Illegal Raid of Occupy LA?

Vyan's picture

Forums: 

Following up on the questions of the legality of the raid as brought up by OLA Blog

Essentially, the law (federal case law) says the government may close a public forum at any time and for any reason--so long as it isn't doing so based on any disagreement with the views being expressed in the public forum. In other words, the regulation or policy behind a decision to close a public forum must, as a matter of First Amendment law, be "content-neutral."

This is the apparent reason why the City's attorney chose to use the park regulation (L.A. Mun. Code, § 63.44), cited on those posted signs. Most courts would view this park regulation as "content-neutral" since it has nothing to do with public assemblies or speech made at a park. Cases involving forum closure stop on this point.


However, I believe that a compelling argument can be made that OLA's overnight camping is symbolic speech connected with the local homeless issue; and that as a matter of First Amendment law, OLA members should not have been denied an opportunity for further expression by Mayor V.'s decision to close the park.

So OLA seems to be building a Federal Free Speech Case against the City using a local ordinance that states:

(a) No person shall enter, remain, stay or loiter in any park between the hours of 10:30 o’clock p.m. and 5:00 o’clock a.m. of the following day. On any public park or recreational facility subject to this section, the supervising employee at such site may extend the 10:30 p.m. closing time for up to one hour to accommodate any departmentally approved event.

But then there's this - City Hall Park is a State Park, and the argument made by Chief Beck to Jim Lafferty of National Lawyers Guild is that Camping isn't allowed in a State Park. But that isn't absolutely true, you can camp in a state park - at a designated Campsite.

CAMPSITE USE must be paid for in advance. To hold a campsite, it must be reserved or occupied. To prevent encroachment on others the limits of each campsite may be regulated by the District Superintendent. Checkout time is 12:00 NOON. In order to provide for the greatest number of visitors possible the CAMPING LIMIT in any one campground is 30 days per calendar year.

Lafferty's counter argument as documented during the November 22nd GA was that There were no Signs indicating that it was a State Park or that Camping was not allowed. "Putting up signs tomorrow (which would have been after the occupation began) would be Ex Post Facto" he told Beck.

So it's interesting to note that in the end, the City didn't even go after the State Park issue, but instead relied on City Park ordinances - while at the same time City Hall Park is not listed among the Cities actual Parks. Is Found here.

If the City Ordinance was mis-applied, each and every arrest that night - was Unlawful. 292 Cases of False Arrest. Occupy the Courts!

Update: As I've continued to look into this, it seems to me that Beck was wrong.  City Hall Park is not listed among the State Parks, although Los Angeles State History Park several blocks away is listed.  I eventually found City Hall Park on the LA City Website Here.

This then presents another possible location for OLA if they're so inclined.  The State Historic Park at 1245 North Spring Street.

Sue Basko's picture

OLA court case filed, Judged moot b/c not timely

   The person posting up top made some good legal points.  A lawsuit asking for an injunction was filed on behalf of Occupy LA by Carol Sobel, a solo practitioner in Santa Monica who I think volunteered her time, maybe on behalf of the National Lawyers Guild.  

The case was dismissed by the Court as moot, because it did not come before the Court in a timely way, but came AFTER the eviction was completed by the LAPD.  It is "moot" because the court filing was asking the Judge to stop the eviction, but by the time the Judge got it, the eviction had already taken place.    

I think the lawsuit definitely had merit, especially on the issue of the Mayor acting unilaterally against the resolution of the City Council.   The issues in it are not necessarily dead and might possibly be used, for example,  in peoples' criminal court cases to show the Order of Dispersal was improper to begin with, or in other types of court filings.  

If you want to see or download the court filing, it is here:  http://media.scpr.org/documents/2011/11/28/occupy-la-injunction.pdf

 I do not know if an application for a  Temporary Restraining Order was also filed for OLA, as would have been proper.  As with any lawsuit, it must be filed and served in a timely way.  When you are filing for an emergency TRO, you have to track down the Judge, often just showing up in their Chambers to ask for an emergency TRO until there can be a hearing on the TRO, and then later on the Injunction.  

 For example, at Occupy Wall Street in New York, they filed for an emergency TRO, a TRO, and an injunction.   The Judge granted the emergency TRO in the morning, which forestalled the eviction.  Later in the day, the Judge heard the whole case for the TRO, and denied it, and the Eviction took place.  The hearing on the Injunction is later in December, I think.  It may be considered a moot issue at that time, or their case may be addressing the legality of sleeping in tents in the park as a protest in an overall way, not just in reaction to an immediate eviction.  It will be interesting to see as the NYC case is heard.   

  Thanks all, Sue

 

A point of clarification:

 "For example, at Occupy Wall Street in New York, they filed for an emergency TRO, a TRO, and an injunction.   The Judge granted the emergency TRO in the morning, which forestalled the eviction.  Later in the day, the Judge heard the whole case for the TRO, and denied it, and the Eviction took place."

The eviction took place at 1 am, 15 November. A request for a TRO was then filed and granted by Judge Lucy Billings at 6:30 am, with a hearing on the full case to be held at 3:00 pm the same day. The NYPD continued to occupy the park, as they had in the hours since the eviction,  not allowing OWS to reoccupy the site despite the order. In a highly unusual move, the case was transferred to another (Bloomberg-freindly) judge who ruled that all park users had to follow park rules. There are no futher hearings scheduled.

Pages