Philly woman settles with Cherry Hill police over toilet taping incident

A Philadelphia woman who sued Cherry Hill police for videotaping her as she used a toilet in a holding cell, allegedly without her knowledge, has agreed to settle her claim if authorities make it clear that surveillance cameras are in use in such circumstances.

The settlement reached late last month has yet to be approved by a federal judge, but both sides have signed the agreement and claim victory, albeit for different reasons.

The 42-year-old woman, identified in court documents as Gretchen W., sued in March, alleging that she did not know police twice taped her using a toilet in the cell while she was processed for her arrest on drunken-driving charges in March 2009.

Police maintained that the camera was visible and said they followed state guidelines that permit the use of surveillance, partly to protect the safety and rights of those in custody.

Departments in the state have differing policies on whether those arrested are taped using toilets in holding cells.

The Philadelphia woman was surprised to see the images that arrived in the mail as part of a discovery package requested by her attorney. She subsequently pleaded guilty to refusing to take a breath test after police pulled her over on Route 70.

The woman hired another lawyer, Joseph Osefchen of Haddonfield, who filed the federal lawsuit, alleging that police violated her rights to privacy.

Under the settlement agreement, Cherry Hill police must post signs in the area of the toilet and at various locations in the police station to make known the presence of surveillance cameras.

"That's pretty much what we wanted and that's pretty much what we got," Osefchen said. "I think it's a win for the people who live there."

The township agreed to pay $31,000 in attorney fees, and the court may award up to $7,000 to the woman to cover additional expenses. Legal fees would have been significantly higher had the case gone to trial.

"We saved them a ton of money, and in that regard it's a win," said the township's attorney, John Gillespie of Marlton. "Rather than spend unnecessary money defending this, we said we'll put a sign up."

Gillespie said the department was within its rights to use surveillance. The taping equipment is supposed to place a black bar over the genital area to protect privacy, but the bar does not always appear where it should. Under the settlement agreement, the township agreed to increase the size of the black bar.

Osefchen said he understood why cameras are used, such as to prevent suicides. But he said those taken into custody for minor offenses should not lose their civil rights.

"At the very least, they ought to know they're being filmed," he said.