One of the things I hate, and pretty much every non-lawyer hates, about the legal system is that at the end of the day, the only real winners are the lawyers, who bill $250 – $1,000+ per hour to fight over what is often an absurd battle. Take, for example, Careathers v. Red Bull:

Benjamin Careathers, a regular consumer of the fizzy drink, sued the company for false advertising, arguing that after 10 years drinking Red Bull he neither had wings nor any enhanced athletic or intellectual performance.

Source: The Telegraph

Now, I love Red Bull. I drink it all the time, and I follow their marketing campaigns because they are brilliant, so I’m interested as a businessman, and because they’re fun, so I’m interested as a consumer. Red Bull sponsors events all over the world, including their very own “Flugtag” event, and they have their catchy, “Red Bull Gives You Wings” tag line. But, as a consumer, I never expected to be “given wings,” nor did I believe any of the other stuff the lawsuit claims, such as their assertion that Red Bull misled consumers into thinking that Red Bull was scientifically proven to be superior to its competition. No, I buy Red Bull because I like it, not because I am delusional.

The case was certified as a class action, with the class being every Red Bull consumer since 2002. Red Bull has decided to settle this case rather than fight (by giving every customer $10 of free Red Bull), which brings us to the real reason for this suit, of course: the lawyers are asking for a $4.75 million dollar fee. I’m disappointed that Red Bull didn’t fight this battle, but totally understand that it’s a “cheap” (comparatively) way to make them go away and almost acts as a promo in itself as people rush to get their free 4-pack.

Luckily, as a member of the settlement class, I get to express my disappointment to the court, and will be filing my objection to the Red Bull settlement on Monday. Will this actually change anything? Probably not on its own, but courts have been known to reduce fees when finalizing settlements on class actions, so I hope my objection will weigh on that.

One of the most difficult things I’ve found about doing civil rights advocacy is this: there are so many things wrong in this country, and you can’t make time to fight them all. Once you learn that it is, in fact, possible to challenge the injustices in this world (and that many times, if you don’t challenge them, no one else does), it becomes far too tempting to just take on another issue. When Edward Snowden’s revelations about the NSA came out, for example, it took all my willpower to not write up a lawsuit. (I couldn’t resist having a little fun, and created a Web site for people to request their NSA file called My NSA Records, but no legal challenges from me.)

If one takes on too many challenges, sufficient focus to complete any of the challenges will be lost. Indeed, sufficient focus to maintain the rest of your life can become lost as well, especially if you’re working a full-time job in addition to fighting the man (if anyone would like to sponsor a full-time civil rights advocate, let me know!).

The same goes for continuing current cases when they’ve lost meaning. My case against NYPD stop-and-frisk was dismissed last month after a judge ruled that I couldn’t prove that I was dealing with actual police officers. Four men, who looked like cops, in a dark sedan that looked like an undercover cop car (complete with console electronics) identified themselves as police, detained me, searched me with neither consent nor cause, and then let me go without taking anything. I didn’t ask for a badge because I thought I’d get a face full of sidewalk and because I had no doubt that these men were real cops, but the city claims they have no record of cops being there.

It makes no sense that these men were just random troublemakers looking to pat down random people on the street, and I believe the judge made a clear error in determining that no reasonable jury could find that the NYPD was responsible for my constitutional injury. But, taking that argument to the Court of Appeals, I believe, will take my focus off of the cases that are more important to me — my work against the TSA — and in light of the fact that stop-and-frisk was recently ruled unconstitutional in another case, I’ve decided it would be a distraction with minimal benefit. The war on stop-and-frisk has, hopefully, already been won.

The people who are the best at what they do are the best because they have the sharpest focus. They know what they want and they work every day to get it. I shall continue to sharpen my focus on the issues that are really important to me.

If this blog interests you, chances are you follow other news sources that have covered attempts by police and other government officials (including, of course, TSA screeners) to crack down on citizens that use their cell phone cameras to record the activity of those government officials. Carlos Miller, a Miami-based photographer and activist, formed Photography is Not a Crime (PINAC) after being detained (now on several occasions) for an even less confrontational reason: capturing photos and video of buildings and transportation hubs. PINAC covers stories of people being denied their First Amendment rights at an astounding frequency: the front page of PINAC has 8 stories from the last 12 days alone.

Carlos’ most recent personal interaction was on Miami’s Metrorail system, where he was pushed down an escalator and arrested by security for no more than taking pictures from the platform while he waited for his train — and this wasn’t even the first time the same security company — “50 State” — arrested him for the same reason!

Being a Miami resident myself, I contacted county officials to express that I no longer felt safe on the county’s public transit as a result of the abuse of this security contracor. (I also contacted state officials to request a review of 50 State’s license to act as a security firm and the individual guards’ licenses to open carry a firearm as a security officer.) After significant back-and-forth and many ignored messages that required follow-up, the last message I received was from Eric Muntan, Chief of the Office of Safety and Security of Miami-Dade Transit:

First and foremost, MDT fully acknowledges that members of the public can take photographs in the common areas of public facilities. Areas within the public view are open to photography, as long as the activities do not present a safety concern for transit operations.

At the conclusion of its investigation of this incident, MDT took numerous administrative actions to effectively address areas which needed enhancements, to include, but not limited to, immediate refresher training for all MDT-contracted security officers regarding the proper interpretation of commercial photography and an individual’s right to photograph common areas of our facilities.

However, given the threats against mass transit systems, both domestic and abroad, and in order to protect the safety of its transit system, its customers and its employees, MDT reserves the right to question individuals taking photographic images at our stations.

However, that stance may not actually be lawful. The police have great leeway to ask questions of nearly anyone (so long as those people are not obligated to answer and are “free to go”). However, they still can’t do so in an arbitrary or capricious manner: they need a reason — however flimsy — to do so. Virtually any reason will do, except a reason that rests upon violating someone’s rights. And, if the county is admitting that it your right to take pictures (which it is), it would seem to me that they would need a reason beyond the mere taking of pictures.

It is nice that Miami is taking at least some steps (retraining, for example) to remedy the problem, but in the end, the problem won’t go away until the mindset is changed: holding a camera should not subject you to any government contact in and of itself.