Tulsa police arrested a woman in line with a ticket just for her "I can't breathe" T-shirt

[sunonmars]

Fascism in full swing.......I hope she sues.

Link to tweet

[Ms. Toad]

1. Assuming that was the basis of the arrest,

that's a nice first amendment case.

But I'll wait for further explanation, in case she was arrested for something else and just happened to be wearing an "I can't breathe" T-shirt.

[unblock]

4. There's no real consequence for the police.

I agree with your caveat, we don't know all the facts at this point.

However, if indeed they arrested her for no good reason, there's really no consequence for the police. She's released and that's it. They probably have no intention of charging her anyway, they'll just hold her until the rally is over then release her.

Their goal is simply to keep protesters out, they don't really care about prosecuting cases.

In theory, in the extreme, she could have a case for false arrest, but in practice it's extremely difficult to win such a case and get any meaningful compensation for that.

[Pacifist Patriot]

8. I think a quick release is exactly what is going to happen.

She got publicity, which is precisely what she wanted (and good on her!). The police don't want to escalate the situation legally, just keep things at the rally as quiet and controlled as possible. I don't think they care at all about formally charging her with anything. Just get her out of there.

[gratuitous]

21. I agree with your analysis

But isn't it interesting that this woman is hustled off (ostensibly to keep things quiet and controlled), while armed loudmouths counter-protesting at BLM demonstrations are protected from reaction by a cordon of uniformed police? Don't the cops expect the law-n-order loving Trumpistas to be as calm and respectful as a Black Live Matter demonstration?

[Ms. Toad]

11. I'm talking about a claim against the city for a violation of first amendment rights.

That's a tad more serious than false arrest.

That claim would be bolstered by Trump's tweets threatening violence to protesters in advance of the visit.

[unblock]

16. Those cases are exceedingly to win

Civil rights cases are somewhat less difficult, though still very hard. Also, damages matter, and if she's merely lost the value of her ticket and a few hours dealing with the police, she's not likely to be considered greatly harmed by the police actions. So even if she did sue and win the award wouldn't be much of consequence.

[Ms. Toad]

18. First amendment cases do not depend on the value lost

The harm is to the right to express one's views - and expression of political views is one of the most protected types of speech.

[unblock]

22. Technically you're right of course, it's just hard to win, and any award would be small

Here's an example of a civil action for a false arrest, false imprisonments, and malicious prosecution. The award was $650. And hey, that's in 1966 dollars....

The opinion is a great read, the judge had fun with this one

https://www.leagle.com/decision/1966989249fsupp7401847

[Ms. Toad]

27. That's false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution, and civil rights

not first amendment.

The point of such a case is not a monetary award.

Friends of mine were plaintiffs in TINKER v. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT et al. I don't believe they won a dime (but I was a year older than Paul at the time of protest). But money wasn't the point of the case - it was to establish a principal. The principle was so firmly established that that 1969 case is still the starting point for virtually all school-based free speech cases.

[unblock]

31. Interesting case

I don't disagree about who is in the right, and certainly it is possible to win such cases if all you're after is a nominal award such as $1. The problem is it's hard to win such cases in a way that gets the police to alter their behavior.

In practice, the courts have leverage over the police to get them to abide by constitutional right when prosecuting a case. Courts can and do throw out evidence if it wasn't handle or acquired properly. Police and prosecutors can and sometimes do still cheat, but it's harder to get away with it, so mostly they play by the rules.

It's different if they don't care about ever going to trial. There's just not the same kind of deterrent for meritless arrests if the intent was never to prosecute anyway. As you note, you can win a case, but it's not likely to seriously change police behavior.

[Ms. Toad]

32. It's not about going to trial

It's about changing behavior. Tinker has changed the behavior of schools as to limits on student speech for decades. Landmark 1st amendment cases do that.

(I'm not suggesting that this is a landmark case, but the point of my initial comment had nothing to do with the personal consequences connected to this particular case. The reason an constitutional attorney would be interested in this case is the connection between threats by the president directed at one viewpoint, followed by arrests by local police that (intiallly, at least) were reported to be based on suppression of that viewpoint on the streets of Tulsa (generally treated as forums for free speech)

[unblock]

35. I hear ya

The article you cited mentions West Virginia v. Barnette, which got the mandatory pledge of allegiance out of public schools. No monetary award, but certainly a meaningful precedent.

Of course, then schools find ways around it, like having a student lead the pledge instead of a public employee, and making it voluntary but letting peer pressure largely compel compliance. But it's certainly better than getting school discipline for not reciting the pledge.

In this particular case, the law is fairly straightforward, if the arrest was based on political speech then it's not constitutional, but as noted, the practical consequence is merely that there's no case against the person arrested. That person may be able to sue and get a small award or at least get the court to admonish the police, but it just don't see it as likely to change their behavior.

[Ms. Toad]

36. You're still focusing on the individual consequences of this arrest.

* getting a small award
* admonishing the police

That wasn't the point of my suggestion. But I don't know any other way to explain it so I give up.

[Archetypist]

13. and they can still be sued for holding her without cause

so far all I know is she said she had a ticket and was there peacefully; no basis for holding someone

[unblock]

19. In practice it's all too easy for the police to come up with some excuse

Suspicion of causing a public disturbance blah blah blah.

Of course no doubt it would have been the trumpies near her causing the disturbance. But if she's gone, there's no disturbance, so that who they police remove.

There simply is no good accountability for the police if they're not really interested in prosecuting. If all they care about is controlling the scene, there's a lot that's not legal but that they can get away with.

[Archetypist]

20. I know

it helps (in this case) that much of it was on national live tv. That may help her case.

