www.aclu.orgJOIN THE ACLUTAKE ACTIONDONATEABOUT US
ACLU Blog of Rights - Official Blog of the ACLU National Office Blog of Rights Homepage Support the ACLU

Join Us At:

Sep 5th, 2008 Google Bookmarks Technorati StumbleUpon Digg! Reddit Delicious Facebook
Posted by Teresa Nelson, ACLU of Minnesota at 10:00am

At Arraignment Court in St. Paul

With close to 300 protestors arrested so far during the Republican National Convention, the ACLU of Minnesota volunteer attorneys have had their work cut out for them representing people at their arraignments (where arrestees plead "guilty" or "not guilty" to the charges against them). For two days, attorneys from the Public Defender’s office, volunteers with the ACLU of Minnesota and attorneys from the Minnesota Chapter of the National Lawyer’s Guild have been on hand to make sure that every arrestee has the benefit of an attorney for their arraignment.

The overall atmosphere at the Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center is almost surreal. The building’s normal security has been amped up to the point that the entire facility is surrounded by 8- or 9-foot-high chain-link fencing. The perimeter is patrolled by the National Guard, (I'm guessing, I didn't ask), and you have to pass through a security checkpoint to get within the fenced-in perimeter. Attorneys with their driver’s license and attorney license are allowed to enter with their briefcase but no cell phone. Everybody else must present their ID and they are not allowed to have any bags or other property. Once inside the perimeter, you walk down a fenced corridor to the main doors where you are greeted with another checkpoint where you again show your IDs and have your bag and shoes run through an X-ray machine. As I walked the fenced corridor for the first time, I though how ironic it was that this center routinely houses people who are accused of murder and other horrible violent crimes, all without these massive security precautions.

And what about all those arrests? The numbers so far show that as of Thursday afternoon, about 300 people have been arrested in St. Paul and about 100 in Minneapolis. All but a handful of the Minneapolis arrestees were cited and released immediately.

St. Paul is a different story. Some people were cited with misdemeanors, processed and released within a few hours; but the vast majority of people were charged with "gross misdemeanors" or felonies. They were held up until their 36 hours expired. (Minnesota law requires individuals in custody to be charged and brought before a judge or released after 36 hours, not including the day of arrest, weekends and holidays.)

Wednesday was a big day in arraignment court because, for most of the arrestees, their 36 hours was up at noon. According to the Star Tribune, 71 people were arrested on felony charges. Twenty-seven of them were dismissed outright. We have been told that all but around 25 of the rest have already been reduced to lesser charges. Our volunteer attorneys were surprised by the high bail amounts they saw on Tuesday, and Wednesday was more of the same.

On Tuesday one of our attorneys told the judge for the record that in his 30 years of practicing criminal law, he has never seen $2,000 bail for charges of disorderly conduct. By Wednesday evening when the calendar turned to the last 50 or so misdemeanor arraignments, bail amounts were down in the $200 to $500 range for out-of-state defendants and no bail for in-state residents. Our attorneys heard stories from many people, including journalists, who reported being swept up by police without regard to their actions. One person reported that he worked for a security company and he was on his way to report to his assignment — at the convention — when police arrested him along with others. Complicating matters for those who have been released is the seizure and holding of their property. We have been getting calls all day from people who are in a jam because their car keys, backpacks, purses, wallets, credit cards, IDs and cell phones were taken by police. They are not able to drive their vehicles home because they don’t have their keys and they can’t get a place to stay without access to their money.

Outside the Law Enforcement Center on Wednesday evening, the atmosphere was a mix of joy and apprehension. Family members and friends came to await the release of their loved ones and friends. Clusters of people gathered on the sidewalks and boulevards to reunite with people being released. A guitarist played mellow music to one small group of people and the assembled group was peaceful. Across the street, a group of police on horseback watched the sidewalk in anticipation. Another group of police in riot gear was assembled nearby the mounted patrol. On the other side, at least one more group of police in riot gear also kept a watchful eye on the peaceful crowd. By the time I left the LEC when court was winding down, all but one group of police in riot gear had left the area.

The ACLU of Minnesota will continue to provide attorneys for the arraignments of people taken into custody in RNC-related arrests and we will be reviewing police actions and arrests for possible civil rights litigation to vindicate the constitutional rights of protestors and journalists.

Jul 17th, 2008 Google Bookmarks Technorati StumbleUpon Digg! Reddit Delicious Facebook
Posted by Teresa Nelson, ACLU of Minnesota at 2:17pm

Marching Toward the Republican National Convention

After months of negotiations and legal wrangling, Federal District Judge Joan Ericksen issued a disappointing decision in the suit between the City of St. Paul and the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War. At issue was the Coalition's request for a preliminary injunction regarding the proposed march route, time and duration. The ACLU-MN and the National Lawyers Guild argued the City's proposal, dubbed a "recipe for disaster" by the City's own police union head, violated the Coalition's First Amendment rights. Despite a traffic engineer's analysis that concluded that the City's proposal could accommodate, at best, 28,000 of the expected 50,000 plus crowd, the Court accepted the City's broad, generalized security concerns at face value and refused to order any changes to their proposal.

In this day and age, we all understand that security is a significant concern surrounding events such as a national political nominating convention. But the Constitution requires government restrictions on speech to be narrowly tailored to serve those interests. Judge Ericksen seemed to understand that when she opined that

[s]ecurity measures that were used - and upheld - for one large gathering do not thereby become the baseline for all future large gatherings. Were it otherwise, a sort of 'security creep' would come, by increments, to overwhelm the First Amendment.

Unfortunately, the Judge failed to heed her own warning and went on to cite speech restrictions in place at past political conventions to justify her acceptance of the City's proposal. There was little or no analysis as to whether the restrictions were actually calculated to meet risks or, as we argued, the City had given logistical issues such as parking for busses precedence over protections for free speech. Had the City done its logistical planning around the requested march route, they could have accommodated both.

The most disappointing part of the court's decision was the complete failure to ensure that the City's proposed march route will be safe for the marchers. While the Court seemed to be concerned that the City-imposed march duration would not accommodate the numbers of marchers that the Coalition is expecting, the decision failed to meaningfully address the issue. Instead, the Court left it to the City to make good on representations they made to the court about their willingness to make changes to the duration of the march.

We are still reviewing our legal options and will be deciding on our next steps in the days to come.

 

Quicksearch


© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004
This is the Web site of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation.
Learn more about the distinction between these two components of the ACLU.

User Agreement | Privacy Statement | FAQs | Site Map