By David Drucker
Daily Bruin Contributor
The Los Angeles Police Department’s planned security
perimeter around Staples Center during the upcoming Democratic
National Convention was ruled unconstitutional July 19.
American Civil Liberties Union attorney Dan Takaji argued
successfully before U.S. District Court Judge Gary A. Fees that the
LAPD’s planned security zone must be redrawn to allow
demonstrators closer access to the DNC because the current plan
violates their First Amendment right to be heard by convention
delegates.
“No one dismisses the city’s safety concerns,”
Takaji said. “What you must do, however, is make rules that
are narrowly designed to meet those concerns.”
“Keeping people two and a half football fields away from
Staples Center is not acceptable,” he added.
In his decision, Fees said city officials must alter security
plans put in motion over a year ago. He ruled that the intended
perimeter, which bordered the Harbor Freeway on the west, Flower
Street on the east, Olympic Boulevard on the north and Venice
Boulevard on the south, was an unacceptable balance of security
concerns and the demonstrators’ right to be heard by the
target of their protests.
Direct Action Network/Rise Up L.A., a member of the D2K Planning
Coalition and one of the plaintiffs, is pleased with the
decision.
“I think it’s excellent that the First Amendment has
finally been made a priority by the judiciary, at least, if not by
the city,” spokesman and UCLA graduate (’98) Garrick
Ruiz said.
UCLA School of Law professor Eugene Volokh indicated that the
decision was constitutionally sound.
“The government may limit the number of protesters to
prevent traffic tie-ups and to improve security, and might be able
to set up narrow zones, on the order of a several dozen feet around
entrances to make sure they don’t get blocked,” Volokh
said.
“But the government can’t just ban all picketing or
protesting near some place,” he continued.
The LAPD expressed disappointment with both the court’s
decision and the ACLU.
“It’s a little disconcerting,” said LAPD
spokesman Lt. Horace Frank. “A year ago, we invited the ACLU
to the table to help us plan for the DNC, and they declined the
offer, and then this week they take us to court.”
The undetermined revision has to be submitted to the court for
approval, but Fees indicated from the bench that he was not at odds
with the western or southern boundaries of the original
perimeter.
“We’re going to comply with the court’s order
and submit our new plan to the court next week,” Frank said.
“We’re going to be prepared for the DNC regardless of
the events of this week.”
The controversy stems from L.A.’s determination not to let
the DNC turn into a situation similar to the one that erupted last
November in Downtown Seattle during the World Trade Organization
conference. Seattle officials were unprepared for the large number
of protesters, forcing numerous conference delays and business
closures.
“I would refer people to what happened in Seattle,”
Frank said, explaining why the LAPD designated such a wide
perimeter around the center. “The police didn’t create
that. Those things happened, and those are the protest groups that
committed the violence that everyone saw on TV.
But activists challenge that assessment.
“The vast majority of violence that occurred in Seattle
was police violence,” Ruiz said. “They used chemicals,
clubs and rubber bullets on non-violent protesters.”
Ruiz added that while Direct Action Network can’t speak
for everyone, his organization’s four-point guideline for the
DNC protests specifically forbid violence against people or
property, and will not permit the presence of weapons or illegal
substances.
Han Shan, a trainer in non-violent protest tactics for the
Berkeley-based Ruckus Society, also said the police have
exaggerated the situation.
“I believe they were incredibly over-reacting,” said
Shan, who just completed a four-day seminar in Malibu in
preparation for the convention.
“The police are irresponsibly fostering an atmosphere of
fear and irresponsibility,” Shan added.
But the police view their obligation differently.
“There are groups that said they want to shut down this
city,” Frank added. “We have a responsibility to the
people of this city to ensure that they are protected, and we would
be remiss as a police agency if we ignored what happened in the
past.”
Though activists admit the police have reason for concern, they
blame the police for the adversarial relationship that currently
exists.
“No question the police have a difficult job to do, but
they’ve made it more difficult by adopting a tone of
hostility,” Takaji said.
“This “˜us versus them’ mentality created by
the police has got to end,” he added.
Shan said he will understand if the police respond with force to
violent anarchists, but cautioned against overreaction.
“I hope they don’t use Seattle as a model, where
only one tenth of one percent of the people acted up, yet the
police targeted everybody,” he said.
Despite their concern, the LAPD have attempted to downplay the
possibility of incivility.
“We certainly believe that the majority of the people are
going to be peaceful,” Frank said.
Activists hope this will be the case.
“We want this to be a non-violent action, an we challenge
the police to be non-violent as well, which they didn’t
adhere to in Seattle,” Ruiz said.