BATON ROUGE, La. (Legal Newsline) – A lawyer and University of Virginia law professor claimed a recent victory in a court battle with Baton Rouge, La., over his actions in defense of a man who was strip-searched.
Federal judge John deGravelles on Jan. 7 rejected Baton Rouge’s motion to dismiss Thomas Frampton’s lawsuit while also granting Frampton’s motion for preliminary injunction. It took deGravelles 92 pages to explain his reasoning.
Frampton sought an injunction against contempt of juvenile court charges after he released body cam footage to the media. He said there was no underlying juvenile court proceedings that had been initiated, so how could he be in contempt of them.
“The one case cited by Defendants for the proposition that Louisiana’s Article 412 confidentiality might apply before a prosecution is initiated is a Nevada public records act case and, according to Plaintiff, is not on point; Plaintiff contends the Nevada statute being interpreted broadly protects all ‘juvenile justice information,’ whereas Article 412 is specifically limited to documents concerning ‘matters or proceedings before the juvenile court,’” deGravelles wrote.
Baton Rouge officials accuse Frampton of illegally releasing protected juvenile criminal records like body cam footage to CBS, which the network used for a report on alleged civil rights violations of Clarence and Tanya Green. Clarence’s younger brother was also searched by police during a traffic stop.
CBS’s report came less than a week after the Greens settled their civil rights case against Baton Rouge for $35,000. Clarence Green had been forced to spend five months in jail during the COVID-19 pandemic.
On July 5, the Baton Rouge defendants filed their motion to dismiss Frampton’s lawsuit. They say the federal court should abstain from the issue because the state Juvenile Court is already tasked with deciding Baton Rouge’s contempt motion.
According to Frampton, no juvenile criminal proceeding ever existed and Clarence Green was an adult at the time of his civil settlement.
Video footage had been introduced as evidence in Clarence’s adult criminal matter that was later dismissed, which Frampton says makes it public record. Plus, the Green family urged Frampton to release the body cam footage, he says.
And a Juvenile Court judge can’t make the call, Frampton argues. The motion to find him in contempt omits a case number because no case ever existed, he says.
Judge deGravelles sided with Frampton, rejecting calls for his abstention.
“Had the City/Parish lawyers made reasonable inquiry before filing the Contempt Motion, they would have found that Frampton got the Video from his client via his client’s criminal defense lawyer, who got it from the U.S. Attorney, who got it from BRPD,” he wrote.
“They would also have discovered that the Video had been in the hands of the Baton Rouge Advocate newspaper for months. If (city attorney Deelee) Morris read the transcript of the Motion to Suppress hearing that she ordered, she already knew that the Video was a public record in this Court, having been introduced and played at the hearing, and that the Video was available to anyone who requested it.
“Not only was reasonable inquiry not made before filing the Contempt Motion, but, in addition, the City/Parish failed to give the minor (whose interests it claims to be protecting) or the minor’s lawyer (Frampton), notice and an opportunity to be heard before asking the Juvenile Court Judge to sign the show cause order ex parte.”