goutam u. jois (n.j. bar no. 037412007) siegel ......2020/07/20 · case 3:20-cv-08710 document 1-4...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Goutam U. Jois (N.J. Bar No. 037412007) SIEGEL TEITELBAUM & EVANS, LLP 260 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10016 (212) 455-0300 [email protected]
Shireen A. Barday (pro hac vice forthcoming) GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 (212) 351-2621 [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff Gustavo Martínez
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
GUSTAVO MARTÍNEZ
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF ASBURY PARK, MONMOUTH COUNTY, BOROUGH OF BELMAR, AMIR BERCOVICZ, and JOHN DOE OFFICERS 1–14,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. ______________
COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Electronically Filed
Plaintiff Gustavo Martínez, through counsel located at 260 Madison Avenue, New York,
New York, hereby submits this Complaint against Defendants City of Asbury Park, located at 1
Municipal Plaza, Asbury Park, New Jersey; Monmouth County, located at 2500 Kozloski Road,
Freehold, New Jersey; Borough of Belmar, located at 601 Main Street, Belmar, New Jersey
(collectively, the “Municipal Defendants”); Amir Bercovicz, residing in New Jersey and
employed at 1 Municipal Plaza, Asbury Park, New Jersey; and John Doe Officers 1–14 (the
“John Doe Defendants”), and alleges as follows:
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 1 of 30 PageID: 1
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1. A press badge should not be a bullseye. Reporters should not be in danger of
violence or arrest at the hands of the police seeking to silence their reports on public protests—
especially where those reports cover police violence against civilians protesting peacefully
against police misconduct. Yet in recent weeks, reporters around the country have been targeted,
attacked, arrested and locked up for doing their jobs because law enforcement does not want the
world to see what these journalists are witnessing. On June 1, 2020, Gustavo Martínez, a
seasoned reporter with more than fifteen years of experience reporting on political protests,
became the newest reporter to find himself in the crosshairs of police censorship.
2. That night, at a Black Lives Matter protest in Asbury Park, New Jersey, Mr. Martínez
was unlawfully tackled, arrested, detained and jailed by law enforcement while reporting on the
police use of force against two teenage protesters whose screams can be heard on the footage Mr.
Martínez recorded that night. Ostensibly, Mr. Martínez was tackled and arrested by the police
for being out after the town curfew went into effect, but the Proclamation of State of Emergency,
which established the curfew, expressly exempted reporters, including those covering the protest.
Mr. Martínez’s paper, the Asbury Park Press, had confirmed with police earlier that day that they
understood reporters were exempt. Mr. Martínez wore his brightly colored press badges on a
lanyard around his neck all night, so there would be no question that he was one such reporter.
3. The video Mr. Martínez was recording and broadcasting when he was tackled by law
enforcement provides chilling context to his unlawful arrest and detention. As the arrival of
police in riot gear ushered in a wave of police violence against the otherwise peaceful protesters
in Asbury Park, Mr. Martínez saw the police spraying protesters with what appeared to be a
chemical irritant. As police aggression left protesters scrambling, Mr. Martínez kept hearing
screams from different directions. And he kept pivoting—trying to document what was
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 2 of 30 PageID: 2
3
happening around him. In the seconds before he was tackled, Mr. Martínez’s camera, which had
been broadcasting through his Twitter handle (@newsguz), showed a teenage girl explaining to
police that she and her twin brother were trying to leave when her brother was suddenly tackled
to the ground by the police and handcuffed, without any apparent provocation. The girl can then
be heard pleading “that’s my brother,” before a police officer grabs her and slams her to the
ground. Mr. Martínez’s footage then shows a number of law enforcement officers advancing
toward him as he continued filming. He begins retreating, walking backwards, while still
filming the altercation between police and the teenagers.
4. Then suddenly, Mr. Martínez heard a police officer scream, apparently in his
direction, “Fuck him! He’s the problem!” An instant later, a large officer tackled him. As soon
as he hit the ground, he heard: “You’re under arrest! Put your fucking hands behind your back!”
No sooner had Mr. Martínez fallen to the ground than he heard an officer yell: “Take down his
fucking phone!” The phone was then slapped out of Mr. Martínez’s hand. On the ground, Mr.
Martínez says, “I’m a reporter, bro.” One officer responds: “Shut your mouth.” Yet another
adds: “Fuckers!”
5. By the time New Jersey woke up on June 2, the State’s chief law enforcement officer,
Attorney General Gurbir Grewal, had publicly apologized for Mr. Martínez’s arrest, tweeting:
“We will also figure out why this happened and make sure it doesn’t happen again. Because in
America, we don’t lock up reporters for doing their job.” Attorney General Grewal followed up
his tweet with a personal call to Mr. Martínez, during which he once again apologized to the
reporter for his treatment at the hands of law enforcement the prior night. The charges brought
against Mr. Martínez that morning were quickly dropped. Soon after, United States Senator
Cory Booker also issued a statement, calling Mr. Martínez’s arrest “unacceptable,” and saying,
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 3 of 30 PageID: 3
4
“While charges have been dropped against Mr. [Martínez], incidents like this send a chilling
message that runs counter to our values as Americans.”
6. Indeed, they do. Unfortunately, we will never know what else Mr. Martínez might
have recorded on the night of June 1 at the Black Lives Matter Protest in Asbury Park because
his ability to report on the protest was cut short by law enforcement who did not want Mr.
Martínez recording the events around him. As Mr. Martínez would later learn, law enforcement
was so serious about leaving no trace of what transpired that night that two of the officers
involved in silencing him happened to have their body-worn cameras turned off during the entire
incident. Not surprisingly, law enforcement continues to stand behind a shield of silence: the
Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office (the “Monmouth Prosecutor”) has refused to release the
names of those—or any of the other— officers involved in silencing Mr. Martínez. The
Monmouth Prosecutor has also refused to release its investigative file of “evidence” it reviewed
in connection with its so-called “investigation” into the misconduct that occurred during that
Black Lives Matter protest.
7. But the Monmouth Prosecutor’s whitewash does not trump the requirements of the
United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey, which prohibit the
actions taken by law enforcement the night of June 1. Mr. Martínez now brings this action to
prevent law enforcement from continuing to infringe upon the constitutional rights of reporters
and others seeking to record and document political protests. He also seeks to redress the harm
unlawfully inflicted on him when law enforcement tackled, arrested, detained and jailed him,
preventing him from exercising his First Amendment rights that night.
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 4 of 30 PageID: 4
5
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this
action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, as the claims stated in this
Complaint raise federal questions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
9. The Court also has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the claims in this
Complaint arising under state law because those claims form part of the same case or
controversy as the claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
10. Venue is proper in the District of New Jersey pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1)
and (b)(2), because a substantial part of the events giving rise to this claim occurred in this
District and all Defendants reside in this District.
PARTIES
11. Plaintiff Gustavo Martínez is a multimedia journalist for the Asbury Park Press, who
at all relevant times was a resident of Brick Township, in Ocean County, New Jersey. Mr.
Martínez was born in El Paso, Texas, and got his first journalism experience at age fourteen
when he began covering basketball for a local magazine and radio show in Mexico City. He was
later hired by El Diario de El Paso when he was still a student, and he was employed there until
June 2005. Since then, he has done freelance work or been on the staff at publications such as
the El Paso Times, Al Dia by the Dallas Morning News, Mundo Hispanico, El Diario de Nueva
York, and the Associated Press. Mr. Martínez has been a reporter for the Asbury Park Press
since August 2019. Mr. Martínez holds a bachelor’s degree in bilingual print media from the
University of Texas at El Paso and a master’s degree in multimedia journalism from the Craig
Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at the City University of New York, where he was
elected Student Commencement Speaker of his graduating class. Mr. Martínez has been a
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 5 of 30 PageID: 5
6
recipient of the National Association of Hispanic Publications José Martí Award in 2009, 2012,
and 2013 for his work on immigration and sports journalism.
12. Defendant City of Asbury Park is a municipal corporation and/or public entity
organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey. The City of Asbury Park’s
principal offices are located at 1 Municipal Plaza, Asbury Park, New Jersey 07712.
13. Defendant Monmouth County is a municipal corporation and/or public entity
organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey. Monmouth County Sheriff’s
Office’s principal offices are located at 2500 Kozloski Road, Freehold, New Jersey 07728.
14. Defendant Borough of Belmar is a municipal corporation and/or public entity
organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey. The Borough of Belmar’s
principal offices are located at 601 Main Street, Belmar, New Jersey 07719. The Borough of
Belmar, together with the City of Asbury Park and Monmouth County, are collectively referred
to as the “Municipal Defendants.”
15. Defendant Amir Bercovicz, at all relevant times, is or was the Acting Lieutenant of
Patrol Squad C for the Asbury Park Police Department and a resident of New Jersey.
16. Mr. Martínez is unaware of the true names of those defendants sued as John Doe
Officers 1–14 (the “John Doe Defendants”), and has therefore sued the John Doe Defendants
using their fictitious names. Upon information and belief, the John Doe Defendants are
individual law enforcement officers employed by one or more of the Municipal Defendants or
other law enforcement agencies who were involved in Mr. Martínez’s arrest and detention, and
whose identities can only be ascertained through further discovery. The John Doe Defendants
are sued in their individual and official capacities.
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 6 of 30 PageID: 6
7
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
The Morning of June 1: Gustavo Martínez Is Assigned to Cover the Black Lives Matter Protest
17. On May 25, 2020, police officers in Minneapolis killed George Floyd—an unarmed
Black man whose death sparked nationwide protests against police brutality and misconduct.
The nation’s outrage stemmed in no small part from the fact that George Floyd told the police
that he could not breathe more than twenty times in the moments leading up to his death.1 One
week later, on June 1, Mr. Martínez received a call from his editor at the Asbury Park Press. Mr.
Martínez answered that call.
18. Mr. Martínez was tasked by his editor with documenting the Asbury Park Black
Lives Matter protest that day starting around 8:00 p.m. when the City’s curfew took effect. A
Proclamation of State of Emergency promulgated the same day by Asbury Park Emergency
Management Coordinator, Garrett Giberson, Jr., and the Mayor of Asbury Park, John Moor,
specifically exempted “credentialed members of the media” from the City’s curfew so they could
report on events at the protest. (See Ex. A, “Emergency Proclamation” at 2.) This press
exemption cleared the way for Mr. Martínez’s assignment that evening but, out of an abundance
of caution, individuals at the Asbury Park Press also contacted local law enforcement to confirm
that they understood the curfew exempted reporters. Upon information and belief, the Asbury
Park Press was repeatedly assured that law enforcement understood reporters were exempt from
the curfew.
19. Around 6:00 p.m., Mr. Martínez packed his gear, including his yellow bandana and
reflective armbands, and headed toward the protest to relieve his colleagues who had been
1 See, e.g., M. Singh, “George Floyd Told Officers ‘I Can’t Breathe’ More Than 20 Times, Transcripts Show,” The Guardian (July 9, 2020), https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/08/george-floyd-police-killing-transcript-i-cant-breathe.
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 7 of 30 PageID: 7
8
covering the protest during the day. Halfway through his drive, Mr. Martínez realized he had
forgotten his press badges. Mr. Martínez had two press badges: one issued by the State Police
through the New Jersey Police Press Credential program and a second from the Asbury Park
Press. Mr. Martínez knew that he needed to carry his press credentials to identify himself as a
reporter during the protest and remain safely in the area, so he returned home to retrieve the
badges.
Around 7:00 p.m.: Gustavo Martínez First Arrives at the Black Lives Matter Protest in Asbury Park
20. Around 7:00 p.m., Mr. Martínez arrived at the protest. He was wearing his press
badges prominently around his neck. Mr. Martínez first met with the colleagues he was assigned
to relieve at the protest before heading toward the Asbury Park Police headquarters, where a
gathering of protesters had remained after the curfew. Even as he approached the gathering of
protesters, Mr. Martínez remained close to other nearby journalists as he began reporting on the
events of the protest and livestreaming them from his phone. For some time after he arrived at
the protest, Mr. Martínez spoke to several law enforcement officers at the protest without
incident. At one point, he was even introduced to a police spokesperson.
Between Approx. 9:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.: Law Enforcement’s Response to Protesters Takes a Turn for the Worse
21. Around 9:50 p.m., a tall officer stopped Mr. Martínez on the sidewalk and asked what
he was “still doing here.” Mr. Martínez told this officer that he was a journalist with the Asbury
Park Press and was in the area to report on the protest. At this time, Mr. Martínez—who was
already wearing his protective gear, including a helmet, goggles, a yellow bandana, and
reflective bracelets—showed this officer his press badges. After this interaction, Mr. Martínez
continued reporting the news, including recording and streaming from his iPhone a scene of
police officers “taking a knee” in solidarity with protesters. (See Ex. B, Martínez Video.) For
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 8 of 30 PageID: 8
9
the first time since curfew began, the police began yelling over bullhorns for protesters to leave
the area. Officers also began to yell at individual protesters to leave, and Mr. Martínez saw more
officers enter with riot gear.
At Approx. 10:00 p.m.: Law Enforcement Begins Attacking Protesters
22. At around 10:00 p.m., officers started pushing and shoving protesters and reporters
out of the area they were occupying. Though there had been an earlier shift in the atmosphere
when the police officers began ordering people to leave, it was not until around 10:00 p.m. when
the violence really began. Mr. Martínez continued to record the scene before him as the police
started attacking protesters.
23. Mr. Martínez turned a corner and regrouped with a few other journalists. They
collectively continued to report, capturing video and still images of the scene unfolding before
them: police and protesters racing across the street, people screaming, a helicopter loudly flying
above, and officers spraying the crowd with what appeared to be a chemical irritant. Mr.
Martínez heard screams in the distance, and he and other journalists headed in that direction.
Mr. Martínez saw police officers spraying an irritant and chasing people, cursing and yelling at
them to leave the area. Mr. Martínez saw an orange haze explode out of its canister and into the
air. Mr. Martínez continued recording without interfering with the police officers. And as the
police officers continued to yell that people should leave, Mr. Martínez immediately turned with
the group of retreating protesters.
24. Mr. Martínez suddenly heard a loud scream. Still recording, he turned to see police
officers acting violently toward two teenagers. Mr. Martínez heard a young woman say that she
and a young man were leaving when suddenly the young man was tackled to the ground and
handcuffed by several police officers. The young woman, who Mr. Martínez later learned was
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 9 of 30 PageID: 9
10
the young man’s sister, tried to intervene on her brother’s behalf but a police officer grabbed her
and slammed her onto the ground. Mr. Martínez livestreamed as much of the siblings’ encounter
with the police as he could. Mr. Martínez’s footage then shows a number of law enforcement
officers advancing toward him to move him away from the incident with the teenagers. He
begins retreating, walking backwards, while still trying to film the altercation between police and
the teenagers.
Around 10:25 p.m.: Police Name Gustavo Martínez the “Problem” and then Tackle, Arrest and Detain Him,
Silencing the @Newsguz Broadcast of Police Violence Against Two Teenagers
25. While Mr. Martínez was backing away but still visibly recording the two
teenagers’ interactions with the police, Mr. Martínez heard, “Fuck him! He’s the problem.” A
large officer tackled him. As soon as he hit the ground, he heard: “You’re under arrest! Put your
fucking hands behind your back!” No sooner had Mr. Martínez fallen to the ground than he
heard an officer yell: “Take down his fucking phone!” The phone was then slapped out of Mr.
Martínez’s hand. On the ground, Mr. Martínez can be heard in body-worn camera footage from
one of the officers saying, “I’m a reporter, bro.” An officer responds: “Shut your mouth.”
Another exclaims: “Fuckers!” Two of the officers, who the Monmouth Prosecutor has refused to
identify, happened to have their body-worn cameras off the whole time despite regulations
requiring them to activate their body-worn cameras.
26. The arresting officers handed Mr. Martínez to another officer, who took him to a van
that read “Monmouth County Sheriff.” The van was surrounded by a group of officers wearing
jackets emblazoned with the word “Sheriff.” One of those officers noticed Mr. Martínez’s press
badges and inquired about them. Mr. Martínez identified himself as a reporter, now for the
second time following his arrest. Mr. Martínez was nevertheless stripped of his protective gear
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 10 of 30 PageID: 10
11
and loaded into the van. As the officer sat him down in the van and slammed the door shut, Mr.
Martínez’s press badges still dangled around his neck.
27. Mr. Martínez was driven to the nearby town of Belmar, along with other individuals
arrested at the protest. He was unloaded at the Belmar police station along with the other
arrestees. Mr. Martínez was handcuffed to a bench as the other people under arrest were being
processed. When Mr. Martínez was finally called to be processed at Belmar, the local officer
taking his belongings noticed the press badges dangling from his neck. The officer asked Mr.
Martínez whether he was a reporter. Mr. Martínez responded, now for the third time following
his arrest, “Yes, I’m a reporter.” That same officer took his press badges and put them with the
rest of Mr. Martínez’s belongings before escorting him to his cell for the night.
28. While sitting in that cell, yet another law enforcement officer asked Mr. Martínez
whether he was a reporter. Again, Mr. Martínez responded, “yes.” This was the fourth time
since his arrest that Mr. Martínez had identified himself as a reporter. After this officer asked
Mr. Martínez if he had his press badges with him, Mr. Martínez responded affirmatively and said
that they had been placed with the rest of his belongings. From the cell, Mr. Martínez asked the
local officers why he had been arrested, but they said only that he was being held for the Asbury
Park Police. He asked when he would be let out, but the officers did not know or did not want to
tell him. They also did not have (or at least, were not willing to share) any information about the
charges pending against him.
