Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Gustavo Martinez Contreras Lawsuit
Gustavo Martinez Contreras Lawsuit
037412007)
SIEGEL TEITELBAUM & EVANS, LLP
260 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 1006
(212) 455-0300
[email protected]
GUSTAVO MARTÍNEZ
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. ______________
Plaintiff Gustavo Martínez, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby submits this
Complaint against Defendants Asbury Park Police Department, Monmouth County Sheriff’s
Office, Belmar Police Department (collectively, the “Municipal Defendants”), Amir Bercovicz,
and John Doe Officers 1–14 (the “John Doe Defendants”), and alleges as follows:
1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
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. Martinez’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
2
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
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,
3
“While charges have been dropped against Mr. [Martínez], incidents like this send a chilling
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. Martinez. 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
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.
4
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
9. The Court also has jurisdiction 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
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
5
recipient of the National Association of Hispanic Publications José Martí Award in 2009, 2012,
12. Defendant Asbury Park Police Department is a municipal corporation and/or public
entity organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey. The Asbury Park Police
Department’s principal offices are located at 1 Municipal Plaza, Asbury Park, New Jersey 07712.
public entity organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey. The Monmouth
County Sheriff’s Office’s principal offices are located at 2500 Kozloski Road, Freehold, New
Jersey 07728.
14. Defendant Belmar Police Department is a municipal corporation and/or public entity
organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey. The Belmar Police
Department’s principal offices are located at 601 Main Street, Belmar, NJ 07719. The Belmar
Police Department, together with the Asbury Park Police Department and the Monmouth County
15. Defendant Amir Bercovicz, at all relevant times, is or was the Acting Lieutenant of
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
6
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
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.
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. _, “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.
7
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.
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
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. __ Martínez Video.) For
8
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
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
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
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
9
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.
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 Monmouth County has refused to
identify, happened to have their body-worn cameras off the whole time despite regulations
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
10
and loaded into the van. As the officer sat him down in the van and slammed the door shut, Mr.
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
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
11
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
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. _, 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
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
12
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.
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
13
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
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. __
“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 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-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.
14
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
35. Most important and most troubling, the Monmouth Prosecutor states, “there is no
indication that Martinez 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.
15
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
Monmouth County in connection with its Investigative Findings but Monmouth County has
refused to produce any documents in response to that request and further refuses to identify any
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. Martinez’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
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
16
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
41. The need for reform of police training and supervision and the policies governing
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
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
17
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
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.
18
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
45. Mr. Martínez hereby repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates the allegations set forth in
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
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
19
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
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 and
those of other 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
20
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
53. Mr. Martínez hereby repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates the allegations set forth in
54. Mr. Martínez was lawfully exercising his First Amendment and Article I rights as he
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
21
continuing to exercise his First Amendment and Article I rights. Their retaliatory actions did
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
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 and
those of other 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
59. Mr. Martínez hereby repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates the allegations set forth in
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
22
believed they had probable cause. Because Mr. Martínez’s initial arrest was unlawful, Mr.
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 and
those of other 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.
23
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
64. Mr. Martínez hereby repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates the allegations set forth in
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.
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
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 and
those of other reporters, including the right to not be subjected to arrest and injury through the
24
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.
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
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
71. Amir Bercovicz and the John Doe Defendants were acting under color of state law
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
25
preventing Amir Bercovicz and the John Doe Defendants from further violating their duties to
intervene to prevent other officers from violating his constitutional rights and those of other
reporters. Officer Bercovicz and the John Doe Defendants further damaged Mr. Martínez by
causing him to suffer physical injuries, emotional distress, and mental anguish.
73. Mr. Martínez hereby repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates the allegations set forth in
74. As set forth above, Mr. Martínez was deprived of his federal and state constitutional
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
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
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
26
credentialed journalists from the restrictions of the curfew, and which was specifically imposed
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
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
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
indifference to Mr. Martínez’s and journalists’ safety, well-being, and constitutional rights. It is
27
highly likely that Defendants will continue to violate journalists’ constitutional rights without
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 and those of other reporters. The Municipal
Defendants further damaged Mr. Martínez by proximately causing him to suffer physical
WHEREFORE, Mr. Martínez respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in his
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
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
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 Asbury
Park Police Department, the Monmouth County Sheriff’s Office, and the Belmar Police
28
D. Declare that there must be a reform in policing policy to prevent further
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;
prejudgment interest;
G. Award Mr. Martínez reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988
H. Grant any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
29