SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
September, 16 2010, 01:03pm EDT
Contact:
Will Matthews, ACLU National, (212) 549-2582 or 2666; media@aclu.org
Allison Peltzman, ACLU of New Jersey, (973) 642-2086 or (201) 253-9403
ACLU Files Lawsuit Against Camden Police Officers Who Planted Drugs On Suspects
Case Highlights Urgent Need For Systemic Reforms
CAMDEN, NJ
The
American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of New Jersey today
announced the filing of a lawsuit on behalf of an innocent Camden, New
Jersey man jailed for more than a year as the result of drugs planted on
him by police officers later implicated in a wide-scale drug-planting
conspiracy affecting nearly 200 other Camden residents.
Joel Barnes was at a friend's house
in August 2008 when Camden police officers Robert Bayard and Antonio
Figueroa entered the home without a search warrant, detained Barnes,
demanded information from him that he did not have and then arrested him
for unlawful possession of a controlled substance after planting drugs
on him.
Earlier this year, Camden police
officers Kevin Michael Parry and Jason Stetser, also at the scene at the
time of Barnes' arrest, pleaded guilty to numerous federal charges,
including conspiring to deprive others of their civil rights. Parry
admitted to a federal judge in March that he and several other Camden
police officers, including Stetser, Figueroa and Bayard, planted drugs
on innocent people and threatened to arrest individuals on charges
related to that planted evidence if they refused to implicate themselves
in crimes.
"Planting evidence on innocent people
in order to send them to prison is one of the most serious forms of
police misconduct, and police who engage in such behavior must be held
accountable," said Edward Barocas, Legal Director of the ACLU of New
Jersey. "Mr. Barnes deserves to be compensated for the year of his life
now lost forever and for the trauma he suffered at the hands of these
corrupt officers."
After Figueroa and Bayard entered
Barnes' friend's house on August 2, 2008, they unlawfully detained
Barnes in a van outside the home for more than an hour despite not being
in possession of any illegal drugs or contraband. Every so often,
Figueroa would return to the van and ask Barnes, "Where's the shit at?"
Surmising that Figueroa was referring to controlled substances, Barnes
truthfully responded that he was unaware of any drugs in the house.
Figueroa then pulled out a bag
containing drugs and said, "Tell us where the shit at and we'll make
this disappear." Barnes was told that the drugs in the bag would carry
much more serious criminal charges than any drugs that might be found
and that he would receive a shorter period of incarceration if he told
police the location of any drugs potentially in the house. But because
Barnes could only truthfully say that he knew of no drugs in the house,
he was arrested for unlawful possession of a controlled substance,
unlawful possession of a controlled substance with an intent to
distribute the substance and unlawful possession of a controlled
substance within 1,000 feet of a school zone - charges that ordinarily
carry between 10 and 20 years imprisonment.
"I felt helpless and didn't know what
to do," said Barnes. "I knew I hadn't done anything wrong, but I also
knew that the officers had all of the power and I had none. It's
disturbing that the police officers who are supposed to protect the
community were the ones breaking the law, misusing their power and
abusing so many innocent people."
Barnes initially pleaded not guilty
to all of the charges against him but, fearing a jury would be far more
likely to believe the officers' testimony than his own truthful
testimony, and not wanting to risk spending his remaining youth in
prison, he ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful drug
possession within 1,000 feet of a school zone. Barnes entered the Camden
County Jail on April 17, 2009. However, after Parry and Stetser pleaded
guilty to the criminal charges against them, the conviction against
Barnes was vacated and he walked out of custody freed on June 8, 2010 -
having served one year, one month and 24 days in incarceration.
"The plight of Mr. Barnes highlights
the urgent need for far-reaching and systemic reforms in the Camden
Police Department," said Jay Rorty, Director of the ACLU Criminal Law
Reform Project. "Had there been proper supervision, Camden's police
officers would not have been able to plant drugs on Camden residents in
the first place. The public's faith in the fairness of the criminal
process rests on the integrity of police officers. Concrete steps need
to be taken immediately in order to restore the public's trust in its
police force."
