San Francisco Protester to Face Felony Charges for ‘Drop Elbit’ Graffiti

• Protester faces felony vandalism charges for defacing Wells Fargo building.
• Judge denies defense arguments that act was political protest, not malicious.

SAN FRANCISCO — A San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled Tuesday that a protester accused of spray painting “Drop Elbit” on a Wells Fargo building will face felony vandalism charges, despite defense arguments that the act was a political protest and should not be treated as malicious.

The case stems from an incident in the early morning hours of August 18, when San Francisco police responded to a call at Wells Fargo’s building at Three Market Street. Officers testified during the preliminary hearing that they arrived after 3 a.m. and found the accused with graffiti tools, spray cans and a glass breaker. They said he was caught “right handed” (officer’s words) in the act of defacing the building.

One officer testified that the suspect’s pants and hands were stained with maroonish-red paint, and that a stencil had been found nearby. The graffiti, which included the words “Drop Elbit,” was sprayed across glass windows, building pillars and ATMs. Officer Katz, who has nine years with the San Francisco Police Department, testified that in total 24 windows, four pillars and two ATMs had been marked.

The building’s security guard also testified, telling the court that he had repeatedly asked the protester to stop but never left the building to confront him directly. Instead, the guard called 911 while observing the man spray paint the glass windows and attempt to open a door and break the glass. The officer said the guard told him that the protester ignored the requests to stop.

An assistant to the building manager testified that the damage amounted to more than $15,000. According to their breakdown, costs included $1,000 per window, $5,200 for power washing and another $10,700 for repairs.

Deputy Public Defender Naira Der Kiureghian, representing the accused, pressed officers during cross-examination on whether her client could have heard the guard’s requests to stop since the security guard never left the building. She also highlighted that the accused was cooperative when detained, although the length of his detention was unclear.

Kiureghian emphasized the political context of the protest. She told the court that Elbit Systems, the arms manufacturer referenced in the graffiti, is an Israeli company linked to the production of military technology, and that Wells Fargo is a multibillion-dollar business connected to the defense industry. 

She sought to introduce two reports — one from the United Nations alleging genocide in Gaza and another from Amnesty International addressing the global political economy enabling occupation and apartheid — as judicial notice to contextualize the protest. 

The DA objected, and the judge declined to admit the reports, citing “reasonable dispute over meaning” and ruling that judicial notice was not appropriate.

Kiureghian argued that the mental state requirement for felony vandalism had not been proven. 

“I think the court needs to look at the context about why (my client)  took these actions and if his objective was to make an action that might stop someone from supporting indiscriminate violence towards civilians, I think that might cause a judicial officer to look at the fact … that they … differently, does this individual, can we say even to the strong suspicion, probable cause standard that he was acting maliciously into facing these things? I would say not, your Honor,” she said.

She also questioned the calculation of damages, noting that estimates were based on replacement costs rather than fair market value. 

“We had no testimony in any case that the ATMs ceased functioning after there was paint applied to their exterior,” she told the court. “We have no information about whether there was less expensive means to clean the columns to repaint them or to clean the ATMs. But nonetheless, I don’t think the labor and those things count towards the fair market value estimate.”

Kiureghian filed a Penal Code §17(b) motion asking the court to reduce the felony vandalism charge to a misdemeanor. She noted that her client has no prior criminal history beyond another misdemeanor protest case filed around the same time.

“He is college educated, he is employed, he’s attended now. This is his third setting of his preliminary hearing. He’s always been punctual to this every single time. We have numerous letters talking about how he does volunteer work in the community. He is by no means someone of great means, nonetheless. He takes time and he gives his own funds to buy supplies for people in need and he helps them out. He’s regarded as an upstanding community member and there are many people who speak highly of his integrity,” she said.

In closing arguments, Kiureghian asked the court to consider whether a felony was appropriate given her client’s background and the political context. 

“Does this man… need to be parked with a felony given the ongoing genocide in Gaza, even if you don’t consider it a genocide, but he is motivated by a tragedy? A multi-billion dollar corporation had to clean and power wash an exterior of a building that you dunno if they own and then they had to replace some ATMs according to them. I guess my position is can Mr. Linean be adequately punished for this case by being charged with two misdemeanors where in that situation he would be facing a maximum exposure of two years county jail? Is that enough to punish him? Is two years in county jail enough to punish him for spray painting a corporation building as a peace activist? And I would submit that two years would be a sufficient punishment for him to be facing,” she argued.

The deputy district attorney opposed the motion, arguing that the evidence showed preplanning and significant damage. The DA pointed to the stencil and spray cans as indicators of intent. 

“Defendant is 26 years old. Defendant is college educated as this is brought up. In short, he knows better,” the prosecutor told the court. “The extent of damage as the court can see it on the photographs is very extensive. There was an effort according to the testimony of the officers that the defendant also attempted to use a punch tool on the windows. This indicates a level of pre-planning, not something that is perhaps mitigated by spontaneity.”

The DA argued that motive does not excuse the act, stating, “Whether we could speculate about the defendant’s motive, I don’t think in any way reduces the severity of this motive. Typically, it further supports these kinds of charges and further supports that when the defendant acted, he acted maliciously with the intent for the purposes of what he believed perhaps was political action. But where would we draw the line if that were the standard? Not all acts are used just because someone had a particular motive.”

In her ruling, the judge found sufficient evidence to hold the protester to answer on felony charges.

“It does appear to me in the evidence presented at a preliminary hearing that the offense is charged in the complaint. The violation of Penal Code section 594(b)(1),” the judge said. “With respect to the 17(b) motion to reduce that charge to a misdemeanor, I’m going to deny that motion. They show extensive damage via graffiti to multiple parts of a building. The fact that there was an effort to also break a window, which I do believe the evidence more than support, only adds to the question of maliciousness.”

The judge continued, “The defendant should know better. He’s a college educated young man. His good intention or his belief that he was serving the greater good does not change the fact that he committed substantial — and when I say substantial, I mean no less than $15,000 worth — according to the evidence that was presented of damage to these buildings.”

The court ordered the protester held to answer for felony vandalism and certified the misdemeanor count for trial. He is scheduled to return for arraignment and plea.

Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook.  Subscribe the Vanguard News letters.  To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue.  Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.

Categories:

Tags: