71 teachers and other protesters were arrested May 9 after about 200 of them gathered in the rotunda of the Capitol around 5 pm. The CHP told them the building was closed around 6:15 or so and began arrests a few minutes later.
They were protesting budget cuts to education, and well as to social services, and most in the crowd were urging higher taxes on the very wealthy in the state, and an oil extraction tax.
A group of perhaps a dozen or two dozen protesters gathered outside of the Sacramento Superior Court building on Wednesday morning, to be ahead of a hearing, but a new hearing was scheduled for June 22, 2011.
They carried signs like “Tax Rich.” CT Webber, one of those who would have their hearing on Wednesday morning, told the Vanguard, “Over the last fifty years, taxes on the rich eroded to the point where now they only pay about $10 million out of an $89 billion budget in California.”
“They all got re-scheduled,” Larry Pilgrim one of the attorneys volunteering their time to help the protesters told the Vanguard by phone late Wednesday afternoon. “The reason they got re-scheduled is because the District Attorney is still looking at the information they have and deciding whether or not to file charges.”
The indication is that the District Attorney’s office may be reviewing and investigating the cases rather than simply rubber stamping the police report.
Mr. Pilgrim indicated that while the information that he has is from the protesters themselves, from his perspective it does not appear that they committed a crime.
There is considerable question about the amount of resources the DA would have to spend on pursuing charges against 71 individuals accused of basically voicing their opinions in the state legislature, the people’s house, trying to talk to their representatives.
“They were just expressing their concerns about the budget cuts,” Mr. Pilgrim said. “I’m hopeful they don’t [file charges] and I don’t have all the information yet.”
Most of them are teachers, students and professors with no criminal records.
“We really just hope for everyone’s sake that it just goes away,” he said as he declined to get into specifics about what had occurred that led to an arrest. “I just hope they review their information and decide to let it go.”
The Vanguard spoke to two individuals facing criminal charges in this matter.
CT Webber, one of the protesters, told the Vanguard he was surprised that they were prosecuting this. They had been told that they were just going to be cited and released, prior to the event.
However, when the protest occurred the orders changed. “Word came down from up high, wherever that is, and told them to book them, take them down to the jail and book them over there.”
He added that this is a message that the authorities were trying to send. “I think it’s trying to stifle dissent in California the same way they are stifling dissent around the world.”
He noted that while authorities like to stifle dissent, it is very counterproductive.
Xan Choi from Code Pink, who will be in the group with a hearing on Thursday, said that she’s outraged by the arrests and possible prosecutions in this matter.
“I am so hurt and so disappointed in our Democratic Governor and Democratic legislature who controls the California Highway Patrol,” Ms. Choi told the Vanguard outside of the courthouse Wednesday. She indicated that they were not just arrested by the highway patrol but re-arrested by the city. “We have actually been double-booked. That has never ever happened before,” she added.
“They were really afraid of what was going to happen that week in Sacramento, they were really trying to squelch democracy,” she added.
They called for a strike, no business as usual. She added that less than one percent of the people in this country control most of the resources. “For the past thirty years there has been an attack on the people in this country,” she added.
There has never been real equality in this country, but she said, “Now everyone is feeling it except for the people at the very top.”
This relates to all cuts, she said. “This legislature would rather cut money from the most vulnerable than to say we’re going to tax the rich.”
According to Cres Velluci from the Sacramento ACLU, “Instead of citing and releasing the group of 71, as they told me as the legal observer from the ACLU, I soon discovered they were ‘secreting’ them to the CHP office.”
He also confirmed that the protesters had been double-booked by both the CHP and the Sacramento Police Department. He called this, “unheard of.”
He added that they were held by police in plastic cuffs for up to 6 hours, and then they transported them to the county jail to be booked.
One professor, Mr. Velluci, said he was arrested around 6:15 pm on May 9 and was not released until 11:15 am the next morning. He told the Vanguard, “You could say they were just slow and incompetent but that only goes so far.”
He felt that after talking to the police, that the general sense was that a Wisconsin-type event was not going to happen here in California.
“There’s no reason for that, other than someone wanted to show the demonstrators this is not Wisconsin and the public cannot protest or occupy its own building,” Mr. Velluci told the Vanguard. “Hell, it’s not even Egypt where people peacefully demonstrated.”
He added that usually the CHP just cites and releases when it is more than ten people in a protest.
“It’s wrong that teachers and students were arrested for protesting at the state capitol, when the real criminals are those who waste our tax dollars on war and unneeded prisons,” Mr. Velluci told the Vanguard on Wednesday.
“Times are tough, the economy stinks, and these proposals that they were protesting were going to affect them economically drastically,” Attorney Larry Pilgrim said. “I don’t blame them for being upset and for protesting. It’s what America’s all about – their right to protest and be heard and express their concerns about something that affects them that much.”
“I think it is unfortunate that it turned into something where they are all facing criminal charges possibly,” Mr. Pilgrim stated.
While attorneys indicated that they hoped this went away, several told the Vanguard they questioned whether the charges could stand, which require that people not only trespass on public property after business hours but that they not have any lawful business.
As one attorney told us, it would be an interesting point to litigate whether a protest of government policies in the people’s legislature would constitute lawful business.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Jan Scully is known by the legal community in Sacramento to be petty and personal . My first thought is that she’s settling a grudge of some kind .
While I don’t dispute that, the information I got is that the culprit here is not Scully but the police and their reports.
From what I read (can’t remember which source I got this from), the protestors were trespassing, asked to leave, and refused. I think we need a few more facts here…to know if the protestors were trespassing, disrupting the business of gov’t, etc.
It drives me crazy elaine that you make these statements, you are a lawyer and yet you never read the penal code before you make them.
1. It is a public building
2. That means you cannot trespass during normal working hours
3. Apparently according to the PC, you can even remain after business if you have a lawful business
4. There was no disruption of government business because the leg was not in session
5. Is the exercise of one’s first amendment rights a lawful business
No.5 is a key and becomes a gray area.
But there is more. There is the practical matter of trying to process 71 misdemeanor complaints, provide them with public defenders and mainly conflict council, and then try them. That is why for the most part, protesters are cited and released rather than taken into custody. And they are not generally charged.
If they were pro-life activists protesting outside an abortion clinic and failed to disperse, would you feel the same?
[quote]It drives me crazy elaine that you make these statements, you are a lawyer and yet you never read the penal code before you make them. [/quote]
It drives me crazy david that you make these statements, you are a journalist and yet you never make sure to get all your facts before drawing a conclusion. See below. I rest my case 🙂
From what I read, the protestors were disruptive – and the last time I looked at the law, one is not allowed to disturb the peace! I wish I could remember where I read the darn article, but unfortunately I read so many news sources, sometimes I lose track of where I got the information… so here are some articles to ponder…
From thenation.com:
“Though the protest was overwhelmingly peaceful, law enforcement officials arrested about 65 protesters after warning them to leave the Capitol rotunda after the building closed at 6 p.m. The activists were charged with misdemeanor trespassing.”
From rt.com:
“The arrests were made after protesters refused to follow the orders of police officers which insisted they leave the capital building as it was closing.
“We’re not just here to lobby. We’re here to raise some hell,” Betty Olson-Jones, president of the Oakland Education Association told The Raw Story.”
From huffingtonpost:
“Thursday’s arrests were the second this week. About 65 protesters, many of them students, were arrested Monday night after staging a sit-in at the Capitol after hours. All were being charged with misdemeanor trespassing on state property.”
From substancenews.net:
“SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The California Highway Patrol said it arrested 65 people, many teachers, for refusing to leave the Capitol Monday when it closed at 6 p.m. Those arrested were booked in Sacramento County Jail on charges of trespassing. Some were also charged with resisting arrest.”
To dmg: Are you suggesting that the workers in the State Capitol building must stay and be paid overtime to monitor the situation, for so long as the protestors decide to stage a “sit-in”? State workers cannot be expected to leave the protestors in the building unattended, to do who knows what damage nor for their own safety. Because that is what you are arguing for… people should somehow be able to occupy a state building in protest after hours for as long as they want – that they have the right to “conduct business” for as long as they want however they want? Come on, do you really believe that is appropriate in anyone’s playbook? Gray area my foot!
Very interesting that you are citing those news reports because there are actually several errors in them – I assume they all come from the same source. First, they had the number of arrested wrong. It was 71 not 65. Second, they were not and have not been charged with anything.
So I’m not sure what you were attempting to prove there but those reports are inaccurate.
Second, the state workers are not required to stay because people stage a sit-in. I’m not sure that state workers get overtime anyway because they often stay over night and I don’t think they get paid extra for it.
The police are required to stay there just as they would for a protest that occurred outside of the building.
The legal issue could play out of course, but I suspect charges will not be filed in this case.
“If they were pro-life activists protesting outside an abortion clinic and failed to disperse, would you feel the same?”
As long as they are not blocking egress and regress, I support all protests and the right to them.
[quote]Very interesting that you are citing those news reports because there are actually several errors in them – I assume they all come from the same source. First, they had the number of arrested wrong. It was 71 not 65. Second, they were not and have not been charged with anything.
So I’m not sure what you were attempting to prove there but those reports are inaccurate. [/quote]
Huh? YOUR HEADLINE READS “…Protestors ARRESTED…”. The four separate and distinct news sources I cited said the same thing – “arrested”. What am I missing here?
The bottom line is that each stated these people were arrested for occupying a building after it was officially closed at 6 pm, and one said the protestors resisted arrest.
[quote]Second, the state workers are not required to stay because people stage a sit-in. I’m not sure that state workers get overtime anyway because they often stay over night and I don’t think they get paid extra for it. [/quote]
There is no way that protestors would be allowed to occupy a building after hours w/o supervision, for the obvious reasons…
You are missing that the number arrested was reported incorrectly and it was incorrectly reported that they were charged, they have not been charged yet.
“There is no way that protestors would be allowed to occupy a building after hours w/o supervision, for the obvious reasons… “
That is correct, they would be “supervised” by the CHP who have law enforcement jurisdiction in the building. If they were outside the building protesting at the same time, they would be “supervised” by the CHP who have law enforcement jurisdiction on the grounds. Either way, there would be no additional money spent.
[quote]As long as they are not blocking egress and regress, I support all protests and the right to them.[/quote]
Okay, let’s take this to its logical conclusion. Suppose the teachers decided to stage a “sit-in” at the Capitol – unless and until they get the results they want – pitching tents in the hallways for months if necessary, leaving a path for ingress and egress of course? Who’s going to police them? Who is going to keep them from disrupting business? Who is going to clean up after them, including the bathrooms? Examples of this have occurred in Washington, D.C. where I used to live, w disastrous results. The mess that was left was horrendous, and extremely expensive to clean up. THe bottom line is this should never be allowed to get started, and rightly so. Peaceful protesting within bounds is fine – illegally occupying buildings after hours is not. These teachers should consider themselves lucky if they are not charged…
Logical conclusion? You’ve just added elements to what has happened. The second they start putting up tents, they are no longer conduct normal business.
These officers did not make a decision on the spot to arrest and book these teachers rather than cite and release them. Someone made a command decision to arrest and book them. This is a teach them a lesson exercise of law enforcement authority. I kind of doubt charges will be filed, but the message has been fired. Would you do it again if you had spend 12 hours in the Sac County Jail? I promise you would not.
[quote]These officers did not make a decision on the spot to arrest and book these teachers rather than cite and release them. Someone made a command decision to arrest and book them. This is a teach them a lesson exercise of law enforcement authority. I kind of doubt charges will be filed, but the message has been fired. Would you do it again if you had spend 12 hours in the Sac County Jail? I promise you would not.[/quote]
I think this is spot on – and for good reason. If this kind of protest is allowed to get out of hand, it becomes very costly… in more ways than one.
DMG and Musser: you both drive me crazy. kathryn is correct that this is not a police decision; it is a political decision which brings in the county DA, an elected position. Civil disobedience is politics. If you’ve ever been in court on civil disobedience charges you understand that very clearly.
Of course, community members, teachers, etc. CAN be left in a building unattended. That is what happened in Wisconsin and there was no damage done. The people sitting in cleaned up after themselves quite well, thank you. The only people who didn’t like it were the Governor and his close allies in the Legislature. Upcoming recall elections in Wisconsin will put the demonstrators’ actions to a vote.
Non-violent civil disobedience by the southern freedom riders definitely and expressly broke the law and irritated the dominant political class of white southerners. Worse yet, the police, local DAs and courts stood by and protected those who openly broke more serious laws of assault, battery, even murder. Don’t tell me enforcement and application of the law is anything but political.
People who engage in civil disobedience have to weigh, for themselves, if the consequences of civil disobedience outweigh the harm from being silent or protesting or organizing in some alternate way. Taxpayers, voters, citizens, decide every day who is right regardless of what the DA, the police or the courts decide. When enough people are fed up, they elect different people, and insist on different laws. The law isn’t a fixed, immutable code. It is sometimes made in the Legislature, and sometimes it is made in the street or in the halls of the Capitol AFTER HOURS.
I vote to dismiss the charges, but some people are more interested in good and complacent behavior where boats aren’t rocked. Am I in the minority? Maybe so, but I disagree with kathryn that people who are committed to a position or cause are that easily intimidated by the Authorities.
With the exception of anti-abortionists (you can argue about their non-violence) who are interested in curtailing peoples’ rights, history shows most non-violent civil disobeyers are heroes, truly courageous and the most reliably true patriots.
I am very much with davehart on this one.
Whether one sees peaceful protest as a threat, or as an act of justified civil disobedience, seems to depend more on political ideology than anything else. It also seem to me that it is dependent on timing. The question I pose to those of you who criticize today’s protesters, is how do you view the original tea party participants ? Were they freedom loving heroes, or were they a bunch of criminals intent on the disruption of legitimate business ? What about the individuals who were filmed destroying the Berlin wall ? Or, the participants in the protests at Tiienanmen Square or those at Tahrir Square ?