box looks fine.

Background

"Simon Glik observed John Cunniffe, Peter Savalis, and Jerome Hall-Brewster, Boston police officers who were effecting an arrest." - Strange wording here in my opinion. I'd change it to "Simon Glik observed an arrest by Boston police officers John Cunniffe, Peter Savalis, and Jerome Hall-Brewster."
Source for the bystander comment.
I'd capitalize amendment in "First and Fourth amendment rights"

Opinion of the court

"public place was clearly established[2][14] a decade prior to Glik's arrest.[15]" I'd move reference 2 and 14 to before reference 15 so that it doesn't disrupt the sentence.

Subsequent developments

"The officers now face disciplinary action by the city." - Is this still a current issue? This case was covered almost 3 years ago. I would figure in that timespan the city would have done something. Are they being disciplined, could they be, or have they been? I think being more exact would help.
Good follow up on Glik. Really made the article look professional in that regard.

External links

Looks good.
Is there no template that this case would be included under, such as cases involving the bill of rights or incorporation?--WillC 02:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Good.

References

I'm gonna to assume good faith on most of these. They look reliable from my knowledge but I don't have the ability to check them.--WillC 01:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Fix the above comments and I think it is worthy of the GA banner.--WillC 01:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I've left this article here for two weeks and nothing has been done really. Sadly I'm gonna have to fail this nomination since there appears to have been no effort to fix the issues. I'm gonna leave the review open until the end of the day and if no fixes are made then I'm gonna fail it.--WillC 04:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes well after closure

Lead and Box

I do believe the amendments should be wikilinked in the lead.

Done

Wiretapping should be wikilinked. Though a common term, a user may wish to learn more on the matter.

Done

Background

"Simon Glik observed John Cunniffe, Peter Savalis, and Jerome Hall-Brewster, Boston police officers who were effecting an arrest." - Strange wording here in my opinion. I'd change it to "Simon Glik observed an arrest by Boston police officers John Cunniffe, Peter Savalis, and Jerome Hall-Brewster."

Done

Source for the bystander comment.

I'll get this on the expansion I'm about to do.

I'd capitalize amendment in "First and Fourth amendment rights"

Done

Opinion of the court

"public place was clearly established[2][14] a decade prior to Glik's arrest.[15]" I'd move reference 2 and 14 to before reference 15 so that it doesn't disrupt the sentence.

Changed to string cites (still using BB), will address on expansion.

Subsequent developments

"The officers now face disciplinary action by the city." - Is this still a current issue? This case was covered almost 3 years ago. I would figure in that timespan the city would have done something. Are they being disciplined, could they be, or have they been? I think being more exact would help.

I'll get this on the expansion I'm about to do.

Is there no template that this case would be included under, such as cases involving the bill of rights or incorporation?--

I'll get this on the expansion I'm about to do.

I had retired at the time it was being reviewed, I do appreciated the work that Wrestlinglover did in reviewing it. GregJackP Boomer! 02:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is understandable. I tried to keep it open as long as I could. If you re-nominate it and I'm free I may review it again.--WillC 02:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Glik v. Cunniffe/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Delldot (talk · contribs) 23:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in doing this review. @GregJackP: as I mentioned at Talk:Bowman v. Monsanto Co./GA1, I see your userpage says you're retired. Is there anyone willing to implement suggested changes? If not I'm afraid I'll have to take this down in a week (I already have some suggestions). If there is someone, I'm happy to do both reviews. delldot ∇. 23:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi delldot -- thanks so much for taking on this GA review! I am willing to implement any changes that are necessary as part of the GA review process. I am familiar with this case, and I have a lot of experience editing legal articles, so please let me know if you have any questions. I also helped complete the GA review for Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, which is another article Greg nominated before his retirement. I look forward to working with you! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I will be back soon with suggestions! delldot ∇. 06:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm excited to get the chance to work on this article. Hopefully this wouldn't present a bias problem on my part, I've been a longtime, enthusiastic participant in copwatch so have lots of experience filming police. I've always been good at keeping my politics from being a problem on WP so I don't imagine this will be different. Some comments to get started.

Y I think the lead should be expanded to cover the topics addressed in the article. e.g. the background section and what happened with the arrest. And the settlement, and the effects of the case.

