-
Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 1 of 34 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT NEW YORK

, •• !.

21.2 - 1r170 -,

Plaintiff,

COMPLAINT

- against-

MICHAEL MILTON, in his individual and Official capacities, and the COUNTY OF
SUFFOLK

Trial by Jury
WEXLER. J.

-- • f -J
.. . -, .. "

Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------x

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is a civil rights action challenging Suffolk County's policy, custom and

practice of obstructing the First Amendment right of the press and the public to gather and record

news and information about police activity in public places. This action specifically arises from

the unconstitutional arrest and detention of Philip Datz, a professional photojournalist, for

lawfully filming official police conduct that took place in public.

2. On July 29, 2011, Mr. Datz was filming a scene of official police activity that took place on a public street, in plain view. He wore his press credentials prominently around his neck, and he filmed from a public sidewalk where bystanders were watching the same police activity, across a street that remained open to traffic. He did not cross any police lines or interfere with police activity. Upon noticing Mr. Datz with his video camera, Suffolk County Police Sergeant Michael Milton ("Sergeant Milton") charged at Mr. Datz, grabbed him by his press lanyard, and demanded that he stop filming the scene and "go away." Sergeant Milton did not ask any other bystanders to leave, and he refused to specify an alternate location where Mr. Datz would be able to film. When Mr. Datz resumed filming from a location further removed

...
Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 2 of 34 PageID #: 2
from the police scene, Sergeant Milton - clearly irate at what he saw as a challenge to his authority - sped his patrol car at high speed directly at Mr. Datz, forcibly seized his camera and videotape, and arrested him. Mr. Datz was then taken to the Suffolk County Police Department's Fifth Precinct, where he was handcuffed to a desk. After spending approximately two hours in police custody, Mr. Datz was released and charged with obstructing governmental administration, in violation of N.Y. Penal Law § 195.05. The Suffolk County District Attorney later dismissed the criminal charge against Mr. Datz, recognizing that there was no lawful basis for it.
3. Mr. Datz's unlawful arrest and detention was not a rogue event. Suffolk County police officers have a longstanding and ongoing pattern of unlawfully interfering with the recording of police activity conducted in public view. This pattern stems from an unconstitutional policy, custom and practice by Suffolk County that gives officers excessive discretion to prevent such recording; a lack of adequate training regarding the right to engage in such recording; a failure to supervise and discipline officers who retaliate against or interfere with this right; and deliberate indifference to a culture of disregard for the constitutional protections for this right.
4. The right of the press and public to observe and record official police activity in public places goes to the core of the First Amendment. As a member of the press with a local news beat, it is the essence of Mr. Datz's job to cover public scenes of police response to criminal activity, accidents, and fires, and to provide footage of those scenes to local news broadcasters for timely reports to the public. It is through reporting such as Mr. Datz's that citizens on Long Island and across the country stay abreast oflocal events and important issues in their communities. But filming police officers engaging in their official duties has
2

-

-

Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 3 of 34 PageID #: 3

significance beyond the role of the press in keeping citizens infonned about current events. As the U.S. Department of Justice recently stated, the First Amendment right to record police officers in public is "consistent with our fundamental notions of liberty, promoters] the accountability of our governmental officers, and instill[s] public confidence in the police officers who serve us daily.'"
5. Sergeant Milton violated Mr. Datz's clearly established First Amendment right to record official police activity in a public location. He also violated Mr. Datz's clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from arrest and seizure of his property without probable cause to believe that he was engaged in any criminal activity. In doing so, Sergeant Milton was acting pursuant to Suffolk County's policy, custom and practice of preventing individuals from filming scenes of police activity conducted in public view. It was this unconstitutional policy, custom and practice that gave Sergeant Milton the confidence to boast to Mr. Datz, as his camera was running: "I've been doing this for 30 years. There is nothing you can hold over my head." With this civil rights suit, Mr. Datz seeks declaratory relief for the violation of his constitutional rights; compensatory and punitive damages for the unlawful actions of Sergeant Milton and Suffolk County; and injunctive relief barring Suffolk County from interfering with the First Amendment rights of the public and press and directing it to implement an effective policy to train its officers on the First Amendment right of the public and press to record police activity in public locations and to appropriately discipline those officers who violate this constitutional right.

I Statement of Interest of the United States at I, Sharp v. Baltimore City Police Dep 't, No. 11 Civ. 2888 (D. Md. Jan. 10,2012), ECFNo. 24.
3

- Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 4 of 34 PageID #: 4
PARTIES 6. Plaintiff Philip Datz is a 35-year-old resident of the State ofNew York. Mr. Datz is an independent professional photojournaIist who has worked for Stringer News Service for the past four years, including at all times relevant to this complaint.
7. Defendant Michael Milton was at all times relevant to this complaint a duly appointed police officer of the Suffolk County Police Department holding the rank ofsergeant in the Fifth Precinct. His actions as alleged in this complaint were taken under color of the laws of the State of New York and Suffolk County. Upon information and belief, Sergeant Milton is a resident of Suffolk County and the State of New York. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.
8. Defendant Suffolk County is a municipality within the State ofNew York. The Suffolk County Police Department ("SCPD") is an administrative arm of Suffolk County. Defendant Suffolk County is responsible for the administration and operation of the SCPD and charged with the employment, control, supervision, discipline, training, and practices of SCPD personnel and employees and with formulation of SCPD policies, customs and practices of SCPD personnel and employees.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 9. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,42 U.S.C. § 2000aa-6(a), and the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over all federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and l343(a)(3), and it has supplemental jurisdiction over all state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
4

.....
Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 5 of 34 PageID #: 5
10. Venue is proper in the Eastern District ofNew York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims herein occurred in this District and because all defendants reside in this District.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Mr. Datz's Unlawful Arrest and Detention for Filming Police Activity in a Public Place 11. Mr. Datz is an independent, professional, credentialed photojournalist who works
for Stringer News Service, with eight years of experience covering local news in Suffolk and Nassau Counties. His video news footage is regularly licensed to local and national television networks, including ABC, NBC, Fox, CBS, News 12, FiOSl, CNN, and Newsday, for use in
news broadcasts. Mr. Datz often covers breaking news events, including the events at issue
herein.
12. Mr. Datz is a member of the National Press Photographers Association ("NPPA"),
a 501 (c)(6) nonprofit organization dedicated to the advancement of visual journalism in its creation, editing, and distribution. Since 1946, NPPA has vigorously promoted freedom of the press in all its forms, especially as that freedom relates to visual journalism. Mr. Datz is also a member of the Society of Professional Journalists.
13. As a local photojournalist, Mr. Datz is often assigned to cover police actions taking place in Suffolk County. As a result, he interacts with Suffolk County police officers on a regular basis.
5

--
Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 6 of 34 PageID #: 6
14. On July 29, 2011, Mr. Datz learned of police pursuit ofa car taking place on Sycamore Avenue, a major public thoroughfare in Bohemia, New York. He told a local news station, News 12, that he would cover the story.
15. By the time Mr. Datz arrived on the scene at approximately 6:00 p.m., the pursuit had ended and the suspect was in police custody. There were several police cars parked in front of744 Sycamore Avenue, but Sycamore Avenue remained open to traffic, and the sidewalk was open to pedestrians.
16. At no time was any police tape or marker set up to delineate the perimeter of a crime scene.
17. Mr. Datz parked his car in a parking area at Sycamore Avenue Elementary School, across the street from the scene of police activity. Using his professional video camera, he commenced filming from the public sidewalk in front of the school. Mr. Datz was filming official police conduct that was open to public view.
18. At all times, Mr. Datz prominently displayed his press credentials issued by the Nassau County Police Department, which are valid and accepted in Suffolk County.
19. Within a few seconds after Mr. Datz began filming, an officer later identified as Sergeant Milton strode away from the police scene, crossed the street, and approached Mr. Datz, ordering him to "go away."
20. Mr. Datz captured his encounter with Sergeant Milton on video. The video, which may be viewed online at http://www.youtube.com!watch?v=0I38MnpAlW4.is incorporated by reference herein.
6

-
Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 7 of 34 PageID #: 7
21. Mr. Datz asked Sergeant Milton repeatedly where he could go to continue filming, but Sergeant Milton refused to identify any location. Sergeant Milton grabbed Mr. Datz's press lanyard, which Mr. Datz wore around his neck, and began to take down Mr. Datz's infonnation. While holding Mr. Datz in place by his lanyard, Sergeant Milton stated that if Mr. Datz did not leave, he would "get locked up."
22. Mr. Datz repeatedly asked Sergeant Milton where he would like Mr. Datz to move in order to continue filming. Sergeant Milton repeatedly refused to designate an alternate location where Mr. Datz would be allowed to film. In one exchange, Sergeant Milton told Mr. Datz that there was "no place" he would be able to film.
23. When asked why Mr. Datz was not pennitted to film from this public location, Sergeant Milton stated that there was a "current investigation" and an "active scene."
24. As the video of this encounter shows, at least two bystanders were standing in the same area as Mr. Datz during this exchange, watching the same police activity that Mr. Datz was filming. At no point was either bystander approached by Sergeant Milton or asked to leave.
25. When Mr. Datz suggested calling the SCPD Public Infonnation Office for advice, Sergeant Milton replied: "You can call and talk to the Commissioner for all I care. You're going away." He continued: "You understand, I've been doing this for 30 years. There is nothing you can hold over my head or anybody out there. Go away."
26. In response to Sergeant Milton's aggressive behavior, Mr. Datz placed his camera in his car and drove further away from the scene.
7

-

-

Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 8 of 34 PageID #: 8

27. Mr. Datz resumed filming from the comer of Lanson Street and Sycamore Avenue, at least 500 feet away from the police scene. He stood on a public sidewalk, across a street and over a block away from the scene ofpolice activity. The street was open, and pedestrians were walking on the sidewalk near Mr. Datz.

