Police Raid Anarchist Groups That Planned to Blockade Republican Convention:
Some political bloggers are buzzing about police raids targeting a self-described anarchist group, the "RNC Welcoming Committee," which was allegedly planning to disrupt the Republican convention. The AP's story about the raid is here. Some popular bloggers appear to be outraged by this: They are presenting the group as political protesters, just a bunch of peaceful kids, while the police are presented as overbearing thugs that are trying to intimidate them.
But if the group's website is any guide to the group's plans, it's certainly unsurprising that the police are trying to stop the group from executing its plans. The website explains that the "goal for Day One [of the convention] is to blockade Downtown St. Paul, so that the only show worth watching is the one we create in the streets." It includes this invitation:
If there's something wrong with what the police did here, it's not clear to me what it is. Perhaps the website is just a joke, and everyone knew it. I understand that the police had undercover agents infiltrate the group to establish that the plans were serious, and I imagine much of the cause in the warrant is from their undercovers. But if for some reason the whole thing is a joke and the police didn't get it, then the police are fools. And perhaps they raided the wrong house, whether because they had probable cause pointing them to the wrong place or because they executed the warrant incorrectly. If so, that's bad. But as far as I can tell, no one is disputing that the website is serious and the group really did plan what they said they were planning. And as best I can tell, no one seems to be suggesting that the warrant was executed at the wrong house. So at least so far, I don't see anything the police have done that is wrong or blameworthy.
UPDATE: The anarchist group has posted a press release that has a part responding to police claims that the raids are legal:
But if the group's website is any guide to the group's plans, it's certainly unsurprising that the police are trying to stop the group from executing its plans. The website explains that the "goal for Day One [of the convention] is to blockade Downtown St. Paul, so that the only show worth watching is the one we create in the streets." It includes this invitation:
September 1st, 2008, we, the RNC Welcoming Committee, invite all anarchists and anti-authoritarians, all radicals and rabble-rousers, all those who are fed up with government lies and spectacles to show up ready for action and ensure that we leave no place for these expired politicians. What we create here will send the convention crashing off course into insignificance.Among the plans for the convention listed on the group's website are efforts to blockade the convention and keep the delegates from meeting. One of the pages lists this three-tiered strategy:
Tier One: Establish 15-20 blockades, utilizing a diversity of tactics, creating an inner and outer ring around St. Paul’s Excel Center, where the RNC is to take place.The page continues:
Tier Two: Immobilize the delegates’ transportation infrastructure, including the busses that are to convey them.
Tier Three: Block the five western bridges connecting the Twin Cities.
As the specific blockade sites are established, there may be a system of delegating some sites as “red zones” (prepared for self-defense), “yellow zones” (peaceful but assertive), and “green zones” (aiming to avoid any risk of arrest) so as to accommodate a wide variety of creative tactics and involve individuals with differing needs and talents.To try to "blockade" the downtown area and stop the convention, the group divided downtown St. Paul into individual sectors and had different groups take on responsibility to engage in "3S" — "Swarm Seize, Stay" for each sector. According to the website, "Swarm Seize, Stay" is a three-step strategy that works as follows:
1. Move into/around Downtown St. Paul via swarms of varying sizes, from multiple directions, and with diverse tactical intentions.As you might guess, the police weren't about to let this plan play out. As best I can tell from news reports, the County Sheriff's Office obtained warrants to search a handful of so-called "hippie houses" (open group homes, apparently) and storage sites based on probable cause to believe that the members of the anarchist group had engaged in "conspiracy to riot" and either had evidence of the crime there or were themselves present. They executed the warrants and made a handful of arrests of the group's organizers. Although there are blog reports of a lawyer for the group being "arrested," it seems that it was only a temporary detention because he happened to be present when a warrant was executed. This is generally permitted, see Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005) (person present at scene handcuffed while warrant executed).
2. Seize space through both hard (e.g., lockboxes) and soft (e.g., congestion), fixed and mobile, blockading methods.
3. Stay engaged with the situation in downtown St. Paul as long as necessary. Regroup. Reinforce.
If there's something wrong with what the police did here, it's not clear to me what it is. Perhaps the website is just a joke, and everyone knew it. I understand that the police had undercover agents infiltrate the group to establish that the plans were serious, and I imagine much of the cause in the warrant is from their undercovers. But if for some reason the whole thing is a joke and the police didn't get it, then the police are fools. And perhaps they raided the wrong house, whether because they had probable cause pointing them to the wrong place or because they executed the warrant incorrectly. If so, that's bad. But as far as I can tell, no one is disputing that the website is serious and the group really did plan what they said they were planning. And as best I can tell, no one seems to be suggesting that the warrant was executed at the wrong house. So at least so far, I don't see anything the police have done that is wrong or blameworthy.
