The Boston Police Department has at last concluded that two of its officers made a mistake when they arrested a Boston man for recording the arrest of another man with his cell phone. In a letter to cell phone cinematographer Simon Glik, superintendent Kenneth Fong of the Boston PD's Bureau of Professional Standards said that the officers had shown "unreasonable judgment" by taking Glik into custody.

Glik's battle with the Boston PD began in 2007, when he saw another man being arrested on Boston Common. After hearing a witness say, "You are hurting him, stop," Glik pulled out his cell phone to document the encounter. The police then arrested Glik for allegedly violating the state's wiretapping statute.

As Glik now describes the event on his own website (he's a lawyer), "This arrest was a vindictive attempt by some unscrupulous cops to suppress citizens’ right to record, observe and comment on police actions."

Glik was quickly released, and the charges against him were eventually dropped. Glik requested that the Boston PD then investigate the officers' actions, but the department concluded in 2008 that the officers had done nothing wrong.

So with the help of the Massachusetts ACLU, Glik filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the officers had violated his First Amendment rights. In August 2010, the United States Court of Appeals affirmed Glik's First Amendment right to record the actions of the police.

That may have inspired the Boston PD to re-open Glik's original complaint, and this time they reached a different conclusion. A department spokeswoman told the Boston Globe that the officers, John Cunniffee and Peter Savalis, now "face discipline ranging from an oral reprimand to suspension."

"As far as I knew, my complaint was summarily dismissed," Glik told the Globe regarding his original complaint in 2008. "I was basically laughed out of the building. From what I understand, it takes filing a federal lawsuit in order for internal affairs to review a complaint."

Glik's attorney, David Milton, says the fact that it took the department four years to admit its mistake "shows a lack of genuine concern for investigating misconduct by the Police Department."

Milton told the Globe that Glik plans to press forward with his lawsuit against the officers, seeking financial compensation and "a public recognition that what he was doing was perfectly legal."

"Hanging the individual officers out to dry"

Sarah Wunsch, acting legal director of the Massachusetts ACLU, which has assisted Glik in his lawsuit against the police, told Ars that the police department's new position is inconsistent with the position the city of Boston has taken in the lawsuit. Glik included the city as a defendant in the lawsuit, arguing that the city had failed to properly train its officers. Until now, the city has disputed that argument, telling the court that the officers acted reasonably.

Now, Wunsch says, it seems like "they're hanging the individual officers out to dry," arguing that the officers should have known their actions were unreasonable, despite the fact that the city has been taking the opposite position in court for the last two years.

Wunsch also questions why the city is choosing to take the case to trial even after the First Circuit ruled that Glik had a First Amendment right to record the officers' actions. "It's costing the taxpayers money" to continue fighting the lawsuit, she said, and the city's chances of victory are slim.

We contacted the city of Boston seeking comment, but they have yet to respond.