28. After Mr. Datz had been filming for approximately a minute at this new location, Sergeant Milton drove his squad car away from the police scene and directly toward Mr. Datz at high speed, stopping the car just in front of Mr. Datz. This threatening conduct by Sergeant Milton placed Mr. Datz in reasonable fear of imminent bodily injury.

29. Sergeant Milton jumped out of his car, forcibly removed Mr. Datz's video camera from his shoulder, and told Mr. Datz that he was under arrest. He pushed Mr. Datz up against the squad car and handcuffed him with his hands behind his back.

30. Sergeant Milton did not ask or order Mr. Datz to leave his new location prior to arresting him.

31. arrest.

Mr. Datz's professional video camera and its contents were seized during his

32. Mr. Datz was brought to a squad car by two officers from the SCPD Fourth Precinct. When he asked the officers to adjust his handcuffs, one of the officers told him to "shut up and get in the car."

33. Mr. Datz was then driven in a SCPD police car to the SCPD Fifth Precinct in Patchogue. While in police custody at the Fifth Precinct, he was fingerprinted and handcuffed to a desk.
8

-
Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 9 of 34 PageID #: 9
34. While Mr. Oatz was in police custody, he was ordered by two SCPO officers to remove the videotape from his professional video camera and turn it over as evidence.
35. The videotape in the video camera contained footage from several assignments from earlier that day, which Mr. Oatz and his employer intended to license to news organizations for broadcast on that evening's news. Mr. Oatz explained to the SCPO officers that the videotape contained footage from other news stories and asked to keep the videotape. The SCPO officers refused and told Mr. Oatz that ifhe did not surrender the videotape, his entire camera would be confiscated as evidence.
36. In compliance with the order of the SCPO officers, Mr. Oatz removed the videotape from the camera under protest and handed it to one of the SCPO officers. On information and belief, an SCPO lieutenant was also present at the time Mr. Oatz's videotape was seized.
37. From the time of his arrest, Mr. Oatz made repeated requests for phone calls, which were denied. After more than an hour in police custody, SCPO officers finally permitted Mr. Oatz to make a telephone call to Stringer News Service.
38. Mr. Oatz was held at the Fifth Precinct police station until approximately 8:30 p.m. Upon his release, his property was returned with the exception of the videotape from his camera, which was detained.
39. At the time of his release from police custody, Mr. Oatz received a desk appearance ticket for "obstructing governmental administration" in violation of N.Y. Penal Law § 195.05.
9

Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 10 of 34 PageID #: 10
40. SCPD Deputy Chief Chris Bergold was present at the Fifth Precinct police station while Mr. Datz was in police custody. Deputy Chief Bergold was apprised of the facts surrounding Mr. Datz's arrest and was aware that Mr. Datz was being charged with a violation of N.Y. Penal Law § 195.05. Deputy Chief Bergold was also aware that the videotape from Mr. Datz's video camera had been seized by the SCPD and that it was not returned to Mr. Datz at the time of his release.
41. The videotape from Mr. Datz's camera was not returned to him until approximately one hour after his release from custody. By that time, Mr. Datz was no longer able to license the time-sensitive footage from that day's other assignments for use on the evening news.
42. Sergeant Milton, Deputy ChiefBergold and all other SCPD officers who participated in the seizure of Mr. Datz's camera and videotape knew that they contained work product and documentary material generated and possessed by a member of the news media for the purpose of dissemination to the public via broadcast in interstate commerce.
43. Defendants arrested and detained Mr. Datz, seized his video camera and videotape, and charged him with a criminal offense for filming police activity in a public location and without any probable cause to believe Mr. Datz had committed a crime.
44. The arrest report for Mr. Datz's arrest contains knowingly false statements by Sergeant Milton. In that report, Sergeant Milton falsely states that Mr. Datz "refuse[d] to leave the developing crime scene." In fact, Mr. Datz did leave his initial position in response to Sergeant Milton's unlawful order. Mr. Datz was never asked or ordered by Sergeant Milton to leave his second location before he was arrested.
10

-

--

-

-

Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 11 of 34 PageID #: 11

45. Recognizing that Mr. Datz's arrest had been unlawful and that the criminal charge against him was baseless, the Suffolk County District Attorney voluntarily dismissed the charge
against Mr. Datz on or about August 9, 2011.
46. As a result of his arrest, Mr. Datz suffered physical, psychological, and professional injuries.
47. Mr. Datz's shoulder was injured during his arrest, requiring him to seek medical assistance at Stony Brook University Medical Center on August 5, 2011. Due to his injury, Mr. Datz was unable to work for at least a week after his arrest.
48. As a result of the shoulder injury sustained during his arrest, Mr. Datz is no longer able to operate certain types of professional camera equipment, including the type of camera he was using on the day of his arrest. This limitation has required him to turn down professional assignments where such equipment is necessary.
49. After his ordeal, Mr. Datz was told that the SCPD Internal Affairs Bureau would investigate his arrest. Mr. Datz was interviewed by the Internal Affairs Bureau in connection with that investigation on August 15,2011. At that time, Mr. Datz was told that he would be notified of the outcome of the investigation.
50. Mr. Datz was subsequently told that the Internal Affairs investigation has been
completed, but, to date, Mr. Datz has not been informed of the outcome of the investigation.
51. Upon information and belief, Sergeant Milton has faced no disciplinary action for his conduct and continues to serve in active duty as a sergeant with the SCPD.
11

-

-

Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 12 of 34 PageID #: 12

B. Suffolk County Police Have Engaged in a Policy, Custom and Practice of Obstructing and Preventing Citizens and Members of the Press from Recording Police and Other Official Activity in Public Locations (iJ Suffolk County Officers Regularly Obstruct and Prevent Individuals "om Recording Official Activitv Open to Public View 52. Mr. Datz's unlawful arrest on July 29, 2011, was not an isolated incident. Suffolk
County police officers have repeatedly obstructed and/or prevented Mr. Datz and other journalists from filming police activity and other official activity conducted in public view, both prior to and since Mr. Datz's arrest. Mr. Datz and other journalists have reported these incidents to the SCPD Public Information Office and other Suffolk County officials, but no meaningful action has been taken by Suffolk County in response.
53. The following non-exclusive list of examples illustrates the widespread unconstitutional pattern and practice among SCPD officers of obstructing and/or preventing members of the media from filming police activity in public locations, which culminated in Mr. Datz's unlawful arrest on July 29, 2011:
a. In mid-July 2009, SCPD Sixth Precinct Officer Ramses Cerdas told Mr. Datz that he could not record from a public street a scene of police activity on Granny Road in Farmingville, New York, because his Nassau County press credentials were not valid in Suffolk County. Officer Cerdas demanded that Mr. Datz "shut it off," referring to Mr. Datz's camera; attempted to stop Mr. Datz from filming the police activity; and then prevented Mr. Datz from filming at a closer location were bystanders were viewing the event. Mr. Datz's credentials are in fact valid in Suffolk County, and his constitutional right to record a scene of police activity in
12

-

-

Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 13 of 34 PageID #: 13

public was not dependent on those credentials. Mr. Datz lodged a complaint by email following this incident and met with SCPD Assistant Chief of Patrol Patrick Cuff to discuss the incident. Chief Cuff acknowledged that Officer Cerdas was incorrect regarding the press pass and did not have a legitimate reason to make Mr. Datz stand further back than the public or direct him to turn his camera off. Chief Cuff told Mr. Datz that he would speak to Officer Cerdas, but Mr. Datz had a further incident with the same officer.
b. On or about September 10, 2009, Mr. Datz was ordered to leave the scene of a house fire on Canterbury Drive in Coram, New York, by SCPD Officer Cerdas, the same SCPD Sixth Precinct officer involved in the July 2009 incident on Granny Road. Mr. Datz had been filming from a public street when ordered to leave. Mr. Datz reported the incident to the SCPD Public Information Office, but no meaningful action was taken.
c. On or about March 9, 2010, Mr. Datz was filming police activity at a homicide scene in Mastic Beach, New York, from the yard of a homeowner who granted him permission to enter and remain on her property. An officer from the SCPD Seventh Precinct ordered Mr. Datz and a fellow journalist to cease filming and stated that he was rescinding the homeowner's permission for them to be on her property. The officer then proceeded to put up crime scene tape around the homeowner's property-----even though it was unrelated to the crime scene--for the purpose of keeping the media from viewing and filming the police 13

-

--

-

Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 14 of 34 PageID #: 14

activity. Mr. Datz reported the incident to the SCPD Public Infonnation Office, but no meaningful action was taken.
d. On or about April 6, 2010, Mr. Datz was harassed by SCPD Sergeant Larkin for filming from a public street the scene of a car crash in Bellport, New York. The sergeant demanded Mr. Datz's identification and attempted to confiscate his press credentials. Mr. Datz reported the incident to the SCPD Public Infonnation Office, but no meaningful action was taken.
e. On or about September 4, 2010, Mr. Datz was prevented from filming a scene ofjoint police and fire department activity at a building fire in Lindenhurst, New York. A Suffolk County Fire Department officer ordered Mr. Datz to cease filming from a public sidewalk and leave the scene, without justification. The official grabbed Mr. Datz's camera and threatened him with arrest. SCPD First Precinct officers were on the scene and escorted Mr. Datz away from the scene to a location where it was difficult to see the fire. Meanwhile, members of the public were allowed to remain at the scene. Mr. Datz reported the incident to the SCPD Public Infonnation Office, but no meaningful action was taken. Mr. Datz's employer emailed the Fire Rescue Commissioner about the incident, and Mr. Datz spoke with the Fire Rescue Commissioner weeks later at a drill. The Fire Rescue Commissioner told Mr. Datz he would follow up on the incident, but no meaningful action was taken.
14

-

- --

Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 15 of 34 PageID #: 15

f.