UPDATE: The anarchist group has posted a press release that has a part responding to police claims that the raids are legal:
The police may claim that the raid was executed according to protocol - however, the violence inherent in this action may only be a hint of the violence to be expected on Monday and beyond, and is only a hint at the violence perpetrated daily by the police.Um, okay.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Violence Mars First Day of Republican Convention:
- Police Raid Anarchist Groups That Planned to Blockade Republican Convention:
ObamaBin Laden.(Freudian slip? No. Just listening to Ann Coulter too much.)
Oh. It was a mistake?
I thought maybe Obama was on the ground, scoping the Pakistan border for future bombing targets. I was gonna give him credit for putting his money where his mouth is.
You SURE he isn't there?
This is what happens when anarchists organize, they fail to understand that their activities will draw interest. Since they published their goals on a web site, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that they are up to no good. And they didn't expect to have a mole there? Even the Communist party knew they were being infiltrated, usually by the members who paid their dues on time.
@Arkady, yes, 5 have been detained for conspiracy to commit riot and conspiracy to commit public disturbance.
Note: The same thing happened on the east coast recently, in that the county SWAT team executed a drug warrant against a local mayor, who in the end turned out to be an innocent bystander... and who could have been detained during the investigation far more readily by the local cops. Perhaps failure to form local authorities increases the likeliness of things spinning out of control.
But what I've been hearing from other sources is that the Welcoming Committee wasn't the only group targeted. Most notably, a civil liberties group that videotapes cops at protests (and whose footage has been used to exonerate arrested protesters in the past) was also broken into. Also, apparently at least at some of the houses, the cops refused to present the warrant (assuming they had one).
I've got no beef with the police preempting serious vandalism or violent protest. But follow the legal process, show the warrants upon request, and don't go after people who are nefariously plotting to use *cameras*...
I 'll change the post --- I didn't mean to mislead. I'm curious, though, why is it relevant that this raid was executed by the county sheriff? County sheriffs around the country execute raids all the time, and I'm not aware of a theory by which the raid becomes illegal or suspect as a result of it.
you mean Ted Kennedy
It's perhaps worth noting that if the group that videotapes everything has evidence of crimes on their videotapes, their videotapes are valid targets of a search warrant under the Constitution even if they the videotaperrs are not in cahoots with the anarchist groups. See Zurcher v. Stanford Daily. Of course, your argument may be that even if it was perfectly legal, you think they still shouldn't have done this (assuming they did, which I guess we don't know yet).
Which is just hilarious.
(note: "mission statement" and "anarchist" probably shouldn't be in the same sentence.)
Has the vague "Conspiracy to Riot" statute ever been used before? Ever?
From Glenn Greenwald
No, there is no Fourth Amendment difference between obtaining a warrant for existing evidence of an inchoate crime and a completed crime. Again, if you're worried about the Constitution of the United States, this appears to have been constitutional.
As for removing a potential check, I don't get it: Cameras are everywhere, and surely a group won't be unable to film the events because cameras were seized. Again, this is assuming that the reports you heard are accurate; I don't know about that one way or the other.
Right, because the intimidation factor will have no effect on them up and above the confiscation of all their phones, computers and cameras, nor the fact that the police may confiscate any replacements, if they can afford any, and keep all the footage. Yup, no chilling affect at all.
You really do see the world through prosecutor's goggles, don't you?
There isn't a specific conspiracy to riot statute, but rather there is a riot statute, 609.71, and the usual conspiracy liability. Here's the statute:
This is one of the biggest media events of the year. Every single protest in St. Paul over the next few days is going to be captured on camera, from several different angles, by professionals and amateurs, regardless of whether or not this group has their cameras or not. They are a drop in the bucket compared to the number of videographers and photographers who are going to be in the Twin Cities this week. So how, exactly, would shutting down one group make it any easier for the police to get away with anything?
Wow, I thought you were more serious than that. I am engaging you on the substance, doing legal research on your behalf, and you respond with lame claims that "You really do see the world through prosecutor's goggles, don't you?" Really, that's just totally pathetic. Perhaps you should find a blog that is more suited to you?
In addition to the definitional irony, of course.
Scote: "Yup, no chilling affect at all. "
And what would be "chilled"? The proclivity of a mob to prevent a political party in a democracy from holding a convention?
Yes, I saw that. But why is that relevant?