[unblock]

23. If she brings a case, that too would mostly be a political statement

In practice she'd be lucky to get a $1,000 award, assuming no physical harm was done, and especially if the police don't even charge her with anything.

[Pacifist Patriot]

5. CNN had it on as it seemed to be happening - or very shortly thereafter. She was ...

sitting on the pavement praying. The arrest seemed very low key. She didn't resist, asked for a mouth covering, and walked off with two cops escorting her. Came across to me as if she went into it knowing this was likely to happen. So she acted as calm and peaceful as possible. Very effective way to make her point.

[Ms. Toad]

12. That's largely the point of civil disobedience, done correctly.

But it still doesn't address whether her free speech rights were violated, which will depend on what she was arrested for.

[nolabear]

33. I watched in real time. She was actually dragged off screaming.

They tried to be as easy with her as they could but it still looked bad. She went limp, was dragged to the police car with press running after, and yelled that the handcuff (actual cuffs) hurt. She was great. Showed her ticket, refused to get up, sat and prayed and the 45 staffer and police looked very, very bad doing it.

[Pachamama]

6. The police stated the grounds for arrest was "Trespassing" at a private event

Even though she had a ticket (the Trump Henchman said she was now disinvited).

But she was in the street - a public street paid for by taxpayers. She wasn’t obstructing anyone or traffic. She wasn’t doing anything but being peaceful. She wasn’t inside the event. She even had a ticket.

Fascism

[Ms. Toad]

14. If she had a ticket, she isn't trespassing

And if everyone on the street was doing the same thing - and police only arrested those wearing T-shirts with messages Trump would be presumed to dislike - then I suspect someone will be very interested in her case.

[grantcart]

25. Once she was asked to leave it was civil trespass

Once she refused a police officer instruction to leave it would become criminal trespass and disorderly conduct

The same would apply to a racist disruptor at a Biden event. The ticket only gets you inside, it's not a right to stay or disrupt.

I admire anyone who makes it inside and peacefully protests but they should expect to be arrested.

[Ms. Toad]

26. That is unclear to me, based on the videos I've watched.

The videos don't show her being asked to leave by the Trump campaign or the arena - they may have, but it's not shown. If she was on private property without initial consent or after being asked by the owner to leave, it would be civil trespass - and the owner would generally have the right to call the police to remove them.

She is not yet in the event, though, so it isn't clear what authority they would have over the public street where she was arrested. It is pretty clear that she did not yet have to show her ticket to get to where she was. She is inside some sort of security fence - but apparently prior to any sort of screening.

Merely being asked by the police officer to leave doesn't inherently make her presence criminal trespass - she has to satisfy essentially the same elements for criminal trespass as for civil trespass. It's just that the remedy is different. It isn't clear to me that she was yet on private property, or was asked to leave. Although the need for security near the president puts control of public property that is adjacent private property in an area of law I have not spent much time looking at. As to disorderly conduct - the order of the police would have to be lawful for her failure to comply to be disorderly conduct. Likely because it was inside the security area prior to entering police would have the authority to order her to leave - except if they were motivated by the content of her speech in ordering her to leave.

I still need more information.

I addressed earlier the issue of civil disobedience - on that we concur.

[grantcart]

30. Good points, I didn't see the video

[Laelth]

2. No. Really?

I want to believe that there’s more to this story than the shirt.



-Laelth

[Ilsa]

9. I watched it. There was no reason to arrest her.

She is a citizen and Tulsa resident. She had a ticket. She wasn't bothering anyone or blocking traffic or pedestrians or police. Her protest was peaceful. They didn't like her shirt's message, so they got rid of her. They cited her for "trespassing", a lie.

[forthemiddle]

28. Would you say the same to a person wearing a Confederate Flag TShirt

To a Biden Rally?

If the police came up and asked her to leave, and she refused (no matter how peaceful she was), she may be “disturbing the peace”.

What if she was wearing a MAGA hat? Sometimes the police interfere before situations get out of hand, in order to prevent violence.

It may be a First Amendment issue, but maybe the police decided that the consequences were worth the risks.

[nolabear]

34. I'd absolutely say the same thing.

[Ilsa]

37. Personally, I wouldn't intervene as a LEO or

other participant, and I would encourage others to leave the the person alone, as long as they are peacefully protesting

Also, I don't consider a blm shirt to be the same as a confederate flag.

[imanamerican63]

15. I think she was asked to move from her spot where she sitting?

But refused to move and she told she was trespassing, then the officers asked her to leave, again she refused and the arrested her. I listened to it on the radio, so did see it as it happened. Remember, a ticker to an invent only give you entrance ascent to the event, but all laws and are subject to enforcement.

[Eliot Rosewater]

3. Would love to see the written reason for arrest. The actual reason is she is inconvenient.

So far the fascist and his 45 million followers havent started automatically killing inconveniences, but that is coming if we dont do something.

Hey, this is bad, yes, but we could have had a Woman who gave a speech once to Wall Street...so you know, this is better, right?



I want an apology NOW from ANYONE who said they had to "hold their nose" to vote for Hillary...I want an apology NOW from ANYONE who is TODAY implying that Joe Biden is simply the better of two evils.

NOW

[Pachamama]

7. [phone]

Completely agree

[R B Garr]

10. I heard commentary passing by the TV--trespassing

at the president’s rally. How can it be trespassing?? I’m curious about the formal written charge, too. Great question, ER.

[Fullduplexxx]

17. They arrested her for trespassing

[struggle4progress]

24. "You're free to say whatever we tell you to say whenever you like, ma'am. Otherwise, come with us"

[bluecollar2]

29. I misread...I thought I read her shirt said "I can't read"

My immediate reaction was....

So why is that a statement at a trump rally?

I mean...I would have assumed that to be the case anyway....

[ck4829]

38. Kick