On or about May 6, 20 II, Mr. Oatz was detained by a SCPO Third

Precinct officer at a homicide scene outside a bar in Central Islip, New

York, and told that he could not film the police scene from a public

sidewalk, even though Mr. Oatz was located outside the marked perimeter

of the crime scene. The SCPO officer required Mr. Oatz to turn over his

driver's license and press pass, which were subsequently returned to him.

The officer told Mr. Oatz he would expand the crime scene perimeter if

Mr. Oatz did not stop filming. An SCPO lieutenant then directed that the

crime scene perimeter be expanded, which had the effect of precluding

further filming or viewing of the crime scene. Mr. Oatz reported the

incident to the SCPO Public Information Office, but no meaningful action

was taken.

g. On or about June 22, 20II, Mr. Oatz and approximately six fellow journalists were obstructed by Suffolk County police officers and detectives in Medford, New York, from filming the arrest ofa suspect in a recent high-profile mass shooting at a local business. Mr. Oatz and his fellow journalists were filming from a public street and did not cross any police lines. One of the police officers drove his car back and forth to obstruct the media's ability to film the scene and directed members of the media to leave, and SCPO detectives threatened members of the media with arrest if they stayed in the area, while allowing bystanders to remain. Mr. Oatz reported the incident to the SCPO Public Information Office, but no meaningful action was taken.

15

-
Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 16 of 34 PageID #: 16

54. This widespread unconstitutional practice has persisted among SCPO officers even after Mr. Oatz's unlawful arrest on July 29, 2011. For example:

a.

On or about August 6, 20 II, officers from the SCPO Seventh Precinct

prevented Mr. Oatz and four fellow journalists from accessing a public

sidewalk on a bridge in Moriches, New York, which overlooked the scene

ofa motor vehicle accident. The bridge remained open to the public, but

the officer on site told journalists that members of the press were not

allowed on the bridge. Mr. Oatz and others reported the incident to the

SCPO Public Information Office, which informed them that the SCPO

Commissioner and Chief ofDetectives were present at the scene and

would be communicating to officers that the press should be allowed to

record the police activity, but that did not happen. Mr. Oatz was told later

by SCPO Deputy Chief Bergold that Chief Bergold would look into the

matter, but Mr. Oatz received no further word about any investigation or

action taken.

b. On or about August 28, 2011, Mr. Oatz and a fellow journalist were prevented by SCPO Third Precinct officers from recording the scene of a house fire and suspected arson in Brentwood, New York. Suffolk County police officers deliberately expanded the marked perimeter of the crime scene upon arrival of the media to prevent them from filming the scene from the public sidewalk. Sometime after the media left, the officers made the crime scene smaller again. Mr. Oatz reported the incident to the SCPO Public Information Office, but no meaningful action was taken. 16

-

-

Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 17 of 34 PageID #: 17

c. On or about November II, 20II, Mr. Datz and a fellow journalist were prevented from recording a scene of police activity relating to a suicide at Browns River Road No.2 in Bayport, New York. Mr. Datz and his fellow journalist were filming from a public street, standing well outside the marked perimeter of the scene, and were not interfering in any way with police activity. Nevertheless, they were approached almost immediately by officers from the SCPD Fifth Precinct and ordered to stop filming. The officers then expanded the area of the scene of police activity by approximately 2,000 feet, extending it around the comer of the road to hide the scene of police activity from view. When Mr. Datz inquired about why he and the other journalists were being required to move back, the sergeant in charge of the scene, Sergeant Reilly, said "there are certain things that just should not be on TV," or words to that effect. Meanwhile, other members of the public were allowed to remain inside the newly expanded perimeter. When Mr. Datz asked the Public Information Office how to file a formal complaint, he was informed that there was no formal procedure and he should send an email.Mr. Datz sent an email to the SCPD Public Information Office about the incident, but no meaningful action was taken.
d. On November 16, 20 II, Mr. Datz was obstructed by Suffolk County police officers from filming the arrest of a suspect on Hickory Road in Central Islip, New York. Mr. Datz was filming from a public sidewalk and street, did not cross any police lines, and was not interfering with
17

--
Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 18 of 34 PageID #: 18
police activity in any way. After the police had subdued the suspect and were carrying him to a police car, a SCPD Third Precinct sergeant approached Mr. Datz and told him to move one block away from the scene, without providing a reason. Upon information and belief. the sergeant demanded that Mr. Datz move away from the scene in an effort to prevent him from filming the police officers' treatment of the suspect, who was subsequently taken to Southside Hospital for treatment of injuries. Mr. Datz called the Public Information Office to report the incident, but no meaningful action was taken.
e. On December 18, 2011, Mr. Datz was obstructed by Suffolk County Police Officers from filming police activity at a homicide scene on Lincoln Avenue in Brentwood, New York. Mr. Datz was filming from a public sidewalk and street, outside of the crime scene perimeter, and was not interfering with police activity in any way. After Mr. Datz had been filming for two to three minutes, the same Third Precinct sergeant from the November 16, 2011 Central Islip incident sent two officers to tell Mr. Datz that the police were expanding the crime scene perimeter and that Mr. Datz had to move away from the scene by one block. Mr. Datz drove to a different location and proceeded to film. When he later passed by the original location, he discovered that the police had not in fact expanded the crime scene perimeter after he had left. Mr. Datz called the Public Information Office to report the incident, but no meaningful action was taken.
18

-
Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 19 of 34 PageID #: 19

f.

On April 1,2012, SCPD Third Precinct officers interfered with Mr. Datz's

attempt to film police activity at a hit-and-run scene on the Long Island

Express service road (Express Drive South). Police cars had blocked one

lane of the two-lane road, but the second lane remained open to public

traffic. When Mr. Datz had approached approximately 100 to 200 feet

from the nearest police vehicle, a Third Precinct sergeant made hand

gestures to Mr. Datz indicating that he should stop and not come closer.

The sergeant then sent two officers over to tell Mr. Datz that he could not

film from his current location. When Mr. Datz asked where the media

could set up to film, one of the officers, Officer Godoy, asked to see Mr.

Datz's press credentials and told him that his Nassau County press

credentials were not valid in Suffolk County. Mr. Datz's credentials are in

fact valid in Suffolk County, and his constitutional right to record a scene

of police activity was not dependent on those credentials. When Mr. Datz

informed Officer Godoy that the current SCPD policy states that Nassau

County press credentials are valid in Suffolk County, Officer Godoy asked

Mr. Datz ifhe had a copy of the SCPD policy for Officer Godoy to

review. The second officer then told Mr. Datz to return to his car

(approximately 300 feet away), and then a third officer approached and

said that that the police were closing the road entirely and that Mr. Datz

had to leave. Mr. Datz called the Public Information Office to report the

incident, but no meaningful action was taken.

19

--
Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 20 of 34 PageID #: 20
55. The officers involved in the above-listed incidents held positions of varying seniority within the SCPO. Supervising and senior members ofthe SCPO were often on the scene, or were notified ofthe incidents through calls to the SCPO Public Information Office.
56. Upon information and belief, none of the above-listed incidents has resulted in disciplinary actions against the officers involved.
57. Upon information and belief, there have been many other instances similar to those listed above in which SCPO officers have obstructed and/or prevented individuals and members of the press from recording police activity in public.
(iiJ At the Time ofMr. Datz 's Arrest, SCPD Officers Acted Pursuant to an Unconstitutional Official Policy
58. Sergeant Milton's unconstitutional arrest of Mr. Oatz for recording police activity from a public location, as well as similar unconstitutional actions by other SCPO officers to prevent individuals from recording police activity in public (as illustrated in the examples above), were the direct result of the official policies of the SCPO.
59. At the time of Mr. Oatz's unlawful arrest, the official policies of the Suffolk County Police Department did not affirmatively prohibit officers from preventing individuals or members of the media from recording police activity in public locations. To the contrary, the SCPO policy on "Bystanders at Police Incidents" in effect at the time of Mr. Oatz's arrest, located at Chapter 9, Section 21 of the SCPO Rules and Procedures, granted SCPO officials the authority to prevent recording of police activity in public based on wholly vague standards; stated that SCPO officials "may" allow individuals to remain at police incidents and produce recorded media even if their actions are wholly lawful; and granted SCPO officers unbridled
20