But, colloquialisms aside, I do think it is accurate to state that you view the law from the strong perspective of a former prosecutor. I think it would be disingenuous to suggest that your legal perspective is uncolored or the same as that of other legal authorities with different perspectives. This is not to say that your view of the law is unsubstantiated, but, the law being somewhat mailable, can be contrived to different perspectives and outcomes, none of which are necessarily unportable.
The implication was that the statute is unconstitutionally vague, hence the reason it has never been invoked. I would gather by your response that you see it as a near boiler plate conspiracy charge of no unusual nature.
Everyone knows I am a fascist knee-jerk police apologist. That is, except when am representing the ACLU in litigation, defending death row inmates, and arguing pro-civil-liberties positions that are too liberal to even get one vote on the current Supreme Court (see, e.g., Va v. Moore, U.S. v. Grubbs). In those cases, everyone knows I am a civil libertarian nutjob. As I have said before, I am always a hack -- I just alternate which I side I am a hack for in order to keep things interesting.
I'm curious, though: How do you stay unbiased? What's your secret?
They DID that.
Scote, did the judge who SIGNED THE WARRANT view the world through "prosecutor's eyes"?
Are those like Betty Davis eyes? DO they come with electronic snare drums and a catchy hook?
I haven't read the Affidavit that justified the warrant, but just based on what these idiots were spouting on their website alone, there is pretty good evidence they were conspiring to commit crimes, not to mention - deprive others of their constitutional rights.
If you can find where I've ever made such a claim I'd be happy to answer.
A fine retort :) If I could insert an obeisant smilie, I would.
Unless I've misunderstood Karen, I think you've missed her point. There were no videos of inchoate crime. The police raided and confiscated the equipment of a group that planned to film police activity. There is no legal basis for that.
As for the opportunist hack thang...
no comment :)
CDU: So this is action OK as long as the police leave some number of cameras unconfiscated?
Probably. The defendants don't get to oppose the warrant they don't know about, so I'd say, "yes."
Followup here.
Blog from "I-Witness Video" here.
Even if Orin's info is correct and the RNC Welcoming Committee was engaged in criminal conspiracy, that only justifies arresting the conspirators. What gives with arresting their lawyers, the journalists trying to cover the story, the I Witness people, et al?
Orin already covered this:
OK, thank you for the response. However, the lawyer for the group says that he has never heard of anybody being charged with "conspiracy to commit riot."
To me that says much more about either the integrity or the legal expertise of the anarchists' lawyer than it does about the prosecution.
Only if he's way off base and it is common to prosecute "Conspiracy to Commit Riot." Otherwise, what do you mean?
We'd have to see the warrant to know what the affidavit says, but I was assuming the warrant was for past evidence of crime that is already stored on them. Of course, this assumes that such raids existed -- right now we're working off rumor, as far as I know.
Gabriel,
What CDU said.
Could you please provide any links to primary sources (i.e., news accounts, not blogs talking about what someone else says) so we know exactly what the specific claims are?
Odd that a lawyer for a bunch of anarchist protesters claims never to have heard of the Chicago 7.
Professor Kerr's 7:02 pm post wins the thread! Game over. Time for the medal presentation!
Yeah, all those ex-CCIPS guys like Professor Kerr are incredible jack-booted thugs. That thing about them being near-genius computer and technical wizards who happen to also have law degrees is just a smokescreen...
Incidentally, FWIW, based on what little I've read about this so far, it sounds like the question of probable cause for a criminal conspiracy isn't at all close. Without even having seen the additional undercover evidence in the affidavit, from the outside this one looks like a good warrant.
I daresay that if the famously-unbiased Scote was commenting about the Denver police raiding the a bunch of neo-Nazis intent on disrupting the DNC, he would be a lot more sanguine about the situation.
The action against the RNC Welcoming Committee (or any other violent or disruptive "protest" group) seems to be justified, but going after groups like I-Witness news is simply harassment and intimidation. I-Witness video in a case of at the 2004 RNC, exposed the NYC police doctoring video tape.
The actions at the DNC were atrocious with the "free speech" zones that were caged enclosures on black top parking lots away from the proceedings. The use of force was overwhelming by the police, but hey, two cops per protester, you can never be too sure. I expect the RNC to be the same.
It's always been a bit annoying to anyone who takes anarchism seriously as a political philosophy, all these people who heard the phrase, "bomb throwing anarchist", and decide that because they want to throw bombs, they ought to call themselves anarchists.
I was un-aware that they were arrested and charged under Minnesota law...
Here is a link to the Glen Reynolds post about the incident.
