ACLU trial: MPD Director Rallings says he formerly had 'vague knowledge' of 1978 rule against surveillance

Daniel Connolly | Memphis Commercial Appeal

Memphis Police Department Director Michael Rallings appeared as a witness in the federal ACLU trial Tuesday, saying that for a long time, he had little knowledge of the 1978 consent decree against political surveillance that’s at the center of the legal controversy.

“Prior to the lawsuit, I had a vague knowledge of the consent decree,” said Rallings.

The city government in 1978 had reached a formal legal agreement, or consent decree, with a local branch of the American Civil Liberties Union not to gather intelligence on non-criminals.

Answering questions from ACLU attorney Thomas H. Castelli, Rallings said he wasn't sure what the police department teaches new police recruits about the 1978 decree.

He said he wasn't aware of any ongoing training given to existing officers about the decree, and he said he couldn’t remember receiving training in the consent decree himself.

Rallings joined the police department in 1990, became interim police director in early 2016 and officially became police director in August 2016.

He said information about political surveillance and the 1978 consent decree is made available to police. The city has said this information is on a kiosk system available to all officers.

The ACLU of Tennessee says MPD has used social media monitoring, undercover officers and other tactics to monitor activists with Black Lives Matter and other groups, stifling rights to free speech and assembly.

The organization has asked for court-ordered monitoring of the Memphis Police Department and wants the department to give officers additional training on citizens' rights, especially the right to protest and peacefully assemble.

The city says those steps aren't necessary and wants to revise the 1978 consent decree or do away with it altogether. The department says the consent decree is outdated, given modern realities such as social media that can lead to fast-moving public events that can spiral out of control.

Rallings said the police department had begun reviewing its procedures for civil disturbances in 2014 following unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, over the police shooting of a black man.

The police department created a guidance document that calls for police officials to minimize use of force, avoid arresting people if possible, and to avoid taking provocative measures. For instance, Rallings said the department tries to avoid sending officers to protests in riot gear because it appears aggressive and can provoke violence.

Rallings also said he asks commanders to write a report after every major incident to discuss what they could have done better.

Rallings' testimony lasted roughly 30 minutes. As Rallings was discussing those reports, U.S. District Judge Jon P. McCalla called a break in testimony shortly after 5 p.m. and asked Rallings to return by 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday.

The director's testimony marked a key moment of the second day in the federal trial over Memphis police surveillance.

The day had begun with MPD Sgt. Timothy Reynolds on the stand. He is the primary officer who controlled the "Bob Smith" social media account that gathered information on protests and activists.

Reynolds described how Rallings filed a complaint with his own department in September 2016 that someone had created a Twitter account using his name, MPD_Rallings. That account has since been suspended.

The Twitter handle was posting statements including, "Stop focusing on me and focus on the real issue--panhandlers & degenerate marijuana use! Stand behind your Director. This is a spectacle!"

Reynolds said investigators believed Paul Garner, an activist with the Mid-South Peace and Justice Center, was running the MPD_Rallings account.

According to records shown on a screen in court, investigator David Palmer subpoenaed Twitter and learned than on 26 occasions, the Rallings impersonator account was used at the same time, date, location and IP address as the handle @aktionkat, which is associated with Garner.

Garner was one of the original plaintiffs in the police surveillance lawsuit, though he and others were dismissed after the judge ruled they lacked legal standing. He's still scheduled as a witness in the case.

Reached Tuesday, Garner said attorneys have advised him not to give media statements until the trial is over.

Earlier, the police detective had described gaining access to a private group in which Fergus Nolan and other activists considered actions against the Memphis Zoo in a conflict over parking on the Overton Park greensward.

Documents were shown on a screen in the courtroom. "(Name redacted) also knows a hacker and if we can get into the Zoo’s system we can download their general ledger and figure out their accounts," Nolan wrote. "I am an old time corporate programmer and can figure out their system if we can get inside."

More: Undercover cops, Black Lives Matter, and alleged zoo hacking: Memphis Police surveillance on trial

More: ACLU wins favorable ruling from judge in advance of Memphis police spying trial

In a recent interview, Nolan said the hacking idea didn't go anywhere. Reynolds confirmed that, saying that he asked the zoo if they'd noticed any problems with their system.

“He told me there hadn’t been but there had been some suspicious activity on the e-commerce side ... I took that information and reported it back and the zoo fixed the problem and this case kind of went dormant," Reynolds said.

Taking friendly questions from Buckner Wellford, a lawyer representing the city, Reynolds repeatedly said his motivation for monitoring protests and other events was to ensure public safety.

That point was echoed by another witness, police Maj. Stephen Chandler, who had been the sergeant's supervisor. He said the police don't care about the points of view expressed in a protest, only about safety.

McCalla has already ruled that the city carried out political surveillance in violation of the 1978 consent order. A bench trial is continuing as he makes determinations on other issues in the case.

Reach reporter Daniel Connolly at 529-5296, daniel.connolly@commercialappeal.com, or on Twitter at @danielconnolly.