-

-

Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 21 of 34 PageID #: 21

discretion to prevent constitutionally protected recording of official police activity occurring in public.
60. In September 20 II, after Mr. Oatz's unlawful arrest, and implicitly recognizing that the policy in place at the time of his arrest was unconstitutional, the SCPO revised its policies regarding the recording of police activity at locations open to the public. The revised policies, however, do not provide for any training of SCPO officers regarding the First Amendment right of the public and press to record official police conduct that occurs in public, or set forth any procedures for disciplining officers who violate this constitutional right.
61. Even with these new policies in place, SCPO officers continue to obstruct and/or prevent individuals and members of the media from recording scenes of police activity in public in violation ofthe First Amendment, as illustrated by the incidents described above.
(iii) Suffolk County Police Officers Have Engaged in a Widespread Unconstitutional Custom and Practice ofObstructing and Preventing Individuals trom Recording Police Activity
62. In addition to its unconstitutional official policy, at all times relevant to this complaint, Suffolk County has had a persistent, widespread custom and practice of obstructing and/or preventing members of the media from filming police activity in public locations, in violation of the First Amendment. As illustrated by the examples above, SCPO officers have regularly acted pursuant to this widespread custom and practice by, among other things, ordering members of the media to cease recording or leave public scenes, even while bystanders are allowed to remain; improperly refusing to honor valid press credentials issued by sister jurisdictions; and dramatically expanding crime scene perimeters upon arrival of the media in order to prevent recording of police activity.
21

-

-

-

Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 22 of 34 PageID #: 22

63. This custom and practice is widespread among SCPD officers, and has been frequently reported to senior officers of the SCPD and to the SCPD Public Information Office by those who have been prevented from filming police activity in public. Suffolk County has at all relevant times had knowledge of this unconstitutional custom and practice.
(iv) Slfffolk County Has Failed to Adequately Train its Officers on the Constitutional Right to Record Police Activitv in Public
64. At all times relevant to this complaint, Suffolk County has had a policy, custom and practice of failing to adequately train its officers on the clearly established First Amendment right of the press and public to record police activity in public locations. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this complaint, Suffolk County failed to properly train its police recruits that individuals, including members of the media, have a First Amendment right to film or photograph police activity taking place in public. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this complaint, Suffolk County also failed to provide adequate refresher training to active-duty police officers on the First Amendment right of the press and public to film or photograph police activity in public places.
65. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this complaint, Suffolk County also failed to adequately train its police recruits and active-duty officers that members of the media may not be excluded from areas open to the general public, and that officers may not detain, arrest or retaliate against individuals for filming or photographing police activity in pUblic.
66. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this complaint, Suffolk County also failed to adequately train its police recruits and active-duty officers that a crime scene may not be expanded for the purpose of denying these First Amendment rights.
22

-

-

-

Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 23 of 34 PageID #: 23

67. Suffolk County police officers regularly encounter journalists, photojournalists, and individuals recording police activity in the course of their duties. Suffolk County is aware that its officers have a history of mishandling these situations by improperly preventing journalists and the public from filming police conduct in public locations. Furthermore, Suffolk County is aware that it is a violation of the First Amendment to obstruct and/or prevent individuals from recording police activity in a public location. Such failure to adequately train shows Suffolk County's deliberate indifference to the First Amendment rights of the public and press to record police conduct in public.
(v) Suffolk County Has Failed to Supervise and Discipline Its Officers Who Violate the Constitutional Right to Record Police Activity in Public
68. At all times relevant to this complaint, Suffolk County has had a policy, custom and practice of failing to supervise and discipline officers who unlawfully obstruct and/or prevent members of the media and the public from recording police activity conducted in public view, despite its awareness that these violations happen repeatedly.
69. Upon information and belief, none of the SCPO officers involved in the incidents listed in paragraphs 53 and 54 above have been disciplined in any meaningful way by Suffolk County for their unlawful conduct in obstructing and/or preventing members of the media from filming police activity in public.
70. Nor, upon information and belief, has Suffolk County appropriately disciplined Sergeant Milton for his gross violation of Mr. Datz's constitutional rights on July 29, 2011.

23

- Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 24 of 34 PageID #: 24
71. Such repeated failure to supervise and discipline shows Suffolk County's deliberate indifference to the First Amendment rights of the public and press to record police conduct in public.
(vi) Suffolk County's Unconstitutional Policies, Customs and Practices Caused Mr. Datz's UnlawfUl Arrest
72. The constitutional violations that Mr. Datz suffered during his unlawful arrest were caused by Suffolk County's official unconstitutional policy; by the widespread custom and practice among SCPD officers of obstructing and/or preventing members of the media from filming police activity conducted in public view; by Suffolk County's failure to adequately train its officers about the First Amendment right of the press and public to record police activity from public locations; and by Suffolk County's failure to supervise and discipline its officers to keep them from improperly and unlawfully obstructing and/or preventing individuals from recording police activity in public locations.
73. Sergeant Milton acted pursuant to these widespread policies, customs and practices in Suffolk County, which led him to assume that his unlawful behavior would be tolerated. When Mr. Datz suggested calling the SCPD Public Information Office, Sergeant Milton boasted: "You can call and talk to the Commissioner for all I care.... You understand, I've been doing this for 30 years. There is nothing you can hold over my head or anybody out there."
COMPLIANCE WITH PRE-SUIT REQUIREMENTS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL STATE LAW CLAIMS
74. On October 26, 2011, within 90 days after the claims herein arose. Mr. Datz served a Notice of Claim on Suffolk County in compliance with N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law § 50-e.
24

- - - Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 25 of 34 PageID #: 25
75. On November 14, 2011, Suffolk County served Mr. Datz with a Demand for Examination pursuant to N. Y. Gen. Mun. Law § 50-h.
76. On February 8, 2011, Suffolk County conducted its examination of Mr. Datz pursuant to N. Y. Gen. Mun. Law § 50-h.
77. More than 30 days have elapsed since service of the Notice of Claim, and Suffolk County has neglected and refused to make payment on Mr. Datz's claims as set forth in the Notice of Claim.
78. This action has been commenced within one year and 90 days after the happening of the events upon which the claims herein are based.
FIRST CLAIM Section 1983 Claim for Violation of Plaintiffs First and Fourteenth Amendment Rights
(Defendant MILTON) 79. Mr. Datz repeats and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs I through 78 as if fully set forth herein. 80. Observing and recording police activity in public is a legitimate means of gathering information for public dissemination that is protected by the free speech and free press clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the State of New York under the Fourteenth Amendment. 81. By arresting and detaining Mr. Datz for recording police activity in public, Sergeant Milton violated Mr. Datz's clearly established First Amendment rights.
25

-

-

Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 26 of 34 PageID #: 26

82. Sergeant Milton's conduct violated a clearly established constitutioruiI right, of which Sergeant Milton knew, or of which reasonable police officers should have known, rendering him liable to Mr. Datz under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
83. Sergeant Milton acted with reckless and callous indifference to Mr. Datz's First Amendment rights.
84. As a direct and proximate result of Sergeant Milton's actions, Mr. Datz suffered damages including physical, psychological, and professional injuries.
SECOND CLAIM Section 1983 Claim for Violation of Plaintiff's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights
(Defendant MILTON) 85. Mr. Datz repeats and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs I through 78 as if fully set forth herein.
86. Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the State of New York under the Fourteenth Amendment, Mr. Datz has a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
87. Sergeant Milton violated Mr. Datz's clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures when he arrested and detained Mr. Datz and seized his professional video camera and videotape without probable cause to believe that Mr. Datz was engaged in any criminal activity.
88. Sergeant Milton's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, of ,
which Sergeant Milton knew, or of which reasonable police officers should have kno,wn, rendering him liable to Mr. Datz under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
26

-
Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 27 of 34 PageID #: 27

89. Sergeant Milton acted with reckless and callous indifference to Mr. Oatz's Fourth Amendment rights.

90. As a direct and proximate result of Sergeant Milton's actions, Mr. Oatz suffered damages including physical, psychological, and professional injuries.

THIRD CLAIM Section 1983 Monell Claim (Defendant SUFFOLK COUNTY)
91. Mr. Oatz repeats and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs I through 78 as if
fully set forth herein.

92. In arresting Mr. Oatz for filming police activity in public, Sergeant Milton violated Mr. Oatz's clearly established rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

93. state law.

At all times relevant to this complaint, Sergeant Milton was acting under color of

94. At the time of Mr. Oatz's unlawful arrest, the SCPO's official policy allowed SCPO officers to obstruct and/or prevent members of the media from recording police activity in public locations, in violation of the First Amendment.

95. At all times relevant to this complaint Suffolk County has had a widespread custom and practice of obstructing and/or preventing members of the media from recording police activity in public locations, in violation of the First Amendment.

27

-

- Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 28 of 34 PageID #: 28

96. Suffolk County failed to adequately train its officers about the First Amendment right of the public and press to record public scenes of police activity, displaying deliberate indifference to its citizens' constitutional rights.
97. Suffolk County failed to supervise and discipline its officers for unlawfully interfering with the First Amendment right ofthe public and press to record public scenes of police activity, displaying deliberate indifference to its citizens' constitutional rights.
98. These unconstitutional policies, customs and practices of Suffolk County were the moving force behind Sergeant Milton's violation of Mr. Datz's constitutional rights on July 29, 2011.
99. As a direct and proximate result of Suffolk County's unconstitutional policies, customs and practices, Mr. Datz suffered damages including physical, psychological, and professional injuries.
100. Mr. Datz intends to continue his career as a professional photojournalist videotaping newsworthy police activity from public locations, but fears further obstruction, harassment and detention by Suffolk County police officers. That fear prevents Mr. Datz from doing his job as effectively as he would like and makes it more difficult for him to gather news for dissemination to the public.
FOURTH CLAIM Violation of Privacy Protection Act
(Defendants MILTON and SUFFOLK COUNTY) 101. Mr. Datz repeats and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 78 as if fully set forth herein.
28

-

-

--

Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 29 of 34 PageID #: 29

102. The seizure of Mr. Datz's camera and videotape by Sergeant Milton and other SCPO officers violated the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa.
103. By reason of the seizure of his camera and videotape by Sergeant Milton and other SCPO officers, Mr. Datz suffered actual damages, including the loss of licensing fees from his inability to license time-sensitive footage to news organizations.
FIFTH CLAIM Violations of Article I, Section 8 and Article I, Section 12 of the New York State Constitution (Defendants MILTON and SUFFOLK COUNTY) 104. Mr. Datz repeats and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs I through 78 as if fully set forth herein.
105. By reason of their conduct, Sergeant Milton and Suffolk County deprived Mr. Datz of his rights to freedom of speech and of the press under Article I, Section 8 of the New York Constitution, and to freedom from arrest without probable cause under Article I, Section 12 of the New York State Constitution.
106. Sergeant Milton acted with reckless and callous indifference to Mr. Datz's rights under Article I, Sections 8 and 12 to the New York State Constitution.
107. The unconstitutional policies, customs and practices of Suffolk County were the moving force behind Sergeant Milton's violation of Mr. Datz's New York State constitutional rights on July 29, 2011.
108. As a direct and proximate result of Sergeant Milton's actions, Mr. Datz suffered damages including physical, psychological, and professional injuries.
29

- - Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 30 of 34 PageID #: 30
SIXTH CLAIM False Arrest
(Defendants MILTON and SUFFOLK COUNTY) 109. Mr. Datz repeats and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs I through 78 as if fully set forth herein. 110. Sergeant Milton intended to confme Mr. Datz when he arrested him and placed him in police custody without probable cause. III. Mr. Datz was aware of his confinement by Sergeant Milton. 112. Mr. Datz did not consent to the confinement. 113. Sergeant Milton arrested Mr. Datz without probable cause, and his actions were not otherwise privileged. 114. Sergeant Milton's actions were flagrant, willful, wanton and reckless, and displayed a high degree of moral culpability. 115. Sergeant Milton's conduct complained of herein was committed within the scope of his employment by Defendant Suffolk County, and his actions were approved, consented to, and ratified by superior officers ofthe SCPD acting within the scope of their employment. 116. As a direct and proximate result of Sergeant Milton's actions, Mr. Datz suffered damages induding physical, psychological, and professional injuries.
30

-

-
Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 31 of 34 PageID #: 31

-

SEVENTH CLAIM Assault
(Defendants MILTON and SUFFOLK COUNTY) 117. Mr. Datz repeats and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs I through 78 as if fully set forth herein.
118. Before unlawfully arresting Mr. Datz, Sergeant Milton menaced Mr. Datz and
intentionally placed him in reasonable apprehension of immediate physical harm by driving his
patrol car directly at Mr. Datz at high speed.
119. Sergeant Milton knew that his actions would place Mr. Datz in apprehension of
immediate physical harm.
120. Sergeant Milton's actions were flagrant, willful, wanton and reckless, and displayed a high degree of moral CUlpability.
121. Sergeant Milton's conduct complained of herein was committed within the scope of his employment by Defendant Suffolk County, and his actions were approved, consented to, and ratified by superior officers of the SCPD acting within the scope of their employment.
122. As a direct and proximate result of Sergeant Milton's actions, Mr. Datz suffered
damages including physical, psychological, and professional injuries.
EIGHTH CLAIM Battery
(Defendants MILTON and SUFFOLK COUNTY) 123. Mr. Datz repeats and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs I through 78 as if fully set forth herein.
31

--

--

-

Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 32 of 34 PageID #: 32

124. In the course of his unlawful arrest of Mr. Datz, Sergeant Milton intentionally wrenched Mr. Datz's camera from his shoulder, pushed Mr. Datz against a car, and forced him into handcuffs behind his back.

125. Mr. Datz did not consent to the unlawful offensive contact by Sergeant Milton.

126. Sergeant Milton acted without justification or excuse for his actions.

127. Sergeant Milton's actions were flagrant, willful, wanton and reckless, and displayed a high degree of moral culpability.

128. Sergeant Milton's conduct complained of herein was committed within the scope of his employment by Defendant Suffolk County, and his actions were approved, consented to, and ratified by superior officers of the SCPD acting within the scope of their employment.

129. As a direct and proximate result of Sergeant Milton's actions, Mr. Datz suffered damages including physical, psychological, and professional injuries.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant relief as follows:

a

A declaratory judgment that Mr. Datz's arrest for filming police activity in

a public location violated his clearly established constitutional rights under

the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution, and under Article I, Sections 8 and 12 of the New York State

Constitution;

b. An award of compensatory damages against Defendants Suffolk County and Milton for the physical, psychological, and professional damages that

32

- - Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 33 of 34 PageID #: 33

Mr. Datz suffered as a result of his unlawful arrest and detention on July
29,2011, in an amount to be determined at trial;

c. Pursuant to 42 U.s.C. § 2000aa-(6)(a) and (t), an award against Defendants Suffolk County and Milton of the actual damages that Mr. Datz suffered as a result of the unlawful seizure of his video camera and videotape;

d. An award of punitive damages against Defendant Milton, and an award of punitive damages against Suffolk County on Plaintiff's state law claims, in an amount to be determined at trial;

e. Injunctive relief (i) barring Suffolk County from arresting, detaining, obstructing or otherwise interfering with journalists and members of the public who are engaged in recording of police activity in public places; and (ii) directing Suffolk County to develop and implement a comprehensive and effective policy to protect the First Amendment rights of the public and press to observe and record police activity in public, including appropriate training and procedures to test the effectiveness of that policy on the ground and to discipline appropriately those who breach it;

f.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988 and 2000aa-6(t), an award of the costs and

expenses of prosecuting this action, including reasonable attorney's fees;

and

33

-

--

Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 04/11/12 Page 34 of 34 PageID #: 34

g. Such other relief that this Court may deem just, proper, and appropriate.

Dated: New York, New York April II ,2012

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
By: fZ'/ (2vh
Robert D. Balin Samuel M. Bayard Alison B. Schary
1633 Broadway, 27'h floor New York, New York 10019 (212) 489·8230 robbalin@dwt.com samuelbayard@dwt.com alisonschary@dwt.com
. and·
Corey Stoughton New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad Street New York, New York 10004 (212) 607·3300 cstoughton@nyclu.org
Attorneys for Plaintiff Philip Datz

Of Counsel:
Mickey H. Osterreicher National Press Photographers Association 1100 M&T Center 3 Fountain Plaza Buffalo, New York 14203 (716) 566·1484 lawyer@nppa.org

34
DWT 19339781v I 0200379-000001

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 42 Filed 07/22/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 357
Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 38-1 Filed 06/24/14 Page 1 of 7 PageiD #: 278

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN CLERK'S OFFICE U 5 DISTRICT COURT E.D N y

EASTERN DISTRICT NEW YORK
·------------------------------------------------------------- X
PHILIP DA TZ,

* * JUL 2l 2014
LONG ISLAND OFFICE 12 Civ. 1770 (LDW)(WDW)

Plaintiff,

-against -
MICHAEL MIL TON, in his individual and Official capacities, and the COUNTY OF SUFFOLK,

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT

Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------X

WHEREAS, Plaintiff is a professional photojournalist: and WHEREAS, Plaintiff was arrested by defendant Michael Milton, a Sergeant with the Fifth Precinct of the Suffolk County Police Department ("SCPO") on July 29, 20 I I while videotaping a scene involving police activity in a public place; had his video camera and videotape seized by Defendant Milton; and was charged by Defendant Milton with Obstructing Governmental Administration in the Second Degree, which charge was subsequently dismissed by the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office; and WHEREAS, Plaintiff commenced this federal civil rights action on April II, 2012, by filing a Complaint (the "Complaint") against defendants Milton and County of Suffolk ("Suffolk County") (collectively, "Defendants) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (the "Court"); and WHEREAS, the Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint (annexed hereto as Exhibit "A"), inter alia, that his arrest was without probable cause and in violation of his First and Fourth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, and seeks damages and equitable relief in the forrn of training practices relating to the constitutional rights of the public and press to observe, photograph and record police activity from locations open to the public; and

Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 42 Filed 07/22/14 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 358 Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 38-1 Filed 06/24/14 Page 2 of 7 PageiD #: 279
WHEREAS, Defendants have denied any and all liability arising out of Plaintiff's allegations and claims; and
WHEREAS, the SCPO has issued (a) Department General Order Number 11-42 (attached hereto as Exhibit B), effective September 7, 2011, relating to interacting with and releasing information to the media; (b) Department General Order Number 11-43 (attached hereto as Exhibit C), effective September 8, 2011, relating to bystanders at police incidents; (c) Department General Order Number 11-44 (attached hereto as Exhibit D), effective September 8, 20 II, relating to recorded media in the possession of bystanders and media personnel; and
WHEREAS, the Plaintiff and Defendants (collectively, the "Parties") now desire to resolve the issues raised in this litigation, without further proceedings and without admitting fault or liability;
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned, as follows:
I. Consideration. In consideration for plaintiff's Release of Claims against all Defendants and other provisions set forth herein, the Parties agree as follows:
(a) The undersigned Counsel for the Parties have executed this Stipulation of Settlement and Order on May 6, 2014. Defendant Suffolk County shall pay Plaintiff the sum of $200,000 (the "Settlement Payment"), inclusive of attorney's fees and costs, subject to approval of the terms of the within Settlement (i) by the Ways and Means Committee of the Suffolk County Legislature, and approval of any necessary bonding for the settlement payment by the full Suffolk County Legislature (collectively, the "Legislative Approval Process"), and thereafter (ii) by the Court pursuant to General Municipal Law 6-n(9)(b).
2

Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 42 Filed 07/22/14 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 359
Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 38-1 Filed 06/24/14 Page 3 of 7 PageiD #: 280
i. Upon execution of this Stipulation and Order of Settlement by the Parties, the Suffolk County Attorney's Office shall promptly present the terms of the Settlement to the Ways and Means Committee of the Suffolk County Legislature for its approval. Following approval of the settlement by the Ways and Means Committee, the Suffolk County Attorney's Office shall then promptly seek approval of any necessary bonding of the Settlement Payment by the full Suffolk County Legislature.
11. Within five (5) business days after completion of the Legislative Approval Process, Suffolk County shall submit this Stipulation to the Court for approval and "so ordering" pursuant to General Municipal Law 6-n(9)(b). The date on which the Court "so orders" this Stipulation shall hereinafter be referred to the "Effective Date."
iii. Within five (5) business days of the Effective Date, Plaintiff shall execute and deliver to Defendants a General Release and Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice, which are to be held in escrow by the County and not filed with the Court. Within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the General Release, the County shall deliver to Plaintiff's counsel the Settlement Payment by check made payable to "Philip Datz";
IV. In the event that the Stipulation and Order of Settlement and/or Settlement Payment are not approved in the Legislative Approval Process or by the Court, then this Stipulation and Order of Settlement shall become null and void and the Parties shall at that point resume litigation of this federal civil rights action.
3

Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 42 Filed 07/22/14 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 360 Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 38-1 Filed 06/24/14 Page 4 of 7 PageiD #: 281
2. Rules and Procedures. In addition to the Department General Orders recited in the WHEREAS clauses, the SCPO has issued General Order Number 13-17a (attached hereto as Exhibit E) effective November 4, 2013, relating to, among other things, dispute resolution between SCPO and members of the media arising out of or in connection with news media coverage at scenes of police activity.
3. Training. The SCPO has instituted a video training module (a Decentralized Individualized In-Service Training or "DIIT" film, hereinafter "DIIT video training") (attached hereto as Exhibit F) addressing the Rules and Procedures of the SCPO and the constitutional right of the public and press to observe, photograph and record police activity in locations open to the public. The DIIT video training is viewed annually by all sworn members of the SCPO (except those members on leave or extended absences due to injury or illness), and the SCPO tests all officers who view the DIIT video training to verify comprehension of the Rules and Procedures of the SCPO and the constitutional right of the public and press to observe, photograph and record police activity in locations open to the public. The DIIT video training provides, among other things, that (a) members of the press and public have the right to observe, photograph and record all police activity from locations open to the public; (b) police personnel may not expand a crime scene perimeter for the sole purpose of interfering with the right of the media and the public to observe and record police activity from locations open to the public; (c) members of the media are not required to possess a press pass when in areas open to the public; and (d) all members of the SCPO must be familiar with the Rules and Procedures regarding bystanders and media at police incidents.
4. Police-Media Relations Committee. Defendant, Suffolk County, acting through the SCPO, will be forming a Police-Media Relations Committee (hereinafter the "Committee") to enhance communications between the SCPO and the media.
(a) The Committee herein above described may consist of:
4

Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 42 Filed 07/22/14 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 361 Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 38-1 Filed 06/24/14 Page 5 of 7 PageiD #: 282
i. a Commanding Officer of the SCPO Public Information Bureau who shall serve as chair (hereinafter "Chair");
ii. the Executive Officer of the SCPO Public Information Bureau; iii. a civilian employee of the SCPO Public Information Bureau
who, as part of his or her regular job duties, handles calls and complaints from members of the media; iv. a representative of local print media (for purposes of this stipulation local print media means a representative from a local Long Island newspaper) who shall serve as vice chair (hereinafter "Vice-chair"); v. a representative of local television/broadcast media (for purposes of this stipulation local television/broadcast media means a representative from a local broadcast station); and vi. a professional freelance videographer or photographer who works in local media markets. (b) Meetings of the Committee shall be at SCPO headquarters at such time and place and on such notice as the Chair and Vice-Chair shall agree. Written notice of each meeting of the members shall be given by the Chair to the members, and shall state the place, date and hour of the meeting and, if applicable, shall also indicate that it is being issued by or at the request direction of a person calling the meeting. (c) The mission of the Committee is to frankly discuss specific instances and recurring issues relating to recording, photographing and reporting of police activity, access to police scenes and police-media relations and to propose solutions for specific instances and recurring issues relating to recording, photographing and
5

Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 42 Filed 07/22/14 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 362 Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 38-1 Filed 06/24/14 Page 6 of 7 PageiD #: 283

reporting of police activity, access to police scenes and police-media relations. To

the extent the PIB (Public Information Bureau) has received complaints from

members of the media involving incidents with SCPO officers ("Media Incidents")

that arose since the last Committee meeting, the Committee will discuss those

specific Media Incidents.

(d) The Committee shall otherwise have the power to formulate its own

operating procedures.

5. Dismissal. Within five (5) business days after receipt by Plaintiff's counsel of the

Settlement Payment, Defendant's attorney shall cause the Stipulation of Dismissal to be filed with

the Court. The settlement check will be held in escrow until such time as the Stipulation of

Dismissal with Prejudice is filed with the Court.

6. No Admission of Liability. This Stipulation and Order of Settlement and the

performance of the obligations referred to herein shall effect the settlement of all claims in the

Action, all of which claims are denied and contested, and nothing contained herein nor the payment

of any consideration provided for herein shall be construed as an admission of any fact, wrongdoing

or liability of any kind by Defendants. This stipulation shall not be admissible in, nor is it related

to, any other Iitigation or settlement negotiations.

7.

Entire Agreement. This Stipulation and Order contains all the terms and conditions

agreed upon by the parties hereto, and no oral agreement entered into at any time nor any written

agreement entered into prior to the execution of this Stipulation and Order regarding the subject

matter of the instant proceeding shall be deemed to bind the parties hereto, or to vary the terms and

conditions contained herein.

7a. Headings. The headings contained in this Stipulation and Order are for convenience

or reference only and shall not affect the interpretation or meaning of this Stipulation and Order.

6

Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 42 Filed 07/22/14 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 363 Case 2:12-cv-01770-LDW-WDW Document 38-1 Filed 06/24114 Page 7 of 7 PageiD #: 284

8. Counle!;j)arts. This Stipulation and Order may be executed In counterparts, and each counterpart shall have the same force and effect as an original and shall constitute an effective, binding agreement on the part of each of the undersigned. This Stipulation and Order may be executed on varying dates, and a pdf of the ex:ecuted Stipulation and Order shall have the same force and effect as a hard copy ofthe original,

f-----.Oooumentat!on...that-roq-be..feq.uired.-in-orde~:-to.-eft'ect-the-p<0¥15ioni-C!-thl$-$tlpulatioll-alld-Orde't;----

including all documentation·necessai'y to dismiss the pending lawsuit.

IN Wl'lNESS WHEREOF, counsel for the Parties have executed this Stipulation and Order

+ of Settlement on May

2014.

