ACLU of Santa Cruz County
123 Liberty Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
Eleven local activists have been charged with a variety of offenses arising from the occupation of a vacant bank building last fall. We have two primary concerns regarding this prosecution. First, at least some of the defendants are journalists who were present to report on the protest. We condemn any attempt to criminalize their exercise of the crucial First Amendment right to gather and disseminate information about this newsworthy event. All charges based on this constitutionally protected activity should be dropped immediately.
Second, it appears that some of the defendants may have been charged due to their past adversarial relationship with law enforcement officials. The Constitution requires that the enormous power of government be exercised fairly and even handedly, and not be based on the identity or past actions of the defendants. The District Attorney should re-examine the basis for the charges, and the Court must ensure that these activists are not being selectively prosecuted.
Very truly yours,
Peter Gelblum
Chair, Board of Directors
ACLU–Santa Cruz Chapter
ACLU
of Santa Cruz County
123
Liberty Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
April
4, 2012
Ashley
Morris
ACLU
of Northern California
39
Drumm Street
San
Francisco, California 94111
Dear
Ashley:
The
following case summary and request for support is being submitted on
behalf of the entire Board of Directors of the Santa Cruz County
Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and its more than 2,000
members:
As
you may know, several of our local activists have been charged with a
variety of offenses arising from their alleged involvement with the
occupation of a vacant bank building late last fall. That matter is
referenced as
Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case Number F22196.
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press submitted an
amicus
Letter Brief on behalf of two of the defendants in early March. I
have attached a copy of that brief for your review, and the pdf may
also be found online at santacruzindymedia on the Indybay.org
website.
There
are several reasons why we believe that Northern California should
rise to the defense of these members of our community individually
and as a group:
First,
all of these defendants are either journalists, members of our local
press,
and/or activists committed to the Occupy Movement––and
particularly Occupy Santa Cruz. Therefore, we believe that civil
liberties are being broadly threatened by the continuing prosecution
of these cases.
Secondly,
none of these defendants "occupied" the premises in the
same sense that those who remained on the property for several days
did. (See Reporters Committee Letter Brief, page three, paragraph 4.)
Indeed, these defendants were participating in constitutionally
protected activities either as news gatherers or as supporters of the
activists inside the occupied building.
Thirdly,
in our opinion, the charges being pursued by our local District
Attorney are over broad and overreaching in consideration of the
facts. Each of these defendants has been charged with (1) felony
conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor (Penal Code Section 182(a)(1);
felony vandalism (PC Section 594(b)(1); misdemeanor trespass by
entering and occupying (PC Section 602(M); and misdemeanor trespass
and refusing to leave private property (PC Section 602(O). The facts
in support of these charges as adduced through discovery provided by
the District Attorney are both scant and unpersuasive even in the
absence of any civil liberty considerations.
Ashley
Morris
Page
Two
April
4, 2012
Fourthly,
it is also our opinion that these defendants are being selectively
prosecuted in a manner directly related to the existing adversarial
relationship several of these defendants have with both our local
police department and the District Attorney's office. According to
reports published and/or broadcast by local news media, anywhere from
150 to 300 individuals entered and exited the bank building during
the 75-hour occupation, including local elected officials. And, yet,
only these eleven defendants have been charged.
Fifthly,
we believe that significant civil liberty issues arise on the facts
of this case. Although we are mindful that the constitutional
guarantees of freedom of speech and free assembly do not confer
immunity from prosecution on those who choose to participate in
arguably unlawful activities, it is of critical importance that clear
distinctions be made between the exercise of the aforementioned
rights in the context of direct political action. In our view, these
defendants posed no threat to public order or private property by
their actions either as chroniclers of the events or as ardent
supporters of the occupiers and the occupation.
It
is therefore our considered opinion, duly ratified by a unanimous
vote of our Board, that an
amicus
Letter Brief appropriate to these facts and circumstances be
submitted to our Superior Court on behalf and in support of the named
defendants. Although the submission of an
amici curiae
brief is procedurally unusual at the non-appellate level, it is not
barred by existing case law and may serve to provide the presiding
Court with relevant information.
Should
Northern California agree to draft and submit such a brief, it may be
addressed to:
Honorable
Paul P. Burdick
Judge
of the Superior Court
County
of Santa Cruz
Santa
Cruz Courthouse
701
Ocean Street
Santa
Cruz, CA 95060
Of
course, you and your staff will need to independently review and
assess the merits of this case in light of our shared mission to
defend civil liberties. Please feel free contact to me directly via
e-mail or by phone should you have any additional questions.
On
behalf of the Board of Directors, Santa Cruz Chapter ACLU, I thank
you for your consideration of this matter of local importance and
concern.
Very
truly yours,
Peter
Gelblum
Chair,
Board of Directors
ACLU–Santa
Cruz Chapter
