The ACLU of Northern California and the National Lawyers’ Guild filed a lawsuit Monday in federal court against the Oakland Police Department for what they are calling “its egregious constitutional violations against Occupy Oakland demonstrators.”
The lawsuit asks for an emergency temporary restraining order to stop police violence against political protesters. The restraining order is urgent because another police encounter with demonstrators is imminent, after the removal of the Occupy Oakland camp early this morning.
Judge Seeborg issued an order on Monday requiring an immediate response. In the meantime, according to a press release, “If OPD [Oakland Police Department] uses excessive force against protesters again, it will need to justify its actions to the court.”
The suit has been filed on behalf of Timothy Scott Campbell, a videographer who was shot with a bean bag projectile while filming police presence during Occupy Oakland on the night of November 2-3, 2011, and on behalf of other demonstrators subjected to excessive force during recent demonstrations.
“I was filming police activity at Occupy Oakland because police should be accountable,” said Mr. Campbell. “Now I’m worried about my safety from police violence and about retaliation because I’ve been outspoken.”
“Excessive police force is never acceptable, especially when it’s in response to political protest,” said Linda Lye, staff attorney at the ACLU of Northern California.
“OPD’s unconstitutional actions against protestors on those two nights were wholesale and flagrant violations of Oakland’s own Crowd Control Policy,” said Rachel Lederman, an NLG attorney.
The suit alleges that the protesters “have peacefully demonstrated during protests associated with the ‘Occupy Oakland’ movement and they hope to continue to exercise their First Amendment rights by continuing to demonstrate in Oakland.”
However, they are concerned for their safety at future protests, due to excessive force by Oakland Police Department personnel. “This force includes the indiscriminate use of explosive devices, lead-shot-filled projectiles fired from shotguns, nightsticks, and rubber-encased bullets. At least two demonstrators have suffered extremely serious injuries during these demonstrations: one a fractured skull, the other a ruptured spleen.”
“As a result of this violence,” the suit contends, “Plaintiffs fear that if they engage in peaceful expressive activity during future demonstrations they will be seriously injured, in violation of their First Amendment rights to assemble and protest and their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free from excessive force.”
The suit further alleges that Mr. Campbell “now worries about his personal safety and fears being physically harmed at a future Occupy Oakland event because he has seen how the Oakland Police Department heads up enforcement actions against Occupy Oakland and how protesters are treated by law enforcement. His experiences with this cause him significant mental stress – including loss of sleep, digestive problems, and an overall sense of anxiety –when thinking about upcoming protests.”
Other plaintiffs allege being hit by “less-lethal munitions by law enforcement,” hit by a projectile and a flash-bang grenade, and other events that curtail their freedom and willingness to participate in future Occupy events because of fears for their personal safety.
On two recent occasions, the suit alleges, October 25, 2011 and November 2, 2011, OPD and cooperating police agencies under their direction attacked the plaintiffs and other Occupy Oakland supporters who were peacefully participating in political demonstration.
Police indiscriminately shot flash-bang grenades, other projectiles and excessive amounts of tear gas into crowds of peaceful protesters.
Police also fired other projectiles at individuals who posed no risk of harm, but were clearly engaged in First Amendment protected activity, such as filming police at a demonstration.
The ACLU and the NLG believe this conduct violates the Fourth Amendment by subjecting protesters who posed no safety concerns to unnecessary and excessive force and violates the First Amendment by interfering with their rights to assemble and demonstrate.
The lawsuit asks for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction because OPD has shown by its recent actions that it will continue to violate protesters’ constitutional rights unless a court intervenes.
The plaintiffs also allege, “OPD’s recent conduct violates its own Crowd Control Policy, adopted in the settlement of a lawsuit arising from OPD’s prior mishandling of a large protest in 2003. The policy strictly limits the use of force and prohibits the indiscriminate use of shot-filled ‘bean’ bags and other projectiles against crowds or peaceful protesters.”
The ACLU previously argued that the raid by the Oakland Police Department raised serious questions about whether it violated its own policy on dealing with demonstrations.
According to them, the policy requires the Department to use “the minimal police intervention needed to address a crowd management or control issue.” But they argue that video footage shows protesters who sustained serious injuries and these injuries “do not appear to be isolated.”
Furthermore, the policy requires the Department to use “the minimum amount of chemical agent necessary to obtain compliance.” But the quantity of tear gas that must have been used to generate the cloud-filled scene did not appear “minimum” at all.
Finally, they argue, “The Policy prohibits the Department from firing bean bags or other “Direct Fired Specialty Impact Less-Lethal Munitions,” such as rubber bullets, “indiscriminately against a crowd or group of persons even if some members of the crowd or group are violent or disruptive.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The nation is tiring of the Occupy movement. They are getting booted from Wall Street and many other locals as of this week. It’s time to remove the mess from our own park in Davis.
