Attorneys for a Baltimore man are accusing the police of harassment and intimidation after the police interviewed his ex-wife and former employers seeking information about whether he has a history of drug use. The man, Christopher Sharp, is a plaintiff in a lawsuit charging that Baltimore police violated his civil rights when they confiscated his cell phone and deleted video that he says documented police misconduct.

The Obama administration has already weighed in on Sharp's side. The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice filed a brief in January arguing that the officers' actions violated the First Amendment.

Sharp was at the Preakness horse race in 2010 when he says he saw the police beating his friend before taking her into custody. He used his cell phone to document the encounter, but the phone was confiscated by police officers who claimed they needed the video for evidence. The phone was taken out of his sight, and when it was returned to him a few minutes later, the video, along with at least 20 personal photos, had disappeared.

With the assistance of the ACLU, Sharp sued the department, arguing that his First and Fourth Amendment rights had been violated. That lawsuit is now under way, and the Baltimore Sun reports that the police have been digging into Sharp's past:

On Aug. 1, police told Sharp of their intent to subpoena "any and all" of Sharp's medical records relating to a hair follicle test ordered by the Circuit Court of Baltimore County in October 2007. Before that, they served subpoenas on AT&T for all of his phone activity from the day before the 2010 Preakness and for the following five months, and subpoenaed Laurel Park, where he worked in the food and beverage operations until a year before the Preakness. They also contacted his ex-wife's mother and current boyfriend. "My ex-wife was not at the 2010 Preakness where the incident at issue in this action took place. She is not a potential fact witness in this case. Likewise, her mother and her current boyfriend are not fact witnesses and I have no reason to believe that they have any information relevant to the facts at issue in this case," Sharp wrote in a sworn declaration.

The police have argued that Sharp's history of drug use, or lack thereof, is relevant because his case "is clearly based upon his credibility, perception, and ability to remember the facts, as he is the only identified witness to the alleged incident."

But the ACLU argues that digging into Sharp's past is a "gross abuse of subpoena power."

"Taken together, defendants' actions demonstrate what can only be characterized as a campaign to intimidate, harass, and embarrass Sharp in retaliation for Sharp's having brought this action," Sharp's attorneys charge.