SOA protesters at Ft Benning subject to unreasonable searches

Transfered from old site <!--break--> &nbsp;<BR>Columbus, GA- 11/15/02 - Brushing aside caselaw to the contrary and declaring SOA-Watch "unpeaceful and unlawful", a US magistrate judge rules in favor of the Columbus city police department and the City of Columbus, allowing the C.P.D to set up checkpoints at tomorrows rally. &nbsp;<BR>SOAW vs Consolidated Govt. of Columbus -- City and Police Win, ACLU/SOAW contemplate appeal. &nbsp;<BR>"This is much bigger than Columbus; are we going to equate dissent with terrorism, or are we going to encourage citizens to fully participate in democratic society" -- rhetorical question posed by SOAW before the hearing. &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>At 5:20pm this afternoon, Federal Magistrate Judge Clayland ruled that blanket magnetometer searches of everyone entering tomorrows rally and the sunday vigil do not violate the 1st and 4th amendment rights of School of the Americas Watch protesters. This appears to be a defeat for the the protestors, who had argued that it was unconstitutional to force protesters to choose between exercising their first ammendment right to free speech and preserving their 4th ammendment right to be free of unwarrented searches. &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>SOAWatch had requested a preliminary injunction that would prevent the police from implementing a security plan that would have involved checkpoints and searches, and banned items as innocuous as hairspray and large crucifixes from the demonstration site. &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>The case got off to a bad start when the Judge accepted and granted a request from the SOAWatch that the court Bailiffs allow pens and paper be brought into the courtroom by spectators, only to reverse himself a moment later. The Judge asserted that "Given that the general practice [as a security procedure] at the courthouse is to not allow allow these items, I'm going to follow that". &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>The Plaintiffs case was presented by Bill Quigley, an attorney who has represented SOA prisoners of conscience in previous years. Quigley began by talking generally about the 4th ammendment, what it protects, and the necessity of individualized suspicion as a precursor to a search. In response to a query by the Judge, Quigley said that case law requires either "consent, a warrant, probable cause, or individualized suspicion" for a search to be legal. &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>Quigley made the case that if the court were to rule that the police's use of suspicionless mass searches is legal, then such a ruling would imply the legality of checkpoints in any public place; on sidewalks, at shopping malls, 4th of july parades, etc. &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>Quigley continued by discussing the existing exceptions to the 4th ammendment that appelate courts have carved out, and argued that those exceptions do not apply in this case. He noted that mass gatherings of similar size in the Columbus area are not subject to police search, and that the counter-demonstrators that are expected tomorrow outside the police cordon will not be subject to search. &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>Police Chief Dozier took the stand and testified that in thirteen years of demonstrations there had been no violence, and that at other similarly-sized demonstrations in Columbus there were no blanket searches of the crowd. When asked why this gathering was being treated differently Chief Dozier expressed concern about "affinity groups that have created situations in other locales," (this was perhaps an oblique reference to the anarchists who participated in last year's rally). &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>Quigley then called SOAW organizer Jeff Winder to the stand, who testified at length about the non-violence trainings that participants are expected to undergo prior to participation in the civil disobedience, and also about the role of the peace keepers in defusing potential conflicts. Winder testified, (in response to a question from the judge) that he felt safer at the SOA protests than he did elsewhere, to which many in the audience nodded. Winder also testified that while the city had granted their permit request in early summer, the checkpoint and search plans were not announced until just last week. In retrospect, little of Winder's testimony appears to have sunk in with the judge, beyond his acknowledgement that SOA Watch has no control over who comes to the demonstrations they organize, and that it is possible that violent people might someday come. &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>Much of the trial was devoted to guesstimating amount of time that would be spent by protesters arriving at the rally site waiting in line to be "wanded" by the magnemometers. Police estimated that it would take "about 15 seconds" to wand each protestor, while SOAWatch contended that it would take closer to a minute. The police estimated that each protestor would have to wait in line for about half an hour, unless they all were to arrive at once, in which case it might take 1-2 hours. &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>The Attorney representing the City of Columbus argued that last year "things escalated almost to the point of a riot", and that "They [SOA-Watch] don't know who's coming and they can't control it". During his cross-examination of Jeff Winder he continued to touch upon this point, and at one point entering into evidence a printout of a web-page from the SOA-Watch website that invites affinity groups and encourages creative nonviolent civil disobedience. He also seemed disturbed that there was someone from Voices in the Wildernesss scheduled to speak from the stage on the topic of Iraq. The judge himself frequently jumped into the questioning. One such question posed was "Do you have a responsibility to protect the people at your protests?" To which Jeff Winder responded: " I don't belive checkpoints and the loss of civil liberties make us safer [...] we train people in techniques to de-escalate potentially violent situations, techniques that don't involve weapons or the threat of imprisonment." &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>After a brief recess, City attorney called three police officers to the stand who testified about magnetometers, crowd control, and their experiences last year. One of the officers testified that he had recieved training in crowd control at a class sponsored by a corporation that manufactures riot gear. According to this officer, one of the warning signs of incipient riot was women baring their bosoms, something that occurred during the demonstration last year. &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>It appears that much of the police's concern was caused by last years "celebration of the spirit of resistance and rebirth", the vibrant and raucus event that followed last years' solemn funeral procession. Columbus Police Captain John Starkey testified (accurately) that protesters brought home appliances including a refrigerator to the gates of Fort Benning last year and that they created what they termed a "global village" just outside the gates. (see linked article) The police were very concerned by the presence of anarchists at the demonstration, who could be identified (according to Starkey) by their "black t-shirts with the red circle and letter 'A'" and their flags. Anarchists "kicked off the riots in Seattle," he continued, and "are antigovernment and anti-WTO". Captain Maxwell Todd described the sit-in on the road into Fort Benning as "The first time the SOA-Watch took action against the City of Columbus". &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>In cross examination of the officers, SOA-Watch attorney Quigley pointed out numerous faults in the police's reasoning, not the least of which was the fact that police were justifying these new restrictions based on topless protestors and protesters sitting in a circle and blocking a road; yet neither of these crimes could possibly be prevented by magnemometer screening of demonstrators. &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>In his closing arguments, ACLU attorney Gerald Weber recapitulated the existing case law and emphasized three points: First: that in the 13 year history of the SOA-Watch protests there exists no history of violence, &nbsp;<BR>Second: that there have not been any weapons found during that same period, and &nbsp;<BR>Third: that there has been no specific threats of violence either by the protestors or against them. These three items were key elements in the few cases that exist where the courts have allowed exceptions to the privacy protections of the 4th ammendment as it relates to political demonstrations. &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>"There is not a single federal or state case that upholds magnemometer searches for nonviolent demonstrators," he said to the court. &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>Despite the record of a decade of peaceful protests, and the apparent clarity of the case law, after a half hour recess the Judge returned a verdict agreeing with the City Attorney. He ruled that magnetic wanding is *not* a violation of the 4th ammendment rights of the protestors; it is a narrowly tailored balancing of the rights of the protestors constitutional rights and the "compelling government interest in preserving public safety". It is unclear whether the other elements of the proposed police security rules, such as the banning of large crucifixes and ladders were also upheld. Interestingly, the Judge also found that the SOA-Watch "demonstrations do *not* have a past history of peacefulness or lawfulness". &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>In response to the Judgement, Gerry Weber of the ACLU said that "...In the wake of 9-11 this ruling is not surprising, but is disappointing. SOA-Watch and the ACLU are "Inclined to appeal," according to Weber, and will make a decision once they have a chance to review the record. &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>relevant past IMC-Atlanta articles: &nbsp;<BR>-festival of resitance from last year &nbsp;<BR>-global viliage arrested by fully armored riot police &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>atlanta.indymedia.org/front.php3?article... &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>

<p>Transfered from old site</p> <!--break--><p>  <br />Columbus, GA- 11/15/02 - Brushing aside caselaw to the contrary and declaring SOA-Watch "unpeaceful and unlawful", a US magistrate judge rules in favor of the Columbus city police department and the City of Columbus, allowing the C.P.D to set up checkpoints at tomorrows rally.<br />  <br />SOAW vs Consolidated Govt. of Columbus -- City and Police Win, ACLU/SOAW contemplate appeal.<br />  <br />"This is much bigger than Columbus; are we going to equate dissent with terrorism, or are we going to encourage citizens to fully participate in democratic society" -- rhetorical question posed by SOAW before the hearing.<br />  <br /><br />  <br />At 5:20pm this afternoon, Federal Magistrate Judge Clayland ruled that blanket magnetometer searches of everyone entering tomorrows rally and the sunday vigil do not violate the 1st and 4th amendment rights of School of the Americas Watch protesters. This appears to be a defeat for the the protestors, who had argued that it was unconstitutional to force protesters to choose between exercising their first ammendment right to free speech and preserving their 4th ammendment right to be free of unwarrented searches.<br />  <br /><br />  <br />SOAWatch had requested a preliminary injunction that would prevent the police from implementing a security plan that would have involved checkpoints and searches, and banned items as innocuous as hairspray and large crucifixes from the demonstration site.<br />  <br /><br />  <br />The case got off to a bad start when the Judge accepted and granted a request from the SOAWatch that the court Bailiffs allow pens and paper be brought into the courtroom by spectators, only to reverse himself a moment later. The Judge asserted that "Given that the general practice [as a security procedure] at the courthouse is to not allow allow these items, I'm going to follow that".<br />  <br /><br />  <br />The Plaintiffs case was presented by Bill Quigley, an attorney who has represented SOA prisoners of conscience in previous years. Quigley began by talking generally about the 4th ammendment, what it protects, and the necessity of individualized suspicion as a precursor to a search. In response to a query by the Judge, Quigley said that case law requires either "consent, a warrant, probable cause, or individualized suspicion" for a search to be legal.<br />  <br /><br />  <br />Quigley made the case that if the court were to rule that the police's use of suspicionless mass searches is legal, then such a ruling would imply the legality of checkpoints in any public place; on sidewalks, at shopping malls, 4th of july parades, etc.<br />  <br /><br />  <br />Quigley continued by discussing the existing exceptions to the 4th ammendment that appelate courts have carved out, and argued that those exceptions do not apply in this case. He noted that mass gatherings of similar size in the Columbus area are not subject to police search, and that the counter-demonstrators that are expected tomorrow outside the police cordon will not be subject to search.<br />  <br /><br />  <br />Police Chief Dozier took the stand and testified that in thirteen years of demonstrations there had been no violence, and that at other similarly-sized demonstrations in Columbus there were no blanket searches of the crowd. When asked why this gathering was being treated differently Chief Dozier expressed concern about "affinity groups that have created situations in other locales," (this was perhaps an oblique reference to the anarchists who participated in last year's rally).<br />  <br /><br />  <br />Quigley then called SOAW organizer Jeff Winder to the stand, who testified at length about the non-violence trainings that participants are expected to undergo prior to participation in the civil disobedience, and also about the role of the peace keepers in defusing potential conflicts. Winder testified, (in response to a question from the judge) that he felt safer at the SOA protests than he did elsewhere, to which many in the audience nodded. Winder also testified that while the city had granted their permit request in early summer, the checkpoint and search plans were not announced until just last week. In retrospect, little of Winder's testimony appears to have sunk in with the judge, beyond his acknowledgement that SOA Watch has no control over who comes to the demonstrations they organize, and that it is possible that violent people might someday come.<br />  <br /><br />  <br />Much of the trial was devoted to guesstimating amount of time that would be spent by protesters arriving at the rally site waiting in line to be "wanded" by the magnemometers. Police estimated that it would take "about 15 seconds" to wand each protestor, while SOAWatch contended that it would take closer to a minute. The police estimated that each protestor would have to wait in line for about half an hour, unless they all were to arrive at once, in which case it might take 1-2 hours.<br />  <br /><br />  <br />The Attorney representing the City of Columbus argued that last year "things escalated almost to the point of a riot", and that "They [SOA-Watch] don't know who's coming and they can't control it". During his cross-examination of Jeff Winder he continued to touch upon this point, and at one point entering into evidence a printout of a web-page from the SOA-Watch website that invites affinity groups and encourages creative nonviolent civil disobedience. He also seemed disturbed that there was someone from Voices in the Wildernesss scheduled to speak from the stage on the topic of Iraq. The judge himself frequently jumped into the questioning. One such question posed was "Do you have a responsibility to protect the people at your protests?" To which Jeff Winder responded: " I don't belive checkpoints and the loss of civil liberties make us safer [...] we train people in techniques to de-escalate potentially violent situations, techniques that don't involve weapons or the threat of imprisonment."<br />  <br /><br />  <br />After a brief recess, City attorney called three police officers to the stand who testified about magnetometers, crowd control, and their experiences last year. One of the officers testified that he had recieved training in crowd control at a class sponsored by a corporation that manufactures riot gear. According to this officer, one of the warning signs of incipient riot was women baring their bosoms, something that occurred during the demonstration last year.<br />  <br /><br />  <br />It appears that much of the police's concern was caused by last years "celebration of the spirit of resistance and rebirth", the vibrant and raucus event that followed last years' solemn funeral procession. Columbus Police Captain John Starkey testified (accurately) that protesters brought home appliances including a refrigerator to the gates of Fort Benning last year and that they created what they termed a "global village" just outside the gates. (see linked article) The police were very concerned by the presence of anarchists at the demonstration, who could be identified (according to Starkey) by their "black t-shirts with the red circle and letter 'A'" and their flags. Anarchists "kicked off the riots in Seattle," he continued, and "are antigovernment and anti-WTO". Captain Maxwell Todd described the sit-in on the road into Fort Benning as "The first time the SOA-Watch took action against the City of Columbus".<br />  <br /><br />  <br />In cross examination of the officers, SOA-Watch attorney Quigley pointed out numerous faults in the police's reasoning, not the least of which was the fact that police were justifying these new restrictions based on topless protestors and protesters sitting in a circle and blocking a road; yet neither of these crimes could possibly be prevented by magnemometer screening of demonstrators.<br />  <br /><br />  <br />In his closing arguments, ACLU attorney Gerald Weber recapitulated the existing case law and emphasized three points: First: that in the 13 year history of the SOA-Watch protests there exists no history of violence,<br />  <br />Second: that there have not been any weapons found during that same period, and<br />  <br />Third: that there has been no specific threats of violence either by the protestors or against them. These three items were key elements in the few cases that exist where the courts have allowed exceptions to the privacy protections of the 4th ammendment as it relates to political demonstrations.<br />  <br /><br />  <br />"There is not a single federal or state case that upholds magnemometer searches for nonviolent demonstrators," he said to the court.<br />  <br /><br />  <br />Despite the record of a decade of peaceful protests, and the apparent clarity of the case law, after a half hour recess the Judge returned a verdict agreeing with the City Attorney. He ruled that magnetic wanding is *not* a violation of the 4th ammendment rights of the protestors; it is a narrowly tailored balancing of the rights of the protestors constitutional rights and the "compelling government interest in preserving public safety". It is unclear whether the other elements of the proposed police security rules, such as the banning of large crucifixes and ladders were also upheld. Interestingly, the Judge also found that the SOA-Watch "demonstrations do *not* have a past history of peacefulness or lawfulness".<br />  <br /><br />  <br />In response to the Judgement, Gerry Weber of the ACLU said that "...In the wake of 9-11 this ruling is not surprising, but is disappointing. SOA-Watch and the ACLU are "Inclined to appeal," according to Weber, and will make a decision once they have a chance to review the record.<br />  <br /><br />  <br /><br />  <br />relevant past IMC-Atlanta articles:<br />  <br />-festival of resitance from last year<br />  <br />-global viliage arrested by fully armored riot police<br />  <br /><br />  <br />atlanta.indymedia.org/front.php3?article...<br />  <br /><br />  <br /></p>

SOA protesters at Ft Benning subject to unreasonable searches

SOA protesters at Ft Benning subject to unreasonable searches

SOA protesters at Ft Benning subject to unreasonable searches http://rochester.indymedia.org/node/225

SOA protesters at Ft Benning subject to unreasonable searches

SOA protesters at Ft Benning subject to unreasonable searches

SOA protesters at Ft Benning subject to unreasonable searches

SOA protesters at Ft Benning subject to unreasonable searches

SOA protesters at Ft Benning subject to unreasonable searches

SOA protesters at Ft Benning subject to unreasonable searches

SOA protesters at Ft Benning subject to unreasonable searches

SOA protesters at Ft Benning subject to unreasonable searches

SOA protesters at Ft Benning subject to unreasonable searches http://rochester.indymedia.org/node/225

SOA protesters at Ft Benning subject to unreasonable searches

SOA protesters at Ft Benning subject to unreasonable searches

SOA protesters at Ft Benning subject to unreasonable searches

SOA protesters at Ft Benning subject to unreasonable searches

SOA protesters at Ft Benning subject to unreasonable searches

SOA protesters at Ft Benning subject to unreasonable searches