I went ahead and expanded the lead. If you think anything else should be said in the lead, I'll be sure to add it -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Y Any chance of images? Photos of Glick or any of the officers involved would be ideal. Could also get any Boston PD images, or a shot of the Boston Common, the place where the arrest occurred. Also there's TONS of footage of police being aggro about getting filmed, I wonder if a shot of this could get worked in somewhere. Or an image of the judges involved?

I couldn't find any images of Judge Lipez, so I added images of the Boston Common and the First Circuit Court of Appeals' courthouse. The length of the infobox makes the text seem a little cluttered, so let me know if you think either of the images should be rearranged or removed. I alike the idea of showing pictures of the police, but I am hesitant to add a picture of an officer that was not involved in this case, because casual readers may incorrectly infer that the individual in the picture was actually involved in the unconstitutional arrest. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good thinking on the cop thing. Maybe a shot from the back, or without the face in the image? Nice work finding those two, they're beautiful. Kinda huge in my browser, what is the deal with the upright= parameter? delldot ∇. 06:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was worried that these two images would make the page too cluttered -- I think that the left-justification of the Boston Commons image makes things much better though. I considered deleting one of the images (I would favor including the image of the Commons over the courthouse); this may also be an issue if we add a picture of police. The "upright" parameter controls the width of the image (I think it is measured in inches). I am also considering adding a non-free image of Glik with a fair-use rationale, but I need to think that over a little further. In the meantime, fee free to make the images smaller if you think it improves readability. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could ask him for a photo. He has his email on his website. I have some boilerplate I sometimes use for such requests if you want it. delldot ∇. 15:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YThis source has the dialog that happened before the arrest that I think gives useful context (e.g. “I am recording this. I saw you punch him.”) It also gives context for the dismissal of the last 2 charges, i.e. wiretapping requires secrecy.

Nice job locating that summary from the Suffolk Law Review. I have added quotations from it to the article. I agree that they quotations help provide context for the events and the subsequent decision to dismiss some of the charges. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Y Should the decision section mention that the finding was unanimous? [1]

I edited the text to reflect the fact that the opinion was unanimous. I didn't include this in the article, but I should mention that Judge Lipez wrote the opinion for a unanimous three judge panel, rather than a unanimous opinion written by every Judge in the circuit (I didn't see anything about the circuit granting en banc review). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Y As brought up in the previous GA review: '"The officers now face disciplinary action by the city." - Is this still a current issue?' Can we get an update?

I conducted an extensive search, but aside from the article included here, I could not find any information about any discipline the officers may have faced. If I see anything else, I'll be sure to add it here. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot, I bet nothing was ever published about it. Maybe just reword to something like "they stood to face" or something that takes out the current sound of it? delldot ∇. 06:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to find online records for Boston PD discipline, but I couldn't find anything. In any event, I edited the sentence per your recommendation. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Y "The case had negative repercussions for Glik, an attorney, who had difficulty obtaining employment as a prosecutor due to the arrest." Should this read "The arrest had negative repercussions for Glik..."? Or was the publicity of the case itself a problem for him? Clarify.

Apparently, it was the pending criminal charges that were problematic (see this article at footnote 74 on page 1409). I re-wrote the sentence to try to make this clearer, but let me know if this still needs further clarification. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Y "Glik, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, along with David Milton and Howard Friedman..." who are these two guys, additional lawyers? Maybe just "along with attorneys David Milton and Howard Friedman". Otherwise clarify who they are.

I edited the sentence to explain that they are attorneys. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Y "The officers then made an interlocutory appeal of the denial to the First Circuit Court of Appeals." Could there be a sentence for the lay reader about what this meant for the case? Or even just a parenthetical about interlocutory appeals? Most readers are not going to have specialized knowledge, or they probably wouldn't need an encyclopedia!

I added a footnote that explains what an interlocutory appeal is. Between that and the internal Wikilink, I hope that will help explain the arcane subject of interlocutory appeals. Let me know if you think this still needs clarification. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the "Subsequent developments" section should have a subsection about related cases (The sections are longish so breaking them up would be good). I think tthere could be some expansion here about similar cases and how they were affected. e.g. there was the Illinios thing that got a one-sentence mention. There had been a guy facing 75 years for filming cops IIRC. My understanding is the wiretapping thing has been tried in lots of other places, might any of them be relevant?