There are several links to primary sources within that post, including a first person account from inside the raided I-Witness house.
Here is one of the warrants. The internets are amazing.
http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/originals
Includes a partial transcript of the search warrant.
Always easier to attack the pretend argument of an imaginary person than the real thing, which is just what you are doing. My position on Nazis would hinge on similar factors, was there legitimate probable cause and violation of statute?
I'm not in favor of violent anarchists or Nazis. If you had read my posts rather than attacking imaginary posts you'd have noted that my posts center around the raid on the I-Witness journalists.
Come see the violence inherent in the system! Come see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm bein' repressed!
Actually, you've mostly been talking about the anarchists. None of the I-Witness folks were charged with "conspiracy to riot".
Indeed you are correct. I've been mixing my "villians" and hadn't realized it.
WTF?
Unless, of course, they had a large number of members in common (which happens a lot with this sort of thing), and some (or many) of the I-Witness folks were "anarchists" who were planning on using I-Witness as a cover for their actions.
Just because some people claim I-Witness was innocent, don't assume the people involved in it are. Sure, they videotape police officers (no problem with that), but that's a lovely way to cover people who want to cause more problems (judicious camera work and editing, or even active support).
If I-Witness was an unknown group your argument would have more merit, but it's a group that tends to cover a number of protests from a "man on the street" perspective, from what I can tell. They appear to be a group that is heavy on the civil liberties/police abuse front. I don't know how close knit the group is, so your suspicions may be valid. However, they also are public about their activities and have legal backing, so they don't really fit the anarchist mold.
In the past they have caught some police abuse on tape that has been used to successfully render judgments against the state. That would make I-Witness a high value target to intimidate prior to a large event where protest will occur.
I would presume that the police should be concerned with criminal conspiracies of this kind to an equal degree regardless of the positions of the conspirators on questions of the optimal political order.
Of course. They key was the illegal effort to stop a political convention from occurring, for whatever reason. (I mention the anarchist point only because it makes the agenda more understandable.)
I mean, of course it was *not* relevant.
Hearing from a few people that lived in the area there was also a truck that had a giant fetus that was obstructing traffic in protest (pre-planned). Were any police infiltrating this group?
My totally speculative guess about what happened is that the "RNC Welcoming Committee" was in contact with I-Witness to try to get their actions videotaped. This fact came to the attention of the authorities (perhaps through their undercover infiltration of the group) and the police served the search warrants to ferret out exactly what the connection between the groups is. I think this is why no one at I-Witness was actually arrested (as opposed to detained while the warrant was executed). The police were looking for information about the "Welcoming Committee" rather than interested in I-Witness themselves.
So your reason for thinking they have no members in common with the anarchists is... they've been around a while and you don't know about any ties between the groups?
Here's a thought: got to their website at
iwitnessvideo.info
...read some of their blog entries, and see if they're really a nonbiased witness at this sort of event.
Why should being biased subject a reporter to police search and seizure?
The warrant that PC linked to at 7:37 isn't the I-Witness warrant, unless they were also storing the anarchist's molotov cocktails and other IEDs, along with various other of the weapons specified to be seized (which I suppose isn't entirely farfetched, but we're giving them the benefit of the doubt for the time being?).
On the other hand, this is also completely understandable after what happened to the WTO in Seattle several years back. There certainly is an element in the anarchist community who think that shutting down an event is the same thing as free speech, and it isn't.
I never claimed they were unbiased (in fact I said they assume there is police abuse/violation of civil liberties of at protests in my cited post), I simply claimed their association with anarchist groups are probably unlikely given the publicity they go after.
zippypinhead:
I didn't mean to attribute that warrant to I-Witness, Prof. Kerr was asking for a warrant related to the raids so I provided the only warrant I knew that was publicly available. Cross-referencing the information should be trivial for anyone that wants to ;)
Having witnessed protest raids before, the broadness of the warrants are always the thing that strike me. Outside of the assembled destructive devices there is a laundry list of physical items that any average home would contain. After reading the warrant and doing some cursory research, my computer now contains "documents that plan, promote and/or advocate criminal activity."
It's an ammonia + bleach = terrorist approach to law enforcement.
It's entirely possible that ancillary groups got picked on because they were coordinating with the anarchists (man... ain't that a lovely turn of phrase?) "Hey, we're going to be touching off a riot here, here, and here, and can you make sure you have a camera crew at these points?"