A copy of the lawsuit on behalf of Mr. Barnes is available online at: www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/aclu-lawsuit-charging-camden-nj-police-planting-drugs-innocent-man
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
'A Betrayal': Ranchers Slam Trump Plan to Buy Beef From Argentina With US Tax Dollars
"After crashing the soybean market and gifting Argentina our largest export buyer, he's now poised to do the same to the cattle market," said an Illinois cattle producer.
Oct 20, 2025
US ranchers and industry groups are responding critically to President Donald Trump's proposal that the United States "would buy some beef from Argentina," in a bid to "bring our beef prices down," while pursuing an up to $40 billion bailout for the South American country.
Trump made the suggestion to reporters on Air Force One Sunday, according to the Associated Press. A few days earlier, he'd said that a deal to cut the price of beef was "gonna be coming down pretty soon." The AP noted various reasons for "stubbornly high" US prices, including drought and reduced imports from Mexico.
"President Trump's plan to buy beef from Argentina is a betrayal of the American rancher," Christian Lovell, an Illinois cattle producer and senior director of programs at the organization Farm Action, said in a Monday statement. "Those of us who raise cattle have finally started to see what profit looks like after facing years of high input costs and market manipulation by the meatpacking monopoly."
"After crashing the soybean market and gifting Argentina our largest export buyer, he's now poised to do the same to the cattle market," he continued, referring to one of the impacts of Trump's tariff war. "Importing Argentinian beef would send US cattle prices plummeting—and with the meatpacking industry as consolidated as it is, consumers may not see lower beef prices either. Washington should be focused on fixing our broken cattle market, not rewarding foreign competitors."
"Trump has done more in the past month to help Argentina than he has to help the American people."
"With these actions, President Trump risks acting more like the president of Argentina than president of the United States," Lovell declared. The US leader is a key ally of the nation's actual president, Javier Milei, whose austerity agenda has created the need for a massive bailout from Washington, DC.
Farm Action's proposed fix for the US is to tackle the "structurally flawed system" with three steps: "Reinstate Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (MCOOL) for beef and pork, restore competitive markets by enforcing antitrust laws, and rebuild the US cow herd to achieve national self-reliance in beef production."
The group was far from alone in criticizing Trump's weekend remarks and offering alternative solutions to reduce US prices.
"We appreciate President Trump's interest in addressing the US beef market, which has been producing all-time record-high consumer beef prices," said Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF USA, the nation's largest cattle association, in a statement. "We urge the president to address the fundamental problems in the beef market, not just its symptom."
"The symptom is that the US has shrunk its beef cow herd to such a low level that it can no longer produce enough beef to satisfy domestic demand," he continued. "But the fundamental problem is that decades of failed trade policies have allowed cheap, undifferentiated imports to displace the domestic cow herd, driving hundreds of thousands of cattle farmers and ranchers and millions of domestic beef cows out of the domestic beef supply chain."
"In addition, the nation's beef packers and beef retailers have been allowed to concentrate to monopolistic levels, enabling them to interfere with competitive market forces," he asserted. "Attempting to lower domestic beef prices simply by inviting even more imports will both exacerbate and accelerate the ongoing dismantling of the domestic beef supply chain."
Instead of promoting US beef production, Trump now wants to establish a preferred position for Argentine beef in the US. Why, exactly? Is this what America First means?
[image or embed]
— Scott Horton (@robertscotthorton.bsky.social) October 20, 2025 at 2:23 PM
National Cattlemen's Beef Association CEO Colin Woodall said that "NCBA's family farmers and ranchers have numerous concerns with importing more Argentinian beef to lower prices for consumers. This plan only creates chaos at a critical time of the year for American cattle producers, while doing nothing to lower grocery store prices."
"Additionally, Argentina has a deeply unbalanced trade relationship with the US," Woodall noted. "In the past five years Argentina has sold more than $801 million of beef into the US market. By comparison, the US has sold just over $7 million worth of American beef to Argentina. Argentina also has a history of foot-and-mouth disease, which, if brought to the United States, could decimate our domestic livestock production."
