Skip to main content

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. - First Amendment of the Constitution

So, if the First Amendment gives all American citizen's the right to assemble peaceably, how are anti-war protester's being arrested?

Meet me after the break...

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. - Article VI, the United States Constitution

There are many instances where protester's have been arrested by law enforcement official's.  If the Constitution is the "highest law in the land" and the people have the right to peaceably assemble, can arresting peaceable protester's then be legal?  And, what laws are being used to stifle dissent?  

Many times, the laws used to arrest dissenter's are; disorderly conduct, trespassing after notice, or Title 18, Part I, Ch 84, § 1752.  As each state, county, and municipalities laws read differently, I can only compare these arrests with the laws of South Carolina.  here

Disorderly Conduct.  Section 16-17-530 provides:  Any person who shall (a) be found on any highway or at any public place or public gathering in a grossly intoxicated condition or otherwise conducting himself in a disorderly or boisterous manner, (b) use obscene or profane language on any highway or at any public place or gathering or in hearing distance of any schoolhouse or church . . . shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.

Does standing, silent and sober, on a sidewalk holding a sign that says "No War, Impeach Bush" meet the elements of the statute?  Hardly.

Trespass after notice.  Section 16-11-620 provides:  Any person who, without legal cause or good excuse, enters into the dwelling house, place of business, or on the premises of another person after having been warned not to do so or any person who, having entered into the dwelling house, place of business, or on the premises of another person without having been warned fails and refuses, without good cause or good excuse, to leave immediately upon being ordered or requested to do so by the person in possession or his agent or representative shall, on conviction, be fined not more than two hundred dollars or be imprisoned for not more than thirty days.

Does standing on a public sidewalk meet the elements of this statute?  Hardly.  How about this statute?

SECTION 16-11-630. Refusing to leave certain public premises during hours when they are regularly closed:  Any person who, during those hours of the day or night when the premises owned or occupied by a state, county or municipal agency are regularly closed to the public, shall refuse or fail, without justifiable cause, to leave those premises upon being requested to do so by a law-enforcement officer or guard, watchman or custodian responsible for the security or care of the premises, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction, be fined not more than one hundred dollars or be imprisoned for not more than thirty days.

The key words are owned or occupied by a state, county, or municipal agency.  The sidewalk is public property.  

Yet, in South Carolina, Mr. Brett Bursey was arrested for protesting at Columbia Airport in 2003 for?  Trespassing.  The charge was dropped after he was removed from the area which is called nolle prosse, ie, the arresting officer does not intend to prosecute the charge once it comes before a judge.  The officer can nolle prosse a charge at any time before the charge is adjudicated in a court of law, ie, before a judge or jury starts proceedings on the charge.  Mr. Bursey was then charged under the Title 18 federal statute by the United States Attorney.  The NYT has the article here:

Since 1992, only a dozen cases involving this part of the United States Code, Section 1752 of Title 18, have been referred to federal prosecutors by the Secret Service and other government agencies, according to TRACfed, a database of federal enforcement information at Syracuse University. - NYT

Mr. Bursey was convicted under the federal statute and the case was appealed, found here.  The U.S. Attorney drug the case out in court until the appeal was dropped.  

But, what must be noted, is that most times the local or state law enforcement aren't acting of their accord - it is at the direction of the United States Secret Service.

"Pitts said a SLED agent gave a signed statement saying agents discussed that Bursey was planning to protest the president’s visit and asked one agent to make sure he was sent to an area a half-mile away from Bush. To bolster his argument, Pitts included parts of a transcript from a Michigan state trial where a college student was arrested for trespassing after he refused to put down a sign critical of Bush. In the transcript, a police captain said the Secret Service told him to move anyone protesting the president away from areas near where Bush would speak."

So, the Secret Service has sent down guidelines to local and state law enforcement officers that protester's are to be kept away from President Bush, and if they won't go away, they are to be arrested.  The Secret Service has done this enough times that law enforcement agencies, if not directly advised, are at least aware of the guidelines and follow them.

We come back to the question then, if the constitution is the law of the land and no other law can supersede the rights enumerated, is arresting peaceable protester's constitutional?  More then likely not, but, judges at many levels, are ruling in favor of the government over the Constitution.  Worse, law enforcement officers follow the wishes of the "feds" unquestioningly.  

I worked in law enforcement for 6 years and pulled Secret Service details on four Presidential VIP protection details.  I can tell you that when a Secret Service agent tells a local cop to "go remove him", that person is removed.  If a charge of arrest has to be levied, even knowing that the charge will be dropped later, that is what happens.

Is there a way around these acts of false arrest?  Probably not, but, it never hurts for the person to be aware of the actual wording of their state, county and local laws, so that when a law enforcement officer states "you're under arrest for ....", you can calmly say, "Ummm... that's very interesting officer, because, that law states...(recite the elements of the law verbatim back to the officer calmly)...and there is absolutely zero way without perjury you could ever make that charge stick in a court of law".

Does it work?  Not all the time.  But I guarantee you one thing, the officer will stop and think before they act, no matter the outcome.  But you had best make sure that you have satisfied every element of the statute yourself, and, make sure to have numerous witnesses around you.  So, if you are going to be attending a peace-rally, or anti-war protest, remember; to be forewarned is to be forearmed.

Originally posted to MotleyPatriot on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 07:36 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  tip jar... (10+ / 0-)

    Ok... only 3rd diary and I've heard about this "tip jar" thing...

  •  I've had a couple instances (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LeftyLimblog, Halcyon

    in which State and locals refused Secret Service orders to remove me.

    Chief of the Wisconsin Capitol Police to the SS at a 2000 Clinton/Gore appearance: "You may get away with that in Tampa. We've learned to respect Mr. Masel's 1st Amendment Rights the hard way."

    Democratic Candidate for US Senator, Wisconsin, in 2012

    Runamarchy: n., the end product of corrosion of constitutional order.

    by ben masel on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 12:28:38 AM PDT

  •  Excellent diary. (0+ / 0-)

    Are you implying that the U.S. attorneys are colluding with the Secret Service to quash dissent while preventing accountability for the unconstitutional suppression of free speech by the Bush advance team/Secret Service? Are you suggesting a conspiracy to violate the 1st Amendment rights of peaceful protestors/dissenters?

    The case of the Denver 3 would seem to bear you out. The U.S. attorney in Denver foot-dragged the case for partisan reason until after the 2004 election.

    Thanks for this. I hope it gets rescued.

    •  Just the facts... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      One thing (among many) you learn as a law enforcement officer is that the facts speak for themselves.

      If U.S. Attorney's are dragging cases out in court then they are.  Why?  Most of the time, when it is the prosecutor dragging out the case, it is because they really have no case or no evidence, but by dragging it out, they force the defendants into higher attorney fees hoping that it is they who drop the appeal.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site