The search warrant PC linked to at 7:37 is interesting because it indicates there was probable cause to believe the premises contained not only evidence of the planned riots (plans, computer files, etc.), but actual contraband such as incendiaries, IEDs and other items that would pretty clearly be illegal "destructive devices" under Federal law (I'll stick with 18 U.S.C. §922 since I don't know Minnesota law, but one can probably make a wild leap of faith that toys like molotov cocktails are illegal under state law too). What I'd really like to see is the affidavit supporting the warrant that makes the averments as to why there is probable cause to believe these items were present at the location to be searched.
If that sort of stuff was actually found during the search, I strongly suspect we'll hear about it by the next news cycle - the odds of a police press conference first thing in the morning with a show and tell table would be pretty high. And I also suspect that the odds any of the arrested anarchists who can be linked to such contraband will be granted bail at a detention hearing would be vanishingly small.
And why no mention of the FBI's presence at the raid(s)?
Again, there is no evidence in what I've seen of the affidavit that the persons authoring the website where the same persons that were searched and arrested. Then again, perhaps the police do have evidence connecting the organization that runs the site to the people/places being search.
All I'm saying is that they have failed to produce a critical part of the puzzle, without which the warrant is facially invalid.
Cribbed the answer from FourthAmendment.com (invaluable resource!, /plug)
no, what you are saying is that they have failed to produce to YOU that "critical piece of the puzzle".
or you haven't discovered where same is.
I assume both because it is (a) legally irrelevant and (b) what you would expect, given that the RNC is a federal concern not a state one. I personally would be kind of surprised if the FBI were not involved, and I would wonder why they weren't involved given the important federal interests here.
www.galls.com
lots of policestategear(tm)
But more generally on your question why the Feds might have been scarce here: The warrant was issued by a state court. Federal agencies don't go in on state warrants. They even try to avoid operating under state authority in joint Federal/local operations (although sometimes when one wants true bureaucratic nightmares, there might be both Federal and state warrants involved). There are a lot of practical reasons why, including that Feds don't want to trust their qualified immunity to local cops drafting papers for local magistrates. Having said that, it's not uncommon for the Feds to be called in after the fact for technical assistance (e.g., BATFE securing explosives found in a raids), but that's a different legal animal.
Here, this was pretty clearly a local operation. I can think of several reasons why Federal law enforcement might not be involved in this instance, but I'd be just speculating.
You completely miss my point, which is that just because YOU don't know what the connection is... doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
hth
Since I first posted the question earlier today, I've not had a single person give a single piece of evidence that the webpage has anything to do with the people searched/arrested. Given the large number of houses searched, it's becoming ridiculous to think that they all were involved in writing those things.
Did you notice that the website has a page devoted to the people searched/arrested? I think that probably counts as a single piece of evidence.
The great thing about broad searches is that the police can selectively take evidence. Everybody has items that the police can produce as "criminal evidence." If they claim you are a rapist, they can seize all your kitchen cutlery, ductape and camera equimpent and call it a rape tool kit. If they are accusing you of being a terrorist, they can do the same and seize ordinary household chemicals, buckets, glassware and petrol and claim you had the ingredients for IEDs (and since IEDs are improvised, I'd guess that everybody has at least some of the needed supplies for IEDs.
So, when you let the cops go on an unrestricted fishing expedition they will always be able to find fish, no matter who you are and no matter whether you are actually guilty.
Sure, they can claim that, but to win a conviction they have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Duct tape, a camera, and cutlery isn't going to hack it in court.
Come see the violence inherent in the system!
Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
-- "assembled improvised incendiary devices... to include fire bombs (Molotov cocktails)..."
-- "assembled improvised explosive devices..."
-- "smoke bombs"
-- "explosive filler materials to include pyrotechnic powder; propellants such as black powder, pyrodex and flash powder..."
If they had PC to believe these contraband items were on the premises, this wasn't a fishing expedition to harass law-abiding citizens.
Receipt, inventory and return for search warrant executed at Monica R. Bicking residence on 17th Av S on Saturday, August 30, 2008 at 7:49 am: page 4, page 5, page 6.
Also, about the time the search warrant was executed, three individuals were arrested at the Monica R. Bicking residence on 17th Av S. Those individuals are Monica R. Bicking, age 26, Garrett S. Fitzgerald, 25, and Eryn C. Trimmer, 23.
Obviously, we have no way of evaluating whether the police had good cause for the warrant, and I'm willing to assume that they did. What troubles me is the amount of force allegedly used in executing the warrant. The case you cite holds that, in certain circumstances, it is reasonable to handcuff people present while a warrant is executed. Do you have any opinion on whether those circumstances were present here? If so, the police (allegedly) went farther than simply handcuffing, including forcing people to lie down facing the floor and stepping on them to keep them on the floor. Again, I have no idea if this actually happened, but if it did, do you find that problematic? It seems to go well beyond what happened in Muehler.
