Convention-Related Arrests Cause Little Stir in Legal System

Law enforcement authorities reported making just under 200 arrests connected to the Democratic National Convention this week--a mere blip on the radar screen for jailers in Los Angeles County who are accustomed to taking more than 4,000 new inmates into custody every week.

Three quarters of those arrested in convention-related matters were scooped up by the Los Angeles Police Department in mass arrests--one of which has been ruled by judges to have taken place without good cause.

That case involved 42 animal rights activists who were arrested by the Los Angeles Police Department on suspicion of committing a felony--conspiracy to burglarize a business that they believed sold furs.

The other mass arrests included 71 bicyclists charged with the misdemeanor of obstructing a public way. Many of the cyclists said they unknowingly pedaled into trouble by participating in a demonstration of bicycle power organized by a group called Critical Mass.

Only about 50 protesters seem to have deliberately set out to get arrested in group acts of civil disobedience, the largest of which was a sit-down outside the Police Department’s Rampart station to protest police brutality.

Four protesters have been charged with felonies.

A large majority of those arrested for deliberate acts of civil disobedience have, as statements of continuing protest, refused to give their names. They are known in the courts as Jane and John Does.

That has led to unusual scenes as some Does in effect demand to be kept in jail to show solidarity with other Does until they are allowed to negotiate jointly with prosecutors for a plea bargain that will reduce charges to infractions.

“Your Honor,” one Doe in her 20s said sweetly, “I am here as a freedom fighter.”

Other Does, said Abby Coffey of the Midnight Special Legal Collective, which is advising protesters, were engaged in a hunger strike as an expression of solidarity against the “atrocities” endured by the general jail population.

The mass arrest that has already been voided involved what appeared to be a spontaneous animal rights protest Tuesday afternoon.

The written police account, which differs significantly from that of an independent legal observer who was placed under arrest as he videotaped the events, has the flavor of bad “Dragnet.”

“My partner and I made our way to Pershing Square, which is a known location for anarchists to gather,” writes an undercover LAPD narcotics officer assigned to infiltrate protesters’ ranks. “We met up with two males wearing black clothing with various types of writing consistent with the other anarchists we had seen in the area. I engaged in a conversation with the two males who appeared to be anarchists, at which time they stated, ‘We are upset with the police and we are violated of our human rights.’

“My partner asked them, ‘So what are you going to do next?’ at which time they stated, ‘We are going to rebel against the police.’ I also asked them what was next, at which time they stated, ‘We got invited by the other guys (pointing to a large group of anarchist types . . .) to trash a McDonald’s.’ ”

Spontaneous Protest for Animal Rights

Plans soon allegedly morphed into attacking a jewelry manufacturing business that had a sign suggesting that it also sold furs. The entire group chanted “We’re gonna save the animals,” the police account states. Declaring “We are all together, let’s do it,” the group then pounded on a roll-up metal security door, derailing it from its track, and attempted to grab people on the other side, police said.

Superior Court Judge William Ryan reviewed that account as it applied to 29 of the arrested adults, and concluded there was no basis to hold 27 of them. Only two had been individually identified. The district attorney’s office filed felony vandalism charges against those two. A legal advisor to protesters said that another judge made a similar decision on 13 juveniles arrested in the same incident.

Among those freed was Reuben Rivas, 25, a student at Santa Ana College, who had volunteered to monitor demonstrators and police as a legal observer for the National Lawyers Guild. He said he had accompanied a women’s march Tuesday morning and then returned to Pershing Square.

“The next thing I know there is a group of kids in formation. They start chanting slogans and it has to do with animal rights.”

Rivas said that some of the activists “approached a fur store. They started chanting . . . that it’s harmful to wear animal fur. The owner runs out. He’s frantic. He’s rolling down his metal sliding door. As he does this, it angers the group,” some of whom kicked the door.

“No one entered the building, as far as I know,” he said. Then, Rivas said, a woman said it was wrong to kick the door. “Everybody agreed,” Rivas said, and the crowd moved away. Police surrounded the group after it turned a corner, Rivas said.

Rivas said that he started yelling officers’ names and badge numbers into his video camera. Then he tried to leave, but was stopped by an officer who jabbed him with a baton.

Rivas was wearing the badge and distinctive lime green hat that all legal observers wore to demonstrations during the convention. He was taken to Parker Center and an officer asked him, “What are you doing here? You don’t look like these people.”

Rivas said he replied, “I was videotaping. Is that a crime?” and the officer answered, “You were at the wrong place at the wrong time.”

Meanwhile, a bail expert raised questions about the constitutionality of a judge’s ruling in some of the cyclists’ cases.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Dale S. Fischer ordered some of the arrested cyclists, including a man employed as a bicycle messenger, not to ride bikes as a condition of being released on bail.

Santa Monica criminal lawyer Richard Hirsch, coauthor of the bail section of the standard text on California criminal law, said the sole purpose of setting bail is to assure a future court appearance.

Ordering someone not to ride a bicycle has nothing to do with guaranteeing the person will appear in court, he said. As to the messenger, he said, “I would think it would be unconstitutional” to impose as a condition of bail something “that would deprive someone of their livelihood.”