[quote]On two recent occasions, the suit alleges, October 25, 2011 and November 2, 2011, OPD and cooperating police agencies under their direction attacked the plaintiffs and other Occupy Oakland supporters who were peacefully participating in political demonstration.[/quote]
Peacefully participating?
From [url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056887/Occupy-Oakland-general-strike-Cops-use-tear-gas-protests-turns-violent.html[/url]:
[quote]Occupy Oakland protesters claimed victory after they shut down one of the nation’s busiest shipping ports – escalating a movement whose tactics had largely been limited to marches, rallies and camps.
In a five-hour stand-off protesters vandalised businesses and smashed bank windows, as they tried to shut down the city – and police appeared to respond using tear gas and flash bang grenades.
The California demonstrators blocked operations at the city’s port and stopped traffic on Wednesday in protests against economic inequality and police brutality, marred by scattered vandalism.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056887/Occupy-Oakland-general-strike-Cops-use-tear-gas-protests-turns-violent.html#ixzz1dnCbt7DF%5B/quote%5D
Furthermore, across the nation, the Occupy Wall Street protests have turned violent – there have been shootings, a suicide, rapes, thefts, drugs, health violations, and takeovers of public parks. Whatever “moral high ground” the protestors had is now gone…
I just have one comment: I wonder how the ACLU would feel if the Tea Party occupied their offices and shut them down? Likewise for the Vanguard.
Excellent point 91 Octane… what is good for the goose is good for the gander…
Responsible citizens should oppose police brutality. At the same time, there are many street people mixed in with the demonstrators, and they have pelted the police with bottles and trash. Some of the Occupy gang have objected to the Occupy Oakland/Cal.tactics (ie, “anarchist” tactics). It’s not unreasonable to expect the police to…be a bit aggressive towards humans who have been throwing trash, fighting them, urinating in public, getting stoned, etc. So little sympathy for the O-town “anarchists” (and the unions have mostly pulled out).
And as usual, turmoil provides the pseudo-radicals an opportunity to rant and rave and try to prove their “leftist” credentials, as with Davis’ own “Byronius” of the Bay area leftist blog “New Worlds.” [url]http://new-worlds.org/blog/?p=12782[/url]. B.’s now getting his phony Abbie Hoffman schtick on (or maybe getting ready to sell some Occupy tees). As the old slogan went, the first “hippie” to shout “off the pigs!” usually worked for them as a narc. Same scenario with Byro–sunday schooler, businessperson, white supremacist.
Elaine – you and Octane are missing the point. First of all, the ACLU has been pretty consistent on the right to free speech. But this suit is about police tactics not even the issue of free speech.
[quote]But this suit is about police tactics not even the issue of free speech.[/quote]
Violence begets violence. If the demonstrators resort of violence, you can hardly fault the police for fighting back. Secondly, if the Tea Party were occupying parks, I wonder how sympathetic the left would be? How sympathetic would the Vanguard be if the Tea Party shut your “office” down?
Hey, when will we get our own Central Park back here in Davis? The “Occupy Davis” bums have the right of free speech — too bad they don’t use their breath to get a job! — but NOT the right to camp in a public place and turn it into a shanty down.
Of course the City Council hasn’t got the guts to get rid of this crowd.
[i]”It’s time to remove the mess from our own park in Davis.”[/i]
It has been 5.5 weeks since these vagrants took over Central Park. I felt for the first 3 to 4 weeks that they should be ignored, under the premise that they have no higher ambition than to have others pay attention to them. But enough is enough. I now agree with Rusty. It is time to enforce the laws of Davis which prohibit camping in any city parks.
The Occupiers, if their tents and sleeping bags and other camping gear were removed, would still have the right to assemble and protest in public. But they have killed off the grass in a large section of the original Central Park; and they have been breaking the law in doing so.
It is not their park. It is our park. It doesn’t matter if the bulk of them are homeowners or homeless transients. They don’t have the right to Occupy public property. They don’t have the right to treat our park as their private tent city.
I hope that Chief Black and perhaps other area law enforcement agencies are devising a plan right now on how to remove that encampment from Central Park. It’s a risk challenging a large group with law enforcement. There is always a chance things will get out of control and turn violent. But the Davis PD needs to take that chance soon.
I would not be unhappy if the cops retook the park in an overnight operation, tonight or tomorrow night. I will be disappointed if the tents are still there on Saturday morning for the next Farmer’s Market.
Since the firefighters are usually not doing much, maybe they could serve as back-up to the cops. A little water fired at the Occupiers from fire hoses might make the Occupiers less likely to be uncooperative when they are hauled off to jail.