29. Around 12:30 a.m., an Asbury Park Police Officer arrived and took Mr. Martínez into
a separate room. In keeping with the frustrating pattern of the night, the officer asked Mr.
Martínez if he was a reporter. Mr. Martínez confirmed yet again, for the fifth time following his
arrest, that he was a reporter covering the protests that night. The officer notified Mr. Martínez
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 11 of 30 PageID: 11
12
that the police were going to process him and release him soon and stated that he would receive a
misdemeanor ticket. At this point, the officer collected personal identifying information from
Mr. Martínez, including his social security number, home address, and full name, before
reiterating that Mr. Martínez would be ticketed for disorderly conduct.
Around 3:30 a.m. on June 2: Gustavo Martínez Receives Summons, Police Concede No Judicial Probable Cause
30. Around 3:30 a.m., Mr. Martínez was finally released from the Belmar police station,
where he was handed a summons and complaint on his way out the door. Under oath, Officer
Amir Bercovicz, the certifying officer, stated that Mr. Martínez “knowingly, purposely fail[ed] to
obey an order to disperse.” (See Ex. C, Criminal Summons.) Importantly, the complaint and
summons notes that “a judicial probable cause determination is not required prior to the issuance
of this Complaint-Summons.” Further, while the complaint states that the alleged failure to obey
occurred on June 1, 2020 (and body-worn camera footage makes clear the arrest happened
around 10:20 p.m. that night), the certification was not signed by Officer Bercovicz until June 2,
2020, which means that by the time Officer Bercovicz signed the complaint, Mr. Martínez had
identified himself as a reporter at least five times to various members of law enforcement over at
least two hours. Mr. Martínez was picked up by his editor about twenty minutes after being
released. Upon returning home, Mr. Martínez found himself unable to sleep. It was not until
roughly 9:00 a.m. that Mr. Martínez fell asleep—over twenty-four physically and emotionally
painful hours after heading out to work the day prior.
Around Lunchtime on June 2: Attorney General of New Jersey Apologizes to Gustavo Martínez on Call, Twitter
31. Around 12:30 p.m., Mr. Martínez learned from an Asbury Park Press employee that
the charges against him had been dropped. He also discovered that he had a voicemail from New
Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal. In that voicemail, the Attorney General apologized for
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 12 of 30 PageID: 12
13
what happened to Mr. Martínez and asked him to return the call. When Mr. Martínez called back
around 2:00 p.m., Attorney General Grewal reiterated his apology to Mr. Martínez for the
unlawful actions of law enforcement the prior night. The Attorney General also assured Mr.
Martínez that there was nothing to worry about and that the charges had been dropped. Mr.
Martínez learned from his colleagues that afternoon that Attorney General Grewal had tweeted
about his arrest earlier that morning, writing: “We will also figure out why this happened and
make sure it doesn’t happen again. Because in America, we don’t lock up reporters for doing
their job.” Later, while reading reports on the protests of the prior night, Mr. Martínez learned
that United States Senator Cory Booker had also publicly condemned his arrest. By June 3, Mr.
Martínez’s arrest had been chronicled in at least four media outlets. To date, his Twitter video
recording from the night of the arrest has over 57,900 viewers.
The Morning of June 29: Gustavo Martínez Participates in Congressional Briefing on First Amendment Violations
32. Despite the outpouring of support, Mr. Martínez’s sleeplessness persisted. And so
too did the physical and psychological pain. Mr. Martínez’s ordeal and unlawful arrest and
detention have garnered national attention as a symbol of police abuses and disregard for the
First Amendment. On June 29, 2020, at the invitation of the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and
Civil Liberties of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and
Reform, Mr. Martínez participated in a briefing entitled First Amendment Violations at Black
Lives Matter Protests. During the roughly two-hour briefing, Mr. Martínez spoke to Members of
Congress about his experience covering the Asbury Park protest on June 1, 2020.2
2 The Subcommittee has provided a recording of the Briefing online. See Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Briefing on “First Amendment Violations at Black Lives Matter Protests” (June 29, 2020), available at https://oversight.house.gov/legislation/briefings/select-subcommittee-briefing-on-first-amendment-violations-at-black-lives; see also Activists, Journalists, and Clergy Brief Subcommittee on First Amendment Violations by Police at Recent Protests (June 30, 2020), available at
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 13 of 30 PageID: 13
14
33. On June 29, 2020, twenty-eight days after his arrest, Mr. Martínez, through counsel,
sent letters to the Asbury Park and Belmar Police Departments and the Monmouth County
Sheriff’s Office notifying them that he intended to assert claims against them relating to their
actions the night of June 1 in tackling, arresting, detaining and jailing him. In the letter, Mr.
Martínez, through counsel, demanded that the law enforcement offices retain all relevant
documents, including copies of all body-worn camera footage.
The Morning of July 8: The Monmouth Prosecutor Issues “Investigative Findings” Replete with Inconsistencies and Contradictions, Cannot Identify Why Two Body-Worn Cameras Never Activated,
Refuses to Provide Documents Reviewed in Investigation
34. Roughly a week later, in an attempt to circle the wagons ahead of this lawsuit, the
Monmouth Prosecutor issued a press release and a letter to Mr. Martínez purporting to release
the results of an “investigation” into Mr. Martínez’s unlawful arrest and detention. (See Ex. D,
“Investigative Findings.”) The Investigative Findings, which concede that Mr. Martínez’s
constitutional rights were violated and conclude only that the violation was not “intentional,”
also reveal that the “investigation” was a sham as evidenced by a multitude of errors and
inconsistencies in the document. For example, the Monmouth Prosecutor says that the “officers
who arrested Martínez reasonably believed he was one of the protestors who failed to disperse,
despite repeated orders to do so, more than two hours after the expiration of a city-side curfew,”
but the Monmouth Prosecutor also states that the officers’ “belief was reasonable given the
brevity of their interaction with [Mr. Martínez] (approximately 1 minute),” about half of which
the Monmouth Prosecutor attributes in its Investigative Findings to the arrest itself. The
Monmouth Prosecutor says further confusion arose because Mr. Martínez was “wearing a dark
https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/activists-journalists-and-clergy-brief-subcommittee-on-first-amendment.
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 14 of 30 PageID: 14
15
hooded sweatshirt and dark jeans,” but then they attach a picture of Mr. Martínez to the
Investigative Findings, which depicts Mr. Martínez in a gray sweatshirt with a yellow bandana
and a light blue facemask.
35. Most important and most troubling, the Monmouth Prosecutor states, “there is no
indication that Martínez informed the officers that he was a member of the press,” but Mr.
Martínez can be heard on the body-worn camera footage that was publicly posted by the
Monmouth Prosecutor on YouTube identifying himself as a reporter to the officer who tackled
him. Law enforcement’s code of silence seems to have prevented the Monmouth Prosecutor
from addressing law enforcement’s response, which appears nowhere in the Investigative
Findings but is also audible in the same clip. After Mr. Martínez identifies himself as a reporter,
one officer snaps: “Shut your mouth,” and another says “Fuckers.”
36. The Monmouth Prosecutor also acknowledges that two officers (who have been
referred to the Internal Affairs Unit) happened to have their body-worn cameras turned off
during the whole incident. And the limited body-worn camera footage recorded and released
from that night actually shows Mr. Martínez’s “press credential lanyard” prominently displayed.
While the Monmouth Prosecutor quibbles with the size of Mr. Martínez’s press credentials, law
enforcement in the State of New Jersey authorized and issued those credentials to Mr. Martínez;
Mr. Martínez did not design or have any say so in the size or appearance of the credentials the
State authorized.
37. Further, the Monmouth Prosecutor’s statement that those credentials were
“backwards throughout the night” cannot be squared with the confessed “brevity” of law
enforcement’s interactions with Mr. Martínez (roughly half of which involved tackling him), or
the images from that night which were attached to the Investigative Findings and show Mr.
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 15 of 30 PageID: 15
16
Martínez’s credentials clearly displayed. (Of course, the Monmouth Prosecutor does not address
whether anyone other than a reporter would typically wear such a lanyard. Nor does the
Monmouth Prosecutor contend that it would be common for a protester to wear a lanyard,
presumably because they cannot; body-worn camera footage from that night shows exactly the
opposite.)
38. Mr. Martínez through counsel requested a copy of the “evidence” reviewed by the
Monmouth Prosecutor in connection with its Investigative Findings but the Monmouth
Prosecutor has refused to produce any documents in response to that request and further refuses
to identify any of the officers involved.
The Afternoon of July 8: New Jersey Attorney General Forms Working Group to Address Freedom of Press,
Free Speech and Safety—Invites Gustavo Martínez to Join
39. Recognizing the numerous deficiencies in the Municipal Defendants’ policies and
their training and supervision of law enforcement officers, the New Jersey Attorney General
announced on July 8, 2020, that he is forming a working group to “develop clear guidelines” for,
among other things, “implementing additional training for police officers to handle
demonstrations and protesters, including training on identifying and interacting with members of
the news media at such events.” The Press Release, which acknowledges that Mr. Martínez’s
“mistaken arrest” had “prompted” the formation of the working group followed guidance issued
from the Attorney General roughly a month earlier (on June 5), when the Attorney General
announced that New Jersey would be revising its “statewide Use of Force Policy, which has not
been updated in two decades.”
40. During the June 5 announcement, the Attorney General also instructed all county
prosecutors’ offices to “remind police departments within your jurisdiction to comply with these
rules,” including the rule regarding “Media Covering Public Demonstrations,” which requires
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 16 of 30 PageID: 16
17
law enforcement officers to “allow credentialed journalists to film, broadcast, and otherwise
report on these demonstrations without undue interference, and requires law enforcement “to
ensure that they take all reasonable steps to safeguard the First Amendment rights of journalists.”
Pointedly, the June 5 guidance also explicitly stated that “police cannot arrest journalists in
retaliation for negative coverage or to prevent reporting on a public demonstration.”
41. The need for reform of police training and supervision and the policies governing
police interactions with journalists is unmistakable. If the Municipal Defendants’ policies
regarding training and supervision had prepared officers to deal with journalists during the
predictable challenges posed by reporting on protests and similar events, this working group
would be unnecessary—and Mr. Martínez would not have been forced to endure the violent
arrest and violation of his constitutional rights in early June.
42. Mr. Martínez was attacked by the police while filming police brutality at a protest
about police brutality. No fewer than five law enforcement officials across three different
jurisdictions ignored Mr. Martínez’s repeated statements that he was a journalist—and they
ignored Mr. Martínez’s constitutional rights to record and report the news.
43. The past several years have seen a national swell in the frequency and scale of
protests and other forms of civic action against police misconduct and other social wrongs. This
phenomenon has increased even more dramatically following the highly publicized deaths of
unarmed individuals at the hands of police, including Breonna Taylor and George Floyd. This
national phenomenon has been felt in Asbury Park and other towns in Monmouth County,
including at the Black Lives Matter protest that ended with Mr. Martínez’s violent and unlawful
arrest. And in light of current trends in national politics and society, there is a high likelihood
that protests will continue to occur for the foreseeable future. As a working journalist who has
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 17 of 30 PageID: 17
18
and will continue to cover newsworthy events in Monmouth County and its towns, Mr. Martínez
faces the real and immediate, ongoing threat that he will face similar police misconduct in
violation of his constitutional rights while covering protests and other events in Monmouth
County, given the Municipal Defendants’ custom or policy of deliberate indifference to the need
to train or improve the training of their officers on the First Amendment rights of journalists and
reporters, a policy that the New Jersey Attorney General acknowledges needs to be fixed.
Injunctive and declaratory relief from this Court must issue to ensure that the Municipal
Defendants make lasting policy changes to adequately train and supervise their officers to avoid
violating Mr. Martínez’s rights and the rights of other journalists. Without such relief, the
Municipal Defendants’ officers will continue to act as they did on June 1, especially considering
that the Monmouth Prosecutor turned a blind eye to law enforcement’s infringement of reporters’
constitutional rights when it “exonerated” those officers whose names the Monmouth Prosecutor
will not even release publicly.
44. The United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey
demand that journalists be able to do their jobs without fear of reprisal or violence from law
enforcement. Reporters’ rights must be as ingrained in policing as Miranda rights. On the night
of June 1, they were not. The actions taken by law enforcement that night were unconstitutional,
and the individuals and departments involved should be held responsible for those trespasses.
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 18 of 30 PageID: 18
19
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Against the John Doe Defendants and Amir Bercovicz
Violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Violation of Art. I, §§ 6 and 18 of the New Jersey Constitution
Free Speech, Free Press, Free Assembly, Right to Record (Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and N.J.S.A. 10:6-2)
45. Mr. Martínez hereby repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates the allegations set forth in
the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
46. In addition to protecting free speech, free press, and free assembly, the First
Amendment and Article I protect the right to record as part of the public’s right of access to
information. Recording police activity in public areas is a protected activity that extends beyond
the press protection and expressive conduct.
47. On June 1, 2020, Mr. Martínez was lawfully exercising his First Amendment and
Article I rights to free speech, free press, and free assembly, and to record police actions in
furtherance of the public’s right of access to information. He was reporting on a matter of public
concern in a time and at a place where he was authorized to be, including under the express
terms of the Emergency Proclamation. He was wearing his press badges issued by the Asbury
Park Press and the New Jersey Press Association on Behalf of the New Jersey State Police and
the New Jersey Association of Police Chiefs as he documented what he saw in real time.
48. The John Doe Defendants and Amir Bercovicz violated Mr. Martínez’s First
Amendment and Article I rights when they arrested him for engaging in conduct protected by the
United States Constitution and the New Jersey Constitution—recording and reporting on a matter
of public concern in a time and at a place where he was authorized to be. Mr. Martínez was
complying with law enforcement officers’ instructions when he was arrested.
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 19 of 30 PageID: 19
20
49. The John Doe Defendants and Amir Bercovicz’s statements and actions demonstrated
that they were aware Mr. Martínez was recording or broadcasting the protest. The John Doe
Defendants and Amir Bercovicz who initially arrested Mr. Martínez, as well as those who loaded
him into a van for transportation, were on notice that Mr. Martínez had been exercising his
federal and state constitutional rights because his press badges were visibly displayed around his
neck on a lanyard and because he identified himself multiple times as a reporter, including in the
presence of one officer who responded “Shut your mouth” and another who stated simply,
“Fuckers.”
50. The John Doe Defendants and Amir Bercovicz consciously or recklessly disregarded
Mr. Martínez’s rights when they willfully, deliberately, and maliciously arrested him without
probable cause. Moreover, the John Doe Defendants and Amir Bercovicz’ actions in using
excessive force to arrest lawfully present members of the media would chill a person of ordinary
firmness from continuing to exercise his First Amendment and Article I rights. Their actions did
chill Mr. Martínez from exercising his constitutional rights.
51. The John Doe Defendants and Amir Bercovicz acted under color of state law when
they prevented Mr. Martínez from exercising his First Amendment and Article I rights.
52. Accordingly, Mr. Martínez is entitled to a judgment declaring that the John Doe
Defendants and Amir Bercovicz violated Mr. Martínez’s rights under the United States
Constitution and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey and an injunction preventing the
John Doe Defendants and Amir Bercovicz from further violating his constitutional rights,
applicable to all reporters, including the right to record and report the news. The John Doe
Defendants and Amir Bercovicz further damaged Mr. Martínez by causing him to suffer physical
injuries, emotional distress, and mental anguish.
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 20 of 30 PageID: 20
21
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Against the John Doe Defendants and Amir Bercovicz
Violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Violation of Art. I, §§ 6 and 18 of the New Jersey Constitution
Retaliation (Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and N.J.S.A. 10:6-2)
53. Mr. Martínez hereby repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates the allegations set forth in
the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
54. Mr. Martínez was lawfully exercising his First Amendment and Article I rights as he
was documenting matters of public concern in his work as a journalist.
55. The John Doe Defendants and Amir Bercovicz violated Mr. Martínez’s First
Amendment and Article I rights when they arrested Mr. Martínez in retaliation for recording and
reporting their activity—including their violent and seemingly unjustified arrest of two teenage
protesters. The John Doe Defendants and Amir Bercovicz identified Mr. Martínez as a
“problem” while he was recording the police. The John Doe Defendants and Amir Bercovicz
knew or should have easily recognized that they were arresting a reporter because Mr. Martínez
was wearing a lanyard with his press badges, was recording police activity, and verbally
identified himself as a reporter to law enforcement who responded: “Shut your mouth” and said,
“Fuckers.”
56. The John Doe Defendants and Amir Bercovicz consciously or recklessly disregarded
Mr. Martínez’s rights when they willfully, deliberately, and maliciously arrested him without
probable cause in retaliation for his recording an incident of police violence against teenagers.
The John Doe Defendants and Amir Bercovicz’ actions in using excessive force to arrest
lawfully present members of the media would chill a person of ordinary firmness from
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 21 of 30 PageID: 21
22
continuing to exercise his First Amendment and Article I rights. Their retaliatory actions did
chill Mr. Martínez from exercising his constitutional rights.
57. The John Doe Defendants and Amir Bercovicz acted under color of state law when
they retaliated against Mr. Martínez for exercising his First Amendment and Article I rights as a
member of the press.
58. Accordingly, Mr. Martínez is entitled to a judgment declaring that the John Doe
Defendants and Amir Bercovicz violated Mr. Martínez’s rights under the United States
Constitution and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey and an injunction preventing the
John Doe Defendants and Amir Bercovicz from further violating his constitutional rights,
applicable to all reporters, including the right to record and report the news free from retaliation.