The reason I ask is that I have been troubled by what appears to be the growing militarization of the police. Here in the D.C. area, we had a recent incident of someone's dog being shot during the execution of a warrant when it seems that the police didn't have any reason to think that the people in the house were dangerous -- in fact, the allegations were that they had unwittingly been sent a package of marijuana. Likewise, in the past couple of years there was an incident of the police using a SWAT team to execute an arrest warrant and killing the (unarmed) person in the process.
Do you have any thoughts on that -- either in terms of policy or in terms of constitutional law? My own thoughts are inchoate, but like I said, on a gut level, I find it troubling.
Zippy, it seems like your very, very selective quotations from the search warrent are more than a little deceptive and are downright mendacious. The warrant fully supports my supposition, a fact which you attempted to cover by omitting the portions that prove that to be the case:
...and more.
at least in my experience ... I have written dozens of search warrants and have read probably several hundred... I can't ever remember a search warrant that "completely limits" what can be seized. I am sure there are some cases where such a warrant is issued, but I've never seen one.
In other words... so what.
about as revealing as saying "the search warrant used words, most of which had vowels in them..."
This was, of course, after the arrests, therefore proving nothing about the state of affairs before they were arrested. Moreover, the fact that party A runs a page on their website to protest the arrest of party B just doesn't cut it as evidence that party B conspired to do things listed on A's site.
This is my primary objection to tarring an entire group of people (30+ arrested, according to the various sources), with the writings of, at most, a few. Defendants have not committed any actual crime -- their guilt hangs on a tenuous conspiracy charge.
Like I said before, it's premature, but I'm skeptical that they can hang this conspiracy charge as widely as they say.
yes. i'd say it's more common than not, in search warrants that involve people (vs. like a warrant that involves a search of bag, obviously).
I've done several warrants where it was not done. Like one, where a kid had been selling a bunch of ecstacy from his parent's house. I'd personally bought from him several times. The research showed he lived with his parents only. There was no perceived threat whatsoever from them. They were told to sit down on the couch. That was the extent. No handcuffs, no lying on the floor.
Contrast with a warrant like this where you are raiding a location where there is probably all sorts of traffic in and out, numerous references to weapons, etc. I would be surprised if they DIDN'T prone people out and handcuff them at least until the scene was made secure.
This is best for everybody's safety, to include the people in the house.
I personally had 3 members of my unit shot at ONE warrant. They are dangerous. The fact that we use good tactics makes it much less likely that we get shot AND that we have to shoot them.
It may not be pretty, but it's the safest way to do it, and it's entirely constitutional.
Nathaniel D. Secor, age 26, was arrested at that location, presumably around the time the search warrant was executed.
It is entirely unclear what relation, if any, exists between the so-called “RNC Welcoming Commitee” and the Minneapolis Food Not Bombs location.
(Also, a correction to my previous comment: Monica R. Bicking, arrested at her residence on 17th Av S, is aged 23.)
You simply don't put attention-grabbing items like: "assembled improvised incendiary devices... to include fire bombs (Molotov cocktails)..." or "assembled improvised explosive devices..." into your warrant application without having probable cause, or the magistrate is going to make the application explode in your face. And your agent is going to have one heck of a time getting a warrant approved from that magistrate ever again after his credibility has been blown. And of course you always add components to the list of items to be seized when you draft the warrant application. SOP, and totally permissible under the Fourth Amendment. And I'm sure I don't have to explain why, even to a neophyte.
You're right that somebody's being "downright mendacious" here, but it isn't me. I'm sure you'll again respond that I, like Professor Kerr, allegedly "really do see the world through prosecutor's goggles, don't you?" But I think Professor Kerr's response the last time you used that line pretty much sums it up.
I think Prof. Kerr is being a bit too flippant because there actually has to be a pretty strong showing before you start executing search warrants and preemptive arrests (which are prior restraints) before an expected riot.
[OK]: Dilan, what cases would you cite for that?
Professor Kerr, if the planned allegedly riotous activity that is being targeted is expressive conduct, then preemptive law enforcement activity to stop it is a prior restraint. There's 75 years of caselaw that holds that prior restraints of expressive activity are only allowed under the most narrow of circumstances.
The point is, the police would have to establish that the activities that they are targeting are either nonexpressive (in which case there is no prior restraint problem) or that stopping the speech in advance meets strict scrutiny.
