A married couple is suing five current and former Springfield police officers and the city of Springfield in U.S. District Court, contending officers violated their constitutional rights by illegally arresting the husband and allegedly beating him after he used his cell phone to record an arrest of a motorist about three years ago.

The 19-page federal lawsuit, filed on Jan. 23 in U.S. District Court in Springfield, potentially represents more trouble for city police with incidents involving the use of amateur video.

The department's image was tarnished last week when a Chicopee District Court jury found former Springfield patrolman Jeffrey M. Asher guilty of a violent assault on Melvin Jones III during a traffic stop that was caught on video by a citizen. Parts of the video were later played for the jury. Jones also filed a federal civil rights lawsuit that is pending.

Also last week, a Springfield District Court judge heard a 24-year-old Connecticut man's bid to throw out assault and other charges against him on the basis that police deleted a video of his arrest – considered key evidence – after confiscating a cell phone used by a witness.

The man, Michael Ververis, said the video could help exonerate him. A prosecutor said the man failed to prove the cellphone would provide much information about the arrest. The prosecutor questioned whether the video existed since neither the witness nor the Connecticut man ever saw the tape. The cell phone last April was returned to its owner, who said she disposed of it after finding the video had been erased.

The latest lawsuit, filed by John A. Sein and his wife, Mary K. Brooks, formerly of 33 Greenwich St. in Springfield, says that Sein was standing in his yard and using a cell phone to record the arrest of a driver who had been stopped by police in front of Sein’s home on May 27, 2009. One officer shouted that Sein was violating wiretap laws, the suit said.

The lawsuit said police were using excessive force in the arrest of the driver. The driver’s father was on the scene and Sein told the father to remain calm since he was recording the incident and would be willing to appear in court on his son’s behalf, the suit said.

When officers began closing in on him, Sein tossed the cell phone to his wife, the suit said. She later relinquished the device after she was threatened with arrest, the suit said.

Sein said police officers tackled, punched him and forced him into a cruiser, the suit said. Police held him for 15 hours on several charges including assault and battery on a police officer and unlawful secret recording, the suit said. When he appeared for a jury trial, the charges were dismissed, the suit said.

Edward M. Pikula, city solicitor in Springfield, said the city will deal with the facts and attempt to resolve the lawsuit as expeditiously as possible.

Sgt . John M. Delaney, aide to Police Commissioner William J. Fitchet, said a decision last year by the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston changed how police react to people who are taping them while they are performing their duties. The court decision was made more than two years after the arrest that prompted the federal lawsuit by Sein and Brooks.

The Appeals court, ruling in a lawsuit against the city of Boston, said that people can record police officers while they are doing their job, as long as it doesn't hinder police work and is done in the open, not in secret.

“We have no right to arrest any more,” Delaney said.

Delaney said the police will respond to the charges in the civil lawsuit and take it from there. “That’s why there are judges and lawyers,” he said.

Lawyers for Fitchet, the city of Springfield and Lt. John K. Slepchuk, who are defendants in the federal civil rights suit, filed responses last week with the court, denying many charges in the lawsuit including those that Sein was beaten, illegally arrested and deprived of his constitutional rights.

“Force, if any, used by the defendants was privileged, reasonable and necessary to effect lawful purposes,” said the response filed for the city and Fitchet by John T. Liebel, chief of litigation for the city.

Sein and Brooks, who have moved out of Springfield but remain in the area, could not be reached for comment through their lawyer, Thomas E. Robinson of Springfield. Robinson said he could not comment on the merits of the case.

"Our position would be ... if people are prevented from videotaping in public, that would be a violation of First Amendment rights," Robinson said.

The 12-count lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and names as defendants former officer Danilo O. Feliciano, officers Clayton L. Roberson and Raymond Gonzalez, Slepchuk, Fitchet and the city.

Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman was assigned to the case.

Feliciano was fired in 2010 for violating department standards after he was charged with assaulting a man while arresting the man after he was involved in a domestic dispute with Feliciano's niece. A jury last year found Feliciano innocent of assault.

Feliciano has submitted a response to the federal suit, also denying the allegations by Brooks and Sein including those that he was beaten, illegally arrested and that his civil rights were violated.

The suit by Brooks and Sein asks for compensatory and punitive damages.

Delaney said the arrest of Sein occurred after police conducted a surveillance of a man who later drove away and stopped near Sein’s house. Delaney said the man – whose arrest was being taped by Sein – was arrested on eight charges including resisting arrest, speeding, driving an unregistered motor vehicle and outstanding warrants.

Delaney said police officers are aware of the Appeals Court decision on videotaping them while they are on the job. He said police have been trained on how to respond and the implications of the Appeals Court decision.

Even though police may be following the law, it can still feel uncomfortable and uneasy when bystanders are taping them, he said. When people gawk and gather, it’s another worry for police, he said. If people get in their way, it could be a problem, he said.

“I would hope people would stay back and not approach police when they are doing their job,” he said.

The lawsuit underscores that police are facing new territory with technologies such as cell phone cameras and YouTube. "The technology has changed the field," said Pikula, the city solicitor.

The lawsuit by Brooks and Sein was filed about four months after the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled that people have the right to record police officers as they carry out their duties, as long as it doesn't hinder police work and is done in the open, not in secret. A "secret recording" could be a violation of wiretap laws, the decision said.

"Such peaceful recording of an arrest in a public space that does not interfere with the police officers' performance of their duties is not reasonably subject to limitation," the Appeals court wrote in upholding a lower court decision. "In our society, police officers are expected to endure significant burdens caused by citizens' exercise of their First Amendment rights."

Bruce K. Miller, professor of law at Western New England University School of Law in Springfield, said the decision is a ringing endorsement of First Amendment values.



"It provides a substantial measure of protection for people who wish to videotape what police officers do in public," Miller said.

The Appeals Court ruled in favor of Boston lawyer Simon Glik, who filed a federal civil rights suit against the city of Boston after he was arrested for violating the state's wiretap laws by using his cell phone camera to record Boston police in October 2007 as they arrested a man on the Boston Common.

Glik’s lawsuit still is pending. The Appeals Court upheld a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge William G. Young denying the city’s move to dismiss on certain grounds.

Robinson, the lawyer for Brooks and Sein, said the Appeals Court decision didn’t change law. “They are recognizing a First Amendment right that has always been there,” he said.