The John Doe Defendants and Amir Bercovicz further damaged Mr. Martínez by causing him to
suffer physical injuries, emotional distress, and mental anguish.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Against the John Doe Defendants and Amir Bercovicz
Violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Violation of Article I, § 7 of the New Jersey Constitution
Unlawful Arrest and False Imprisonment (Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and N.J.S.A. 10:6-2)
59. Mr. Martínez hereby repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates the allegations set forth in
the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
60. The Fourth Amendment and Article I prohibit “unreasonable searches and seizures,”
which at a minimum, requires arresting officers to have probable cause that the arrestee has
committed a crime. Mr. Martínez’s arrest was objectively unreasonable as it was effectuated
without a warrant and without probable cause. Nor could the arresting officers have reasonably
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 22 of 30 PageID: 22
23
believed they had probable cause. Because Mr. Martínez’s initial arrest was unlawful, Mr.
Martínez’s subsequent imprisonment was likewise unlawful.
61. The John Doe Defendants and Amir Bercovicz unlawfully seized Mr. Martínez when
they tackled, handcuffed, and arrested Mr. Martínez without probable cause. Mr. Martínez had
not committed a crime and did not pose a threat to anyone. Furthermore, Mr. Martínez was
authorized to be at the protest past curfew under the plain terms of the Emergency Proclamation
and was wearing his press badges on a lanyard around his neck at all relevant times. The John
Doe Defendants and Amir Bercovicz consciously or recklessly disregarded Mr. Martínez’s rights
when they willfully, deliberately, and maliciously arrested and imprisoned him without probable
cause.
62. The John Doe Defendants and Amir Bercovicz acted under color of state law when
they unlawfully arrested and imprisoned Mr. Martínez without probable cause.
63. Accordingly, Mr. Martínez is entitled to a judgment declaring that the John Doe
Defendants and Amir Bercovicz violated Mr. Martínez’s rights under the United States
Constitution and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey and an injunction preventing the
John Doe Defendants and Amir Bercovicz from further violating his constitutional rights,
applicable to all reporters, including the right to be free from arrest and imprisonment without
probable cause. The John Doe Defendants and Amir Bercovicz further damaged Mr. Martínez
by causing him to suffer physical injuries, emotional distress, and mental anguish.
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 23 of 30 PageID: 23
24
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Against the John Doe Defendants and Amir Bercovicz
Violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Violation of Article I, § 7 of the New Jersey Constitution
Excessive Force (Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and N.J.S.A. 10:6-2)
64. Mr. Martínez hereby repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates the allegations set forth in
the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
65. The Fourth Amendment and Article I prohibit “unreasonable searches and seizures.”
Mr. Martínez’s arrest constituted an unreasonable seizure because the police deliberately used
excessive force under the circumstances when they tackled Mr. Martínez to the ground as Mr.
Martínez was complying with orders, if any, and not resisting.
66. One John Doe Defendant approached Mr. Martínez from out of his line of direct sight
and tackled him to the pavement. Several John Doe Defendants and Amir Bercovicz held Mr.
Martínez down on the ground and subsequently handcuffed him, despite Mr. Martínez’s conduct
not inviting any sort of physical force. The John Doe Defendants and Amir Bercovicz
consciously or recklessly disregarded Mr. Martínez’s rights when they willfully, deliberately,
and maliciously tackled him to the ground to arrest him without justification.
67. The John Doe Defendants and Amir Bercovicz acted under color of state law when
they used excessive force against Mr. Martínez.
68. Accordingly, Mr. Martínez is entitled to a judgment declaring that the John Doe
Defendants and Amir Bercovicz violated Mr. Martínez’s rights under the United States
Constitution and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey and an injunction preventing the
John Doe Defendants and Amir Bercovicz from further violating his constitutional rights,
applicable to all reporters, including the right to not be subjected to arrest and injury through the
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 24 of 30 PageID: 24
25
intentional use of unreasonable levels of force while complying with police orders, not resisting,
and posing no danger to the police. The John Doe Defendants and Amir Bercovicz further
damaged Mr. Martínez by causing him to suffer physical injuries, emotional distress, and mental
anguish.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Against the John Doe Defendants and Amir Bercovicz
Failure to Intervene (Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and N.J.S.A. 10:6-2)
69. Mr. Martínez hereby repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates the allegations set forth in
the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
70. The John Doe Defendants who arrested and detained Mr. Martínez violated his rights
under the United States and New Jersey Constitutions. Amir Bercovicz and other John Doe
Defendants, as police officers, had a duty to intervene to prevent those violations of those rights
by the officers who unlawfully arrested and detained Mr. Martínez. Despite having both a duty
to intervene and more than sufficient opportunity to do so, neither Amir Bercovicz nor a single
John Doe Defendant attempted to prevent or curtail the deprivation of Mr. Martínez’s rights.
Amir Bercovicz and the John Doe Defendants consciously or recklessly disregarded Mr.
Martínez’s rights when they willfully, deliberately, and maliciously failed to intervene to stop
other John Doe Defendants from violating his constitutional rights.
71. Amir Bercovicz and the John Doe Defendants were acting under color of state law
when they failed to intervene to prevent Mr. Martínez’s unlawful treatment.
72. Accordingly, Mr. Martínez is entitled to a judgment declaring that Amir Bercovicz
and the John Doe Defendants were responsible for the violation of Mr. Martínez’s rights under
the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey and an injunction
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 25 of 30 PageID: 25
26
preventing Amir Bercovicz and the John Doe Defendants from further violating their duties to
intervene to prevent other officers from violating his constitutional rights, applicable to all
reporters. Officer Bercovicz and the John Doe Defendants further damaged Mr. Martínez by
causing him to suffer physical injuries, emotional distress, and mental anguish.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Against the Municipal Defendants (City of Asbury Park, Borough of Belmar, and Monmouth County)
Municipal Liability – Failure to Train and Failure to Supervise
(Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and N.J.S.A. 10:6-2)
73. Mr. Martínez hereby repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates the allegations set forth in
the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
74. As set forth above, Mr. Martínez was deprived of his federal and state constitutional
rights by virtue of the John Doe Defendants’ actions.
75. The John Doe Defendants are each police officers or other employees of the
Municipal Defendants.
76. The Municipal Defendants’ training policies were inadequate to train their officers
and employees to carry out their duties at protests where credentialed journalists were expected
to be in attendance or at the police stations where arrestees would be held.
77. The Municipal Defendants failed to supervise their officers and employees in
carrying out their duties at protests where credentialed journalists were expected to be in
attendance or at the police stations where arrestees would be held.
78. The Municipal Defendants knew or should have known that their officers and
employees would confront journalists at these protests, especially considering, among other
things, that Asbury Park issued the Emergency Proclamation that specifically exempted
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 26 of 30 PageID: 26
27
credentialed journalists from the restrictions of the curfew, and which was specifically imposed
in connection with the July 1 protest.
79. There can be little question that reporters will cover events of consequence, including
protests. The existence of the New Jersey Police Press Credential program ensures that law
enforcement in New Jersey can identify journalists and tailor their interactions with them. As
such, the Municipal Defendants knew that their officers would come into contact with reporters
doing their jobs at protests. Here, law enforcement required journalists like Mr. Martínez to
apply to them for a press badge, which is designed to help police identify reporters, but then
ignored that press badge precisely when it mattered most.
80. It was readily foreseeable, indeed patently obvious, that the Municipal Defendants’
officers or employees would violate the above-referenced constitutional rights of journalists like
Mr. Martínez if they arrested them at protests, including one like the June 1 Black Lives Matter
protest, where journalists were specifically privileged to be present past curfew under the
Emergency Proclamation. It was also readily foreseeable that their officers or employees would
face difficult choices about how to interact with journalists at protests.
81. Further, there is no doubt that the arrest of a reporter who was not violating any law at
a protest will frequently deprive that reporter of his or her rights under the United States
Constitution and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey. It is obvious that officers would
need to know how to address journalists covering major events like protests. The failure to train
and supervise officers and employees on how to treat reporters in light of the obvious need to do
so is reflective of Municipal Defendants’ unconstitutional custom and policy of deliberate
indifference to Mr. Martínez’s and journalists’ safety, well-being, and constitutional rights. It is
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 27 of 30 PageID: 27
28
highly likely that Defendants will continue to violate journalists’ constitutional rights without
adequate training and supervision.