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAJNE LLP
By: -;f :l #~
Robert D. Balin 1633 Broadway, 27th floor
New York, Now York 10019
(212) 489-8230
Attorneysfor PlaintiffPhilip Datz

s

ATTORNEYS OFFICE

B ~:~ _:-::~t.F.Ftlyl~o;:----
Bureau'Chief, Fe 811d State Torts Bweau
H. Lee Dennison Building 100 Veterans Memorial Highway
P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, NY JJ78S (631) 853-4049

Attorneysfor ~fondant Co~~nty ofSuffolk

By:~~~#-=.~~~Brian J, Dav' , Bsq.
400 Garden City Plaza Suite 430 Garden City, NY II 530 (Sl6) S42-024.9

Attorneysfor Dtifendant Michael Milton
.n A I A

• .cu t<"lfo'"- ·V' {.,.-,/~

HON. Lt!Ot4~ 5. ffEXLER, bSDJ

us.rn vv {.N f '-~ 14....

j) . /

1
"t <L-

J'

7

 
 Case: 2:12-cv-1770 As of: 11/05/2017 10:56 PM EST 1 of 7
U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York (Central Islip) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:12−cv−01770−LDW−WDW

CLOSED

Datz v. Milton et al Assigned to: Judge Leonard D. Wexler Referred to: Magistrate Judge William D. Wall Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff
Philip Datz

Date Filed: 04/11/2012 Date Terminated: 05/20/2014 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Alison Brooke Schary Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 202−973−4248 Fax: 202−973−4499 Email: alisonschary@dwt.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Corey Stoughton New York Civil Liberties Union 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 212−344−3005 ext. 266 Fax: 212−344−3318 Email: cstoughton@nyclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert D. Balin Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 1633 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10019 212−489−8230 Email: robbalin@dwt.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel Bayard Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 1633 Broadway New York, NY 10019 212−603−6489 Email: samuelbayard@dwt.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Michael Milton in his individual and Official capacities

represented by Arlene S. Zwilling Suffolk County Attorney P.O. Box 6100 H. Lee Dennison Building−Fifth Floor 100 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788−0099 (631)853−4049 Fax: (631)853−5833 Email: Arlene.Zwilling@suffolkcountyny.gov

Case: 2:12-cv-1770 As of: 11/05/2017 10:56 PM EST 2 of 7

TERMINATED: 01/10/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian J. Davis Law Office of Brian J. Davis 400 Garden City Plaza Suite 450 Garden City, NY 11530 516−542−0249 Fax: 516−542−0259 Email: brianjdavis@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard T. Dunne Suffolk County Department of Law H. Lee Dennison Building 100 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 (631) 853−5678 Fax: (631) 853−5833 TERMINATED: 01/10/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant County of Suffolk

represented by Arlene S. Zwilling (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard T. Dunne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/31/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan A. Flynn Suffolk County Attorney's Office H. Lee Dennison Building 100 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 631−853−5134 Fax: 631−853−5833 Email: susan.flynn@suffolkcountyny.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 04/11/2012
04/11/2012 04/11/2012 04/16/2012 04/19/2012

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against County of Suffolk, Michael Milton Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed −Yes,, filed by Philip Datz. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Padilla, Kristin) (Entered: 04/13/2012)
Summons Issued as to County of Suffolk, Michael Milton. (Padilla, Kristin) (Entered: 04/13/2012)
FILING FEE: $ 350.00, receipt number 4653042365 (Padilla, Kristin) (Entered: 04/13/2012)
Case Ineligible for Arbitration (Bollbach, Jean) (Entered: 04/16/2012)
2 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Philip Datz. Michael Milton served on 4/13/2012, answer due 5/4/2012. (Balin, Robert) (Entered: 04/19/2012)

Case: 2:12-cv-1770 As of: 11/05/2017 10:56 PM EST 3 of 7

04/19/2012 05/02/2012 05/29/2012
06/21/2012 06/21/2012 06/21/2012 10/01/2012 10/04/2012 10/04/2012 10/09/2012 10/11/2012 10/11/2012 12/21/2012 12/24/2012
12/27/2012
12/27/2012

3 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Philip Datz. County of Suffolk served on 4/13/2012, answer due 5/4/2012. (Balin, Robert) (Entered: 04/19/2012)
4 ANSWER to 1 Complaint by County of Suffolk, Michael Milton. (Dunne, Richard) (Entered: 05/02/2012)
5 PRETRIAL ORDER An initial conference has been tentatively scheduled in this matter. The requirements set forth in the Initial Conference Order have recently changed, and Counsel are directed to carefully read all three documents associated with this entry − the Initial Conference Order, the Proposed Scheduling Order, and the Individual Rules − and to inform the court of their decision pursuant to the new directions in the Initial Conference Order. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 5/29/2012. (Attachments: # 1 proposed scheduling order, # 2 wdw individual rules) (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 05/29/2012)
6 MOTION to Adjourn Conference of 6/26/2012 by Philip Datz. (Balin, Robert) (Entered: 06/21/2012)
ORDER granting 6 Motion to Cancel Conference. The scheduling order will be entered. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 6/21/2012. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 06/21/2012)
7 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery deadlines have been set. See attached. A pretrial conference will be held on 4/2/13. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 6/21/2012. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 06/21/2012)
8 MOTION to Compel by Philip Datz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (Balin, Robert) (Entered: 10/01/2012)
9 RESPONSE to Motion re 8 MOTION to Compel filed by County of Suffolk, Michael Milton. (Dunne, Richard) (Entered: 10/04/2012)
10 ORDER granting 8 Motion to Compel. Defendants shall comply with discovery consistent with this Order by 10/12/12. See attached order. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 10/4/2012. (Disbrow, Sandra) (Main Document 10 replaced on 10/4/2012) (Disbrow, Sandra). (Entered: 10/04/2012)
11 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Supplement 10 Order on Motion to Compel, by Philip Datz. (Balin, Robert) (Entered: 10/09/2012)
12 REPLY in Opposition re 11 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Supplement 10 Order on Motion to Compel, filed by County of Suffolk, Michael Milton. (Dunne, Richard) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
Electronic ORDER granting 11 Motion to Amend the Order 10 of 10/4/12 to the extent that objections to the document demands, except those based on privilege, have been waived. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 10/11/2012. (Disbrow, Sandra) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
13 MOTION to Compel Defendant Michael Milton to comply with the Court's October 4, 2012 Order (as amended October 11, 2012) by responding fully to all outstanding discovery requests and producing documents, without objections within 7 days. by Philip Datz. (Balin, Robert) (Entered: 12/21/2012)
14 RESPONSE to Motion re 13 MOTION to Compel Defendant Michael Milton to comply with the Court's October 4, 2012 Order (as amended October 11, 2012) by responding fully to all outstanding discovery requests and producing documents, without objections within 7 days. Letter in opposition to motion filed by County of Suffolk. (Flynn, Susan) (Entered: 12/24/2012)
15 REPLY to Response to Motion re 13 MOTION to Compel Defendant Michael Milton to comply with the Court's October 4, 2012 Order (as amended October 11, 2012) by responding fully to all outstanding discovery requests and producing documents, without objections within 7 days. filed by Philip Datz. (Balin, Robert) (Entered: 12/27/2012)
16 MOTION to Compel for an order (a) directing Suffolk County to produce all documents responsive to Requests 1,2,3,5,15−17, 18−22,23−34 and 27 and to fully answer Interrogatories 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10,11,13 and 14 within 7 days: and (b)

Case: 2:12-cv-1770 As of: 11/05/2017 10:56 PM EST 4 of 7

12/28/2012
01/02/2013 01/02/2013
01/03/2013
01/03/2013 01/10/2013 01/10/2013
01/10/2013
01/11/2013 02/01/2013 02/05/2013 03/04/2013 03/05/2013

awarding plainitff, pursuant to FRCP 37(d), reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for all time spent since September 2012 in seeking to secure the County's compliance with the discovery requests. by Philip Datz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H) (Balin, Robert) (Entered: 12/27/2012)
PRETRIAL ORDER re 13 MOTION to Compel, 14 Response to Motion, filed by County of Suffolk, 16 MOTION to Compel. A motion hearing will be held on 1/4/13 at 11:30 a.m. Defense counsel must inform defendant Michael Milton of the conference, and Mr. Milton must attend. The parties are advised that Mr. Dunne is still the attorney of record for Mr. Milton. If the defendants intend to replace Mr. Dunne with new counsel from the Suffolk County Department of Law, they must do so prior to the conference, or Mr. Dunne must attend. Any request to adjourn this conference must be filed as a motion and must contain alternative dates acceptable to all attendees during the weeks of January 2 or January 7. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 12/28/2012. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 12/28/2012)
17 Letter MOTION to Adjourn Conference scheduled for January 4 2013 by County of Suffolk. (Flynn, Susan) (Entered: 01/02/2013)
18 RESPONSE to Motion re 16 MOTION to Compel for an order (a) directing Suffolk County to produce all documents responsive to Requests 1,2,3,5,15−17, 18−22,23−34 and 27 and to fully answer Interrogatories 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10,11,13 and 14 within 7 days: and (b) awarding plainit filed by County of Suffolk. (Flynn, Susan) (Entered: 01/02/2013)
ORDER granting 17 Motion to Adjourn Conference to Thursday, 1/10/13 at noon. The court agrees that there has been more than sufficient time to work out the details of Mr. Milton's representation and there will be no further adjournments. Whoever is the attorney of record for Milton on 1/10 must appear on his behalf. If counsel withdraws, Milton must appear pro se. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 1/3/2013. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 01/03/2013)
19 NOTICE of Appearance by Arlene S. Zwilling on behalf of County of Suffolk, Michael Milton (aty to be noticed) (Zwilling, Arlene) (Entered: 01/03/2013)
20 NOTICE of Appearance by Brian J. Davis on behalf of Michael Milton (aty to be noticed) (Disbrow, Sandra) (Entered: 01/10/2013)
Electronic ORDER: In light of the County's representations regarding a conflict in its continued representation of defendant Milton, and the filing of a notice appearance for separate counsel for that defendant, it is directed that the County attorneys shall be terminated from representing Mr. Milton. Attorney Richard T. Dunne and Arlene S. Zwilling terminated. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 1/10/2013. (Disbrow, Sandra) (Entered: 01/10/2013)
21 ORDER granting 13 Motion to Compel; granting 16 Motion to Compel, both to the extent that all defendants shall comply with all outstanding discovery demands no later than February 28, 2013. The court reserves decision on the imposition of sanctions at this time. Remaining deadlines and the pretrial conference date will be adjusted at the next conference on 3/5/13 at 11:00 a.m. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 1/10/2013. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 01/10/2013)
22 Letter to Judge Wexler re Answer by Michael Milton (Davis, Brian) (Entered: 01/11/2013)
23 MOTION for Discovery Confidentiality Stipulation by Philip Datz. (Attachments: # 1 Confidentiality Stipulation and Proposed Order) (Balin, Robert) (Entered: 02/01/2013)
ORDER granting 23 Motion for Discovery. The Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order is adopted and so ordered (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 02/05/2013)
24 Letter by Philip Datz (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D) (Balin, Robert) (Entered: 03/04/2013)
25 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William D. Wall:Status Conference held on 3/5/2013. Amended Scheduling Order will be entered (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 03/05/2013)