Justin Tupper, president of the US Cattlemen's Association, highlighted the rising costs that ranchers are enduring.
"The cost of producing beef today is accurately represented in the consumer markets where it is sold," he said. "Ranchers are facing historic highs for feed, fuel, labor, and land—and those costs have risen far faster than beef prices on grocery shelves."
"When policymakers hint at intervention or suggest quick fixes, they can shake the market's foundation and directly impact the livelihoods of ranchers who depend on stable, transparent pricing," Tupper warned in the wake of the president's recent remarks. "Sudden price moves make it harder for independent producers to plan, invest, and keep their operations running."
"Efforts to support consumers must consider the economic realities on the ground and ensure the voices of independent ranchers lead the discussion," he added. "Market-driven prices—not mandates or panic interventions—have delivered value for generations. Let's focus on transparency, market integrity, and maintaining the conditions for sustainable rural economies."
Trump's signal that the US may buy more beef from Argentina comes as poll after poll shows that Americans—whose federal minimum wage hasn't increased in over 15 years—are stressed about the climbing costs of groceries. In addition to beef, shoppers are facing higher prices for staples such as coffee and eggs.
The Democratic National Committee also called out Trump's proposal on Monday, with Kendall Witmer, the DNC's rapid response director, charging that "Trump has done more in the past month to help Argentina than he has to help the American people, who are struggling to afford everything from rent to groceries."
"Because of Trump, farmers are on the brink of bankruptcy, and the government has been shut down for almost a month," Witmer added. "You would think that the so-called 'America First' president would be focused on reopening the government and saving millions of Americans from skyrocketing healthcare premiums—but Trump is showing his true colors. He only cares about helping himself and his friends, even at the expense of the American people. Let's be clear: MAGA now stands for Make Argentina Great Again."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Historic Mistake': Brazil Opens Up Amazon to New Oil Drilling Ahead of Global Climate Summit
"For us all to have a future, the oil industry can have no future," said one campaigner.
Oct 20, 2025
As climate leaders and policymakers arrive in Belém, Brazil next month, for the global climate summit that officials have pledged will stand apart from previous conferences due to its emphasis on "implementation," the country's government-run Petrobras firm will be drilling for oil just over 200 miles away in the Amazon, after the company was granted a license Monday.
Petrobras said it plans to begin drilling immediately in a project that will last about five months at the mouth of the Amazon River—the Foz de Amazonas region.
Despite President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's reputation as an international climate leader, he has claimed that oil revenue will help fund Brazil's transition to renewable energy, but Ilan Zugman, Latin America and Caribbean director at the grassroots climate action group 350.org, said Monday that in granting the license, the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) was "doubling down on a model that has already failed."
Petrobras is planning to drill an oil well at an offshore site, Block 59, that is 310 miles from the mouth of the Amazon.
IBAMA previously denied Petrobras the license, saying the company had not provided adequate plans for how it would protect wildlife in the case of an oil spill.
"The history of oil in Brazil shows this clearly: huge profits for a few, and inequality, destruction, and violence for local populations."
In September, the agency approved a pre-operational environmental assessment and said a new "fauna simulation" would take place after the license was issued, allowed Petrobras to prove after obtaining permission for drilling that it would protect wildlife.
The Amazon region is home to about 10% of the planet's wildlife, and climate advocates have raised alarm that the river's currents would swiftly bring the damage from an oil spill straight to the habitats of many animals and plants.
Brazilian NGO the Climate Observatory said the approval of the license "sabotages" the 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30), which World Meteorological Organization Secretary-General Celeste Sauro said recently "aspires to be a turning point, a moment when the world shifts from ambition to implementation."
Last year was the first year to exceed 1.5°C above average preindustrial temperatures, and the previous 10 years have been the warmest on record. Scientists and the International Energy Agency have warned that no new oil or other fossil fuel projects have a place on a pathway to reaching net-zero global carbon emissions by 2050.
“The decision is disastrous from an environmental, climate, and sociobiodiversity perspective," said the Climate Observatory.