82. Accordingly, Mr. Martínez is entitled to a judgment declaring that the Municipal
Defendants proximately caused the violation of Mr. Martínez’s rights under the United States
Constitution and Constitution of the State of New Jersey based on their failure to adequately
train and/or supervise their law enforcement officers and an injunction preventing the Municipal
Defendants from further violating his rights, applicable to all reporters. The Municipal
Defendants further damaged Mr. Martínez by proximately causing him to suffer physical
injuries, emotional distress, and mental anguish.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Mr. Martínez respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in his
favor and, in addition:
A. Declare that the prohibition on Mr. Martínez’s protected free speech and free press
rights in a public forum on June 1, 2020, while Mr. Martínez was acting as a journalist for the
news media, violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and
Article I, Sections 6 and 18 of the New Jersey Constitution;
B. Declare that Mr. Martínez’s arrest and detention were unreasonable and unlawful
and violated Mr. Martínez’s rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the New Jersey Constitution;
C. Declare that the arrest and detention that violated Mr. Martínez’s rights under the
United States and New Jersey Constitutions were proximately caused by the failure of the City of
Asbury Park, Monmouth County, and the Borough of Belmar to adequately train or supervise their
officers;
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 28 of 30 PageID: 28
29
D. Declare that there must be a reform in policing policy to prevent further
unwarranted arrest, harassment, or violence against journalists reporting on police activity;
E. Enjoin Defendants and their employees, agents, and assigns, from restricting or
prohibiting Mr. Martínez or any other persons from engaging in protected free speech or free press
activity, including but not limited to recording police activity in public spaces in Asbury Park,
except when such activities are prohibited by valid law or local ordinance;
F. Award Mr. Martínez appropriate compensatory damages, punitive damages, and
prejudgment interest in an amount to be proven at trial;
G. Award Mr. Martínez reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988
and N.J.S.A. 10:6-2; and
H. Grant any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
Mr. Martínez demands a trial by jury.
Dated: July 13, 2020 New York, New York
By: s/ Goutam U. Jois
Shireen A. Barday* GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 (212) 351-2621 [email protected]
Goutam U. Jois (N.J. Bar No. 037412007) SIEGEL TEITELBAUM & EVANS, LLP 260 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10016 (212) 455-0300 [email protected]
*pro hac vice application forthcoming Attorneys for Plaintiff
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 29 of 30 PageID: 29
30
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL CIVIL RULE 11.2
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 11.2, undersigned counsel for Plaintiff hereby certifies under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the matter in controversy here is not the subject of any action pending in any other court, arbitration, or administrative proceeding.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL CIVIL RULE 201.1 Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 201.1, undersigned counsel for Plaintiff hereby certifies that
this action is excluded from compulsory arbitration because it is based on an alleged violation of a right secured by the Constitution of the United States.
s/ Goutam U. Jois
Goutam U. Jois (N.J. Bar No. 037412007) SIEGEL TEITELBAUM & EVANS, LLP 260 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10016 (212) 455-0300 [email protected]
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 30 of 30 PageID: 30
EXHIBIT A
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1-1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 31
1
PROCLAMATION OF STATE OF EMERGENCY
TO ALL CITIZENS AND PERSONS WITHIN THE CITY OF ASBURY
PARK AND TO ALL DEPARTMENTS, DIVISIONS AND BUREAUS OF THE
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF THE CITY OF ASBURY PARK:
WHEREAS, peaceful assemblies are the lifeblood of our democracy based on the
Constitutional rights guaranteed to all citizens of the United States of America; and
WHEREAS, in the past week, individuals have engaged in legal and peaceful
protests throughout the nation; and
WHEREAS, during the same timeframe, certain individuals have engaged in
behavior that has endangered the health and safety of residents of their respective cities;
and
WHEREAS, the civil disturbances have continued and grown nationally and in the
State of New Jersey, endangering lives and property; and
WHEREAS, on June 1, 2020 a peaceful protest is scheduled at 801 Bangs Avenue
in Asbury Park in support of social justice and police accountability; and
WHEREAS, the City of Asbury Park, its Mayor and Council, and the Asbury Park
Police Department stand in full solidarity with the Asbury Park community in promotion
of a peaceful demonstration; and
WHEREAS, the City of Asbury Park, its Mayor and Council and the Asbury Park
Police Department denounce the actions of the officers involved in the murder of George
Floyd and any acts of police misconduct; and
WHEREAS, in order to protect the safety of the organizers and attendees of the
peaceful demonstration on June 1, 2020, certain precautionary safety measures must be
taken; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the powers vested in me by N.J.S.A. App. A:9-40.5 and
by ordinances adopted by the City of Asbury Park, and other relevant authority, I have the
authority to declare a STATE OF LOCAL DISASTER EMERGENCY within the City
of Asbury Park; and
WHEREAS, the aforesaid laws authorize the promulgation of such orders, rules,
regulations, and emergency management operations as are necessary to meet the various
problems which have or may be presented by such an emergency.
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1-1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 32
2
NOW, THEREFORE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH the aforesaid laws, given
current exigent circumstances, I do hereby declare, in order to continue to protect the
residents of the City of Asbury Park, the following:
1. That a STATE OF LOCAL DISASTER EMERGENCY exists within the
City of Asbury Park
2. As part of the STATE OF LOCAL DISASTER EMERGENCY, a limited
curfew is imposed for the City of Asbury Park beginning at 8:00 p.m. on
Monday, June 1, 2020 and shall expire on Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 5:00 a.m.
unless further extended.
a. During the hours of curfew, all persons are prohibited from using,
standing, sitting, travelling or being present on any public street or in
any public place, including for the purpose of travel, with the following
exemptions:
i. All law enforcement, firefighters, paramedics or other medical
personnel, as well as any other emergency response personnel
authorized by the State of New Jersey, and credentialed
members of the media.
ii. Individuals traveling directly to and from work; attending
religious services; commercial trucking and delivery services;
obtaining food; caring for a family member, friend, or animal;
patronizing or operating private businesses; seeking medical
care or fleeing dangerous circumstances; and travel for any of
the above services.
b. For purposes of this order, “travel” includes, without limitation, travel
on foot, bicycle, skateboard, scooter, motorcycle, automobile, or
public transit, or any other mode of transporting a person from one
location to another.
c. For purposes of this order, “public place” means any place, whether on
privately or publicly owned property, accessible to the general public,
including but not limited to public streets and roads, alleys, highways,
driveways, sidewalks, parks, vacant lots, and unsupervised property.
d. For purposes of this order, “exempt care” means necessary medical
services for an individual’s self or family member.
As declared by Emergency Management Coordinator, Garrett Giberson, Jr. and Mayor
John Moor on June 1, 2020.
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1-1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 33
EXHIBIT B
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1-2 Filed 07/13/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 34
A copy of Gustavo Martínez’s video of the events leading up to and including his arrest on the night of June 1, 2020 is hosted on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvClM_aBEM4&feature=youtu.be. The original video is available at https://twitter.com/newsguz/status/1267638156368719874?s=20.
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1-2 Filed 07/13/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 35
EXHIBIT C
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1-3 Filed 07/13/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 36
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1-3 Filed 07/13/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 37
EXHIBIT D
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 1 of 20 PageID: 38
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 2 of 20 PageID: 39
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 3 of 20 PageID: 40
1
Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office Prosecutor Christopher J. Gramiccioni
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
July 8, 2020
www.mcponj.org
CONTACT: Public Information Office
Charles Webster/Chris Swendeman
Desk: (732) 431-7160 ext. 7535/6468
Mobile: (732) 637-3382/ (732) 567-9768
INVESTIGATIVE FINDINGS: ASBURY PARK OFFICERS REASONABLY BELIEVED
REPORTER WAS A PROTESTER FAILING TO DISPERSE
FREEHOLD – A comprehensive internal affairs investigation into the June 1, 2020 arrest of
Asbury Park Press (APP) reporter Gustavo Martinez has determined that arresting officers had no
knowledge they were apprehending a reporter, announced Monmouth County Prosecutor Christopher
J. Gramiccioni. The investigation consisted of the interviews of 21 people, including 14 law
enforcement officers and Martinez, and review of body worn camera (BWC) footage and social media
footage captured during the protest. The investigation revealed that the officers who arrested Martinez
reasonably believed he was one of the protestors who failed to disperse, despite repeated orders to do
so, more than two hours after the expiration of a city-wide curfew. “We fully support and embrace the
First Amendment protections that journalists’ have to report the news. Our investigative findings are
in no way inconsistent with those important constitutional safeguards,” said Gramiccioni. A summary
of the investigations findings are outlined below.1
June 1, 2020 Peaceful Protest – Asbury Park
On June 1, 2020, at 5:00 p.m., a peaceful protest occurred in the City of Asbury Park (“the
City”). Like many nationwide, the protest occurred in the wake of the death of George Floyd, who
died while being arrested by members of the Minneapolis Police Department. One hour before the
protest was scheduled to take place, the City issued a curfew commencing at 8 p.m. The Emergency
Proclamation establishing the protest stated the curfew was being issued because many of the
nationwide protests had turned violent. The Emergency Proclamation further indicated that
credentialed members of the media were exempt from the city-wide curfew. See Exhibit 1.
The protest was peaceful for the majority of the night. While exact numbers are unknown, it is
estimated that several thousand people were present at the height of the protest. Law enforcement
officers from throughout Monmouth County and the New Jersey State Police (NJSP) were on hand to
ensure the safety of the protest. From the time that the protest ended at 8:00 p.m., until approximately
1 This investigation was undertaken not because of any direct complaint filed against any individual officer, but due
to a number of broader citizen inquiries into the arrest of a journalist the night of the protest. To date, Martinez has
not filed a formal complaint against any of the officers involved with either our Office or the Asbury Park Police
Department. Because the officers involved are exonerated, their identities are not disclosed. Moreover, since the
conduct of the officers was reasonable and warrants no discipline, it would not fall under the purview of AG
Directive 2020-5 dictating the public disclosure of the identities of officer who commit serious disciplinary
violations.
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 4 of 20 PageID: 41
2
10 p.m., police officers repeatedly issued verbal orders to protestors via loudspeaker to disburse and
leave the area due to the curfew. Most people still lingering in Asbury Park after the protest ended
heeded requests to disperse the area in compliance with the curfew.
Violations of Curfew Order
Approximately 200 people refused to comply with officers’ requests to disburse and leave the
area as mandated by the 8 p.m. curfew. Officers continued to use public address systems in patrol cars
and were giving verbal orders imploring observance of the curfew. In contrast to the peaceful
protesters who filled the streets earlier in the evening, multiple accounts paint a far different landscape
of those who remained past curfew. Many of the remaining protestors were taunting and threatening
officers, were unruly, and some threw water in officers’ faces. At approximately 10:00 p.m., the
Monmouth County Rapid Deployment Force (RDF) and the NJSP Mobile Field Force were jointly
deployed to disperse the crowd. Officers are heard in BWC footage pleading with protesters to leave
the area and go home. Many citizens who had not yet retreated from the streets were filming the
chaotic scene on their cell phones.
By approximately 10:16 p.m., the scene had shifted drastically from the earlier peaceful protest
to what officers described as a “riot.” Protesters began throwing large rocks, some the size of
baseballs, and other objects at officers and at their police vehicles. See Exhibit 2. Police in riot gear
were using their shields to protect themselves and fellow officers who were in basic uniforms without
enhanced protection. All of the officers who were interviewed described the scene in the same manner
as “nerve-wracking,” “dangerous,” “chaotic,” “violent,” and “very scary.” During his interview with
our office, Martinez similarly described the scene as “chaotic” and full of “commotion.” At least two
officers required medical attention for injuries sustained from the projectiles being thrown by the
crowd, one received stitches in his chin due to a laceration and the most seriously injured officer
sustained a skull fracture after being hit in the face with a rock.
Press Presence at the Protest & After Curfew
Given the large number of people participating in the Asbury Park protest, as well as the
international attention on protests following the death of George Floyd, it is not surprising that the
event was heavily covered by members of the press from numerous media outlets. Notably, not all
journalists present were readily identifiable as members of the press. While some journalists are seen
on BWC and cell phone footage that evening wearing fluorescent vests emboldened with the word
“PRESS” visible to all and/or were also carrying large cameras consistent with what news outlets use,
not all journalists were easily recognizable as members of the press. Martinez, unfortunately, was one
such journalist whose affiliation with a news organization was extremely difficult to discern.
In light of the specific allegations made that necessitated this review – that Martinez was
arrested because he was a journalist – it is relevant and necessary to examine whether his profession as
a reporter covering this event was directly linked in any manner to his arrest. Martinez told detectives
conducting this review that his employer, the APP, assigned him to cover the post-curfew protest from
8:00 p.m. onward. Martinez is observed in BWC footage that night wearing a dark hooded sweatshirt
and dark jeans. He was also wearing goggles, a mask, a black helmet and a gray backpack. See
Exhibits 3-5. Martinez wore a lanyard around his neck with his press credentials - about the size of a
deck of playing cards - that had his picture and the words ‘PRESS’ on one side, and the other side
blank with no writing on the back. Martinez was filming the event on his cell phone. When asked by
detectives whether his employer provided him with any specific clothing or equipment, Martinez said
they did not, but said that his editor did advise him to bring protective gear.
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 5 of 20 PageID: 42
3
One such encounter, prior to Martinez’s arrest, shows him engaged in dialogue with one officer
who is asking protesters to leave the area. The officer calmly engages Martinez in dialogue, believing
him to be a protester. During this encounter, Martinez’s lanyard containing his press credentials is
seen hanging backwards with the blank side facing outward. See Exhibit 6.2 Even if the officer
deduced from their conversation that Martinez was a member of the press at that earlier point in time,
Martinez had contact with multiple police officers later in the evening who were unaware he was a
reporter.
The Events Leading Up to the Arrest of Martinez
At 10:22:09 p.m., Martinez is observed on BWC footage near the train tracks on Memorial
Drive immersed within the crowd of protesters being walked back by the line of police officers from
the Monmouth County RDF and the NJSP Mobile Field Force. Martinez is depicted walking
backwards while filming the police officers with his cellular phone. Again, his press credential
lanyard is seen on the footage hanging backwards, with the blank side facing outward. See Exhibit 6.
At 10:24:20 p.m., an officer arrests a female on Memorial Drive. A second officer who was
nearby the arrest of the female simultaneously is shown arresting a male subject. A third police
officer, accompanied by a fourth officer, observed Martinez walking towards the first two officers who
were effectuating the arrests, while recording on his cell phone. See Exhibit 6. The third officer, who
believed Martinez was a protester, had just ordered Martinez to move from the area. A group of 3-4
protesters, including Martinez, gathered near the arrests. Other officers in the area became concerned
for the officer arresting the female because the officer’s back was to the crowd of protesters that was
forming, and this was occurring in the general area where rocks had been thrown at police. These
events are also confirmed on Martinez’s own cell phone recording that night he posted on Twitter.
Moreover, there is no indication that Martinez informed the officers that he was a member of the press
when the officers told him to leave. Rather, he continued backing away from the officers making the
arrests, while continuing to face them to record. It is at this point that Martinez is arrested, and the
interactions of the two officers with Martinez at the time of his arrest lasted approximately one minute.
Review of BWC Footage of the Arrest
The arrest of Martinez was captured on the body worn camera of one of the officers who
arrested him. See Exhibit 7.3 During that encounter, once again, Martinez’s press credentials are
backwards, the blank side facing forward. The area is dark, poorly lit, and loud with yelling going on
during the melee. Martinez is heard saying something during his arrest, but what he is saying is
indiscernible and difficult to hear. Detectives reviewing the footage could only make out that
Martinez said “I’m a [inaudible].” Martinez is wearing a mask, is positioned face down, and there is a
lot of commotion making hearing his exact words difficult for both the arresting officers and
detectives who reviewed the clip multiple times. After Martinez is handcuffed, the officer advises him
that he is going to roll him on his side and to get up on his right knee so the officer can help him up.
Notably, after being helped to his feet, Martinez never indicates to either officer he is a member of the
press.
2 The BWC initially captured video of the encounter due to a recording latency common to the Panasonic Arbitrator
BWC. The BWC, however, has pre-event recording function capabilities that captured 30 seconds of video footage
prior to the officer’s activation of the recording function on the device. As a result, the BWC footage did not
initially capture via audio the interaction between Martinez and the officer. 3 The arrest of Martinez begins on the BWC footage at approximately 10:23:15 and the interaction lasts less than 30
seconds.
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 6 of 20 PageID: 43
4
In his reporting, Martinez alleged that his cell phone was purposely knocked out of his hands
during the arrest, but the two officers involved contend it fell during the arrest. The BWC footage
does not clarify this point, but one officer is seen retrieving the phone and placing it in Martinez’s
pocket after Martinez was helped to his feet. See Exhibit 7. Both officers assert they did not know
Martinez was a reporter, nor did they ever hear him say that he was with the press. The officers
interviewed as a part of this investigation indicated that had they realized that Martinez was a reporter,
they likely would have asked him to stand to the side.
After his arrest, Martinez was turned over to other officers, was walked to the transport van
and later processed at the Belmar Police Headquarters. Martinez had contact with three officers in the
course of being transported to Belmar, but did not indicate to any of them he was a reporter. While
being processed in Belmar, Martinez indicated he was a reporter only after an officer took possession
of is property, saw his lanyard, and specifically asked Martinez if he worked for the APP. These
officers, however, were unaware of the specific circumstances that led to his arrest. Martinez was
issued a summons for failing to obey an order to disburse. See Exhibit 8. These charges were
dismissed later that same morning. See Exhibit 9.
Investigation of the Arrest of Martinez
This office immediately initiated an internal affairs investigation into this incident after
receiving numerous complaints from citizens regarding the arrest of a journalist the morning after the
protest. The New Jersey Attorney General’s Office also contacted our office to request that we
conduct an internal affairs review of the matter and dismiss the summons filed against Martinez.