I have no reason to doubt that you are experienced in drafting warrants. However, you are dodging the issue, aren't you? I said that innocent items can be seized and create a false picture. You falsely said that isn't so, the warrant specifically only mentions "assembled devices" and such and the police can't seize ordinary items. The facts of the warrant prove that is not the case, as the language of the warrant proves.
Kimba Wood had a nice opinion a few years ago analyzing why arrests to prevent protest (under clearly constitutional, generally applicable laws) constituted a prior restraint and could be enjoined. Metropolitan Council v. Safir, 99 F. Supp. 2d 438. She also cited some other cases in there that held the same thing in different jurisdictions.
As I said, I am not claiming that these arrests were unconstitutional; just that you are being VERY flippant in assuming that just because someone gets a valid warrant that they can shut down a political protest. THE CENTRAL AIM of the First Amendment was to preclude law enforcement from stopping protests before they occur, and arrest warrants don't change that.
You're not a lawyer, are you? If so, you must have missed the class in 1L where they discussed the proper use of the ellipsis in quotes. That's the second major careless misreading, or perhaps outright misrepresentation, you're called on just in this thread tonight.
Dilan, I don't think I ever assumed that or said it, much less that I was "VERY flippant" in doing so. Obviously the government cannot shut down a legal political protest. If you read the post again, I think it's pretty clear that the point of the post is to say that based on the representations in the group's website, and what we know of the facts, there is not yet a reason to think there was anything illegal or even just bad here.
2. I must respectfully dissent from zippypinhead's view regarding warrant practice. In my practice as a prosecutor and then a defense attorney, I've seen some extremely pathetic excuses for probable cause. State warrants (as opposed to federal), in particular, often make a mockery of the warrant requirement.
As a matter of standard constitutional interpratation (absent new evidence) I'm inclined to trust your expertise and persuasive arguments. My sense is that this is another instance of the fallacy that anything (they think is) really bad must be unconstitutional.
However, regardless of what an application of established precedents would say about this situation it does present worriesome elements for the principles our constitution is meant to protect. In particular the problem I have with this situation is the nearly unfettered discretion that our legal system gives police and prosecutors over law enforcement.
In particular the ability to use rarely enforced laws combined with the broadening effect of conspiracy crimes gives the police substantial ability to chill speech they find disagreeable. Now I don't believe the police are sitting around thinking, "how can we use the law to stop these people from expressing their views," but LEOs (like other professions) come from a certain social/cultural viewpoint which makes them more likely to see some activity by a hippie group as being a criminal conspiracy than similar behavior by a group that they more easily identify with. In particular I worry that the judgement about when something is a step to advance the conspiracy is far from viewpoint neutral.
I would like to seem some means of revoking much of the discretion that police officer and prosecutors have not to charge individuals. Perhaps putting it in the hands of an independent adjudicator? I don't know but I think the worry is real even if I don't know enough about this situation to say whether this was a good instance of it.
As I said above, I don't know Minnesota practice. Although the general reputation of that state's bench is pretty good.
In particular I don't see anything that necessarily constitutes a violation of the riot act you quoted in the strategy from their webpage. Creating inconvenience, even coordinated inconvenience, is not necessarily a disturbance of the peace.
Certainly trying to obstruct the convention by simply overloading city transportation infrastructure (e.g., taking lots of people into downtown St. Paul and riding the buses/walking around leisurely) is not itself a crime. Locking oneself to things may be a crime but I'm unsure if it is a disturbance of the peace or otherwise serious enough to justify conspiracy charges (misdemeanors don't admit conspiracy charges do they...or can I conspire to break the speed limit?).
-----------
In particular my worry about free speech is this. Suppose a group had announced they wanted to stop the Phelpsians from bothering military funerals. They posted a webpage announcing their tactics of both soft denial (congesting the usual protest locations for the phelpsians and creating a traffic jam on the road a phelpsian bus would take to arrive) and hard denial (locking themself to the phelpsian bus). Would a group that planned to do this to the Phelpsians get raided by the police?
My sense is the answer here is no, simply because the police found their message more agreeable. However, I don't know how one can correct this (theoretical) violation of free speech in a practical fashion through the judicial system. Some rights violations simply might not have a plausible remedy.
this is, with all due respect... complete rubbish.
there are leftie cops and rightwing cops. hippie cops, etc.
the idea tghat cops are even close to politically or culturaly monolithic is absurd.
sure, most probably think anarchists are dangerous nutjobs.
most civilians think so too.
this case has nothing to do with expressing views. it has to do with committing crimes.
