D.D.C.: Arrests of protestors at second Bush Inaugural without probable cause

The D.C. District Court holds that the arrest of protestors at second Bush Inaugural was without probable cause. Motions for summary judgment of plaintiffs granted and defendants denied for rioting, conspiracy to riot, and parading without a permit. [The District’s definition of “riot” is hardly the traditional definition.] There is no showing of individualized suspicion for the arrest of the plaintiffs. Carr v. District of Columbia, 561 F. Supp. 2d 7 (D. D.C. 2008)*, affd 587 F.3d 401 (D.C. Cir. 2009). See n.14:

Moreover, even if the District were correct in its assertion that each of the arrestees was parading without a permit, Barham makes clear that this would not be enough to sustain a mass arrest. As the Court explained, “[a]s a prerequisite to instituting a mass arrest intended to diffuse a volatile demonstration, police must have a valid legal basis for clearing the area.” Barham, 434 F.3d at 576. However, this is not sufficient, for as the Court went on to explain, even if Newsham had had a valid legal basis, “he could not deal with the crowd as a unit unless he first issued an order to disperse and then provided a reasonable period of time to comply with that order.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The Barham Court’s holding is very clear–the Fourth Amendment requires notice and an opportunity to disperse before instituting a mass arrest–and it is undisputed that this did not occur here. See also Dellums, 566 F.2d at 183 (demonstraters could not be arrested unless the Chief reasonably believed that they could be validly evicted under the Capitol Grounds ordinance and had given them an order to disperse and the opportunity to comply).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.