Chris Morisse Vizza

cvizza@jconline.com

Purdue University released on its website the surveillance video at the center of a lawsuit filed by the Purdue Exponent.

The newspaper, operated by Purdue Student Publishing Foundation Inc., last week filed suit to compel the university to provide a copy of the video of a confrontation between police officers and photojournalist Michael Takeda.

Surveillance cameras recorded the Jan. 21 interaction when officers discovered him on the second floor of the Electrical Engineering building at 12:40 p.m., less than one hour after student Andrew Boldt was killed in a basement classroom in the building.

The video released Thursday shows a plainclothes officer and four uniformed officers walking down some stairs, turning down a hallway and gesturing for someone who is out of view to walk toward them.

Takeda walks into view, and drops to his knees. The picture is somewhat obscured by an officer, but Takeda ends up face down on the floor, then is picked up.

A uniformed officer has a grip on Takeda, and while walking toward the stairs, pushes him against a wall and speaks to him.

While they continue walking, another uniformed officer pushes in toward Takeda, grabs his left arm and shoulder and keeps a hold on him as they walk down the stairs.

In the final scene, Takeda rounds a stairwell virtually unattended, then a third uniformed officer grabs the back of his jacket and says something as they walk down the steps, and out of view.

Takeda was released after being held for two hours. Police returned his photography equipment later, after the Student Press Law Center intervened on behalf of the Exponent. Purdue offered $230 as a show of good faith to cover damages to his equipment.

Pat Kuhnle, Exponent publisher and general manager, said as people watch the video, they need to compare it against the Purdue police department's internal investigation conducted after Takeda filed a complaint against the department claiming harassment, and unwanted detention.

"One thing in particular that stands out is there is no evidence whatsoever in the video that our photographer avoided law enforcement or did not adhere to their commands," Kuhnle said.

The February internal review released by Chief John Cox states that Takeda "retreated and moved hurriedly away from the officers, not responding to the commands given."

Takeda was not treated with the respect Kuhnle expected.

"The push against the wall, then the second push in the hallway, and the third at the top of the stairs were unwarranted, unnecessary and unprofessional in light of the fact that he was not a suspect in a murder investigation," he said.

The video is silent, and runs for about one minute, starting at 12:40:26, and ending at 12:41:27 according to the time clock at the bottom of the picture.

Purdue showed the video clip to Takeda, Kuhnle and the newspaper's attorney earlier this year, but the university declined to release a copy of the video until today.

The Indiana Public Access Counselor in April supported Purdue's claim that the video should not be released because it is part of an ongoing police investigation.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana then filed suit on behalf of the Exponent.

Purdue legal council Steven R. Schultz on Wednesday submitted a copy of the video to Tippecanoe Superior Court 2 Judge Thomas Busch, and proposed that the university would post the video online after receiving permission from the judge, and county prosecutor Pat Harrington.

The university issued a press release Thursday that stated the prosecutor approved the video release and provided a link to the video posted on YouTube.

Releasing the video to the public does not necessarily resolve the lawsuit, said Kelly Eskew, ACLU of Indiana staff attorney.

"Purdue University has not provided us with a copy of the video, so we have not been able to confirm that it is the complete video of the encounter between the Exponent's photographer and law enforcement," Eskew said.

"If it is the video we asked Purdue to release, we are pleased that it is now publicly available since it is a public record as defined under the Access to Public Records Act."