But if the police do overreact to a particular situation, there are remedies. In addition to dismissal of criminal actions, follow-on civil suits may be successful. And in extreme cases, the police may lose their qualified immunity. I recall a couple of years ago the D.C. police were rather embarrassed after they over-did mass arrests of World Bank/IMF protesters, and ended up costing the District a fair amount in civil settlement money.
I would hazard a guess that everyone in the law enforcement and judicial community who touched the Minnesota warrants knew they would be flyspecked, and that if there was any chance whatsoever of an issue, the ACLU or others would be filing suits until the cows came home. So it's likely they were extremely careful to not cut corners on things like probable cause or search-site procedures in this instance.
Actually, the search warrant executed at the duplex at 949 and 951 Iglehart Av, St Paul, according to credible reports, only specified a search of 951 Iglehart.
That duplex was providing guest quarters for persons associated with iWitness Video, Democracy Now and Legal Watch.
No persons were arrested and —again according to credible reports— no items at all were seized at that location.
(This news is compiled from multiple sources.)
I read the Kimba Wood opinion, and it seems the exact opposite of what is happening here. I'm curious as to why you think it supports your argument that there are First Amendment problems with what happened.
TruePath,
To be honest, I would say we live in a pretty screwed up world if a group announced that it was blockading a city to block a political party convention and the police just set back and let it happen. It would be front page news of government incompetence, and I assume it would be seen as the decisions of those running a generally pretty liberal city to hurt a conservative political party. The fact that the investigation here might remind of in some ways of some things that would be bad if the facts were different is true, but I think we have to take the facts as we find them.
Name,
Sure, I have lots of problems with existing law. Where can I start? Well, let me pick just one: Heck v. Humphrey makes it basically impossible for a criminal defendant to bring a civil Fourth Amendment case. I think that stinks. But again, I think the issue is whether anything bad happened here, and I can't find anything at least so far.
not asserting this has any relevance to the arrests or the whole situation, just have a question....
in general, is a party allowed to use documents turned over during discovery for other purposes outside the litigation? common sense says that seems like a no-no, but i am not lawyerific. or maybe i am missing something obvious
With all due respect to your pinhead status, black powder, pyrodex and flash powder are not contraband items per se (though they probably are for minors, and in some jurisdictions for sorta-minors, too.)
Was I the only one who thought "Holy Grail" when they read this?
I debated writing this point as said because I realize the police aren't a monolithic force. Certainly there are some cops with a great variety of political/cultural views. The cops in Berkeley certainly aren't the same as the cops in Chicago. However, within a given region as a statistical rule cops share certain attitudes.
It's exactly the same phenomena seen in college professors. Sure there are conservative college professors but because of what sort of people tend to go into academia, peer pressure and the like they are substantially underrepresented and certain views (strong support of academic freedom) are almost universal. This effect is no less strong in LEOs than it is in professors.
--------
Orin,
I don't doubt that it would be negligent if the police made no attempt to keep the city functional in the face of this kind of protest. Indeed, I do think the people who engage in these sorts of tactics ought to be arrested. The issues I have are threefold.
1) The potential for preemptive arrests to chill free speech by creating the impression that police power is being used to deter those who would make life uncomfortable for the convention goers.
2) The danger of mission creep. Once the police start conceptualizing many of these protest groups as participants in a criminal conspiracy there is the danger they will be too eager to broaden their net to organizers of allied groups who merely intend to make life difficult for RNC goers while staying within the limits of the law.
3) The implicit 1st ammendment violations that result from the fact that these activities wouldn't be prosecuted if the goal was to disrupt sufficently unpopular speech.
----
I admit the solution to 3 is to somehow demand these same rules be enforced even for groups targeting unpopular activities so it's a bit theoretical in this case and #1 is more an issue of proper spin control than the actual police action. It is really #2 I'm concerned about.
If I'm convinced the police were very conservative in who they arrested I will admit my worries were unfounded. I don't want to accuse anyone of any bad acts now, but it just seems to me like the sort of situation with dangerous incentives.
The problem with your example of anti-Phelps protestors is that the Phelps types are deliberately looking to harass people. Perhaps you should ask instead whether the police should arrest a hypothetical group that intended to block the streets surrounding the RWC and I-Witness houses, and use Molotov cocktails to stop the members from assembling elsewhere.
Don't forget that even if they're not saying it in so many words, the RWC's pretty obvious intention (see "Tier Two") is to deny the delegates' First Amendment right of free assembly.
I think that is enough for a raid.
Here is an audio/video recording of the raid taken by an occupant of the home: http://www.twincities.com/ci_10351505 . If this video already was posted, I apologize for missin