Case: 2:12-cv-1770 As of: 11/05/2017 10:56 PM EST 5 of 7

03/05/2013 03/08/2013 08/14/2013 10/30/2013 10/31/2013 01/27/2014 01/28/2014
01/28/2014 03/19/2014
03/20/2014 04/02/2014 04/03/2014
04/03/2014
04/07/2014

26 SCHEDULING ORDER: New discovery deadlines have been established. See attached. The pretrial conference scheduled for 4/2/13 is canceled. The pretrial conference will be held on 12/4/13. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 3/5/2013. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 03/05/2013)
27 NOTICE of Change of Address by Alison Brooke Schary (Schary, Alison) (Entered: 03/08/2013)
NOTICE of Hearing: Jury Selection set for 6/9/2014 09:30 AM in Courtroom 940 before Judge Leonard D. Wexler. Trial date to be determined. NO ADJOURNMENTS. (Russo, Eric) (Entered: 08/14/2013)
28 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions by Philip Datz. (Balin, Robert) (Entered: 10/30/2013)
ORDER granting 28 Motion for Extension of Time to File dispositive motions, from 11/8/13 to 2/6/14. The pretrial conference scheduled for 12/4/13 is adjourned to April 17, 2014 at 11:30 a.m. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 10/31/2013. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 10/31/2013)
29 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions by Philip Datz. (Balin, Robert) (Entered: 01/27/2014)
ORDER granting 29 Motion for Extension of Time. There will be no further extensions of this deadline. If the parties wish to schedule a settlement conference, they should contact the undersigned's chambers at 631−712−5720 to discuss possible dates. The pretrial conference will go forward on April 17, 2014 as previously scheduled. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 1/28/2014. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 01/28/2014)
NOTICE of Hearing: Parties are hereby reminded that Jury Selection is set for 6/9/2014 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 940 before Judge Leonard D. Wexler. Trial date to be determined. NO ADJOURNMENTS. (Russo, Eric) (Entered: 01/28/2014)
Electronic ORDER: Due to a change in the court's calendar, the pretrial conference scheduled for 4/17/14 is adjourned to 4/24/14 at 10:30 a.m. Any request for a further, brief adjournment of this proceeding must be electronically filed as a "Motion" and must include proposed alternative dates acceptable to all parties. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 3/19/2014. (Disbrow, Sandra) (Entered: 03/19/2014)
30 Letter Pursuant to Rule 2.B of Judge Wexler's Individual Rules requesting a pre−motion conference by Philip Datz (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C) (Balin, Robert) (Entered: 03/20/2014)
31 MOTION to Adjourn Conference and Pretrial Order by Philip Datz. (Balin, Robert) (Entered: 04/02/2014)
SCHEDULING ORDER re 30 Letter filed by Philip Datz: A pre−motion conference with respect to Plaintiff's anticipated motion for summary judgment will be held on April 7, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 940, Alfonse M. D'Amato U.S. Courthouse, Central Islip, New York. All counsel shall appear. So Ordered by Judge Leonard D. Wexler on 4/3/2014. (Minerva, Deanna) (Entered: 04/03/2014)
ORDER granting 31 Motion to Adjourn Conference from April 24, 2014 to April 28, 2014 at 11:30 a.m. To the extent that the motion sought an adjournment of submission of the joint proposed pretrial order until after the motion for summary judgment is decided, the motion is denied. Judge Wexler requires submission of the JPPO even when a motion for summary judgment is anticipated or pending. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 4/3/2014. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 04/03/2014)
SCHEDULING ORDER re 30 Letter filed by Philip Datz: Pursuant to the pre−motion conference held today in chambers, Plaintiff shall serve, but not file, his motion for summary judgment by May 7, 2014. Defendants shall serve, but not file, their opposition by May 28, 2014. Plaintiff shall serve his reply, and all parties shall electronically file their own motion papers, on June 4, 2014. No motion papers shall be filed on ECF prior to the reply date. The moving party shall provide chambers with a courtesy copy of the entire fully−briefed motion once it is electronically filed. So

Case: 2:12-cv-1770 As of: 11/05/2017 10:56 PM EST 6 of 7

04/07/2014
04/24/2014 04/28/2014 04/28/2014 05/12/2014 05/15/2014 05/20/2014
06/24/2014 07/01/2014
07/02/2014 07/02/2014 07/16/2014 07/16/2014
07/22/2014 07/22/2014

Ordered by Judge Leonard D. Wexler on 4/7/2014. (Minerva, Deanna) (Entered: 04/07/2014)
32 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Leonard D. Wexler: In camera Pre Motion Conference held on 4/7/2014. Plaintiff(s) represented by Robert D. Balin, Esq. Defendant(s) represented by Brian J. Davis, Esq. and Susan A. Flynn, Esq. Parties agree to a briefing schedule as to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment. See additional SCHEDULING ORDER dated 4/7/2014 for filing deadlines. Proceedings concluded. (Russo, Eric) (Entered: 04/07/2014)
33 Proposed Pretrial Order by Philip Datz (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Balin, Robert) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William D. Wall:Interim Pretrial Conference held on 4/28/2014 (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 04/28/2014)
34 PRETRIAL ORDER A telephone conference will be held on May 9, 2014 at 10:30 a.m. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 4/28/2014. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 04/28/2014)
35 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William D. Wall:Telephone Conference held on 5/09/2014. The case has settled and the parties will file a stipulation of discontinuance with the district judge. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 05/12/2014)
36 STIPULATION of Dismissal by Philip Datz (Balin, Robert) (Entered: 05/15/2014)
37 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE re: 36 STIPULATION of Dismissal; That pursuant to Rule 4l(a)(l)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Parties stipulate and agree that the above−captioned action shall be and is dismissed without prejudice, and with each Party to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. (Ordered by Judge Leonard D. Wexler on 5/20/2014.) (Fagan, Linda) (Entered: 05/21/2014)
38 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT with Letter to Hon. Judge Wexler by County of Suffolk (Attachments: # 1 Fully Executed Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F) (Flynn, Susan) (Entered: 06/24/2014)
SCHEDULING ORDER re 38 Settlement Agreement, filed by County of Suffolk: All counsel, including County Attorney Dennis Brown, are directed to appear on July 9, 2014 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 940, Alfonse M. D'Amato U.S. Courthouse, Central Islip, New York. So Ordered by Judge Leonard D. Wexler on 7/1/2014. (Minerva, Deanna) (Entered: 07/01/2014)
39 MOTION to Adjourn Conference scheduled for July 9, 2014 by County of Suffolk. (Flynn, Susan) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
ORDER granting 39 Motion to Adjourn Conference: The status conference scheduled for July 9, 2014 is adjourned to July 16, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. So Ordered by Judge Leonard D. Wexler on 7/2/2014. (Minerva, Deanna) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
PRETRIAL ORDER The parties will present their settlement papers for signing on Tuesday, July 22 at 11:30 a.m. in Courtroom 820. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 7/16/2014. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 07/16/2014)
40 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Leonard D. Wexler: In camera Status Conference held on 7/16/2014. Plaintiff(s) represented by Robert D. Balin, Esq. Defendant(s) represented by Brian J. Davis, Esq. and Susan A. Flynn, Esq. Parties are hereby directed to appear before Magistrate Judge William D. Wall to finalize settlement agreement. Proceedings concluded. (Russo, Eric) (Entered: 07/17/2014)
41 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William D. Wall:Settlement Conference held on 7/22/2014 and proposed settlement approved (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 07/22/2014)
42 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT; In consideration for plaintiff's Release of Claims against all Defendants and other provisions set forth herein, the Parties agree as follows: (a) The undersigned Counsel for the Parties have executed

Case: 2:12-cv-1770 As of: 11/05/2017 10:56 PM EST 7 of 7
this Stipulation of Settlement and Order on May 6, 2014. Defendant Suffolk County shall pay Plaintiff the sum of $200,000 (the "Settlement Payment"), inclusive of attorney's fees and costs, subject to approval of the terms of the within Settlement (i) by the Ways and Means Committee of the Suffolk County Legislature, and approval of any necessary bonding for the settlement payment by the full Suffolk County Legislature (collectively, the "Legislative Approval Process"), and thereafter (ii) by the Court pursuant to General Municipal Law 6−n(9)(b); and as further set forth herein. (Ordered by Judge Leonard D. Wexler on 7/22/2014.) (Fagan, Linda) (Entered: 07/22/2014)