However, our office had already taken steps to do both before receiving that request. See Exhibit 9.
In addition to interviewing Martinez, the Professional Responsibility Unit interviewed 14
police officers who were involved in or were in the vicinity of the arrest. They also interviewed
another APP reporter who had spent part of the evening working with Martinez. Detectives also
reviewed Martinez’s Twitter video from the protest, the BWC footage of arresting officers, the June 1,
2020 Emergency Proclamation creating the curfew, the summons issued to Martinez, police reports of
the arresting officers and Martinez’s June 3, 2020 article recounting his arrest. The investigative team
also reviewed the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press; Police, Protesters and the Press
(2020), at p. 14 as well as the Reporters Committee Tip Sheet for reporters covering protests.5
Investigative Conclusions
Martinez was not arrested because he was a reporter or in an effort to prevent him from
performing his job as a member of the press. Rather, Martinez was arrested because police officers
believed him to be a protester who had disobeyed numerous orders to disperse more than two hours
after the expiration of the curfew. The officers’ beliefs, under the circumstances, were reasonable.
Although we agree that in the interest of justice and in an exercise of our prosecutorial
discretion that the dismissal of the summons was appropriate under the circumstances, our
investigation also revealed that the officers who arrested acted reasonably in effectuating the arrest.
While the city-issued Emergency Proclamation exempted credentialed press from the curfew, it did
4 https://www.rcfp.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Police-Protesters-Press-2020.pdf
5 https://www.rcfp.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/20180614_100229_rcfp_protest_tip_sheet_0618.pdf
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 7 of 20 PageID: 44
5
not create a similar exemption for other laws such as the failure to disburse. See N.J.S.A. §2C:33-
1B. Nor is there a blanket prohibition on the arrest of a reporter.6
The Reporters Committee noted in its article that, “[j]ournalists recording protest activities
can increase their chances of First Amendment protection and reduce their risk of arrest by
identifying themselves as press, not interfering with law enforcement, and recording from a safe
distance, if possible.”7 Additionally, the Tip Sheet prepared for journalists by the Reporters
Committee notes, “to avoid being mistaken for a protester, use your best judgment and try not to
wear clothing that matches what protesters are wearing (e.g. all black). Also, engage with police
before the protest so they know who you are and may be less likely to arrest you.” Importantly, the
Tip Sheet also notes, “If police issue a dispersal order or give any other directives, promptly comply
and prominently display your press credentials.”
In this case, Martinez was not recognizable to officers at the protest as a reporter due, in
large part to his attire and the absence of clearly identifiable press credentials. This is especially
apparent when compared to the other journalists seen on BWC footage that night wearing bright
neon vests clearly identifying them as reporters. This conclusion in no way seeks to diminish what
must have been an unpleasant experience for Martinez. However, in light of what is seemingly
standard protocols for journalists covering public protests, and what was exhibited by the majority
of journalists from other news outlets covering the event, Martinez was not outfitted with the gear
or resources to clearly make his identity known to law enforcement officers that night. Although
his credentials may have been appropriate and identifiable when seeking entry to a public building
during daylight hours, in combination with this attire, at night in poorly lit areas, they were not
sufficient.
We have concluded that the officers who arrested Martinez are exonerated of the allegations
that the arrest was made because he was a journalist in an effort to prevent him from reporting.
During the course of our investigation, we determined that in two instances BWCs were not
activated pursuant to standard operating procedure. These findings in no way limited the ability of
the investigative team to reach these conclusions. That aspect of this investigation will be referred
back to the Asbury Park Police Department for their review in accordance with their policies and
procedures.
The Attorney General’s Office of Public Integrity and Accountability (OPIA) reviewed this
IA investigation and agreed with its findings and conclusions.
6 See State v. Lashinsky, 81 N.J. 1, 14-15 (1979) upholding a reporter’s conviction for disorderly persons offense for
failure to obey an officer’s order to move away from a serious motor vehicle accident.
7 In Higginbotham v. Sylvester, 741 F. App’x 28 (2d Cir. 2018), a video journalist challenged his arrest, claiming it
was in retaliation for recording a protest. The Second Circuit found that no reasonable jury could find that the police
had arrested him due to his recording activity as opposed to his reckless endangerment of others.
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 8 of 20 PageID: 45
6
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 – City of Asbury Park Emergency Proclamation
Exhibit 2 – photograph of rocks thrown at police officers
Exhibits 3-5 – screenshot depictions of Martinez and his attire during the protest
Exhibit 6 – BWC footage of APPD officer
Exhibit 7 – BWC footage of APPD officer
Exhibit 8 – Martinez Criminal Summons
Exhibit 9 – Martinez Request to Dismiss Summons
Exhibits 10-12 – screenshot depictions of visibly identified members of the press
# # #
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 9 of 20 PageID: 46
Ex. 1
PROCLAMATION OF STATE OF EMERGENCY TO ALL CITIZENS AND PERSONS WITHIN THE CITY OF ASBURY
PARK AND TO ALL DEPARTMENTS, DIVISIONS AND BUREAUS OF THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF THE CITY OF ASBURY PARK:
WHEREAS, peaceful assemblies are the lifeblood of our democracy based on the Constitutional rights guaranteed to all citizens of the United States of America; and
WHEREAS, in the past week, individuals have engaged in legal and peaceful protests throughout the nation; and
WHEREAS, during the same timeframe, certain individuals have engaged in behavior that has endangered the health and safety of residents of their respective cities; and
WHEREAS, the civil disturbances have continued and grown nationally and in the State of New Jersey, endangering lives and property; and
WHEREAS, on June 1, 2020 a peaceful protest is scheduled at 801 Bangs Avenue in Asbury Park in support of social justice and police accountability; and
WHEREAS, the City of Asbury Park, its Mayor and Council, and the Asbury Park Police Department stand in full solidarity with the Asbury Park community in promotion of a peaceful demonstration; and
WHEREAS, the City of Asbury Park, its Mayor and Council and the Asbury Park Police Department denounce the actions of the officers involved in the murder of George Floyd and any acts of police misconduct; and
WHEREAS, in order to protect the safety of the organizers and attendees of the peaceful demonstration on June 1, 2020, certain precautionary safety measures must be taken; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the powers vested in me by N.J.S.A. App. A:9-40.5 and by ordinances adopted by the City of Asbury Park, and other relevant authority, I have the authority to declare a STATE OF LOCAL DISASTER EMERGENCY within.the City of Asbury PaTk; and
WHEREAS, the aforesaid laws authorize the promulgation of such orders, rules, regulations, and emergency management operations as are necessary to meet the various problems which have or may be presented by such an emergency.
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 10 of 20 PageID: 47
NOW, THEREFORE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH the aforesaid laws, given current exigent circumstances, I do hereby declare, in order to continue to protect the residents of the City of Asbury Park, the following:
1. That a STATE OF LOCAL DISASTER EMERGENCY exists within the City of Asbmy Park
2. As part of the STATE OF LOCAL DISASTER EMERGENCY, a limited curfew is imposed for the City of Asbury Park beginning at 8:00 p.m. on Monday, June 1, 2020 and shall expire on Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 5:00 a.m. unless further extended.
a. During the hours of curfew, all persons are prohibited from using, standing, sitting, travelling or being present on any public street or in any public place, including for the purpose of travel, with the following exemptions:
1. All law enforcement, firefighters, paramedics or other medical personnel, as well as any other emergency response personnel authorized by the State of New Jersey, and credentialed members of the media.
ii. Individuals traveling directly to and from work; attending religious services; commercial trucking and delivery services; obtaining food; caring for a family member, friend, or animal; patronizing or operating private businesses; seeking medical care or fleeing dangerous circumstances; and travel for any of the above services.
b. For purposes of this order, "travel" includes, without limitation, travel on foot, bicycle, skateboard, scooter, motorcycle, autoJJ,1obile, or public transit, or any other mode of transporting a person from one location to another.
c. For purposes of this order, "public place" means any place, whether on privately or publicly owned property, accessible to the general public, including but not limited to public streets and roads, alleys, highways, driveways, sidewalks, parks, vacant lots, and unsupervised property.
d. For purposes of this order, "exempt care" means necessary medical services for an individual's self or family member.
6" ~ l-:J-08-0 Date
G- \ 2 02 V Date
2
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 11 of 20 PageID: 48
Ex. 2
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 12 of 20 PageID: 49
Ex. 3
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 13 of 20 PageID: 50
Ex. 4
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 14 of 20 PageID: 51
Ex. 5
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 15 of 20 PageID: 52
Ex. 8
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 16 of 20 PageID: 53
Ex. 9
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 17 of 20 PageID: 54
Ex. 10
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 18 of 20 PageID: 55
Ex. 11
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 19 of 20 PageID: 56
Ex. 12
Case 3:20-cv-08710 Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 20 of 20 PageID: 57