The group told The Guardian that civil society organizations would be taking the Brazilian government to court over the license, saying its approval was rife with "illegalities and technical flaws."
Despite IBAMA's approval, an opinion signed by 29 staff members at the agency in February said they recommended denying the license due to the risk of “massive biodiversity loss in a highly sensitive marine ecosystem."
Zugman called the decision a "historic mistake."
"The history of oil in Brazil shows this clearly: huge profits for a few, and inequality, destruction, and violence for local populations," said Zugman. "Brazil must take real climate leadership and break the cycle of extraction that has led us to the current climate crisis. We urgently need a just energy transition plan, based on renewables, that respects Indigenous, quilombola, and riverside peoples and guarantees them a leading role in decisions about climate and energy—including at COP30."
Earlier this year, Indigenous leaders representing dozens of Amazon ethnicities and tribes signed a declaration demanding that officials at COP30 "nullify oil blocks that have not had the consent of Indigenous people," "halt investment in new oil infrastructure," and create phase-out plans for oil and gas operations.
Nick Young, co-head of story and communications at Greenpeace International, called IBAMA's decision "disastrous."
"A spill here would be catastrophic and uniquely hard to contain in the Amazon plume," said Young. "And in addition to the risk of oil spills, the science clearly shows that we cannot afford to burn even existing oil reserves, let alone new ones."
"For us all to have a future, the oil industry can have no future," he added. "It makes zero sense to allow them to find new oil to throw on the fire."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump-Appointed Judges Give Him Green Light to Send Troops Into Portland
In a dissent, Judge Susan Graber accused her 9th Circuit colleagues of eroding "core constitutional principles."
Oct 20, 2025
Two federal judges are giving President Donald Trump the green light to send National Guard troops into Portland, Oregon on Monday.
The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit granted the US Department of Justice's (DOJ) request to put a hold on US District Judge Karin Immergut's earlier order blocking deployment of the National Guard to Oregon's largest city.
The two judges who ruled in the DOJ's favor were appointed by Trump, while the lone dissenter in the case, Judge Susan Graber, was appointed by former President Bill Clinton.
The court's majority ruled that the protests outside the Portland Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility were sufficiently disruptive to justify deploying the National Guard, despite the fact that demonstrations outside the facility in recent weeks had not disrupted operations.
Judge Ryan Nelson, one of the Trump appointees, went so far as to issue a concurring opinion stating that the president's right to deploy the National Guard, even over the objections of state and local officials, cannot be reviewed by the judiciary.
In a scathing dissent, Graber noted that "the record contains no evidence whatsoever that, on September 27... ICE was unable either to protect its Portland facility or to execute the immigration laws it is charged with enforcing." This is relevant, she said, because the law states that the president may only deploy the National Guard "to repel a foreign invasion, quell a rebellion, or overcome an inability to execute the laws."
Graber then accused her colleagues of eroding "core constitutional principles, including sovereign states’ control over their states’ militias and the people’s First Amendment rights to assemble and to object to the government’s policies and actions."
Graber's argument echoed a ruling made earlier this month by Immergut, who was also appointed to the bench by Trump and who said his declarations that violent protests at the Portland ICE facility prevented the enforcement of the law were "untethered to facts."
Sandy Chung, executive director of the ACLU of Oregon, said in a statement responding to the ruling that "we are very disappointed that the majority on this 9th Circuit panel were unable to see through President Trump's political theater, divisive rhetoric, and extreme abuse of power and misuse of our military."
"The fact remains that Portland is peaceful," Chung added. "Portland protesters have shown a remarkable level of humor, creativity, and community care in the face of this administration's persistent and violent abuses of power. Inflatable frog and unicorn costumes, bike rides, and musical events are hardly a threat or reason to take the extremely dangerous and anti-democratic action of sending American troops into our communities."
In addition to Portland, Trump is also seeking to send National Guard troops to Chicago over the objections of both Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker. The administration has appealed that case to the US Supreme Court.
This article has been updated with comment from the ACLU.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular