A lawsuit by the ACLU of Tennessee recently produced that Memphis police spied on Black activists. As Yogi Berra said, “It’s like déjà vu all over again.” This is the same city where five decades ago the police spied on Martin Luther King, Jr. It’s the city where he was murdered. And it’s my hometown.
I know enough that I can’t claim surprise, but it hurts all the same to see yet another overstep by law enforcement, one with echoes in the history of the civil rights movement, and, make no mistake, it includes the struggle going on today for civil rights
In 2016 and 2017, Memphis Police Department’s Office of Homeland Security (created after the September 11 attacks) decided it was legally appropriate and a good use of resources to create a fraudulent Facebook profile whose purpose was to deceive activists and gather information from them, including information from private posts. One activist recommended a book by community organizer Saul Alinsky in a private post, and Memphis police collected it. They also collected the names of 58 friends who “liked” it. MPD went further, making a PowerPoint presentation about BLM activists who protested police shootings at several places including an Elvis Presley .
What did police call their surveillance dossier on activists? “Blue Suede Shoes.”
At the vigil, police barricades were used to keep protesters away, but racial profiling of people by police in this particular instance had an ironic result – police refused to let Black protestors pass the barricades, apparently assuming that no white people would protest at an event to honor the King of Rock and Roll. This resulted in some white protestors entering the vigil. As one protestor later , “They weren’t stopping the white people. They were just stopping the Black people.”
That PowerPoint presentation, including the names and faces of activists previously arrested at Black Lives Matter protests, went to Memphis police command staff. MPD admitted tracking activists’ associations, including their spouses in one case, and the groups they were involved in, including labor and Palestinian solidarity groups.
MPD claims it “has information from various sources that small groups of individuals use these legitimate public venues to advance their own agenda.” I remember hearing things like this before – 50 years ago, when police spied on Dr. King.
On April 3, 1968, Dr. King landed at the Memphis airport with one more day to live. The police inspector who ran MPD’s Inspectional Bureau, which included the Intelligence Section, ordered officers to the airport for surveillance purposes. The surveillance was by MPD, “...not only because Dr. King was a controversial public figure, but also because he had been meeting with local Black militants while in Memphis on prior visits.”
At the same time, the FBI’s COINTELPRO program was told to step up the pressure on activists.
In August of 1967, COINTELPRO activities were authorized against organizations including the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. On March 4, 1968, a COINTELPRO described expanded COINTELPRO objectives and for the first time specifically named Dr. King. Among the goals was to “[p]revent the rise of a ‘messiah’ who could unify and electrify the militant Black Nationalist movement.” The memo continued, “... King could be a very real contender for this position should he abandon his supposed obedience to white, liberal doctrines (nonviolence) and embrace Black Nationalism.”
I grew up in Memphis. The city is in my heart – for reasons both good and bad. The last two times I have written about my hometown, it has been with pride and hope. I wrote about the removal of the Nathan Bedford Forrest Monument and its shameful honoring of white supremacy. I wrote about two MPD officers, one Black and one white, who responded to a call from a white woman about a Black person in her neighborhood. The officers were completely respectful in their dealing with the young Black man and ultimately warned the white woman, in the presence of the young man, that she could be arrested if she harassed the young man. This is an example of how police should react to 911 calls seeking to use them to weaponize bias.
Blue Suede Shoes and related surveillance activity take us backwards to a shameful past, not forward to the future we hope for and the racial justice we demand.
If you think the behavior is justified because it contained some information about people who had been arrested at protests, remember, Dr. King was arrested over 30 times in 12 years. He met with Malcom X. MPD was not justified in spying on Dr. King. MPD is not justified in spying on Black Lives Matter.
BLM activists are walking in the shoes of Dr. King and others who came before them. Memphis police should not be walking in the shoes of the police who came before them. The fact that they have represents another in a series of continuing examples of centuries of failings by law enforcement and the intertwined fear of Black liberation.
Maybe Elvis knew what he was talking about: “You can knock me down, Step in my face, Slander my name all over the place. Well do anything that you want to do. But uh-uh honey lay off of them shoes...” Law enforcement won’t stop Black liberation, no matter the color of our shoes.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Criminal Law Reform
ACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law AllowsACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law Allows
WASHINGTON – A federal lawsuit brought today by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., and Jenner & Block LLP challenges the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for unlawfully incarcerating people longer than the law allows under the First Step Act. The lawsuit contends that the BOP’s failure to implement the First Step Act according to its plain language violates the rights of thousands of people who should be returning to their communities and rebuilding their lives but instead remain incarcerated. Signed into law in 2018 by then-President Donald Trump, the bipartisan First Step Act was designed to reduce the population in federal prisons, reform extreme sentencing laws, and provide programming and reentry transition services to people in prison. Central to the First Step Act is a system of earned time credits, which allows people in prison to earn time off their sentences and time out of prison by participating in rehabilitation programs. Through the First Step Act, Congress unambiguously ordered BOP to move people out of prison when they meet certain requirements to use their earned time credits. Instead of faithfully following the mandatory law, BOP adopted a regulation treating the law as optional. As a result, thousands of people, who should already be back in their communities and with their families, remain in prison. “Every extra unlawful day our clients spend in prison is a serious injustice,” said Emma Andersson, deputy director of the Criminal Law Reform Project at the ACLU. “It is egregious that the Bureau of Prisons is imprisoning people for months longer than the law allows. The government must follow through on its legal obligation to get people out of prison on time and back into their communities, where they belong.” Additional comments below from: Vanessa Crowe, plaintiff: “Time is what I owed for my wrongdoing, and I have paid my time. But I should not have to spend more time in prison than the law allows. I often reflect on what I will miss during the months after when I should be out of prison. I will miss work and lose out on wages that would help me get back on my feet. I could be a tax paying citizen instead of a burden on society. But most of all, I will miss more precious time with my family. My family and I are ready to tum the page on this period in our lives — we are all ready to start a new life, a life with purpose, hope, and healing together. I want to start that life when I am legally entitled to start it-not five months later.” Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at ACLU of D.C.: “There’s no excuse for the Bureau of Prisons to pretend not to understand Congress’s clear command that people who have earned the right to early release must be released. This law has been on the books for six years. The Bureau of Prisons has had plenty of time to understand it. Law enforcers should obey the law.” Betsy Henthorne, partner at Jenner & Block: “It has been six years since the First Step Act was signed, but despite Congress’s clear directives, the Bureau of Prisons continues to hold thousands of people in prison longer than the law allows. We should and do expect better—it’s past time for the BOP to ensure that those who have earned their release are able to return home to their families and communities according to the law Congress passed.” -
Maryland Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Roland Branch v. State of MarylandRoland Branch v. State of Maryland
This petition to the Supreme Court of Maryland asked the court to reconsider its adherence to Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996), which declared that a traffic stop undertaken for pretextual reasons does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so long as the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred. The ACLU, alongside the ACLU of Maryland, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant’s petition, in which the ACLU argued that the court should take up the question of whether pretextual stops violate the Maryland Constitution. In September 2024, the Court denied the petition. -
North Carolina Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
State v. WrightState v. Wright
This case in the North Carolina Supreme Court involves the question of whether the police violated the U.S. Constitution when they searched the defendant, Mr. Wright’s, backpack even after he repeatedly said no to the search requests. The ACLU alongside the ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief arguing that the search was unconstitutional because Mr. Wright’s eventual “consent” was the result of police coercion. Our brief urges the court to consider the totality of the circumstances that make one more susceptible to coercion, including race and poverty. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Incarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use OpioidsIncarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use Opioids
New litigation centered on increasing access to substance-use disorder treatment in jails and prisons is helping to reduce mortality rates among incarcerated individuals.