I expanded the article to discuss similar rulings by other circuit courts. Although there have been dozens (perhaps even hundreds) of state and federal district court cases about filming the police, I decided to limit the scope of the section so that the article doesn't lose focus. If you think that it would be useful to discuss other notable cases that are from lower courts, let me know. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the last para about the potential circuit split could be fleshed out with a couple sentences about what happened with the 3rd court. When was this? Is the 3rd the only one with a contrary opinion? Also, is this info up to date? Because I found this: "All of the circuit courts that have, however, have concluded that the First Amendment protects the right to record police officers performing their duties in a public space, subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions."[2]

I love the addition of the footnote! This was 2010, right? So did this finding not have any effect on Glik even though it was already established?

I expanded this section to explain the issue with a potential circuit split. Four circuit courts (including the First Circuit) have held that the right to film the police was clearly established, while the Third and Fourth Circuits have held that even if such a right exists, it was not clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity. Let me know if you think this section requires further clarification. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Y External links typically go after references, or is it different in law?

I switched the order of these per your recommendation. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In general I think there could be some expansion and detail added. It's not super far from GA status, but I do think this was a big enough deal that there should be enough info out there for some expansion. Particularly in the Subsequent developments and the lead. I don't mind helping find sources. Let's see what more info we can find, then I'll do another read through and round of comments. Thanks for working on this Notecardforfree! delldot ∇. 07:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delldot, thank you for the comprehensive and informative review! I'm going to start working on this later today, and I'll likely continue through this weekend, but I will keep you updated on my progress. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, take your time. There's no hurry at all, I still haven't even started the other one. Here are a couple more sources that look promising if you can access them: [3] an explanation of qualified immunity a similar case discussion of officers' discomfort being filmed (cited in article, but just once. Also mentions the Anthony Graber case.) Hope these are useful! delldot ∇. 21:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And this one says "many people in Massachusetts had been arrested or charged for recording police under Massachusetts's wiretapping statute." Good info for the background section? delldot ∇. 21:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really impressive work so far. delldot ∇. 15:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for being incognito recently -- I had a few distractions in life that drew me away from Wikipedia. I have tried to respond to your suggestions as best as possible, and I also expanded the "commentary and analysis" section to include the latest scholarship about this case's impact. Let me know if there is anything else you would like me to modify here, but I sincerely appreciate your thorough and informative review! Cheers, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really top-notch work. The only suggestion I still have is to add a line of explanation for the last sentence: why does a traffic stop not clearly count as a public space in this commentator's opinion? Anyway, thank you for the high-quality expansions. This is ready for promotion.

delldot ∇. 00:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the fantastic review, delldot. I added a little more information to the final sentence, but let me know if this requires further communication. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. delldot ∇. 23:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New development to include?[edit]

@Notecardforfree: did you hear about this? Is this a big deal? Do you think it would be worth including a mention in the related cases section? I'm interested to see what happens in the appeal! delldot ∇. 23:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly could be a big development, especially if the case is ultimately appealed to the Circuit Court (which it almost certainly will be). I'll read through the District Court opinion later these evening and I'll offer more comprehensive commentary after I've read it over. It certainly is worth mentioning this development in the article; I'll write something after I read through the court's opinion. Thanks so much for letting me know about this. I hope all is well! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey delldot -- I apologize for not getting to this last week, but I went ahead and added a paragraph about the court decision that was discussed in the article you linked above. It's a very interesting case, and ultimately decides the issue based on different component of the First Amendment (information gathering v. expressive conduct). Let me know if you think anything should be added or changed. Otherwise, I hope all is well! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, thank you for adding it! delldot ∇. 18:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update on development[edit]

@Notecardforfree: On July 7, 2017 the Third Circuit court reversed Kearney's ruling, joining the Circuit Court consensus on the issue --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Glik v. Cunniffe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glik v. Cunniffe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160129213254/http://www.slu.edu/Documents/law/Law%20Journal/Archives/Welply_Article.pdf to http://www.slu.edu/Documents/law/Law%20Journal/Archives/Welply_Article.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]